You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pre-born infants
- Thread starter BloodTrader
- Start date
Quote from smilingsynic:
1. Birth is a reasonable determiner because birth is the rite of passage by which one enters society; it is a definition that all can agree with. After birth, an infant has the protections that the rest of us do; in this country, an infant born here is given citizenship.
In this country, murder is illegal and morally wrong. Mothers who murder their born children are subject to the laws of this society.
What is legal is not necessarily moral, and some actions that would be considered immoral are nevertheless legal.
2. What is a "soul"? Can one prove that it exists? If not, then how do we KNOW that it exists?
Borrowed one from Descrates on this one. Short answer: you cannot prove it exists, and you have no certain way of knowing that it does.
You may believe in a soul, but belief alone does not make it so.
3. My wife would not choose to have an abortion without my consent. She would not have an abortion period, because we believe abortion is wrong.
you make reasonable arguments, but I would make slightly different ones.
1. Instead of birth as a reasonable determiner, I would suggest infant viability as a reasonable determiner. It is very easy to argue that an infant has a right to life if it could be removed from the mother's body and still live a normal life. Right now that line is at about 22-24 weeks gestation. 22 weeks is plenty of time for a mother wishing an abortion to make the decision.
2. Pro-choicers use the term soul for what cannot be proven, because it adds a religious element that makes it unprovable. Rather than proving the existence of a "soul" we should be assuming the existence of independent "life", and therefore should err on the side of preservation of life.
The absence of a "soul" is just as unprovable as the existence of one. We have not yet learned how to create "life" from a non-living substance. Until we've learned how to create it, we should make efforts to preserve it, because although we can't create it, we seem very able to destroy it.
[My views are not based on convenience but on principle. They are based on human life. Too many times in the 20th century, the world looked the other way or certain countries supported the extermination of innocent people. The Japanese occupation and atrocities to over 10 million Chinese and many others in southeast asian/pacific countries, Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime, the extermination of the "feeble," the Jews, the Poles and others under Hitler, Stalin's extermination of as many as 20 million Russians, the genocide of various populations in Africa and Europe and many others. There is never compromise by the ones who do the elimination of the "unnecessary."
-. [/B][/QUOTE]
you see, this is why you cannopt openly debate this subject...your views are set...they are your principles....you are not engaging in a debate with reason but rather your expressing your belief, your faith, and are not open to ANY possible alternative, argument or opposing view...so why debate it? Most likely you are a christian as i am...no matter what somebody says to us to discount the belief in the Christ, we will no accept it becuase this is your faith....your abortion view is not much different.
-. [/B][/QUOTE]
you see, this is why you cannopt openly debate this subject...your views are set...they are your principles....you are not engaging in a debate with reason but rather your expressing your belief, your faith, and are not open to ANY possible alternative, argument or opposing view...so why debate it? Most likely you are a christian as i am...no matter what somebody says to us to discount the belief in the Christ, we will no accept it becuase this is your faith....your abortion view is not much different.
Quote from TM_Direct:
[My views are not based on convenience but on principle. They are based on human life. Too many times in the 20th century, the world looked the other way or certain countries supported the extermination of innocent people. The Japanese occupation and atrocities to over 10 million Chinese and many others in southeast asian/pacific countries, Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime, the extermination of the "feeble," the Jews, the Poles and others under Hitler, Stalin's extermination of as many as 20 million Russians, the genocide of various populations in Africa and Europe and many others. There is never compromise by the ones who do the elimination of the "unnecessary."
-.
you see, this is why you cannopt openly debate this subject...your views are set...they are your principles....you are not engaging in a debate with reason but rather your expressing your belief, your faith, and are not open to ANY possible alternative, argument or opposing view...so why debate it?
As opposed to the abortion right advocates? Since your reading constantly limits itself to what you want to see, there is little point dialoguing with you. AGAIN, SINCE YOU GLOSSED OVER IT, THE OTHER SIDE DOES NOT WANT NOR WELCOME DEBATE. IT WILL BE DEBATED FOR CENTURIES, AND THEY WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK AS LONG AS NOTHING CHANGES. What ever gives you the idea they are open to changing it? (although youare likely to ignore this again).
This is not a matter of faith, but of reality. If you are a "Christian" then you are supposed to understand that we don't "compromise." Remember the verse that (paraphrase) "I wish you were hot or cold? But since you are lukewarm, then I will spew you out of my mouth? To the God of scripture, it is murder. You don't "debate." They certainly do not. Unless you wish to show strongly otherwise.
I have no problem being "right-wing". We are supposed to be witnesses to the truth. If you so claim, you would stop trying appeasement. The children die. I have little interest in appearing "reasonable". I pray and seek an end to this. I have no interest in philosophical debate.
You seem to mistake you faith and beliefs for valid arguments...once again, im not disagreeing with you...but just becuase you do not beleive one thing or another does not make your argument valid.....think of it this way: Many radical muslims think its an act of god to load themselves up with explosives and pull the string in the middle of non beleivers .....if you attempted to debate a person who beleives this is Gods work you would be wasting your time...in a sense you are no different...you believe in your principles and will not budge one iota from your christian beliefs correct??? so in the end you are not debating but rather, your preaching.....which is ok in my book but as i stated WAyyyy back...just once i'd like to hear a compelling point that moves the line from one side to the other without all the rhetoric.
Quote from TM_Direct:
You seem to mistake you faith and beliefs for valid arguments...once again, im not disagreeing with you...but just becuase you do not beleive one thing or another does not make your argument valid
But don't you see? Throughout the 3 years of ET debates on the Creationism/ID question and on the Choice question that I've seen, the believers have shown us one thing over and over again. They tell us about their opinions and then tell us that we need to legislate public behaviour in accordance with those opinions. When we ask them to consider the fact that others may not hold the same opinions, they simply pretend that they cannot hear us. When we ask them to support their opinions about the direction of public policy with facts, we get 'The Lord God is my Saviour and I shall not want. His Judgement Cometh and That Right Soon'. When we try to politely point out that faith in God is not a basis for public policy, we get 'Can you prove that God does not exist? No, you can't? Well then! That means that God exists and we should _____' (fill in the blank - teach our children that a multi-eyed goat will fall from the sky on judgement day or perhaps that we should rob young women of the right to determine their own futures and control their own destinies).
It is sickening. I grew up in a town where the main church was United, and those people bear no resemblance to these fanatical ultra-right Evangelists like rcanfiel, who are no different in kind from the other radical religious fanatics that have come to dominate the world news.
Quote from Cache Landing:
you make reasonable arguments, but I would make slightly different ones.
1. Instead of birth as a reasonable determiner, I would suggest infant viability as a reasonable determiner. It is very easy to argue that an infant has a right to life if it could be removed from the mother's body and still live a normal life. Right now that line is at about 22-24 weeks gestation. 22 weeks is plenty of time for a mother wishing an abortion to make the decision.
2. Pro-choicers use the term soul for what cannot be proven, because it adds a religious element that makes it unprovable. Rather than proving the existence of a "soul" we should be assuming the existence of independent "life", and therefore should err on the side of preservation of life.
The absence of a "soul" is just as unprovable as the existence of one. We have not yet learned how to create "life" from a non-living substance. Until we've learned how to create it, we should make efforts to preserve it, because although we can't create it, we seem very able to destroy it.
Thanks for providing some material for actual debate.
Infant viability is an interesting point, but it would pose legal problems. For instance, what should be done to a mother whose abuse of her body hurts the health of the fetus? Should that mother be arrested for abuse? If abortion of a viable fetus should be considered murder, then shouldn't physical abuse of a viable fetus be considered assault?
And what actually is "viable"? Who gets to determine? The states? The federal govenment?
And as for the argument that "The absence of a 'soul' is just as unprovable as the existence of one,"that is an appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy. I don't know if you believe in a soul, but I have heard that argument used before by those who do, it is weak.
If a soul exists, when was it created? Some say before birth, some say before ANYONE was born? Something so apparently important, and yet so undecided.
Quote from smilingsynic:
Thanks for providing some material for actual debate.
Infant viability is an interesting point, but it would pose legal problems. For instance, what should be done to a mother whose abuse of her body hurts the health of the fetus? Should that mother be arrested for abuse? If abortion of a viable fetus should be considered murder, then shouldn't physical abuse of a viable fetus be considered assault?
And what actually is "viable"? Who gets to determine? The states? The federal govenment?
And as for the argument that "The absence of a 'soul' is just as unprovable as the existence of one,"that is an appeal to ignorance, an informal logical fallacy. I don't know if you believe in a soul, but I have heard that argument used before by those who do, it is weak.
If a soul exists, when was it created? Some say before birth, some say before ANYONE was born? Something so apparently important, and yet so undecided.
That's just it. This is exactly why there can be a debate.
I don't wish to debate the concept of a soul, as it is not a topic of logical debate. I would debate the concept of viable life.
We have conflicting laws right now. One says that I can terminate a pregnancy anytime I wish because the baby is unborn and has no rights. The other law says that if I kill a pregnant mother I am guilty of double murder.
I can tell you my opinion on the other points you raised.
Yes a mother harming herself and causing harm to the unborn fetus should be charged with assault.
Early term abortion should be a state's rights issue. Late term abortion should be banned by the federal g-ment. I'm a big federalist so it is sort of odd for me to say that.
A good place to start on viability would be the fact that we have living examples of children born at 24 weeks gestation that show no adverse side-effects.
Quote from Turok:
Cache, I am so with you on the viability issue.
For me it gets fuzzy somewhere in the second trimester, so personally I say first trimester or nothing.
Just me of course.
JB
the fact of the matter is that many right to lifers ( of which I am one) believe in the sanctity of the sperm...ie: for a LONG time condoms were considered a form of abortion by some on the radical side....this type of mentality hurts the over all movement in my opinion...