What does it mean to be human" thread -split from Obama 'fail' thread

[alexfranke]

I wouldn't believe it was God, because He has ALREADY made it ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY CLEAR in His Word that He does. He doesn't need to appear before me because He has already recorded it. Your 'what if' question is absurd and moot.
. . .
Again, another absurd question which the Bible already answers.

Of course they're both absurd questions. That's the point -- "for the sake of argument, let's assume..." This would allow you to get past the point that you'll never agree on, and could even lead you to an apagogical argument, which I have to say would be much more convincing than the religious ones.

I've already offered scientific evidence that shows that the embryo is a human being.

While I'm sure there are lots of scientific opinions on either side of this fence, I don't believe that there's a scientific consensus on the question at all.

But I'm perfectly content to answer any Biblical questions you have.

Okay. Here are a couple that seem relevant to the discussion:
* There's the "before I formed you in your mother's belly, I knew you" part, which would suggest that life or maybe the soul is formed even before the DNA.
* Leviticus (after all the sacrifice-related stuff) seems to suggest that blood is a requirement for life.
* Women who commit adultery seem to be put to death -- what if they are pregnant? I don't know a lot about how (or when) they were to carry out these types of penalties.
* Genesis seems to suggest that breath is or is a requirement of life.

That's all I can think of right now.

 

[foxpaws]

Viability is a term that has no permanent definition.

Yes, that is exactly why you use it. As science advances the ability to save babies also advances. However, before 22 weeks gestation constant brain activity isn’t present and the neural passageways aren’t developed. Currently there is no science that can continue the formation of those neural connectors. We don’t know how to ‘connect the dots’. Also, many scientists use that threshold (no brain wave activity) as the definition of life, to begin physical life and to end physical life.

If you are so interested in a ‘hard’ date – then you can use the brain wave activity threshold. At this time.

You're also implying that it's acceptable to destroy a life in a primitive or technological inferior culture or period, where the most advanced medical advancements aren't available, but not in more advanced cultures.

Aren’t we discussing this in terms of US Law? I know how we gleefully go around imposing our beliefs and morals on other Americans, but let’s leave the rest of the world out of this (even though we also like to tell the rest of the world how to live as well). I certainly am not going to tell the French how to dictate this little tidbit to their citizens. You feel free though Cal…

First, which is it, late 2nd or 3rd?

I was giving a range – so I will give a starting point instead.. late 2nd (with current scientific and medical knowledge).

You just made a little caveat there, "the mother is provably at risk."

Medical risk, that the percentage of grave harm befalling the mother if she is allowed to carry the child to full term is deemed to be unacceptable by her doctors. However, I do of course believe that if the mother wishes to continue to carry the baby, and is willing to take on the risks, she should be allowed to. We should not however create a death sentence for the mother in order to save the child. Et tu Caesar?

You think there's a first amendment right to killing or ending innocent life on the basis of convenience? Ethics aren't necessarily religion. And religion and values are expected to shape policy, particularly on issues like this.

Religion cannot shape policy. Because you then place one religion on the top of the heap – which is unconstitutional. The US cannot have a state sponsored religion.

The first amendment protects my right to say I believe that life begins far before ‘viability’. However, it also protects someone else’s right to say, until the fetus can survive outside the womb, it is not a human being. I respect their belief. I don’t agree with it, but I accept it. Science can’t prove God. Science can’t prove that life begins when my faith says it does. So I accept that this is a faith based opinion on my part.

You're saying that truth should be shaped in order to defend YOUR political position. That we should lie in order to achieve and defend the social goal of abortion advocates.

No, just the opposite Cal. I am not shaping truth. I am not basing my truth on a political stance. I am basing my truth on what my heart tells me. But I do believe that we should base law on what science knows. I will never subject anyone to my beliefs. Not only is that against the 1st amendment, that is against my faith.

You put faith in the federal government, you support the shift of power and responsibility to the government. You are happy to rely on the junk law decision of Roe V. Wade. But now you don't want a democratic approach to determining the societal standards of life and restrictions upon abortion.

Much preaching going on here Cal. How do you know I place my faith in the federal government – I know you think I do. But, you know me from my postings here, on controversial issues… you don’t know me at all.

I place my faith in God.

I live with Roe vs Wade, because if we go to outlawing abortions it is a far worse thing in my opinion. As with many things in government there is give and take. I may not agree completely with my party’s stance on abortion, say I give it an 80% approval rating. However, on the other side of the fence I give the Republicans a 0% approval rating in this area.

IF that law were created.... The reality is that if Roe V Wade were overturned, you WOULD NOT end up with an abortion policy in this country that was so radical and polarizing. You'd ultimately end up with some kind of compromise. The vast majority of Americans WANT to see less abortions. They want more restrictions. But a sufficient number of women have been tricked into thinking that this is an all-or-nothing issue.

Your crystal ball is working overtime Cal. We have had ‘all or nothing’ in the past – we have had ‘nothing’. Abortions were outlawed in this country for decades. State by state. There are no promises here, you cannot guarantee that if Roe v Wade were overturned that rational thought would prevail. You are talking about a country that gave us prohibition. What the people want, and what the government gives them can be on opposites ends of the spectrum. You just went on and on about me putting faith in the government, now you are doing the same thing. You can’t put that blind faith in the government in some arenas and not other. We should always be questioning the government. I understand that. You might not think I question the government, but I do. I work hard to change it, I work hard to make my voice heard.

Just because you don’t like what my changes involve, or what I choose to voice my opinions on doesn’t mean that I don’t do that. I question government constantly. In different arenas and on different subjects than you Cal, because we are different in how we view the world.

If you also believe that the fetus has life, and that the mother has the right to arbitrarily decide when the life can life, how do argue otherwise.

I think this is what all that gibbility gop is about in, once again, another preachy part.

I ‘believe’ the fetus has life before viability. I cannot ‘prove’ that the fetus has life before it becomes a baby outside the womb. I can’t prove that what I believe is human life is there before the baby is physically separate from the mother. Science is able to remove the ‘arbitrary’ factor. But, while the baby is still a part of me, my faith needs to guide me. It can only guide me. I cannot guide someone else, nor can they guide me.

Also- you keep bring up the "first amendment" yet you never address the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How can one being be considered life in one womb and protected by the constitution, while another one, solely on the whim of the mother, is able to have it's body ripped apart by a vacuum with a sharp edge on it?

Want to remove the preachyness from this last paragraph Cal – it is condescending.

 

[Calabrio]

Want to remove the preachyness from this last paragraph Cal – it is condescending.

No, just answer it.

 

[foxpaws]

No, just answer it.

No, you are not the boss of me.

 

[Calabrio]

If you are so interested in a ‘hard’ date – then you can use the brain wave activity threshold. At this time.

I'm not going to get into a biology argument on this, so we'll just accept what you've said.

So, as of today, you'll say that 22 weeks is the limit. As of today, you'll willing to say that an identification of life, and the protections that come with, should be imparted upon a fetus of 22 weeks old. And you would then be willing to support restrictions on abortion that terminated pregnancies beyond this point. That this is no longer an issue of religion or spirituality, but we have a reached a scientific and objective distinction.

Furthermore, in the future, as technology progresses you will be willing and prepared to lower that point even further if life outside the mother's womb can be sustained. If/when the artificial uterus is created, you will then be prepared to abandon any support of abortion, short of situations the jeopardize the life of the mother?

Aren’t we discussing this in terms of US Law?

We're discussing the identification, and you're motivated to bring policy into it. Regardless where it's happening, regardless whether the rules the govern differ, the definition of life would remain the same.

And on an intellectual or ethical level, this is an inconsistent standard that doesn't work. Life begins at the same point, regardless the culture or era you live. The viability argument is a shifting legal distinction, at best.

I was giving a range – so I will give a starting point instead.. late 2nd (with current scientific and medical knowledge).

How do you give a range for a cut off that is 2/3 the length of the entire process?

We should not however create a death sentence for the mother in order to save the child. Et tu Caesar?

Most people agree that in the rare occurrence that giving birth will result in a "death sentence" for the mother, that she certainly has the right to determine the outcome of the pregnancy. It should be noted how very rare it is for this decision to be made late in the pregnancy. So, this rare exception is understandable and usually agreed upon.

However, you avoid the question.
Are you saying that you'd only support access to these late-term abortions in the rare instances the the mother's life is at risk due to the physical trauma of birth?

Or are you going to also include the "emotional well being,""concerns of depression," or any of the other emotional health of the mother justifications as well?

Religion cannot shape policy. Because you then place one religion on the top of the heap – which is unconstitutional. The US cannot have a state sponsored religion.

You aren't supposed to pass laws because "God told you so." However the teachings of religion influence the ethics and principles of individuals. And in a representative government, an individual is supposed to bring their experiences and values to office. Ultimately, religion DOES shape policy as it reflects the values of the population.

The first amendment protects my right to say I believe that life begins far before ‘viability’.

It protects your right to say it, it doesn't give you or anyone else the right to do it though.

No, just the opposite Cal. I am not shaping truth. I am not basing my truth on a political stance. I am basing my truth on what my heart tells me.

Entirely untrue.
If we are engaged in a discussion of when life begins, this is NOT a discussion of policy. It is an effort to ponder a truth. You're political agenda has no place in such a discussion.

If someone reaches a conclusion, they have an ethical and moral obligation to take that into account. You can not believe that something is a live and then say another person has the "RIGHT" to destroy it.

Because you're interested in defending abortion first, you can not allow people to conclude that a life is being destroyed.

I live with Roe vs Wade, because if we go to outlawing abortions it is a far worse thing in my opinion.

So you think that it's best that a decision of life and death that impacts the entire culture be made by a bunch of judges based on bad law, than to have the issue addressed in a democrat way where some sort of compromise can be reached. You'd much rather have the all or nothing approach that the Demcorats are taking now.

Despite the fact that this is inconsistent with what you've said in the past.
Despite the fact the the Democrat party argues that Partial-birth abortion, and restrictions are unconstitutional.

Your crystal ball is working overtime Cal. We have had ‘all or nothing’ in the past – we have had ‘nothing’. Abortions were outlawed in this country for decades.

That's simply untrue. Abortion wasn't illegal nationwide. And many times the "back alley" imagery used to scare the public was the result of social pressure and a fear of stigmatization. In states like New York, you had abortion on demand PRIOR to Roe V Wade.

State by state. There are no promises here, you cannot guarantee that if Roe v Wade were overturned that rational thought would prevail.

Rational thought by who's definition?
Liberals are interesting, the only thought that should be protect, the only policies that should be influenced by the majority are the ones YOU agree with.

We should always be questioning the government.

Yet you think this issue of life or death should be left to a judicial decision that is historically recognized as being bad law.

And you have STILL NOT responded to the majority of the challenges. Absolutely incredible.

There are philosophers who accept that the fetus is alive, but that the mother should be able to terminate the life after it has been born, either because the child has a disability or due to the convenience or greater good of society and the mother. While accepts that the fetus or infant is alive, but that greater good needs to be achieved.

You have also stated that you are comfortable supporting a policy that terminates a birth after the point you've determined it to be alive. If you think that definition of a fetus/embryo/baby is defined and determined by the opinion and circumstances of the mother, is that opinion wrong? And until when should a mother have the right to terminate the offspring?

If you also believe that the fetus has life, and that the mother has the right to arbitrarily decide when the life can life, how do argue otherwise.

Also- you keep bring up the "first amendment" yet you never address the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How can one being be considered life in one womb and protected by the constitution, while another one, solely on the whim of the mother, is able to have it's body ripped apart by a vacuum with a sharp edge on it?

That's not preachy, nor do I have any reason to omit that sentence. This is not one of the times you can redefine things in a dishonest way as you advocate a your political goals. That is a reality and a critical part of the discussion.

 

[foxpaws]

Furthermore, in the future, as technology progresses you will be willing and prepared to lower that point even further if life outside the mother's womb can be sustained. If/when the artificial uterus is created, you will then be prepared to abandon any support of abortion, short of situations the jeopardize the life of the mother?

If there is an artificial womb, then the fetus can be saved and placed there, for adoption, or to be cared for by the state. The question of when life begins becomes moot. All fetuses can become full term, without having to use the mother as an incubator. She can decide not to carry the baby to term, and place it up for ‘adoption’ while the artificial womb nurtures the fetus until it can be ‘born’. (I guess that is what you would call it).

Regardless where it's happening, regardless whether the rules the govern differ, the definition of life would remain the same.

That is not true. Some societies are totally religious based. Therefore no matter what science told them, they would revert back to their religious beliefs. Not only on the question of ‘life’ but on many things.

Or, will we be dictating to Canada when life begins? Why won't the Canadians be dictating this to us? Who is right? Are we right because we stated it? Good old American 'might makes right'. We will force those cannucks into thinking like we do, or we will invade them, and force them to do our bidding??????

How do you give a range for a cut off that is 2/3 the length of the entire process?

I am sorry, I stated it poorly – I think I cleared it up though, didn’t I, when you asked a more direct question.

Are you saying that you'd only support access to these late-term abortions in the rare instances the the mother's life is at risk due to the physical trauma of birth?

Or are you going to also include the "emotional well being,""concerns of depression," or any of the other emotional health of the mother justifications as well?

Yes, late term abortions where the mother’s life is at risk due to the physical trauma of birth.

And quit preaching to me about this whole ‘emotional well being’, ‘depression’ stuff. You keep bringing it up. I haven’t a clue why – maybe it is something in your past. I stated the reason I believe near term abortions should be allowed.

It protects your right to say it, it doesn't give you or anyone else the right to do it though.

I don’t understand….

You can not believe that something is a live and then say another person has the "RIGHT" to destroy it.

I can believe that something is alive, and then say someone else has the right to destroy it.

See, I just said it…

My faith says that it is alive, not my science. I will not, and I have stated this over and over again, and you just don’t seem to comprehend this Cal, force my faith onto anyone else.

I cannot prove that God exists. I know He does. But I can’t force anyone to believe.

I cannot prove that life begins before viability. I know it does. But I can’t force anyone to believe what I do.

Maybe you just don’t grasp that my faith doesn’t need or even allow me to force my faith based ideals onto anyone else. My faith allows for the fact that there are many, many others out there that don’t believe what I do. I don’t view those people as being wrong or ‘unGodly’ I view them as having a different faith than I do.

So you think that it's best that a decision of life and death that impacts the entire culture be made by a bunch of judges based on bad law, than to have the issue addressed in a democrat way where some sort of compromise can be reached. You'd much rather have the all or nothing approach that the Demcorats are taking now.

Well, until Roe v Wade is overturned, or a federal amendment is passed, I do believe that the ‘bunch of judges’ will be the arbitrator of law in this case.

You don’t like it, get it changed. It is what is allowed for in this country. If there are enough people who believe as you do it will get changed.

And yes, I would rather have the all or nothing approach that the Democrats take currently. Remember, this is my body you are talking about. I would rather err on the side of my freedom.

That's simply untrue. Abortion wasn't illegal nationwide.

I never said that it was – I said it was state by state. Read a little closer Cal, even you quote the state by state part of my discussion.

Rational thought by who's definition?

By your definition. You seem to think, as stated earlier, that ‘you WOULD NOT end up with an abortion policy in this country that was so radical and polarizing. You'd ultimately end up with some kind of compromise’.

I absolutely don’t believe that we would, as a certainty, end up with an abortion policy that wasn’t radical or polarizing if Roe v Wade were overturned.

Yet you think this issue of life or death should be left to a judicial decision that is historically recognized as being bad law.

Right now, that is what we have. If it is such bad law, get it changed. I think it should be left to the people. The people have yet to be heard on this. Or maybe by the lack of action, they have been heard on this. They haven’t voted in enough representatives into congress to move this into an amendment. They haven’t been able to vote in a President that will have enough sway in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. If it were such an important issue, McCain should have made it in. In this election it was very obvious where the candidates stood. Obama is obviously for keeping Roe v Wade, McCain obviously against it. There will be enough seats turned over in the court that this could have been changed if McCain had been elected.

And you have STILL NOT responded to the majority of the challenges.

Are these next 4 paragraphs that follow this ‘the majority of challenges?” Wow - I thought I had answered a whole bunch of stuff....

There are philosophers who accept that the fetus is alive, but that the mother should be able to terminate the life after it has been born, either because the child has a disability or due to the convenience or greater good of society and the mother. While accepts that the fetus or infant is alive, but that greater good needs to be achieved.

This first paragraph is a supposition that you say is put forth by a group of philosophers. Are you asking me if I agree with them? They are philosophers. They philosophize. They make you ask questions within yourself. I don’t think it is ‘do you agree or disagree’, but ‘think about this.’ Do you want to ask me a question about this idea that they have put forth?

You have also stated that you are comfortable supporting a policy that terminates a birth after the point you've determined it to be alive. If you think that definition of a fetus/embryo/baby is defined and determined by the opinion and circumstances of the mother, is that opinion wrong? And until when should a mother have the right to terminate the offspring?

This is the 2nd paragraph. I don’t understand the 2nd sentence/question. The third – I thought I answered, but it may have been lost… viability.

If you also believe that the fetus has life, and that the mother has the right to arbitrarily decide when the life can life, how do argue otherwise.

The 3rd paragraph I answered – I think – I really am having problems understanding this. It is sort of gibbility..

… and that the mother has the right to arbitrarily decide when the life can life, I don’t understand ‘decide when the life can life…’
… how do argue otherwise ???????

This is how I answered it before – am I missing something??? Maybe you could restate the question Cal….

I ‘believe’ the fetus has life before viability. I cannot ‘prove’ that the fetus has life before it becomes a baby outside the womb. I can’t prove that what I believe is human life is there before the baby is physically separate from the mother. Science is able to remove the ‘arbitrary’ factor. But, while the baby is still a part of me, my faith needs to guide me. It can only guide me. I cannot guide someone else, nor can they guide me.

Also- you keep bring up the "first amendment" yet you never address the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How can one being be considered life in one womb and protected by the constitution, while another one, solely on the whim of the mother, is able to have it's body ripped apart by a vacuum with a sharp edge on it?

And, again, once you state this in a framework that I will accept I will answer it. I will not be bullied, as you are want to do. I will not back down from this. I will not accept this question in this form. I have stated this before.

 

[alexfranke]

Comments from the peanut gallery:

If there is an artificial womb, then the fetus can be saved and placed there, for adoption, or to be cared for by the state. The question of when life begins becomes moot. All fetuses can become full term, without having to use the mother as an incubator. She can decide not to carry the baby to term, and place it up for ‘adoption’ while the artificial womb nurtures the fetus until it can be ‘born’. (I guess that is what you would call it).

That's cool -- I wonder if anyone is trying to figure this out... and good question -- what would you call it?

I can believe that something is alive, and then say someone else has the right to destroy it.

See, I just said it…

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Right now, that is what we have. If it is such bad law, get it changed. . . .They haven’t voted in enough representatives into congress to move this into an amendment. They haven’t been able to vote in a President that will have enough sway in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. . . .

Totally agree. That's how our government works.

 

[foxpaws]

Oh, Cal, sweetheart - exactly what is your opinion on this subject? I can guess by the rather insightful little 'comments' you toss in, but, rather than carry on with me just 'imagining' what your stance is, why don't you bare your soul. You ask me too...

 

[fossten]

While I'm sure there are lots of scientific opinions on either side of this fence, I don't believe that there's a scientific consensus on the question at all.

If there's no consensus, then wouldn't you agree that it's better to err on the side of preserving life, rather than just slaying it for the sake of convenience?

Okay. Here are a couple that seem relevant to the discussion:
* There's the "before I formed you in your mother's belly, I knew you" part, which would suggest that life or maybe the soul is formed even before the DNA.

Is this a question?

* Leviticus (after all the sacrifice-related stuff) seems to suggest that blood is a requirement for life.

Is this a question?

* Women who commit adultery seem to be put to death -- what if they are pregnant? I don't know a lot about how (or when) they were to carry out these types of penalties.

You're referring to Levitican law. That's not relevant to the discussion.

* Genesis seems to suggest that breath is or is a requirement of life.

Is this a question?

 

[alexfranke]

If there's no consensus, then wouldn't you agree that it's better to err on the side of preserving life, rather than just slaying it for the sake of convenience?

(Ah-HA! So you CAN make an assumption for the sake of argument! Or do you agree that there's no consensus?)

In most cases, yes.

Is this a question?

Is this a question?

Is this a question?

Obviously, no. But I thought the questions would be clearly inferred from the context of this discussion. After each of those, just pretend I said, "Is this a reasonable interpretation? If not, why? How do you interpret this in the context of this discussion? How would biblical scholars interpret this in the context of this discussion?"

You're referring to Levitican law. That's not relevant to the discussion.

Why not?

Remember-- I don't presume to be even close to an expert on the Bible, so I'm actually hoping to learn something here. This is why I'm taking you up on your offer to answer Biblical questions.

 

[fossten]

(Ah-HA! So you CAN make an assumption for the sake of argument! Or do you agree that there's no consensus?)

In most cases, yes.

In which cases would you slay life, and how would you justify it? Remember, Dr. Kevorkian has done the same thing.

Obviously, no. But I thought the questions would be clearly inferred from the context of this discussion. After each of those, just pretend I said, "Is this a reasonable interpretation? If not, why? How do you interpret this in the context of this discussion? How would biblical scholars interpret this in the context of this discussion?"

Frankly, I'm too busy to answer your essay questions. I finished school a long time ago.

 

[alexfranke]

Frankly, I'm too busy to answer your essay questions. I finished school a long time ago.

Hey, you offered. Remember? ...and congratulations on finishing school a long time ago.

In which cases would you slay life, and how would you justify it? Remember, Dr. Kevorkian has done the same thing.

I'll assume that by "slay life" you mean "to interfere with the natural biological process that can result in a living child outside of the womb." And Dr. Kevorkian has absolutely no bearing on my answer here -- I don't know why he would.

If we can agree on that, I'll be a good sport and play along. Here's my answer:

• Birth control, including spermicides, "the pill," IUDs, condoms, tubal ligation, vasectomy, or other methods that may prevent fertilization are acceptable to me, provided the side effects and risks are acceptable to both me and my wife. This is because I don't believe that gametes alone constitute the potential for a unique human life.
• Abortion is acceptable to me if the pregnancy is ectopic (for the reasons below), and the procedure is acceptable for a miscarriage, if that's what my wife would want.
• Abortion is acceptable to me if it is clear that the pregnancy cannot result a living, breathing child (e.g. molar pregnancy, severe fetal developmental defects), and the abortion reduces the risk of harm to my wife.
• Abortion is acceptable to me if the alternative would result in an unusually high risk of death for my wife.

Now will you reconsider taking a stab at at least one or two of my questions? I'm actually interested in hearing your perspective.

 

[hrmwrm]

a little something i found and thought interesting;

What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?Absolutely nothing! The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.


When Does Life Begin?
According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

Desperate for a biblical basis for their beliefs, some antiabortionists cite obscure passages, usually metaphors or poetic phrasing, such as: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 51:5 This is sexist, but does nothing other than to invoke original sin. It says nothing about abortion.

The Commandments, Moses, Jesus and Paul ignored every chance to condemn abortion. If abortion was an important concern, why didn't the bible say so?

Thou Shalt Not Kill?
Many antiabortionists quote the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13) as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. They fail to investigate the bible's definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.
An honest reader must admit that the bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not kill" did not apply to many living, breathing human beings, including children, who are routinely massacred in the bible. The Mosaic law orders "Thou shalt kill" people for committing such "crimes" as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a "stubborn son" (Deut. 21:18-21), for being a homosexual (Lev. 20:13), or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

Mass killings were routinely ordered, committed or approved by the God of the bible. One typical example is Numbers 25:4-9, when the Lord casually orders Moses to massacre 24,000 Israelites: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun." Clearly, the bible is not pro-life!

Most scholars and translators agree that the injunction against killing forbade only the murder of (already born) Hebrews. It was open season on everyone else, including children, pregnant women and newborn babies.

Does God Kill Babies?
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."--Psalm 137:9
The bible is not pro-child. Why did God set a bear upon 42 children just for teasing a prophet (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Far from demonstrating a "pro-life" attitude, the bible decimates innocent babies and pregnant women in passage after gory passage, starting with the flood and the wanton destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, progressing to the murder of the firstborn child of every household in Egypt (Ex. 12:29), and the New Testament threats of annihilation.

Space permits only a small sampling of biblical commandments or threats to kill children:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Then there are the dire warnings of Jesus in the New Testament:

"For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."--Luke 23:29
The teachings and contradictions of the bible show that antiabortionists do not have a "scriptural base" for their claim that their deity is "pro-life." Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate, with one medical study finding a spontaneous abortion rate of almost 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history!

Are Bible Teachings Kind to Women?
The bible is neither antiabortion nor pro-life, but does provide a biblical basis for the real motivation behind the antiabortion religious crusade: hatred of women. The bible is anti-woman, blaming women for sin, demanding subservience, mandating a slave/master relationship to men, and demonstrating contempt and lack of compassion:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16
What self-respecting woman today would submit willingly to such tyranny?

The antiabortion position does not demonstrate love for humanity, or compassion for real human beings. Worldwatch Institute statistics show that 50% of abortions worldwide are illegal, and that at least 200,000 women die every year--and thousands more are hurt and maimed--from illegal or self-induced abortions. Unwanted pregnancies and complications from multiple pregnancies are a leading killer of women. Why do antiabortionists want North American women to join these ghastly mortality statistics? Every day around the world more than 40,000 people, mostly children, die from starvation or malnutrition. We must protect and cherish the right to life of the already-born.

Do Churches Support Abortion Rights?
Numerous Christian denominations and religious groups agree that the bible does not condemn abortion and that abortion should continue to be legal. These include:

American Baptist Churches-USA
American Ethical Union
American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee
American Jewish Congress
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Episcopal Church
Lutheran Women's Caucus
Moravian Church in America-Northern Province
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
United Synagogue of America
Women's Caucus Church of the Brethren
YWCA
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Catholics for Free Choice
Evangelicals for Choice
Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact. Legislating antiabortion faith would be as immoral and unAmerican as passing a law that all citizens must attend Catholic mass!

The bible does not condemn abortion; but even if it did, we live under a secular constitution, not in a theocracy. The separation of church and state, the right to privacy, and women's rights all demand freedom of choice.

 

[ford nut]

for foxpaws



YouTube - You're Not the Boss of Me

 

[Calabrio]

She can decide not to carry the baby to term, and place it up for ‘adoption’ while the artificial womb nurtures the fetus until it can be ‘born’. (I guess that is what you would call it).

So at that point, you would then argue that the mother does NOT have the right to terminate the child, but if she wishes to terminate her responsibility, she mush then undergo a procedure that extracts the fetus and turns it over to someone else's care?

And, I'll ask this point just because it's a difficult question, when that technology exists, at what point does this become required that she be required to turn over the fetus? When she's two days late? Two weeks?
Two months?

Also- if you get a chance, if you think a fetus is alive and a "being" from the beginning, in your opinion, why does it matter when they abort it? Why the arbitrary deadlines and time tables? Why is viability even important?

If you now state that 22 weeks is the threshold due to brain development, shouldn't it have been 22 weeks from the beginning, not just because we now have better incubators and medical equipment? How does the quality of our life saving equipment influence this decision from either a scientific or spiritual view point?

Additionanl point, related to the rest of the response-
Foxpaws, you are the only one invoking God arguments in OUR conversation. Not me.
If you make a conclusion based on available science, religion, or just thoughtful contemplation- it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned. And all of them rely on some sort of leap of faith. I'm only interested in what you do and how you apply the judgment you have mad and then applying it honestly and consistently.

That is not true. Some societies are totally religious based. Therefore no matter what science told them, they would revert back to their religious beliefs. Not only on the question of ‘life’ but on many things.

You shift back and forth between policy, sociology, and ethics.
If the effort is to define something, that's an independent process from what other cultures or people might chose to do, continue to do, or refuse to accept. In a pursuit of truth,wisdom, understanding, you don't abandon such a pursuit because a tribe of primatives somewhere in the South Pacific, or a group of secular narcissists in Europe, may not agree or chose to disregard it. In the United States, we consider the fact that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by A CREATOR with unalienable rights. We don't abandon that truth, though we recognize it to be self-evident, because it might not be universally embraced.

IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, we are, or we were, essentially dealing with a handful of people having a discussion, exchanging ideas, addressing the issue of when "life" begins. And the individual understanding that each person develops SHOULD SHAPE their opinion on issues and policies. This is information or insight that is used when making a decision related to abortion policy. Abortion policy is an end result.

You have advocated something different. You have suggested that everyone start off with the intention of advocating abortion rights before considering the issue of life. That's working an equation backwards, having decided the conclusion FIRST.

And as I have stated, you can conclude that life begins at any stage, and still support any abortion policy you want. However, if you arrive at that conclusion, then you should be willing to acknowledge the destruction of a life. No different than any discussion, I have given the death penalty debate as an example. I can not say that I'm for the death penalty and then use contorted logic to demonstrate that a person isn't killed in the process. Instead, I have to explain why I think it's acceptable to permit the state or society to kill someone, using some kind of "greater good" argument. Abortion advocates should have the intellectual honesty to be able to do the same thing.

Or, will we be dictating to Canada when life begins?

Ignoratio elenchi
I try not to bore you, myself, or anyone who might be reading, into pointing out all of the tired debate tricks you pull. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of them. This is one is just so flagrant and offensive, I have to take pause.

But to answer your question, NO. America has no authority to dictate anything to policy, certainly not social policy. Personally, I'm disappointed that you had to pull this discussion into the quagmire of social policy. Now you're hiding and making distractions in the realm of international law.

And quit preaching to me about this whole ‘emotional well being’, ‘depression’ stuff. You keep bringing it up. I haven’t a clue why – maybe it is something in your past. I stated the reason I believe near term abortions should be allowed.

It's remarkable how selective your ignorance of things is.
The "emotional well being" has been at the forefront of EVERY debate regarding late-term and partial birth abortion. The most common "health" reason partial birth abortion is performed is "EMOTIONAL HEALTH."

I'm really quite stunned you're saying you weren't aware of that.

I don’t understand….

You don't understand the first amendment?
You have a right to your political voice to express support for whatever abortion policy you chose. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have a right to an abortion.

You're political speech is protected, however that doesn't mean abortion always is. This is reinforced by the fact that even Roe V Wade has put restrictions on abortion.

I can believe that something is alive, and then say someone else has the right to destroy it.
See, I just said it…

My faith says that it is alive, not my science. I will not, and I have stated this over and over again, and you just don’t seem to comprehend this Cal, force my faith onto anyone else.

I cannot prove that God exists. I know He does. But I can’t force anyone to believe.

Let me amend that statement.
You can't believe that a person is alive, and then say someone has the right to destroy it- without provided an explanation justifying the act. If you conclude that a person is a live, then you need to be able to answer WHY it is not protected by even the most fundamental of the human rights we, as a society (THIS SOCIETY) believe in.

The logic you are using could be applied to any almost any legal issue. Should we pass laws that prosecute theft? Just because a criminal, or perhaps a communist, might not believe in the "Thou Shall Not Steal" commandment. Is it an imposition of religion if this is enforced? No. Our society values property rights and theft is illegal.

I don’t view those people as being wrong or ‘unGodly’ I view them as having a different faith than I do

.
This is an absurd point.
Because if you honestly believe that a human life is being destroyed, this isn't simply an issue of a little disagreement.

If you learned of a cult that engaged in human sacrifice of children, would you be offended, or would you just let those people politely disagree with you?

If you were aware of a sect of people living in your community that thought pedophilia enhanced their spirituality- would you simply disagree faith and let things be? Would you just simply agree to disagree with them and look the other way?

And, on a much more benign note, if there was a group out there who didn't believe in property rights and were stealing cars and then giving them away in South America- would you look the other way?

You're presenting this life/faith/abortion issue like it's victimless.
And because once you conclude that there is life involved, you have now introduced a victim into the discussion. Why is the life not granted the most basic of human rights?

Lets use another example- SLAVERY. Some religions think that slavery is perfectly acceptable and that non-believers are no better than cattle. That they can be sold, traded, exploited, or worked like a farm animal. Without discussing the projection of our human rights values overseas, should this behavior be permitted INSIDE the U.S? It's consistent with their religious view. We clearly have a difference in opinion. Is it right for us to impose our cultural values on these citizens? And if you think so, how is defending the human rights of an immigrant slave inside our country any different than that of a unborn fetus that YOU have deemed to be alive?

You don’t like it, get it changed.

It is what is allowed for in this country. If there are enough people who believe as you do it will get changed.

Interest point you've made here....
I think that would be great. Return controversial and ethic issues into the realm of political debate and the democratic process.

Unfortunately, liberals have instead decide to legislate from the bench on this one, so there is no democratic way to resolve the issue. There is no ability to reach some sort of thoughtful compromise or reflect the values of the people. Judges, based on junk law, have made that decision for us.

So, it's no longer simply an exercise in freedom and democracy to get it changed. The vast majority of Americans don't agree with the abortion policy in this country. While they don't want to ban it, they do have different restriction. You knew that before you said it though.

There is no democratic way to refine abortion law in this country. And the abortion activists, whatever their agenda may be, has effectively made it such a polarizing issue, that it's difficult to even discuss in this country.

But, it's nice that you note this, because you also go contradict this sentiment later on in your post.

And yes, I would rather have the all or nothing approach that the Democrats take currently. Remember, this is my body you are talking about. I would rather err on the side of my freedom.

You've repeatedly acknowledged that you think there is another living person involved in this discussion. So, it is not simply an issue of your body, it would also include the "body" of another.

You say you prefer the "all or nothing approach" taken by the Democrats. But that is a false choice PRESENTED by the Democrats. It needn't be an "all or nothing" discussion, it appears to be that way because that's how Abortion advocated and Democrats have FRAMED it. That's simply a FALSE CHOICE.

If Roe V Wade were overturned, that DOES NOT mean all abortion would be made illegal. For a self-proclaimed federalist like yourself, I would expect you to embrace the idea of each state being able to apply the laws individually that reflect the values of it's residents. You keep saying that if "I" or anyone else don't like the laws, we should work to have them changed. Very well. But that can only be done in a democrat situation, a situation that Roe V Wade makes impossible.

I absolutely don’t believe that we would, as a certainty, end up with an abortion policy that wasn’t radical or polarizing if Roe v Wade were overturned.

Clearly, I disagree.
But, since you don't like the expected outcome, you think that YOUR position should be IMPOSED on everyone else in a very undemocratic like way, through judicial fiat.
So much for you dishonest claim earlier that people who disagree with the current policy should change it through democratic means.

Right now, that is what we have. If it is such bad law, get it changed. I think it should be left to the people. The people have yet to be heard on this.

See...you're doing it again... and you're clearly informed enough to know how deceptive this claim is.

You can't get the law changed, it's not just a law- it's a Supreme Court decision guarded by 40 years of hysterical propaganda and Democrats who have been using this as a wedge issue the entire time.

This isn't an issue that reflects the view of our communities, nor can it be shaped, changed, or influenced by democratic means.

The supreme court sought to close the discussion on a political issue when it made that junk law decision.

And, as you've stated, you're happy with the decision and really DO NOT want the population of the country to have any say on the matter. You don't want it resolved through democratic means (as it was BEFORE Roe V Wade) and any gestures you make alluding such a thing are dishonest and disingenuine. You make those statements knowing how unrealistic they are.

Or maybe by the lack of action, they have been heard on this. They haven’t voted in enough representatives into congress to move this into an amendment.

Are you now going to argue that the fact a constitutional amendment banning abortion is the only democratic resource available to people who don't agree with Roe V. Wade? You are AGAIN perpetuating the "All or Nothing" False Choice that propagandists and advocates like yourself use to polarize the populace.

What about federalism? What about leaving issues like these to the state?

Adding a constitutional amendment to address an ethical issue isn't simply unrealistic, it's contrary to the principles of federalism.

They haven’t been able to vote in a President that will have enough sway in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade.

The President isn't supposed to have "sway" over the opinions of the Supreme Court. By it's very definition,it's supposed to be independent of political influence. I'm sorry, but that's a kind of move reserved for tyrant Presidents, like FDR....ones who threaten to undermine the court in order to get the justices to rule in their favor.

Are you faulting Republicans for not having enough justices die or resign while they are in office?

Do you want to ask me a question about this idea that they have put forth?

Is it really this confusing.... One afternoon you present yourself as some kind of liberal sage, well read, articulate...and then when it's convenient, you don't even know the fundamental points of the issues you're debating and you can't follow a conversation- while still conveniently presenting numerous strawmen, false choice, red herring,and other debate tricks.

But, for the record you have avoided ALL of the final questions and challenges I have repeatedly presented to you....... You understand them quite well, you don't want to have to answer them.

And, again, once you state this in a framework that I will accept I will answer it. I will not be bullied, as you are want to do. I will not back down from this. I will not accept this question in this form. I have stated this before.

Why? Be specific. Is there something I said that was untrue? Is it a false choice? What's your reason. And If I'm a bully, I've been the nicest, most patient so-called bully in existence. And what about that question even borders on being a bully.... Be careful with that charge, you wouldn't want to be perceived as a sympathetic, or a victim, would you?

But before I conclude, this post, let's talk about one more thing. Maybe later we can talk about glaring inconsistencies of you position and the Peter Singer point.

You have repeatedly stated that you believe that a fetus is "alive" from a very early stage.
Among your positions, you have also said that determining the fate of a fetus should solely be the responsibility of the mother. That she has the right to terminate the pregnancy and destroy what you have identified as a life. However, if you honestly believe a person to be a live, then you must extend the basic constitutional protections upon it.

How can one fetus be considered alive and extended the protections of the constitution, while another, based upon the mood or opinion of it's mother, NOT be protected by granted the same identification and protect by the same laws? The lack of uniformity here is in defiance of the 14th amendment, it says that "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[cammerfe]

The usual reading of the Sixth Commandment---"Thou shalt not kill" is incorrect. A more proper reading is, "Thou shalt not do murder".
KS

 

[alexfranke]

Unfortunately, liberals have instead decide to legislate from the bench on this one, so there is no democratic way to resolve the issue...
. . .
So, it's no longer simply an exercise in freedom and democracy to get it changed.
. . .
You can't get the law changed, it's not just a law- it's a Supreme Court decision guarded by 40 years of hysterical propaganda and Democrats who have been using this as a wedge issue the entire time.

I think our government was designed to evolve along with society, guided by a relatively simple framework, so that it remains of/by/for the people. I look at it as kind of a sliding average of the people's views over time. The more the population's views change (and the longer they remain changed), the more the government will in the direction of that change.

Granted it could take a while, but I think it's perfectly conceivable that the people could effect this type of change in the long run. (Isn't that what you're trying to do?)

What about federalism? What about leaving issues like these to the state?

I'll drink to that!

 

[fossten]

Hey, you offered. Remember? ...and congratulations on finishing school a long time ago.

Don't act confused. I can answer Biblical questions, but I'm not going to write comprehensive, open ended essays for you. If I really believed you were asking in good faith, I might consider it.

 

[Calabrio]

Alex, I think you've missed the point.
You are right, the government and politics IS designed to reflect the evolving views and will of the people. But when you take a political issue and then decide it at the Supreme Court level, you deny that process from taking place.

Roe V. Wade isn't part of a bill, it's a judicial decision.
It's a decision that attributed a constitutional right to a political judgment. Because the court interjected itself in this way, this judgment is no longer able to evolve or reflect the opinion or values of the people. That's why this has become such a polarizing, divisive issue. It froze debate and discussion on the matter, and a political compromise that satisfies MOST people can not be reached.

And it is the antithesis of federalism, since not only was a political issue decided at the federal level-
but it was decided by a federal court. There is absolutely NOTHING democratic or federalist about it.

 

[foxpaws]

So, Cal, since you won't state your viewpoints - I may not always answer all the questions at this point. Once I find out where you stand - and you are more open with me, I will return the favor. Obviously you know where I stand.

I believe this is fair - when debating you really should know your enemy, and the others on this forum would be better served in this discussion if your position were stated.

First - on the artificial womb. The mother, at any time, should have the right to terminate the pregnancy with the technology of an artificial womb available. Since the anti choice side always contends that there will be plenty of resources and couple who wish to adopt, they will be able to take over the care of the fetus at the point where the mother no longer wishes to carry the baby. There will be no decision on the mother's part at anytime on whether she is going to be ending a human life, because all she will be doing is placing the child up for adoption, albeit earlier than at birth.

Now, since you really can't get this part. I believe that there exists human life long before 22 weeks. I can't prove that this is a fact. Why should my belief override someone else's belief that life my not start until the end of the first trimester? Or even when the baby takes their first breath? My belief should not override theirs, because my belief is not scientific, but faith based. Why should my belief be better than even science? You may not like where I place my 'scientific' timeline - which is fine. But, I can't back up my belief on when life starts with good science. Therefore it remains a belief, and not able to be used to create a 'starting point' of life.

As far as timelines for the 22 weeks - I go by the brainwave theory - if in 5 years from now they can save babies at 15 weeks, I would still use 22 weeks as my threshold. I know that scientifically that brain waves indicate human life, without them, no life. There can be no cognizant person without consistent brainwave activity.

You shift back and forth between policy, sociology, and ethics.

You also shift back and forth between policy, sociology and ethics. So, what do you want from me? Maybe if you define each segment as which one we should be discussing at that point I will be able to better answer your questions.

In the United States, we consider the fact that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by A CREATOR with unalienable rights. We don't abandon that truth, though we recognize it to be self-evident, because it might not be universally embraced.

And, yes, I do wonder why you keep using the universal 'we' in your argument. When I see that sometimes you are referring 'mankind' as a whole - universal. Here, however you use 'we' to refer to the United States. You can't keep going back and forth. I use the US as a more pragmatic choice because it is what we can actually affect.

Would I want to see my scientific starting point for life adapted worldwide? Perhaps, I really haven't given that much thought.

Ignoratio elenchi

hmm, somehow latin from you Cal doesn't have the same effect on me...

And have you ever wondered that I am trying to add some levity to this - people get bored with this stuff - I added the Canada bit to maybe get people chuckling a little. This is just a debate on a car forum, it doesn't have to be a serious as you make it Cal. Policy won't be changed, probably not one person reading this will change their opinion, so, what is wrong with a little aside?

I will continue to do this.. sorry, keep telling me how terrible I am and how I am hiding behind the quagmire of social policy (or whatever other defamation is popular to make in my direct at the time) - my need to smile every now and then will outweigh the need to somehow make this a debate for the ages...

The "emotional well being" has been at the forefront of EVERY debate regarding late-term and partial birth abortion.

So.... It isn't part of my debate - I stated, aggghhhh, many times what I think of as far as late term abortions - for medical risks only. Why you keep bring up this other stuff I don't know. Are you afraid I will sneak it in at some later time. I won't. Medical risk only. Obviously you have debated this before (I certainly have as well). Just because others have used emotional well being as a reason to abort late term pregnancies, doesn't mean you need to bring it up over and over again. I don't think it should be used.

Sorry I don't fit some preconceived idea that you have about people who are pro choice Cal.

It protects your right to say it, it doesn't give you or anyone else the right to do it though.
I don’t understand….
You don't understand the first amendment?
You have a right to your political voice to express support for whatever abortion policy you chose. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have a right to an abortion.

Don't get snippy with me - I will shut down.

What the first amendment does is allow me to believe that life begins long before scientific proof shows that it does, it also allows someone else to believe that life might not begin until scientific proof shows that it does. That is what I was talking about. The first amendment doesn't allow you to take a human life at any point.

You can't believe that a person is alive, and then say someone has the right to destroy it- without provided an explanation justifying the act.

I can believe that a fetus is human life, and then I can say someone has the right to destroy it.

There - said it again.

The logic you are using could be applied to any almost any legal issue. Should we pass laws that prosecute theft? Just because a criminal, or perhaps a communist, might not believe in the "Thou Shall Not Steal" commandment. Is it an imposition of religion if this is enforced? No. Our society values property rights and theft is illegal.

So, your criminal analogy doesn't work here...

A better analogy to more simply state what I believe:

I believe it is warm outside when I look out the window because the sun is shining. You look outside the same window and think it is cold because there is 10 inches of snow on the ground. Until we open the door and go outside we don't know which one of us is right.

In our belief we are both right. Neither of us has been proven wrong. But, neither of us has been proven right. So there is a time period where we both could be right.

Opening the door gives us scientific proof.

That is why even though I believe in my heart that life begins long before 22 weeks, I can't prove it, so I can't deny anyone an abortion based on what is in my heart. My faith is the only thing that shows me that there is human life before that time. I don't expect someone else to take my 'faith' as scientific proof. I can understand that they need scientific proof.

Better?

Because if you honestly believe that a human life is being destroyed, this isn't simply an issue of a little disagreement.

If you learned of a cult that engaged in human sacrifice of children, would you be offended, or would you just let those people politely disagree with you?

Well the second part is just silly, those children have 'life' no question, scientifically proven.

And I do believe in my heart that babies get destroyed when they aborted beyond the point where I believe life starts. I think it is terrible. I think it is wrong. But, since I can't prove it, with proof that I would demand if I were on the other side of the equation, what am I to do? Force my religious beliefs on those other people. I can't do that. My faith doesn't allow that. Nor does the first amendment.

I can prove that the immigrant slave has human life, and therefore should be allowed human dignity, those children in your silly human sacrifice bit have life. But, can I prove that a fetus that is less than 22 weeks old has life? No.

Interest point you've made here....
I think that would be great. Return controversial and ethic issues into the realm of political debate and the democratic process.

And, yes, this should be before the people, and debated. Why hasn't it been? Are people satisfied with Roe vs Wade? You say no, but actions don't seem to indicate that. People do rise up if they feel strongly on an issue. This would be before the people of the United States as an amendment if the people felt as strongly as you say they do. They may not agree with the abortion policy, but they don't disagree with it strongly enough to do anything about it.

In fact, most anti choice state type legislation is being defeated by larger and larger margins. I really don't know where the American people stand. Here in Colorado this past election, there was anti choice legislation on the ballot and it was defeated 74% to 26%. It could have something to do with how it was written, but certainly the people spoke loudly and decisively on this one.

It needn't be an "all or nothing" discussion, it appears to be that way because that's how Abortion advocated and Democrats have FRAMED it

No, it shouldn't be an 'all or nothing' equation, and if legislation ever got to the floor or to the ballot box I would hope it would be a compromise, because 'nothing' would go down in defeat big time. But, until there is legislation we will be stuck with one or the other. All or nothing. In my opinion, all is better in this case than nothing.

Right now, that is what we have. If it is such bad law, get it changed. I think it should be left to the people. The people have yet to be heard on this.
See...you're doing it again... and you're clearly informed enough to know how deceptive this claim is..

So, if it is such a bad decision, get an amendment passed so you don't have to deal with the courts. Sorry, I stated this poorly earlier, I should have said decision.

And I would love to have this go to the people. The whole thing could be done and over with.

What about federalism? What about leaving issues like these to the state?

Adding a constitutional amendment to address an ethical issue isn't simply unrealistic, it's contrary to the principles of federalism.

Is it a good state issue - wouldn't that cause a lot of problems like it did in the past? Some states say one thing about life, other states say another. Isn't this a better federal type issue? Sort of like the marriage thing - I believe you stated you would like the marriage debate taken to a federal level earlier Cal. I could be wrong there though.

Is it really this confusing.... One afternoon you present yourself as some kind of liberal sage, well read, articulate...and then when it's convenient, you don't even know the fundamental points of the issues you're debating and you can't follow a conversation- while still conveniently presenting numerous strawmen, false choice, red herring,and other debate tricks.

No Cal, I wish you would quit this. I really don't understand what you want to debate in your society destroying children philosophy section. There is a lot there. Probably more than enough for a whole debate thread on it's own.

And I didn't 'avoid' this 'question or challange' here - I really don't understand what you want to debate here. Do you want to debate if I think that the philosophers have a good idea? Would their ideas work in any type of society? In what circumstances would their viewpoints be seen as 'just'? I really, really don't know. No avoidance at all, I just wanted to get some clarity on a very confusing point.

But, for the record you have avoided ALL of the final questions and challenges I have repeatedly presented to you....... You understand them quite well, you don't want to have to answer them.

So, the first paragraph, once again I didn't avoid - I asked questions about it. I am sorry Cal if I just don't get it, but guess what, I just don't get it.

The second paragraph, once again I didn't avoid, I asked for you to clarify a question you asked. I don't understand "If you think that definition of a fetus/embryo/baby is defined and determined by the opinion and circumstances of the mother, is that opinion wrong?" I really don't understand that. My opinion? I really don't understand. Quit making all these accusations against me, when I just don't understand the question. I did answer the second part of that paragraph. So how can I be avoiding all of them. I am really, really trying here. Quit talking at me.

The third paragraph I do think I answered, but once again - wow - I am not sure what this means. I asked for clarification, and I did answer the challenge, but since it really doesn't make any sense, I can only guess that I answered it in a way that would make sense to you. If it doesn't, maybe you can reword this...
If you also believe that the fetus has life, and that the mother has the right to arbitrarily decide when the life can life, how do argue otherwise. I am pretty much confused from the when the life can life point on. What is when the life can life?

And I have stated I will not answer the last question many times. You know why. If you really want to know the answer to that question, you can rephrase it. I will answer it, but not in it's current form. Once again - you are not the boss of me (loved the video mr Nut )

And I still don't understand the Peter Singer point... can you actually just summarize his 'point' in a sentence or two?

so, one more time (sorry people I know this is getting very boring for you... I will understand as more and more of you fall by the wayside, yawning in boredom)

I believe that up until the point of constant brain wave activity in the fetus the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy. Up until that point (approx. 22 weeks) we can scientifically prove only one life is present (the mothers). She can decide if she wants a mass of cells removed from her body. Once that mass of cells scientifically is proven to be human life, then she can only terminate the pregnancy if her physical self is in danger from the pregnancy continuing. Not her emotional well being. Up until that point, no constitutional rights could be afforded the fetus because it hasn't been declared as having human life.

I believe my children had the qualities of human life long before 22 weeks. But I can't scientifically prove that they did. It is only faith based.

So, cal, that is it - how about telling everyone where you stand on this issue?

 

[alexfranke]

Don't act confused. I can answer Biblical questions, but I'm not going to write comprehensive, open ended essays for you. If I really believed you were asking in good faith, I might consider it.

You offered, I accepted, and somewhere along the way you apparently got the idea that I wanted to play games.

I never asked for "comprehensive, open-ended essays" (though I would most likely read them if you wrote them), our views on the topic are probably more similar than you might have previously guessed, and I can't imagine what motivation I might have had to ask -- and say that I was interested -- if that really wasn't the truth.

So I'm sorry if you feel I'm disingenuous. But I won't press it.

 

[alexfranke]

Alex, I think you've missed the point.
You are right, the government and politics IS designed to reflect the evolving views and will of the people. But when you take a political issue and then decide it at the Supreme Court level, you deny that process from taking place.

Oh, I see. Yes, I did miss that point.

Roe V. Wade isn't part of a bill, it's a judicial decision. It's a decision that attributed a constitutional right to a political judgment. Because the court interjected itself in this way, this judgment is no longer able to evolve or reflect the opinion or values of the people.

But doesn't congress have the authority to effectively overturn this (or take it off the books, so to speak) with either new legislation or a constitutional amendment? Government class was a long time ago for me, but I seem to remember that as part of the "checks and balances" system.

And it is the antithesis of federalism, since not only was a political issue decided at the federal level-
but it was decided by a federal court. There is absolutely NOTHING democratic or federalist about it.

Oh, I agree. It seems to me that the Supreme Court should have stuck to the constitutionality of the matter and left the state courts to figure out the details.

But I look at it this way: For whatever reason, good or bad, we have what we have. So the question becomes how to deal with what he have. And if the "evolving views and will of the people" lead congress to ask, "why the heck is this even on the books at the federal level?" then don't they have the ability to enact legislation to take it off the books?

 

[Calabrio]

This is my last response on this subject to you. It's pointless because you're more interested in spin than thoughtful discussion. You are very conscious that other people may actual read this and you seem incapable of ever abandoning your propaganda in a public forum.

You are consistently and deliberately avoiding the points I'm making. This is yet another post from you that invests most of the time and space in explaining why you don't need to respond to a challenge or just avoiding a direct response. I've invested far too much energy in this all ready, and it's simply not realistic to chase you on each and every point.

So, Cal, since you won't state your viewpoints - I may not always answer all the questions at this point.

My viewpoint is very simple. In this discussion, I just seek honesty and consistency. You have demonstrated neither.

First - on the artificial womb. The mother, at any time, should have the right to terminate the pregnancy with the technology of an artificial womb available.

That's not what I asked. Are you saying that the mother would be FORCED to utilize this hypothetical technology and from what point. Would a RU86 type pill be legal in your hypothetical situation? Could a 'mother' chose to destroy a fetus despite this option? Would the creation of this technology mean that government could impose it's will on a women who may having differing views of life?

[Emotional Well Being] It isn't part of my debate - I stated, aggghhhh, many times what I think of as far as late term abortions - for medical risks only.

You state this like I'm not being reasonable asking for clarity on a particularly important issue. Can you honestly say you've never heard this issue brought up before?

So knowing this, you would be prepared to support a legal ban on later term, partial birth abortion in any case where the life of the mother wasn't at risk?

And have you ever wondered that I am trying to add some levity to this - people get bored with this stuff -

This point is of note. It demonstrates how you are conscious of whether or not others will read this, and that is why you never leave your activist operative propaganda mode.

What the first amendment does is allow me to believe that life begins long before scientific proof shows that it does, it also allows someone else to believe that life might not begin until scientific proof shows that it does. That is what I was talking about. The first amendment doesn't allow you to take a human life at any point.

The concept of unique human life, of being, of spirit IS NOT scientific. It is by definition an issue of spirituality or faith. This is another one of the fundamental flaws of your argument, and a point I have made that you fail to acknowledge.

If you eliminate that spiritual element of the discussion, you're left simply with a general concept of life. A biological life exists from the point of conception, that's really not a subject of debate. If you want to be strictly scientific about it, conception begins life, but society and the individual decide when we grant it "human being" status.

I can believe that a fetus is human life, and then I can say someone has the right to destroy it.
There - said it again.

You can't even use the quote tool honestly.
A person with integrity can't believe that a person is alive and then say someone has the right to destroy it- without provided an explanation justifying the act.

Well the second part is just silly, those children have 'life' no question, scientifically proven.

There's no doubt that the children are alive, as there is no debate whether a fetus is alive. The value of it's life is placed on it either by society or a higher power.

Since you feel that the spiritual issue isn't supported by science and merely an opinion, then we're only left with the value that the individual society has bestowed upon the individual. Using your logic, you have no right or responsibility to prevent any harm from befalling those children. This moral relativism position absolves you from that situation just as it does the abortion issue in this country.

In fact, most anti choice state type legislation is being defeated by larger and larger margins. I really don't know where the American people stand. Here in Colorado this past election, there was anti choice legislation on the ballot and it was defeated 74% to 26%. It could have something to do with how it was written, but certainly the people spoke loudly and decisively on this one.

If you are infact right, then you should be confident allowing this to move back from the realm of the judicial to the political. Of course, this is yet another contradiction in your various arguments and points.

No, it shouldn't be an 'all or nothing' equation, and if legislation ever got to the floor or to the ballot box I would hope it would be a compromise, because 'nothing' would go down in defeat big time.

Again, you fail to acknowledge that this issue has been decided by the Supreme Court right now and not subject to ballot initiatives.

And I would love to have this go to the people. The whole thing could be done and over with.

You're contradicting something you said earlier.
But if that's how you feel, then you'd embrace the overturn of Roe V Wade.

No Cal, I wish you would quit this. I really don't understand what you want to debate in your society destroying children philosophy section. There is a lot there. Probably more than enough for a whole debate thread on it's own.

Is it really that difficult to respond to? I don't think it is. There are even questions, with question marks, in it, to help you avoid confusion. You're refusal to respond it is deliberate. That's a rather telling statement about you.

 

[Calabrio]

But doesn't congress have the authority to effectively overturn this (or take it off the books, so to speak) with either new legislation or a constitutional amendment? Government class was a long time ago for me, but I seem to remember that as part of the "checks and balances" system.

They can't overturn a supreme court decision.
And a constitutional amendment? A constitutional amendment saying what?
Among other things, a constitutional amendment would mean that there was overwhelming consensus on the issue. That's not the case here.

Oh, I agree. It seems to me that the Supreme Court should have stuck to the constitutionality of the matter and left the state courts to figure out the details.

It was a huge reach for the court to rule as they did.
It is a legendary, almost universally recognized example of a bad, poorly construction Supreme Court decision.

But I look at it this way: For whatever reason, good or bad, we have what we have.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. It's a political philosophy that is embraced by the American left wing that uses the power of the judicial branch to advance an agenda that would be rejected and fail if left to the traditional political process.

So the question becomes how to deal with what he have. And if the "evolving views and will of the people" lead congress to ask, "why the heck is this even on the books at the federal level?" then don't they have the ability to enact legislation to take it off the books?

No. The Supreme Court decision would need to be challenged, and over turned. These are two spectacularly difficult things. It's not easy to get a case like this to the Supreme Court, and then the court is always reluctant to make a decision that overturns earlier ones.

 

[alexfranke]

Because it looks like people may be backing out of this, I figured I'd get a bit more involved... Hope you don't mind the intrusion.

My belief should not override theirs, because my belief is not scientific, but faith based. Why should my belief be better than even science?

This goes back to my point earlier about the philosophical versus the scientific discussion. People here are free to believe whatever they want. (Heck, I know someone who believes that her walls talk to her.) So anytime you try to use a belief as a basis for an argument, you're on very shaky ground...

I know that scientifically that brain waves indicate human life, without them, no life. There can be no cognizant person without consistent brainwave activity.

It would be interesting to discuss this in more detail at some point.

hmm, somehow latin from you Cal doesn't have the same effect on me...
...
And have you ever wondered that I am trying to add some levity to this - people get bored with this stuff

:lol: Latin form *anyone* doesn't have much of an effect on me. (Even when I use it.)

IMHO, levity is good -- especially when a conversation is not face to face. I think it helps set the tone.

I can believe that a fetus is human life, and then I can say someone has the right to destroy it.

There - said it again.

Yeah -- like that.

Well the second part is just silly, those children have 'life' no question, scientifically proven.

...another interesting side-track. I think it's very important that we respect cultural differences, but I have a hard time defining the line. That a living, breathing baby is precious and deserves protection is practically universally axiomatic (although there are some that don't see it so black and white), but what about things like mutilation rituals? Maybe that's a different thread...

I can prove that the immigrant slave has human life, and therefore should be allowed human dignity, those children in your silly human sacrifice bit have life. But, can I prove that a fetus that is less than 22 weeks old has life? No.

I still disagree with this terminology. I would argue scientifically that it does have life, and that it does have human life. What I can't argue, though, is whether it's a human being.

And I would love to have this go to the people. The whole thing could be done and over with.

That's a nice thought, but I think it would hardly be over and done with... It might be a different set of complaints and debates, but even when the people make their voices heard, not everyone agrees...

Is it a good state issue - wouldn't that cause a lot of problems like it did in the past? Some states say one thing about life, other states say another. Isn't this a better federal type issue? Sort of like the marriage thing...

Seems to me that the federal government could set parameters and let the states figure out the details. Something like, "We value human life and recognize that human life becomes a human being before before or when it is born. But you can't deny an abortion if the mother's life is a risk, and you can't allow a late-term abortion if the mother's life is not at risk. Beyond that, you (the states) figure it out."

If people want to be able to have an abortion, they'll move (or go) to a state where it's more acceptable. If it turns out to be no states, or even all states, then so be it. The people have spoken. (Same thing with marriage.)