01 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBy that time the word murder had already been thrown in my face
I don't blame you for not reading your own crap, but it's on page 15, second post from the top of the page.
and morality was being discussed. I have been attempting to keep
the discussion where we all agree that is the laws of man, I try not
bring God into this, unless God is acknowledged by those I'm talking
too. What good does it do for me to talk about God's law to those
that reject it outright already, it isn't a big deal to them what the
scripture teachs they reject it out of hand. I do not have problem
one responding to and carrying on about God once He is brought
into the discussion either. Thanks though for pointing me to where
that statement was, but I don't think it is an example of what you
were suggesting.
Kelly
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's an example where you brought your God into it and suggested that HE has a position against abortion on the basis that a fetus is a human being. In fact, Exodus 21:22-24 and Mosaic Law as amplified in the Talmud clearly show that this is not the case. If you actually believe in your OT God, you would have to concede that abortion is OK with him on the basis that a fetus was never considered a human being by OT and Mosaic Law and he never explicitly banned abortion as he banned many other things in the OT like homosexuality and bestiality. My point is that you apparently don't even know your own religion and should avoid intimating that your God believes something that He apparently does not (He's an angry God, ya know).
By that time the word murder had already been thrown in my face
and morality was being discussed. I have been attempting to keep
the discussion where we all agree that is the laws of man, I try not
bring God into this, unless God is acknowledged by those I'm talking
too. What good does it do for me to talk about God's law to those
that reject it outr ...[text shortened]... re
that statement was, but I don't think it is an example of what you
were suggesting.
Kelly
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerFor all those who are pro-war, pro-capital punishment, pro-eating meat...I SUGGEST YOU GO AND ASK THE MARINES/EXECUTIONERS/SLAUGHTERHOUSE ATTENDANTS TO KILL YOU etc bla bla bla.
FOR ALL THOSE THAT ARE PRO-ABORTION, I SUGGEST YOU GO AND ASK THE DOCTOR TO ABORT YOU! MAYBE YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR MIND IF YOU START FEELING THE PAIN...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderBelievers and unbelievers like yourself are just brialliant at twisting God's word to say what they want it to say.
Go ahead, idiot. BTW your OT God says a fetus ain't a human being so abortion must be A-OK with him.
Just take it from a purely scientific point of view. Prove to me that a fetus has no feelings and cannot feel any pain...
Who are you to decide that 'fetuses' can be butchered?
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerSorry, science that contradicts the Bible must be wrong. See Exodus 21:22-24.
Believers and unbelievers like yourself are just brialliant at twisting God's word to say what they want it to say.
Just take it from a purely scientific point of view. Prove to me that a fetus has no feelings and cannot feel any pain...
Who are you to decide that 'fetuses' can be butchered?
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI 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.
What I meant, was that this fetus is an immature human. How clearer can I state it. Surely you are not so gullible as to think that a stork visits the maternity ward; or a fully formed human baby just pops out. That fetus is a developing, growing, self-contained human - it looks exactly like anyone of us at that tiny age. I suspect that you are against 3rd trimester abortions, so pray tell, where does this "parasite" metamorphose into a recognised human person? What is the mystical process? If you support full-term abortions, the same question still applies: what makes birth such a mystical barrier that 5 minutes before, its a blob of tissue and then 5 minutes after its a respected, dignified person with rights? The development of the fetus is so gradual that I can't find a non-arbitrary point where, before this point it is a blob of parasitic tissue and after it, its a recognisable human child. Giving this developing human the right to life is another debate entirely - a legal one, the minefield of which I don't want to tread until the philosophy and medical science in this debate is not entirely resolved.
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.
The "capacity for conscious self" is criteria attributed to mature humans, I find this hadly compelling when a human in the process of developing this capacity is at stake. It doesn't in any way belittle the humanity of this unborn child. This child has its own individual fingerprints, while still in the first trimester.
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.
As I told No1, human rights lean heavily on the underlying philosophy. So whether it is presently right or wrong is immaterial to this debate.
The young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness and also lacks viability.
Viability - A 5 minute old baby also needs nutrition, oxygen and a comfortable environment - what makes this any different to a fetus. You might say, viability - living independant of its host. So the recognition of an aspect as crucial as personhood is dependant on the medical technology of the day. A couple decades ago, a baby could only be kept alive at 24 weeks, this has dropped to 18 weeks in first world countries. In third world countries viability is still at about 25 weeks. So essentially you are implying that a fetus in a first world country becomes human before one in a third world country? Soon artificial wombs and incubators will be available, that can support an embryo from the word go, does this mean that you will shift your recognition of personhood with this technology?
Capacity for consciousness - As stated before, the fetus is still in its developmental stage... and this is a criteria for a mature adult, not a developing human.
The capacity for consciousness is an essential feature of the human being (used here as 'person'😉.
Mature human being...
I disagree: the young fetus is not a unique person, but rather just a parasite.
Genetically it is human. Without any external intervention - other than nutrition and oxygen - this fetus will develop into a mature human with all the capacities for reason etc. Don't you think its self-degrading to consider yourself having developed from a parasite?
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.
Yes, I would. But this is an essential feature of a fully developed mature, human being.
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?
A developing human, merits a right to life. I don't have the time to propound on the personhood issue... which is also why this post was so long winded - no time to edit it down to the sleek version it should have been.
01 Nov 05
Originally posted by Halitosei think parents should be able to abort teenagers
[b]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 f ...[text shortened]... this post was so long winded - no time to edit it down to the sleek version it should have been.
as babies are cute and teens are a pain in the a..
01 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseThanks for your reply. This looks like good stuff. I'll reply tomorrow. It's very late and LemonJello is sleepy.
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 f this post was so long winded - no time to edit it down to the sleek version it should have been.
EDIT: Too bad I am not a young fetus since then I wouldn't have the capacity to feel this sore throat I have. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.