abortion

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I'm fairly confident it won't turn out to awfully far from similar notions I encountered in a graduate course in cognitive linguistics in which we read a fair amount of scientific literature concerned with the evolution of the human brain (even though I took this course at a college that eternally plays second fiddle to that other college in Seattle).

... and I am being vague ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Bbarr: "I have never claimed I am indifferent to political developments in other countries. That is simply a lie on your part. "

Be carefull Bbarr. You stated you are not interested in the Dutch developments.

Bbarr: "If you are co ...[text shortened]... ed Parenthood and NOBODY on the left is seriously interested in.

I am not interested in Dutch developments as they relate to my philosophical position, because they don't relate to my position at all. I am interested in them as political developments. In the context of a discussion concerning the morality of abortion, these developments are irrelevant.

The membership of NARAL and Planned Parenthood is quite diverse, so I seriously doubt that nobody within these organizations is interested in the theoretical underpinnings of their views on abortion. Of course, these are not academic organizations, but political ones, so it is no wonder that you will not find sophisticated philosophical discussions on their websites. I know many people who belong to these organizations, amongst them academics, who are familiar with the philosophical literature relating to abortion and who are interested in neo-kantian ethical theories, as well as utilitarianism, virtue theory, etc. So, excuse me if I ignore henceforth your ignorant hyperbole.

Also, I was wondering:

Why should we consider a zygote a person? I take it as untendentious that rocks and plants and cells are not persons. So, if zygotes are persons, then zygotes must have some property that rocks and plants and cells lack. What property do you think this is, Ivanhoe? If you specify the property in question, I'll give you an argument aiming to show that that property is neither necessary nor sufficient for personhood. So, all you have to do is come up with potential properties criterial for personhood, and I'll do all the argumentative work (as usual, when we discuss this issue).

Put up or shut up, Ivan-troll.

Originally posted by bbarr
I am not interested in Dutch developments as they relate to my philosophical position, because they don't relate to my position at all. I am interested in them as political developments. In the context of a discussion concerning the morality of abortion, these developments are irrelevant.

The membership of NARAL and Planned Parenthood is quite diverse, s ...[text shortened]... tative work (as usual, when we discuss this issue).

Put up or shut up, Ivan-troll.


[/b]

Let me reiterate Bbrarr:

In the abortion debate, medical science has already proven the humanity of the unborn child. What remains is a moral and ethical dilemma:

Is it morally acceptable to kill innocent life to solve a social ill?

Many ethicists say that a child should be able to survive outside the womb for it to be accepted as a human. Wha'd'ya think?

Originally posted by Halitose
Is it morally acceptable to kill innocent life to solve a social ill?

Is life truly innocent in any significant sense if it has yet to face a moral choice?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Is life truly innocent in any significant sense if it has yet to face a moral choice?

It hasn't YET committed any crime and should have the same basic right to life as of those who have had to face moral choices.

But I get your point that innocense can be defined as: Having chosen to NOT commit any crime.

Originally posted by Halitose
Let me reiterate Bbrarr:

In the abortion debate, medical science has already proven the humanity of the unborn child. What remains is a moral and ethical dilemma:

Is it morally acceptable to kill innocent life to solve a social ill?

Many ethicists say that a child should be able to survive outside the womb for it to be accepted as a human. Wha'd'ya think?

I have no idea what you mean when you claim that medical science has "proved the humanity of the unborn child". If you mean simply that medical science has proven that fetuses are genetically human, then I agree completely. Of course, this is irrelevant to the moral issue, as being genetically human is neither necessary nor sufficient for having rights, being a person, being morally considerable, etc.

We justifiably kill plants to solve the social ill of hunger. We justifiably kill bacteria to solve the social ill of disease. Plants and bacteria are innocent forms of life by any measure, so the answer to your question is "yes".

I think viability is a stupid criterion for moral considerability, and an even more stupid criterion for being considered human. Please note, again, that being morally considerable and being human are not the same thing.

Originally posted by Halitose
It hasn't YET committed any crime and should have the same basic right to life as of those who have had to face moral choices.

But I get your point that innocense can be defined as: Having chosen to NOT commit any crime.

Why should the fetus have a basic right to life? What property does the fetus possess in virtue of which it has such a basic right?

Originally posted by bbarr
Why should the fetus have a basic right to life? What property does the fetus possess in virtue of which it has such a basic right?

lol was shooting blanks

Do you think the anti-abortion laws that were new to the US had anything to do with the reaction of the pin-head to the new fangled theory of evolution since prior to 1800's there were no abortion laws

and frpm a site :
Prior to 380 CE, many Christian leaders issued unqualified condemnations of abortion. The Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"😉, which was written circa 100 - 150 CE for the guidance of Christians, also forbids abortion. So did two church synods in the early 4th century.
The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul: "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." (7:3)

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 1 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).
In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation." gained acceptance within the medical and church communities. 2 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at the time of conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church had previously taught.
Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

notice the date 1869 Darwin had replaced LaMarck by then and
the evolution idea was spreading.

Originally posted by bbarr
Why should the fetus have a basic right to life? What property does the fetus possess in virtue of which it has such a basic right?

As the early Christian writer Tertullian pointed out, the law of Moses ordered strict penalties for causing an abortion. We read, "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [Hebrew: "so that her child comes out"], but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Ex. 21:22–24).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

why does it not surprise me that that lunatic Tertullian was involved here somewhere.

oh my...
The Apocalypse of Peter
"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

and that is absolutely not in the Gnostic : The Apocalypse of Peter

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/naghamm/apopet.html

Originally posted by Phlabibit
At the end of the day, your thinking is not 'functionally complex' on the subject.

P-

At the end of the day it isn't complex in my opinion, nothing complex
about that question, death or life?
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
We don't abort children, that is infanticide. We abort fetuses. Further, why should anybody be concerned about the life of the fetus prior to the third trimester? No harm, no foul.

Have you seen the 4D pictures from National Geographic? They show
the life of the child from 8 weeks old on, it was amazing what those
pictures showed. Some had one playing with it nose, others yawning,
and so on. I’d say no harm no foul isn’t really the case.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
get off that slippery slope.

and the issue is the state not having the lawful power to pass laws purely for religious reasons.

Purely religious reasons, that sounds a bit vague to me, is it okay
if the law has some religious reasons to it? Murder is forbidden as
a religious reason, should we allow that because of the religous
connection? Where is the line you really want to draw, is it that you
simply want what you want?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Murder is forbidden as a religious reason, ...

Where do you get this stuff?

Every society opposes murder, but they are neither equally religious, nor do they practice the same religions.

Christian societies have generally excluded the killing of infidels from the category of murder. Definitions of murder vary, but not opposition to it.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Where do you get this stuff?

Every society opposes murder, but they are neither equally religious, nor do they practice the same religions.

Christian societies have generally excluded the killing of infidels from the category of murder. Definitions of murder vary, but not opposition to it.

In the context of the conversation, follow it you will see where it
came from.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
In the context of the conversation, follow it you will see where it
came from.
Kelly

All I can see in my efforts to follow the debate is your effort to alter terminology from abortions prior to the third trimester to murder. I am well aware that many Christians prefer to use such terminology; I'm asking you to support your claim from evidence.

You are offering rhetoric where your arguments have failed.

If I missed something, please point it out.