I agree Damo, but what I am discussing now is what rule the Government should establish based on the current scientific wrelm of possability.
Islam is the Religion of Pinheads!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
I agree Damo, but what I am discussing now is what rule the Government should establish based on the current scientific wrelm of possability.
You are a truely sick and whacked out person...
If you truely belive that abortion is MURDER of a child... why does it make it okay just because the mother was not responsable for the creation of that child?
Not necessarily... I have shown that there is a choice acceptible to me. Once again, if the choice is either the death penalty for the child or allowing their bodies to be incubators that isn't a real reproductive choice.
Once again, it is certainly within the "realm of possibility" to begin such research and allow it to be the choice over abortion. Pretending that we must seek only to live in the pretend world of no choice is pretense and less than honest intellectually.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And when God gives a fetus a soul is certainly something I would not begin to presume to know.
Well, sure you do, otherwise, you wouldn't have a problem with the elimination of a mere clump of cells inside a woman, it would be no big deal at all! The fact that you detest abortion, proves that you know precisely when the fetus becomes a living human life, with a soul.
I see no reason to suggest that he is bound by any set time frame for that action. For all we know, he gives a fetus a soul at the six month time frame.
No, we DO know, the Bible tells us. At the moment you become alive, you have a soul.
Do you have some communication from God which states uniquivocally that he always gives embryos a soul at the moment of conception?
God is consistent. He always does the same thing in every case. In instance after instance in the Bible, it is inferred that your life begins in the womb, thus you must have a soul, because without a soul, you are dead.
As for your stupid burning fertility clinic question, I am not going to respond to it anymore, I have answered your question, I have pointed out how it's a flawed example with no basis in scientific principle or reason, and I decline to comment any further on something so absurd and ridiculous. Let's stick to science and the Scriptures, shall we?
Well, sure you do, otherwise, you wouldn't have a problem with the elimination of a mere clump of cells inside a woman, it would be no big deal at all! The fact that you detest abortion, proves that you know precisely when the fetus becomes a living human life, with a soul.
I see no reason to suggest that he is bound by any set time frame for that action. For all we know, he gives a fetus a soul at the six month time frame.
No, we DO know, the Bible tells us. At the moment you become alive, you have a soul.
Do you have some communication from God which states uniquivocally that he always gives embryos a soul at the moment of conception?
God is consistent. He always does the same thing in every case. In instance after instance in the Bible, it is inferred that your life begins in the womb, thus you must have a soul, because without a soul, you are dead.
As for your stupid burning fertility clinic question, I am not going to respond to it anymore, I have answered your question, I have pointed out how it's a flawed example with no basis in scientific principle or reason, and I decline to comment any further on something so absurd and ridiculous. Let's stick to science and the Scriptures, shall we?
I personally don't believe in abortion under any circumstance, but I am willing to allow 'free will' for people in our society who became pregnant through no choice of their own, and allow the law to permit women who have been raped, to get an abortion
Sorry, I don't respect this answer. Its a total cop out.
You've solemnly pontificated that life begins at the moment of conception, that it is sacred, that the embryo is a human life with a soul. Killing it would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Now, you're carving out excpetions to your "sacred" philosophy.
I'd respect you more, if you actually stood by your "principles" and said the goverment should outlaw ALL abortions, and force women to give birth to all fetuses.
I agree it is in the future realm of possibility and should be funded and researched. It is however not in the current realm of possability and for the purpose of this "philosophical" debate it not relevant.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Exactly! So why are you even IN this thread? Why should I feel compelled to argue theology with someone who doesn't believe in it? Better yet, why do you feel compelled to argue something you don't believe in?
In any event, we don't have to include religion to discuss when the process of human life begins, that is a scientific aspect, and you've presented no evidence to suggest life doesn't begin at point of conception. I'm still waiting!
If there is a choice that would make doctors seek to extend rather than end a burgeoning life then I would prefer that one over the only choice to be that they seek to end life rather than help...
Directed action toward ending a life does not visit the possibility of the right to life of that young life. Taking away all choice and forcing them to be incubators does not take into reflection the right of the mother and the sanctity of her own body... There is a third option that could be acceptible to all and could be the compromise we have always sought as well as be the first step toward true reproductive choice where the mother could choose to live as an incubator or have a healthy child incubated ex-utero...
Imagine, she'd never have to take time off for her pregnancy, no sickness, if she so chose. This option will, in the end, give far more choice than the only option of directed killing.
Dixie AKA Einstein said...
"Well, sure you do, otherwise, you wouldn't have a problem with the elimination of a mere clump of cells inside a woman, it would be no big deal at all! The fact that you detest abortion, proves that you know precisely when the fetus becomes a living human life, with a soul. "
One could hate abotion and still think the fetus is yet to have a soul, one could belive that the distruction of something so close to having a soul is a terrable choice.
I detest the destruction of trees, but I dont belive trees have souls.
"Well, sure you do, otherwise, you wouldn't have a problem with the elimination of a mere clump of cells inside a woman, it would be no big deal at all! The fact that you detest abortion, proves that you know precisely when the fetus becomes a living human life, with a soul. "
One could hate abotion and still think the fetus is yet to have a soul, one could belive that the distruction of something so close to having a soul is a terrable choice.
I detest the destruction of trees, but I dont belive trees have souls.
Dixie: "Exactly! So why are you even IN this thread? Why should I feel compelled to argue theology with someone who doesn't believe in it? Better yet, why do you feel compelled to argue something you don't believe in?
Because, Einstein, our laws (abortion, or otherwise) aren't based on religious theology. They're based on the Constitution.
Many people believe abortion is a right to privacy issue, protected by the Constitution.
Because, Einstein, our laws (abortion, or otherwise) aren't based on religious theology. They're based on the Constitution.
Many people believe abortion is a right to privacy issue, protected by the Constitution.
Rubbish. If we direct that instead of aborting that the fetus be entered into such research the research would progress exponentially. If we simply say, "it's not possible so we shouldn't even talk about it" then we are being intellectually dishonest to my argument. Doctors would immediately begin working toward the extension rather than directed action to end a life...
It is more than "possible" to begin this action right now... even if most of those lives would end at the beginning of the process.
uscitizen
Villified User
depends on the definition of life, which is the crux of the whole issue.
Well that and religion. and I am in the argument because of the politioreligious peoples impact on our laws does impact me.
Okay Damo, I agree with you, but for the short term the result wold be the same. The fetus would surely die! Are you saying you would be okay with that as long as attempts were being made to keep it alive and advance technology to make it possable the child could live?
The result would be the same, but the action would not. The doctor would not be working toward ending the life but toward a different goal. One action has merit that the other does not, and it is reflective to the rights of both parties.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Sorry, I don't respect this answer. Its a total cop out.
You've solemnly pontificated that life begins at the moment of conception, that it is sacred, that the embryo is a human life with a soul. Killing it would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
And I stand by that. I said as much in my statement.
Now, you're carving out excpetions to your "sacred" philosophy.
No, I am not. I am firmly against abortion in all circumstances.
I'd respect you more, if you actually stood by your "principles" and said the goverment should outlaw ALL abortions, and force women to give birth to all fetuses.
If I believed that God granted me the power to ordain others free will, I would agree with this. He did not. He did, however, instruct me to stand up for good and oppose evil. The intentional and malicious taking of innocent human life that someone deliberately and consciously chose to produce, is evil and wrong. While the rape victim is also maliciously taking a human life, they have some justification, as it was not their choice to produce this life in the first place. As a Christian, I am willing to let them rectify this with God, it's not my place to do that. I would not personally condone it, I believe God has a reason for everything, including the pregnancy of a rape victim, but I can't infer my personal beliefs on others, that is between them and God. When it comes to abortion-on-demand, as a form of birth control, it then becomes an issue which involves my responsibility as a Christian, to speak out against and condemn, and I do.
You've solemnly pontificated that life begins at the moment of conception, that it is sacred, that the embryo is a human life with a soul. Killing it would be wrong, wrong, wrong.
And I stand by that. I said as much in my statement.
Now, you're carving out excpetions to your "sacred" philosophy.
No, I am not. I am firmly against abortion in all circumstances.
I'd respect you more, if you actually stood by your "principles" and said the goverment should outlaw ALL abortions, and force women to give birth to all fetuses.
If I believed that God granted me the power to ordain others free will, I would agree with this. He did not. He did, however, instruct me to stand up for good and oppose evil. The intentional and malicious taking of innocent human life that someone deliberately and consciously chose to produce, is evil and wrong. While the rape victim is also maliciously taking a human life, they have some justification, as it was not their choice to produce this life in the first place. As a Christian, I am willing to let them rectify this with God, it's not my place to do that. I would not personally condone it, I believe God has a reason for everything, including the pregnancy of a rape victim, but I can't infer my personal beliefs on others, that is between them and God. When it comes to abortion-on-demand, as a form of birth control, it then becomes an issue which involves my responsibility as a Christian, to speak out against and condemn, and I do.
I agree with you on this, if we are going to allow "abortion" work should be done to "save" the fetus. I dont think most conservative anti-abortion people would agree, especally as long as the likelyhood of the fetus living was minimal.
Currently it is legal for a woman to have labor "induced" early or for her to have a C-section early. The infants likelyhood of survival is less, minimually so if only a few weeks early, but it is often done. I know a woman who hated being pregnant, she asked her Doctor to induce her labor about 6 weeks early. The DR. refused. This woman wanted the baby, she was just willing to risk the early delivery for a few weeks less of pregnancy. The Dr. Refused at 6 weeks early, but did the induction at three weeks early. This child survived and is doing well.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
One could hate abotion and still think the fetus is yet to have a soul.
You can also believe the moon is made of cheese, but without some evidence or proof to support your belief, you are not basing your belief in fact or reality. I have repeatedly asked, when does God infer a soul on a living human fetus? If you can't support your belief, you can't support what you believe in.
depends on the definition of life, which is the crux of the whole issue.
Well, of course! Like I said... show me your proof of when life begins, if it's not at conception, when is it? What element has to be added to a fetus to make it human life? It's really hard for me to just accept, that something which has its own DNA, nervous system, brain function, and heartbeat, is not yet a living organism. Can you define the criteria you use to determine it is not? If you can't, I think scientifically, you must conclude, it is indeed a living human organism and life has begun for it, at the point of conception. Any other view, would have to be supported by scientific evidence, and you've yet to provide any at all.
You can also believe the moon is made of cheese, but without some evidence or proof to support your belief, you are not basing your belief in fact or reality. I have repeatedly asked, when does God infer a soul on a living human fetus? If you can't support your belief, you can't support what you believe in.
depends on the definition of life, which is the crux of the whole issue.
Well, of course! Like I said... show me your proof of when life begins, if it's not at conception, when is it? What element has to be added to a fetus to make it human life? It's really hard for me to just accept, that something which has its own DNA, nervous system, brain function, and heartbeat, is not yet a living organism. Can you define the criteria you use to determine it is not? If you can't, I think scientifically, you must conclude, it is indeed a living human organism and life has begun for it, at the point of conception. Any other view, would have to be supported by scientific evidence, and you've yet to provide any at all.