24 Aug 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieWho are you to think you can judge God?
how many babies did god abort during the flood?
how many babies did god abort at soddem?
how many caananite babies did god abort?
how many babies has god aborted by designing they female body wrong?
how many babies has god aborted by not providing enough food and water to their mothers?
how many babies has god aborted because he told the pope that ...[text shortened]... doesnt believe in setting a good example to his flock. one rules for them and no rules for him.
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI said nothing about 'human being'. I was pointing out that 'potential' can be traced back to the beginning of the universe at least, so any argument based on 'potential' needs more justification than that.
In this line of reasoning a human being never starts its existence.
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitNothing that you said nullifies the fact that the human fertilized egg is a potential human being, does it?
Point is, saying something is not a potential human even though it has what all potential humans must have (the genetic code) just because it can't become human on its own is an empty statement. The fertilized egg can't become human on its own, either. And it's still just a potential human at that point, with respect to personhood.
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI'm glad you agree the argument is meaningless, because it's your argument. 😛
The argument is meaningless because there is no living organism to be found in this universe that can be sustained by itself without taking energy from outside. By definition such a being would exist outside of this universe, everything is interconnected. I hope we agree that we cannot kill any being we like because it is dependent on it's envi ...[text shortened]... he existence of the human life, and volitional activities that lead to the end of this process.
Dependence on energy says nothing about whether a fetus is a human person. I am not sure where you got that idea.
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitWhat I meant to show is that the argument that a fetus can be killed because it is a “parasite” is meaningless because all living beings are parasites. They all need to be in the right environment and be fed the right energy. And of course we can't go around killing any human because of this.
I'm glad you agree the argument is meaningless, because it's your argument. 😛
Dependence on energy says nothing about whether a fetus is a human person. I am not sure where you got that idea.
What I also tried to show is that you cannot point to a beginning of a human life at a specfic point in time, since it is an endless process of cause and effect. Because of this it is impossible to define when this process starts and when it can be considered a human.
What you can find is an intentional act (sex leading to conception) that eventually turns the process into a grown adult and it is generally considered immoral to kill a grown adult.
You can also find intentional acts that end this process and prevent it from turning into a human adult (abortion).
A fetus only start to be a problem for the woman after conception, since problems should be solved at their roots this is where the woman has all the free choice she needs to prevent this problem from occurring. Of course there is the exception of rape.
24 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadMaybe I should not have used the term “potential”, what I meant was “An eventual being of which it is already agreed to be immoral to kill” (a grown human adult). I used the term potential because it can be killed before it grows into an adult.
I said nothing about 'human being'. I was pointing out that 'potential' can be traced back to the beginning of the universe at least, so any argument based on 'potential' needs more justification than that.
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardTo me, human persons have rights, not mere collections of live human cells. And we have no choice but to define the transition point as best we can. Our law must take some position on the issue.
What I meant to show is that the argument that a fetus can be killed because it is a “parasite” is meaningless because all living beings are parasites. They all need to be in the right environment and be fed the right energy. And of course we can't go around killing any human because of this.
What I also tried to show is that you cannot poin ...[text shortened]... ice she needs to prevent this problem from occurring. Of course there is the exception of rape.
So, I think we come up with the closest approximation of when a human embryo becomes a person, and legislate accordingly. I have given the criteria that I think should be used.
I fully agree that preventative birth control is preferable to abortion. However, birth control may fail, and situations change. For example, a woman's partner may leave in the middle of the pregnancy, thus making the prospects of raising a child more ominous. If the fetus inside of her isn't yet a person, I see no reason why the state should intervene in her affairs.
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt is best to err on the side of caution and that is the reason many wish to use the time of conception as that transition point.
To me, human persons have rights, not mere collections of live human cells. And we have no choice but to define the transition point as best we can. Our law must take some position on the issue.
So, I think we come up with the closest approximation of when a human embryo becomes a person, and legislate accordingly. I have given the criteria that I thi ...[text shortened]... side of her isn't yet a person, I see no reason why the state should intervene in her affairs.
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by Zahlanzi["I guess a woman should just stay at home and not do anything." ]
if the woman is forced into sex, she didn't agree to the binding contract i mentioned. therefore she shouldn't be forced to carry a monster's child to term(even if the child has no fault). incest has a potential to cause the child to have a genetic fault or illness. abortion should be allowed in this case too. if a crippling genetic disease is discovered, a ...[text shortened]... roven to be harmful to both the child and the mother and with no or insignificant benefits
-to which you replied -
"a woman must also provide for her child."
(Sorry if someone else has also mentioned this, i am just going through this thread now), but did you intend to sound totally sexist with that comment or was it just a mistake on your part?
(nothing which came after seemed to really clarify your attitude towards women so I have to take you on these words. Please, feel free to amend or explain this otherwise I would have to label you "sexist" )
So they invent condoms and women have had their "sexual revolution(s)" and men ...err .. well some of them are waking up to 'real sexuality'.
I am reminded of a scene in a show two young engaged, Christian kids are fornicating anally, because in their view it is not breaking their Christian commitments. 🙄
Those that hold the view that sex is just for procreation are on the way out. In my book that is anti-evolutionary and if abortion is made totally illegal then genuine cases will seek "backyard (illegal) abortions ", which must pose more of a health risk to everyone concerned.