The abortion issue...

Care.... they come from logic... not belief systems.

Not denying that I was raised Catholic or saying I do not believe in God. I am simply saying this is an issue that can be debated without bringing religion into the mix.
 
Well you said that this was an issue of Science....

Science in EVERY MANNER differentiates between a born human and an unborn human, a born animal and an unborn animal, a born bird and an unborn bird.

Are you denying Science on the one hand yet trying to use it on the other.

And at the same time are you denying religious ethics of someone while allowing your OWN personal ethics for you to come to some of your OWN conclusions or what you are calling logic? I thought that was what Athiests do?


I would say that is hypocritical, no super?

BTW, I do agree with you about people trying to act as though an unborn child is not human, that is utterly ridiculous! And I have seen an unborn child be called equivalent to a toenail.

I just think that a born child does have more personal worth than an unborn child in its earliest stages...and I do believe that it is still wrong for me to terminate an unborn child....

However, I still believe it is done without malice of any sort towards this embryo....when the woman is faced with an abortion. I've been there and know many women who have been faced with having to have an abortion too and malice towards their unborn is NOT PRESENT.

It takes malice to murder
 
Superfreak said:
"If you think I am "ignoring science" you are bitterly -- and somewhat stupidly -- mistaken, my friend."

Yes, to act as though the child is not a human being is ignoring science.
Click to expand...
To act as though all organisms of the species are automatically and "scientifically" legal persons with full human rights is to ignore all logic.
 
Science in EVERY MANNER differentiates between a born human and an unborn human, a born animal and an unborn animal, a born bird and an unborn bird.

Science most certainly doesn't differentiate in what something is. Born and unborn are conditions of something, not differentiations. Yes, an unborn something is 'different' than a born something, but that doesn't mean a thing, a 1-week-old something is different from a 100-year-old something too! It never changes what it is or differentiates in what it is.
 
To act as though all organisms of the species are automatically and "scientifically" legal persons with full human rights is to ignore all logic.

No, ignoring logic and science is what you do when you try to argue that a fetus is not a human being. You're an idiot, as just about everyone here has concluded by your lack of understanding science and biology.

There is no argument about "legal persons" or "full human rights" here, clearly, fetuses have been granted neither by the courts. That is not debatable, just as it's not debatable what species a fetus is or if it is human life. Whether or not it is morally and ethically right for us to continue denying human rights to individuals, is what the argument is.
 
I just think that a born child does have more personal worth than an unborn child in its earliest stages...and I do believe that it is still wrong for me to terminate an unborn child....

It's also wrong for YOU to detirmine an individual's worth! Go read your Bible!
 
Dixie said:

There is no argument about "legal persons" or "full human rights" here, clearly, fetuses have been granted neither by the courts. That is not debatable, just as it's not debatable what species a fetus is or if it is human life. Whether or not it is morally and ethically right for us to continue denying human rights to individuals, is what the argument is.
Click to expand...


your first statement is clearly not debatable, but your second statement clearly is. your pronouncements do not universal truths become.
 
Dixie said:
Science in EVERY MANNER differentiates between a born human and an unborn human, a born animal and an unborn animal, a born bird and an unborn bird.

Science most certainly doesn't differentiate in what something is. Born and unborn are conditions of something, not differentiations. Yes, an unborn something is 'different' than a born something, but that doesn't mean a thing, a 1-week-old something is different from a 100-year-old something too! It never changes what it is or differentiates in what it is.
Click to expand...

if you ONLY want to go by science, as you have repeatedly told me so here on this thread....then as i stated, science IS what differentiates the different stages of a born child/human and an unborn child/human.

this is why i believe it goes beyond science....it gets to what one personally believes to come to their disposition on abortion. some for religious reasons, some for personal ethical beliefs, some for what they call logic....
 
if you ONLY want to go by science, as you have repeatedly told me so here on this thread....then as i stated, science IS what differentiates the different stages of a born child/human and an unborn child/human.

Science doesn't differentiate stages, the fact there are stages is a differentiation. There are always differentiations when there are 'stages' in anything, this is how we determine stages. None of this has a thing to do with what we are discussing, you are simply stating the obvious, that a fetus is at a different stage than an infant. This is not in question.

this is why i believe it goes beyond science....it gets to what one personally believes to come to their disposition on abortion. some for religious reasons, some for personal ethical beliefs, some for what they call logic....

You can't just ignore science by stating that this "goes beyond science". It's the same as saying... some people think and believe the world is flat, and it goes beyond science.... some people believe thunder is the God's showing anger, and it goes beyond science... It's an absurd point of view, and void of substance. You are, to use a Ornut word, repudiating science in favor of subjective opinions not based in science or biological fact.
 
Now, if we were to really discuss this issue on religious grounds...

thou shall not kill....pertains to human beings because we were made in the image of God, with dominion over the earth. animals were also created by God, but not in the image of GOD, with the responsibility of taking care of eachother and the earth....animals were put on the Earth for us.

We are of greater worth than any animal that exists.

This could be one reason why an unborn child should not be killed, it would be like killing God.

We were also given the command to produce and multiply....abortion conflicts with this.

We also know that God told David, I believe, that He "knew him, before he was born..." making the life of the unborn child just as important as the life of that child if it were born....primarily because of Spiritual reasons.

We also know that Elizabeth who was with child, (John the Baptist)in her womb, said that her unborn child leaped with joy in the presence of the Lord, when Mary who had Jesus in her womb, came to visit her. This is an action of a person, only inside the womb.

I can go on and on and on why the life of the unborn is just a prescious as the life of the born if you would ALLOW religious reasons Dixie and Super....

BUT YOU are the ones that WOULDN'T allow this....BECAUSE THEN you would have to follow and believe everything else the Bible says about YOUR actions as the men you are who are fornicating....and getting these women pregnant.... you reap what you sow my dears....and so be it freewill...

care
 
Care, I don't allow religious philosophy to enter this debate because religious philosophy itself is debatable. It can't be used as a valid basis for argument because everyone has a different interpretation and opinion of religious teachings. It's also a faith-based argument, and not a scientific one. It subjects itself to scrutiny by those who don't believe in religion. For instance, an argument that abortion is wrong because my Bible says it's wrong, is not going to prove any point to someone who doesn't share my religious beliefs, nor are they obligated to accept my personal religious view as valid reasoning and legitimate debate. They can simply discount my argument by saying they don't share my religious views, and we shouldn't be trying to force our religious views down their throat. Do you see the point?

By keeping the debate confined to what we can all agree on, scientific fact, it becomes impossible for the detractors to refute the arguments. In order to do so, they must also use the boundaries of science and biological fact, and can't meander off into a make-believe world of made up terminology and opinion. It's no more valid to allow your Biblical arguments as it is to allow Ornut's contrived words like "personhood" to stand as a legitimate argument.

I can tell by your continued attempts to invoke religion, you are a guilt-ridden person, who seeks comfort in your misinterpretations of Scripture. You think that because you have found a way to make the Bible say what you want it to say, you can then use that as justification for your view, and remain on the same moral plain as true Christians, and that is fine for you if that helps you sleep at night, but it has no place in a serious debate of the issue. You can certainly hold your own in a religious debate about this, but this issue is not about religious beliefs, therefore, we have to stick to science and tangible biological facts, and avoid speculatory opinions and widely interpreted religious teachings.

I believe, and I think most agnostic and atheist people can back me up on this, human morality and ethics transcends religious belief. We can have a philosophical debate on an issue of moral significance, without introducing religious teachings. Abortion is the intentional killing of innocent human life, and regardless of religion, that is a moral and ethical issue which transcends spiritual views. I can respect and appreciate your religious views, don't get me wrong, I just don't think they are valid as points of argument in this debate, for the reasons I've explained.
 
YOUR actions as the men you are who are fornicating....and getting these women pregnant....

I want to use your words to segway into this aspect of the issue, because it hasn't been touched on very much here. People will often cite the "rights of women to choose" in this matter, but what about the father of the child? The fetus in question is 50% belonging to the father and 50% belonging to the mother, so why is the mother given full authority in the matter and the father given none? If he is to share responsibility, he should also share in the decisions and choices. It's a bit of a double standard to allow the woman to decide without the father, to either abort or carry to term, as it will be his financial and ethical responsibility to care for the child or deal with the burden of abortion as well. If anything, he should at least have an equal voice in the matter, but this is very seldom even mentioned or considered. You simply want to condemn him and make it his fault, without granting him any voice in the decisions and choice.
 
ok dixie, whatever, and tell that to YOUR pastor and the religious right!

science alone won't help you win this battle, because science shows that an embryo IS different from a newborn....and that will always be thrown back at ya! sure, science will say they are both human, but as i said, it will also show you a difference that many on your opponents side will use.

but good luck to ya!

care
 
because science shows that an embryo IS different from a newborn....and that will always be thrown back at ya! sure, science will say they are both human, but as i said, it will also show you a difference that many on your opponents side will use.

Science also shows there is a difference between a 90-year-old man and a 2-year-old girl. Difference, when dealing with humans, is not a criteria you can use to determine humanity, never has been, never will be. Sorry!

Oh sure, they can argue that point, it is irrelevant though. Just as the points made about "personhood" and the points made by those who cling to court findings and current laws. Science defines what a human is, and a fetus is as much a human as you and I. That can't be refuted or argued from any scientific standpoint, it is a fact that can't be ignored.
 
the fetus as property

I didn't say the fetus was property, idiot. Read my entire post again. You will find that I am entertaining the pro-abortion position that the fetus residing in the mother is her property. My position is, it's not her property, and she doesn't have the right to terminate its life. However, if you want to argue that it is hers because it resides in her body, it's just as valid to say it is 50% his too, and he should have a say in the matter.

Now your position on the other hand is... The Supreme Court is the law of the land, and as long as they say 'slavery' is legal, that is the law we will live by, and so... fuck off! It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, the court said it's legal, and you hope the court decision stands for many years to come! If you had been around in 1860, this would also be your position on slaves and blacks, the court said they were not human, so fuck off!
 
Superfreak said:
"It is not false at all. A "fetus" is just a stage in the development of a "human corpse", if you want to take your reductionism to its conclusion."

Wrong. A Corpse is DEAD, not alive.

"A "baby" is distinct from a "fetus." That's why there are two different words for them. A fetus will eventually become a baby, just as an embryo will become a fetus or a toddler will become a teenager (yuck). Some fetuses never become babies, however. Lots of things can go wrong."

No it is not distinct. A fetus is a stage of the babies development. As is the embryonic stage. As is infancy, toddler, teenager etc... There is NO magic baby fairy that turns it into a baby.
Click to expand...
<*sigh*> 'Round and 'round she goes and where she stops nobody knows.

Actually, I know. She never, ever does.

Look, I apologize for my snarky tone. I admit that when people try to pass this particular issue off as a matter of science it tends to make me very, very angry. Science and logic are too important to me, as is individual freedom.

For that reason, I'm going to leave this thread now. You are not just another meathead deserving of verbal abuse and I don't feel like simply lobbing rhetorical hand grenades either. This is not a fun topic, no matter how you slice it up. In parting, however, I am going to make one last stab at explaining why this isn't amenable to scientific inquiry -- and why you're just flatly wrong. ;)

In order to make the logical leap that a human fetus has human rights, you must posit that all living creatures of the species homo sapiens sapien are people. People in the ethical and legal sense, not the colloquial sense. I am not willing to make this stipulation, nor are millions of others. Consider Terri Schiavo, for example. Sperm cells and ova are living creatures of the species also: do they have legal status? I think not.

Oh, I expect I know what you're going to say. Haploid sperm and ova don't have all of the genetic material to make a full human being. Well, that's true: they aren't complete yet.

Which is exactly the comment I would make about a 6 week fetus: it's not complete yet.

Damo has suggested a cutoff point when "higher intellection" begins. Or maybe he said "higher thought." Whatever. "Higher" is a tricksey word, but it might do.

The real point here is that everyone -- absolutely everyone, unless they're willing to charge people with murder for masturbation -- makes an entirely arbitrary dividing line. Some living creatures of the species have legal rights and some don't. The only real question is where you draw that line -- and on that point science is forever silent.
 
Which is exactly the comment I would make about a 6 week fetus: it's not complete yet.

Please tell us what is needed to complete it, or stop making this false claim. You continue to assert this point, yet you have not validated it. I need to see clinical evidence to support your argument, otherwise, it is meaningless in this debate.

To my understanding of science and biology, once conception takes place, there is nothing else added to make it human life, it already IS human life. It is in the early stages of development, but this only requires the element of time to produce change in functionality or viability, it is still the same living organism, a human being.

You have no basis for your argument here, or at least you've yet to produce one. You continue to refute science and biology, and cling to some silly notion that a human fetus is not human yet. This is not proven, and can't be proven, so you run to your fake words and definitions and try to take it outside the realm of science, because that is the only way you can attempt to make the argument. You may as well claim that storks deliver babies!
 
Dixie said:
Consider Terri Schiavo, for example.

If Terri Schiavo wasn't human, what was she????
Click to expand...




She was human and allowing her to die, was the humane thing to do. People die, its a fact of life. Trying to prevent death at all costs is inhumane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top