Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Provide and argument and compel me. I swear by Almighty God, if
You have never defended anything. You have asserted your position
without defense.
The reason I have not expressed a point of view on this topic is, as
I have said, I am very confused as to which way to turn on this issue,
which I believe is very critical. My spiritual life indicates one way while
my legal life indicates the other. As such, my requ ...[text shortened]... a rational argument for the legal impermissibility of
abortion, I will adhere to it.
Nemesio
you can provide a rational argument for the legal impermissibility of
abortion, I will adhere to it."
If you write "legal impermissability" do you mean "moral impermissability" or indeed the "legal impermissability" within the US legal system ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhen you say 17 do you mean 12? He said legal it's probably right to assume he means legal. Otherwise he would have said moral.
Nemesio: "Provide and argument and compel me. I swear by Almighty God, if
you can provide a rational argument for the legal impermissibility of
abortion, I will adhere to it."
If you write "legal impermissability" do you mean "moral impermissability" or indeed the "legal impermissability" within the US legal system ?
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "No one is forcing people to have abortions."
This is not true. No one is forcing people to have abortions. They
choose to. If mothers and fathers are the only ones worthy of moral
consideration, then their decision is their right.
If the fetus is worthy of consideration, then, you are correct, the
unborn are being violated.
When you demonstrate that a fetus is worthy of moral consideration ...[text shortened]... ionally by a matter of faith), then you have no legal
foundation on which to stand.
Nemesio
Apart from the question whether this is always true, I am not pointing at the parents if I am claiming that pro-abortionists impose their will on people. Pro-abortionists, and all those who do not object to them, are imposing their views and will on all those unwanted innocent children that are going to be killed.
Nemesio: "If the fetus is worthy of consideration, then, you are correct, the unborn are being violated."
If the conception has taken place there is a human being with an identity, determined by the DNA material delivered by the ovum-cell and the sperm-cell. The identity exists from the very beginning. It is not merely human tissue, or a collection of human cells, but a human being. Because the human being has undamaged DNA material it also has the undamaged identity determined by the same DNA material. Because the human being has a UNIQUE identity from the moment of conception, the human being is a human person with all the basic human rights attached to being a human person, including the Right to Life.
Now .... you can take your bazooka, your artillery and your bombers and start firing, because YOU will NEVER state your position on the abortion issue, except that you are ALWAYS fighting the anti-abortion side on a legalistic basis. This legalistic stance is the shield you use behind which you are hiding.
Originally posted by howardgeeThis kind of thing is typical of the small minds at this forum who think that calling somebody a name can scientifically prove something.
Not only are you ignorant, but you are also a nasty, vindictive little piece of work aren't you?
Let me guess, you're no1maurder’s daddy.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI did not call you a name ...I simply described you accurately.
This kind of thing is typical of the small minds at this forum who think that calling somebody a name can scientifically prove something.
Let me guess, you're no1maurder’s daddy.
By your own criteria though, you have a small mind, since you pathetically call me No1's daddy!
What would you know about scientific proof? - as far as you are concerned if it isn't in the bible, it ain't true.
Originally posted by howardgeeIt’s been scientifically proven that birds of a feather flock together. Perhaps you’re his uncle.
I did not call you a name ...I simply described you accurately.
By your own criteria though, you have a small mind, since you pathetically call me No1's daddy!
What would you know about scientific proof? - as far as you are concerned if it isn't in the bible, it ain't true.
Originally posted by HalitoseI don't recall a Divine Command Theory debate and relish the prospect of one.
We should arrange one. I am sure we will both have plenty to say on the matter.
Perhaps one of moral accountability and responsibility to a power higher than the state...
No, not necessarily. But we can discuss that later in the DCT debate.
That zygote is a (genetically) unique, developing human being.
I am not sure how to interpret this. In one plausible interpretation, the term "human being" denotes a person. But on what grounds can we conclude that the young fetus is a person and hence has rights? It seems to me that unless you make an appeal to the potential properties of the fetus, there is really no clear way to distinguish the young fetus from a morally inconsiderable parasite. If the young fetus is just a morally inconsiderable parasite, then the woman can do whatever she likes with it. As far as I am concerned, there simply cannot be a "person" associated with a fetus that does not even possess the capacity for a conscious self. Therefore, the fetus has no rights. If the woman feels like aborting it, then what exactly is the problem? No rights have been violated, and the young fetus cannot suffer or be harmed any more than the skin on the end of your fingers can.
A young fetus is a whole growing human body contained in itself.
The young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness and also lacks viability. As far as I can see, it is just a morally inconsiderable parasite. Just as the woman may choose to have a deer tick removed from her body, so too may she choose to have the fetus aborted.
A fetus is, in totality, a complete human being
No. The fetus cannot be a "complete" human being because it does not even possess basic cognitive faculties. The capacity for consciousness is an essential feature of the human being (used here as 'person'😉.
It is not potentially a human, it is a unique human. The only difference it that it is still developing the cognitive abilities that have been arbitrarily (I use the term loosely) assigned for the recognition of its personhood.
I disagree: the young fetus is not a unique person, but rather just a parasite. And is it really that "arbitrary" to claim that the capacity for consciousness is a necessary condition for personhood? If I asked you to describe the essential features of your personhood, I think you would surely list your conscious self as an essential feature.
At any rate, you seem to be doing away with the concept of potentiality altogether since you claim that the young fetus is a person, and not just potentially so. But, to show the young fetus lacks rights, I just need to show that the young fetus lacks a necessary condition for personhood and moral consideration (such an argument has already been constructed based on the fetus' lack of the capacity for consciousness). On the other hand, in order to show the young fetus does have rights, it would seem that you need to show that the young fetus possesses certain properties that collectively establish sufficiency for personhood. What, precisely, are those properties that establish sufficiency? Based on what you said above, I am expecting them to be actual, and not merely potential, properties. But what exactly are they?
Originally posted by ivanhoeOkay, then under that view, the fetus is a parasite. The woman may choose to remove such a parasite. The parasite has no right to be there.
Looking upon the fetus as a part of the mother's body is scientifically not correct. The fetus has its own unique genetic information, DNA pattern, different from the DNA of the mother's body.
EDIT: Yes, indeed I think you are right. Therefore, the young fetus is a parasite, not part of the woman's body. I edited my above post accordingly. Thanks, ivanhoe: you are always so helpful. 😉
Originally posted by ivanhoe
Now .... you can take your bazooka, your artillery and your bombers and start firing, because YOU will NEVER state your position on the abortion issue, except that you are ALWAYS fighting the anti-abortion side on a legalistic basis. This legalistic stance is the shield you use behind which you are hiding.
Ivanhoe: You asked me for my stance. I gave it to you. What else do you want?
What further clarification do you want?
Before RedHotPawn, I was mystified about the topic. I was (and am) opposed to abortion,
but did not find the arguments on either side compelling with respect to legal consideration.
Because I believe in a soul, I believe that, at conception, something is present which is
indeed unique and worthy of preservation.
BUT: the existence of a soul is merely a theological guess/opinion. It is not something
I can prove. And, it is not something upon which a law should be based. So, before
RedHotPawn, I was confused about the stances that both sides took. To be honest I had
not researched it because I've never known anybody well who personally had an abortion.
It hadn't touched my life, and so it never occurred to me to look into it.
So, when Bbarr posted his stuff, and a number of other people in response, both for and
against, I sifted through it, thought about it and considered it. Because a soul is not barter
for an argument (since it is an unprovable, illogical concept), we can only deal with what
we know to be true.
And, what Bbarr says about a fetus is scientifically unequivocable. He is one of few who
articulates an internally consistent and logical position which relies on nothing but facts.
Shavixmir, for example, ostensibly agrees with Bbarr (his pitch is 'it's a bunch of cells,' if
you recall), but offers no reason. Everything is a bunch of cells, so he doesn't even have
an argument. #1marauder makes the claim at viability, but that doesn't hold up either,
since there are lots of inviable entities which are worthy of moral consideration.
I 'defend' Bbarr, as such, because he is the only one who provides an argument which
stands up under logical scrutiny. It galls me to admit it because, as I've said, I want the
conclusion to be 'Pro-Life.' But no logical argument that lacks a Supernatural fundament
stands up. And I cannot, in good conscience demand that people accept my illogical
Supernatural stance, as I wouldn't want to have to accept other people's.
So, as our resident pro-Lifer, I've begged you to provide me with a logical argument. I've
told you everything I can about this subject. I don't know what else to say. You seem to
have a predestined opinion that I'm a Pro-Choicer. I'm not. But I also would not vote to
repeal Roe v. Wade, because my entire stance is predicated on religion.
If the conception has taken place there is a human being with an identity, determined by the DNA material delivered by the ovum-cell and the sperm-cell. The identity exists from the very beginning. It is not merely human tissue, or a collection of human cells, but a human being. Because the human being has undamaged DNA material it also has the undamaged identity determined by the same DNA material. Because the human being has a UNIQUE identity from the moment of conception, the human being is a human person with all the basic human rights attached to being a human person, including the Right to Life.
You are asserting that identity begins at conception, but the a person can have no identity
without a brain. A braindead person has no identity, even though he may have a beating
heart, a functioning liver, or whatever else. The brain is a prerequisite for identity, but there
is no brain at conception or for much later. All that exists at conception is the possibility for
identity, or 'potential' as we have used the term in discussion. All the human being has at
conception is the DNA which one day may form his/her identity. In the absence of identity,
this entity cannot have a point of view which means things can't get better or worse for it
(to paraphrase Bbarr). If things can't get better or worse for it, then nothing that happens
can be evil or good.
Why do you feel that identity starts at the beginning?
Nemesio
Originally posted by WulebgrYou're kidding?! Right?!
This reply to
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
[b]Every sperm is sacred.
was posted in the forum on today's celebrations. Perhaps it fits better in this thread.
Originally posted by Wulebgr
Yep. As we were driving back from the junkyard where we had picked up some parts for my Dodge, my father explained the implications of t ...[text shortened]... Failure to copulate with a fertile mate is as much a sin as masturbation in the eyes of God.[/b]
No offence to your father, but:
Sperm is as much alive as your hair or cuticle. Genetically it is just an appendage of its host. You can give sperm as much nutrition and oxygen as you like, throw in a warm environment while you're at it, but that is all it will remain. A zygote is... (okay, I've said it enough on this thread, so I wont bother)
Onan was killed for not fulfilling his obligation towards his brother's wife.
I'm sure you were just joking though...😴
Originally posted by NemesioIt communitcates that there are not many funerals, not that
I remembered incorrectly and I apologize.
However, you and ChessExpress can claim that because I know of only a
few people all you want.
The fact of the matter is the number of funerals that are had for stillborn
babies and the number of funerals that are held for miscarriages is wildly
disproportationate. Unless you believe that women who miscarry ...[text shortened]... says that an embryo has
less value than a child.
What does it communicate to you?
Nemesio
the grief isn't strong like you seem to have implied.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderWhere did I say that, in what context please?
But Parrot, you're the one who brought up God, remember this:
I'd love to see how you justify the
abortions, when God says he is the one that forms us within our
mother's wombs.
Kelly
Apparently even your God knows that a fetus ain't a human being like someone who's been born according to your own Holy Book. Exodus 21:22-24. ...[text shortened]... rtion techniques long before the writing of Exodus. Better start reading your own Bible, Parrot.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: #1marauder makes the claim at viability, but that doesn't hold up either,
Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Now .... you can take your bazooka, your artillery and your bombers and start firing, because YOU will NEVER state your position on the abortion issue, except that you are ALWAYS fighting the anti-abortion side on a legalistic basis. This legalistic stance is the shield you use behind which you are hiding.
Iva ...[text shortened]... ns
can be evil or good.
Why do you feel that identity starts at the beginning?
Nemesio[/b]
since there are lots of inviable entities which are worthy of moral consideration.
You are mis-stating my position. I stated it in detail earlier in the thread to my satisfaction, but I'll briefly recap:
I believe in Social Contract theory by which Man is assumed to enter into society for the purpose of protecting his fundamental rights. Looking at it from a reasonable perspective, no woman ever would consent to surrender her self-autonomy over her own body to the State. A claim that the State can make her a criminal for what she does to an entity that is wholly contained in her own body is a severe restriction on her fundamental right to self-autonomy. There is no compelling state interest in the life of fetuses and fetuses have never in history been legally considered human beings. A fetus which can exist outside of the woman is an independent human being and entitled to rights; a fetus which cannot is not and has never been considered to possess any rights.
This is strictly a legal analysis based on whether the State should be allowed to make a woman a criminal for exercisimg her right to self-autonomy by controlling what can exist within her body. If you are discussing what your moral position should be, I can't help you. I cannot physically become pregnant and thus will never be in a position where I could possibly have to make a decision to abort or not. Since it is impossible that I would ever be in a position to make a moral decision of this sort, I don't take any moral stand at all. I leave that to the "holier than thous" that presume to judge other human being's behaviors when they can comfortably know they will never face such a choice. In the words of the great philosopher Earl Butz as far as I'm concerned: "You no playa the game, you no makea the rules".
EDIT: To clarify further, even if I personally believed that, for whatever reason, abortion was immoral, I would still oppose criminal abortion laws as an improper exercise of government power in a country based on individual rights and limited government.
EDIT: As stated more succintly on page 4;
Personally, as a Lockean fundamental rights theorist I believe that the mother has a right to self-autonomy over her body, that she has never agreed to relinquish that right to the State, that a fetus is wholly contained in her body and therefore she can do with it what she pleases in the same manner she can use mouthwash to kill germs (life) or have a tapeworm (life) removed. Once a fetus obtains viability and can exist as a seperate entity (i.e. outside of another person's body), it has gained the right of self-autonomy as well so it cannot be aborted in the 3rd trimester (in actual practice this is such a rare occurence it hardly matters). Attempts to declare that a fetus has rights before viability diminish a woman's right to self-autonomy in a manner she would not have agreed to and violate the Social Contract.