Abortion Is Murder [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Spiritus Naturae

February 22nd 2006, 04:25 PM

Dr. Jack Bauer

February 24th 2006, 06:31 AM

Just a brief quip on my part - abortion, the termination of a pregnancy, should not be illegal.

Feticide, intentionally killing a foetus, should be illegal. Want an abortion? Fine, just do it without killing.

The Wolf

April 19th 2006, 05:23 PM

It is truly shocking and disgusting that we kill so many innocent children in our "civilised" Western society.
And all in the cause of the dog faced feminists. :sigh:

honey~combs

April 19th 2006, 06:05 PM

Abortion is child-sacrifice to Moloch.

Dr. Jack Bauer

April 19th 2006, 06:21 PM

It all seems so unconscionable to me and should to any compassionate human being.

Question is what would happen if we outlawed abortion? If we made the practice illegal as it once was? There certainly would be doctors and individuals willing to break the law in an act of 'civil disobedience', for the 'reproductive rights' of the woman, or for a myriad of other reasons.One thing that would happen is that far fewer abortions would occur. Would some people seek illegal abortions? Sure, but there is no reason to suppose that most would. More lenient abortion laws result in more abortions, and stricter abortion laws result in fewer. That is a brute fact.

dizzle

April 19th 2006, 06:58 PM

One thing that would happen is that far fewer abortions would occur. Would some people seek illegal abortions? Sure, but there is no reason to suppose that most would. More lenient abortion laws result in more abortions, and stricter abortion laws result in fewer. That is a brute fact.

It is. I certainly would not have viewed that as an option had it been illegal and there would have been two more people in the world about the ages of 17 and 19

Bernie

April 21st 2006, 09:30 AM

The Christian community should certainly step into the breach, advocating and proclaiming alternatives to abortion for women who do not want their children or cannot care for them. It is not enough to simply say don't do it. We should show them and the culture at large, " a more excellent way".
A moral/ethical problem arises with shrugging the shoulders and accepting that immoral practices are legal and learning how to live with them. If, as orthodox Christianity generally contends, the introduction of various forms of evil is bad for society as a whole, as the Bible certainly suggests, then isn't to not stand firmly against those acts we deem to be evil on some level a tacit assent to the evil itself?

I've sometimes wondered if a legal battle could be mounted against certain evils like this if they could be shown to damage society generally, but this would be an uphill battle. Opposition to this act of playing by society's rules [legal system] would be fierce.

HerodionRomulus

April 21st 2006, 11:33 AM

Originally posted at my 'Xanga'-"...with all humility of mind." (http://www.xanga.com/SpiritusNaturae).

The Christian community should certainly step into the breach, advocating and proclaiming alternatives to abortion for women who do not want their children or cannot care for them. It is not enough to simply say don't do it. We should show them and the culture at large, " a more excellent way". We should be out promoting a culture fully surrendered to Christ's teaching. As a community of believers, here in the states and across the globe, we could absolutely do so much more to follow Christ's directives. Caring for the widow and the orphan. Helping those who are truly in need. We shouldn't simply cater to the physical needs of those who are hungered and hurting, but to their spiritual needs as well. If in our tending to the needs of others we do not take opportunity to proclaim the reality of Christ and His Kingdom, we do a great disservice to those we intend to help.

Well said.
Anti-abortion people are often seen as un-interested in options beyond making noise and casting aspersions on the other side.
Few churches actively promote adoption, few advocate comprehensive education and use of contraceptives. Preventing conception is the best way to eliminate abortion.

Just to be nit-picky, but abortion is not murder. It is legal, only unlawful killing can be murder. It's like capital punishment is not murder because it is the state doing the murdering.
But both are wrong. ALL human life is precious.

1.61803399

April 24th 2006, 11:26 PM

Well said.
Anti-abortion people are often seen as un-interested in options beyond making noise and casting aspersions on the other side.
Few churches actively promote adoption, few advocate comprehensive education and use of contraceptives. Preventing conception is the best way to eliminate abortion.

The only moral way to prevent conception is to abstain. (the two-fold purpose of the marriage act, unitive and procreative, both must be maintained)

Just to be nit-picky, but abortion is not . It is legal, only unlawful can be . It's like capital punishment is not because it is the state doing the ing.
But both are wrong. ALL human life is precious.

By your argument... the holocaust was not .
No, just because it is "legal" does not keep it from being . Taking an life is , regardless of who or why.

Capital punishment, on the other hand is taking of a guilty life, to protect others. It is unnecessary in most of the western world, but in some places it is absolutely necessary (ie Iraq).

chris

Larry Ancil

April 26th 2006, 02:34 PM

The only moral way to prevent conception is to abstain. (the two-fold purpose of the marriage act, unitive and procreative, both must be maintained)

I'd be interested in seeing this picked up in a different thread, so as not to spam this one. I'll ask more later, when that thread is going.

elysian

April 26th 2006, 03:09 PM

One of the fastest and most effective ways to cut down on the numbers of abortions is to stop any and all government subsidy of it (i.e. government funding of Planned Parenthood and any other agency that performs abortions.)

There is a simple rule of economics: you get more of anything you subsidize. Stop subsidizing a behavior or a product, etc. and you will get less of of it.

Another important point that I think most pro-choice advocates overlook:
Many women and girls are coerced or threatened into abortion by boyfriends, husbands and even parents. Their "choice" boils down to: "get an abortion or lose your home and family." I have had friends who had abortions as the result of this kind of "choice," and if my ex-husband and his mother had once had their way, it would have happened to me too. I am thankful that by God's grace I was able to stand up to their threats and resist their bribes (my son is almost 15) but I know it's a difficult choice. I had somewhere to go- my parents backed me up- but for so many girls and women their own parents are the very ones making the abortion "choice" for them.

The church and individual Christians have the obligation to be advocates for those who choose life but have no support network, who need real help.

1.61803399

April 26th 2006, 11:28 PM

I'd be interested in seeing this picked up in a different thread, so as not to spam this one. I'll ask more later, when that thread is going.

done: thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1473047#post1473047)

chris

no reply from h_r yet, more's the pity

Tickle Me Mercury

April 27th 2006, 06:10 PM

Just to clarify my beliefs: I am pro-choice, but I in no way think that abortions should be government subsidized. There is no reason that people who are against abortion should have their taxes pay for something that they find to be abhorrent.

Another important point that I think most pro-choice advocates overlook:
Many women and girls are coerced or threatened into abortion by boyfriends, husbands and even parents. Their "choice" boils down to: "get an abortion or lose your home and family." I have had friends who had abortions as the result of this kind of "choice," and if my ex-husband and his mother had once had their way, it would have happened to me too. I am thankful that by God's grace I was able to stand up to their threats and resist their bribes (my son is almost 15) but I know it's a difficult choice. I had somewhere to go- my parents backed me up- but for so many girls and women their own parents are the very ones making the abortion "choice" for them.

I'm sorry that you had to face such terrible people who attempted to coerce you in that manner. That's not right. However, I do feel the need to ask: is there statistical information available as to how many women are coerced into abortions by outside parties? I've seen this type of anecdotal evidence used in debates on this issue, but never anything substantial.

The church and individual Christians have the obligation to be advocates for those who choose life but have no support network, who need real help.

This is commendable. Again, I'm certain that we differ on this subject, and I don't think this is the place for that particular debate, but I do think that people who do hold a pro-life stance should take that proactive measure.

edit: I didn't realize that this was in a Christian only forum, as I linked to it from a POTD. I apologize, and I'll make an apropraite thread to discuss the information I asked for.

HerodionRomulus

April 28th 2006, 01:32 PM

Just to clarify my beliefs: I am pro-choice, but I in no way think that abortions should be government subsidized. There is no reason that people who are against abortion should have their taxes pay for something that they find to be abhorrent.
[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Good idea. Can I not pay taxes which go to support war and other anti-life activities? "Blessed are the peacemakers"

Darth Executor

April 28th 2006, 02:12 PM

Good idea. Can I not pay taxes which go to support war and other anti-life activities? "Blessed are the peacemakers"

Sure, as long as you are removed from the country so that other people's tax dollars don't pay for your defense. "So Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the LORD's vengeance on Midian.""

Griffs

April 30th 2006, 01:01 PM

I'm sorry, I just want some clarification here on a couple of points:

a) What is it about abortion that makes it wrong?
I assume the response will be something like, "Fetuses are people. Because people are made in the image of God, it's morally wrong to kill people. Therefore, abortion is wrong." But I want to know what it is about human beings that makes killing them wrong. Is there something intrinsically valuable about the species homo sapiens? That is, is there something intrinsically worthy about our DNA (and things that carry our DNA)?Or is the intrinsic value found in personhood, i.e. in rational agents who can deliberate, make choices, etc.? Or is it self-consciousness--and if so, is it the ability or just the potential ability to reflect? Where do we locate our value? A clear answer to this question is going to make a big difference regarding what it is that makes abortion "wrongful killing," i.e. murder.

b) Is it ever better for a person not to exist than to exist?
Is it ever better for an already existing person not to exist/be alive anymore? Can we think of any situations where we would say "It would be better for him/her not to exist" when that person has not committed any crime? (I assume some of you pro-lifers are pro-capital punishment and that your claim that this is a consistent position rests on the moral culpability of the criminal, while the fetus is innocent. But I'm not asking about these cases. I'm asking whether it's ever better for an "innocent" person not to exist.) There's also the closely related question: If it is better to exist than not, are we indirectly harming "potential people" by not bringing them into existence?

c) Is a woman's agency (personhood) and autonomy violated when she is not given a choice re: her pregnancy? If so, does it matter? If not, how much control can someone have over the body of an individual before her autonomy is threatened?

And a couple of clarificatory points:
In the United States, a woman can abort her child anytime during her pregnancy, even in the 9th month.
I'm pretty sure that many states in the U.S. have resitrictions on third trimester abortions. It's not like a woman who's 9 mos. pregnant can just walk into a clinic, make an appointment, and have an abortion 24 hours later.

Also, I'd appreciate it if we could keep appeals to emotion and pity to a minimum. People obviously feel very strongly about this subject, but it just ends up being question-begging when someone says as a premise that "abortion is so clearly evil" or "this evil action" or "that poor fetus". I understand why this is such an emotionally-charged subject, but I find that the best way to talk about this (without people talking past each other) is to be clear on what we mean by our terms and what underlying assumptions drive our positions.

I look forward to checking out your answers to these questions! I really hope it makes some stuff clear to me!

Best,
Griffs

micah4

May 1st 2006, 08:24 AM

c) Is a woman's agency (personhood) and autonomy violated when she is not given a choice re: her pregnancy?

Do you mean cases of rape, or do you mean not given a choice to have an abortion? In most cases of abortion, the woman chose to jump in the sack and get pregnant. Very few abortions actually involve cases where the woman wasn't given a choice re: her pregnancy.

Griffs

May 2nd 2006, 12:15 PM

Do you mean cases of rape, or do you mean not given a choice to have an abortion? In most cases of abortion, the woman chose to jump in the sack and get pregnant. Very few abortions actually involve cases where the woman wasn't given a choice re: her pregnancy.

I was just wondering if people thought that a woman's autonomy/agency is threatened if they remove her legal right to an abortion. OF COURSE her agency is violated when she's raped!

A further question: If I open my windows to get fresh air on a 90-degree day (my house is very stuffy!), and a vagrant enters into my house thru the window (always a real possibility!), does he have a right to camp out in my kitchen, eat my food, depend on me for shelter, clothing, etc.?

OR is this a weakanalogy? If so, what are the relevant disanalogies?

I'm not taking a definite side here. I'm just trying to get clear on the issues.

Best,
Griffs

1.61803399

May 2nd 2006, 12:33 PM

I was just wondering if people thought that a woman's autonomy/agency is threatened if they remove her legal right to an abortion. OF COURSE her agency is violated when she's d!

A further question: If I open my windows to get fresh air on a 90-degree day (my house is very stuffy!), and a vagrant enters into my house thru the window (always a real possibility!), does he have a right to camp out in my kitchen, eat my food, depend on me for shelter, clothing, etc.?

OR is this a weakanalogy? If so, what are the relevant disanalogies?

I'm not taking a definite side here. I'm just trying to get clear on the issues.

Best,
Griffs

Do we have the right to limit someone else's autonomy/agency?
What if it involves the of another?

As to your analogy, the question isn't whether he has a right to depend on you (although I find it odd to refer to a helpless infant in such a way), as much as it is do you have a right to kill him for being in your house?

chris

(btw: where'd you get that avatar?)

Griffs

May 7th 2006, 12:53 PM

Do we have the right to limit someone else's autonomy/agency?
What if it involves the of another?
I assume you meant to put 'life' in there. Unless you left it blank on purpose. I guess we're going to have to do the whole "Is a fetus a person?" song and dance. I say no. Your turn. ;-)

As to your analogy, the question isn't whether he has a right to depend on you (although I find it odd to refer to a helpless infant in such a way), as much as it is do you have a right to kill him for being in your house?
What if the analogy claims instead that a seed blows in through the open window (despite the mesh screen you've installed) and a plant starts to grow? Are you required to water it? (Or, are you justified in uprooting it?) What if that seed grows into a turtle? What about human being seeds?

I do actually like some of the analogies put forth in Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "In Defense of Abortion." I'm not sure they'd be convincing to pro-lifers, but they do speak to our moral intuitions. For a great outline of the analogies she proposes, check out: http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/thomson_on_abortion_outline.htm.

A little bit of a red herring here, but a vaguely related question: Is all premarital sex morally wrong?

(btw: where'd you get that avatar?)
A German friend of mine sent it to me with the caption: "This is what happens when you elect a German pope!"

Take care,
Griffs

1.61803399

May 7th 2006, 11:43 PM

I assume you meant to put 'life' in there. Unless you left it blank on purpose. I guess we're going to have to do the whole "Is a fetus a person?" song and dance. I say no. Your turn. ;-)

Yes, you read it right. As to the "Is a fetus a person?" question, obviously we disagree. So let's start by defining "person":
bold are most relevant
struck are irrelevant(at least for the moment)
From Webster's
Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both es
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

From Answers.com
per·son (pûr'sən) pronunciation
n.

1. A living human.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar.
1. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
2. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: “Well, in her person, I say I will not have you” (Shakespeare).

#1 for both is human (living human from answers.com), and the fetus is demonstrably human. (it possesses distinct human DNA) It is also alive. (It is, from the moment of conception, a living cell, growing and reproducing).

If there is any other requirement for personhood, I've yet to hear sufficient case for it (the set {living human} is a subset of {persons})

What if the analogy claims instead that a seed blows in through the open window (despite the mesh screen you've installed) and a plant starts to grow? Are you required to water it? (Or, are you justified in uprooting it?) What if that seed grows into a turtle? What about human being seeds?

Given your view on the personhood of an unborn child, you may see some logic in this, but as I find ther previous claim absurd I see no merit in this new analogy. I of course could put forth my own correction to the vagrant analogy:

***Warning***, for those who may be disturbed by reading what some common abortion procedures entail, I am not pulling my punches. I am putting the situation graphically, (that's what analogies are for, right :wink:) because this is a false analogy at this point, and getting worse with each reiterration.

1) Instead of a vagrant it is a starving orphan.

2) Do you have the right to burn her skin off with acid?
3) Do you have the right to cut a hole in her skull and suck out her brain with your vacuum?

I do actually like some of the analogies put forth in Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "In Defense of Abortion." I'm not sure they'd be convincing to pro-lifers, but they do speak to our moral intuitions. For a great outline of the analogies she proposes, check out:

I think the analogies are only a way of avoiding the real issue at hand (its easy to deal with an outlandish hypothetical, another to deal with a real situation).

So, a real-life situation: Twin sisters give birth to boys the same week. One conceived with her husband, the other was d. Is there any difference in the personhood of the two infants? Go back eight months, is there any difference other than the circumstances of their conception? Why then would we presume to say it is permissible to kill one, but not the other?

A little bit of a red herring here, but a vaguely related question: Is all premarital morally wrong?

Yes. (deliberate logical fallacy doesn't even deserve a one word answer, but I am curious to see where the rabbit hole goes... :wink: )

chris

Griffs

May 9th 2006, 04:13 PM

#1 for both is human (living human from answers.com), and the fetus is demonstrably human. (it possesses distinct human DNA) It is also alive. (It is, from the moment of conception, a living cell, growing and reproducing).
First, I don't think dictionary definitions are authoritative for philosophical concepts. I always encourage my students to avoid them when writing papers, since they're often very vague, or they define only the loose common usage of a term. Obviously, when we're talking about something as important as personhood, we want to be as specific as possible.

Second, I am not disputing that fetuses (at least at some point) are human beings, or of the species homo sapiens. I just don't think that the term "human being" is necessarily co-extensive with the term "person."

If there is any other requirement for personhood, I've yet to hear sufficient case for it (the set {living human} is a subset of {persons})
As I have said, I don't think that all living humans are persons - and neither do I think that all persons are necesarily human beings! To sketch a rough picture, I think that at least some of the necessary conditions for personhood are as follows:
-self-consciousness
-the ability to recognize reasons and to act on those reasons (i.e. to make rational decisions/choices) - that is, to be an agent
-a sense of the normative or moral
-certain psychological characteristics: maybe memory, intentions, reflection, etc.

Surely there are more, but I think these might be the essential ones. Now this is not to say that non-persons (animals, fetuses, infants, small children, senile people with Alzheimers, severely retarded human beings, etc.) have no interests or rights - of course they do! However, I think that sometimes persons (who I take to be intrinsically valuable based on their rational capacities) have overriding interests and reasons that non-persons do not have, and this is what is at issue in the abortion debate. I do not think that all instances of abortion are morally permissible, but some of them are.

Kant writes in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals:
...every rational being, exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will...Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have, nevertheless, if they are not rational beings, only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves.

Now I take issue with calling infants, for example, mere "things." They are analogously related to persons, and they are human. We do have certain moral obligations to them. But they don't have the intrinsic value that persons have, so while there may be reasons that harming them is wrong, it is not prima facie wrong. Now I still struggle with issues of personal identity and when personhood develops and what kind of obligations we have toward non-persons (I'm not a vegetarian, for example, but I am against factory farming) - and this is something I'm still working on. Hence my participation in this discussion. But I don't think that abortion is necessarily a wrong act.

So, a real-life situation: Twin sisters give birth to boys the same week. One conceived with her husband, the other was d. Is there any difference in the personhood of the two infants? Go back eight months, is there any difference other than the circumstances of their conception? Why then would we presume to say it is permissible to kill one, but not the other?
I assume you meant "raped." There is no difference in the personhood of either infant - they're both non-persons. I think we need to look at the PERSONS involved here. The former woman may have more obligations to her fetus and more reason to bring it to term than the latter (presumably, in some sense, she is reponsible for its conception), insofar as her situation allows her to be responsible for it (she's married, and presumably has a supportive husband). The latter was forced into the situation in which she finds herself (she made no choice that resulted in her pregnancy), and there are several other factors regarding her own intrinsic value that may be morally overriding than any obligation to the fetus. But in neither case is the abortion necessarily wrong. (However, if it's wrong at all, it would likely be in the case of the former woman - but we'd have to look at her situation more carefully. And even if we do, these decisions obvsiouly fall into a very grey area.)

Yes. (deliberate logical fallacy doesn't even deserve a one word answer, but I am curious to see where the rabbit hole goes... :wink: )
Fair enough. Why is every instance of premarital sex wrong? (Maybe we should start a whole new thread for this one!) I'll go ahead and do it.

Down the rabbit hole we go!!!

Nice talking with you, BTW.

Griffs

Snarf

May 10th 2006, 10:36 AM

Do you mean cases of rape, or do you mean not given a choice to have an abortion? In most cases of abortion, the woman chose to jump in the sack and get pregnant. Very few abortions actually involve cases where the woman wasn't given a choice re: her pregnancy.

And how do you know that most women aren't coerced by their boyfriends?

Would it be OK to assume that because most lynchings occurred in the Bible belt, by those who were conservative Christians who held parties attended by many other conservative Christians, that a conservative christian's favorite pasttime is stringing up people?

Snarf

May 10th 2006, 10:39 AM

Yes, you read it right. As to the "Is a fetus a person?" question, obviously we disagree. So let's start by defining "person":
bold are most relevant
struck are irrelevant(at least for the moment)
From Webster's
Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: 'p&r-s&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA
1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both es
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : SELF
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

From Answers.com
per·son (pûr'sən) pronunciation
n.

1. A living human.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar.
1. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
2. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: “Well, in her person, I say I will not have you” (Shakespeare).

#1 for both is human (living human from answers.com), and the fetus is demonstrably human. (it possesses distinct human DNA) It is also alive. (It is, from the moment of conception, a living cell, growing and reproducing).

If there is any other requirement for personhood, I've yet to hear sufficient case for it (the set {living human} is a subset of {persons})

A skin cell also posesses distinct DNA and is alive-does that make it a human being?

1.61803399

May 11th 2006, 12:53 AM

Ok, assuming unborn babies are persons, would abortion be wrong?

As I have said, I don't think that all living humans are persons - and neither do I think that all persons are necesarily human beings! To sketch a rough picture, I think that at least some of the necessary conditions for personhood are as follows:
-self-consciousness
-the ability to recognize reasons and to act on those reasons (i.e. to make rational decisions/choices) - that is, to be an agent
-a sense of the normative or moral
-certain psychological characteristics: maybe memory, intentions, reflection, etc.

Surely there are more, but I think these might be the essential ones. Now this is not to say that non-persons (animals, fetuses, infants, small children, senile people with Alzheimers, severely retarded human beings, etc.) have no interests or rights - of course they do! However, I think that sometimes persons (who I take to be intrinsically valuable based on their rational capacities) have overriding interests and reasons that non-persons do not have, and this is what is at issue in the abortion debate. I do not think that all instances of abortion are morally permissible, but some of them are.

As a Christian, I believe in many persons who are not humans (the Big Three, plus the angels and demons). Biblically, it would seem that we are what and who we are from the womb. The change from the animal state to personhood would seem to be a change in the very nature of a being. But it would also seem that we would lose this personhood at times during our lives (ie sleep, coma, under the influence, etc.). Also, most lose that nature permanatly as they age.

Again, it seems that all those of such an animalisitc nature are of equal value, or at least all humans of that nature would be accorded the same rights.

(On a side note, it would be intresting to hear what circumstances you do oppose abortion on.)

Now I take issue with calling infants, for example, mere "things." They are analogously related to persons, and they are human. We do have certain moral obligations to them. But they don't have the intrinsic value that persons have, so while there may be reasons that harming them is wrong, it is not prima facie wrong. Now I still struggle with issues of personal identity and when personhood develops and what kind of obligations we have toward non-persons (I'm not a vegetarian, for example, but I am against factory farming) - and this is something I'm still working on. Hence my participation in this discussion. But I don't think that abortion is necessarily a wrong act.

Now what is the difference between your senile grandmother and your (pre-born) infant niece? It would seem none, so euthanasia should be permitted. Actually, as the infant most likely will become a person, they should be afforded more protection then the elderly, who are an expensive burden on society, with nothing more to give.

What is the difference between said pre-born niece and her 2 month old cousin? Other than physical location with respect to their mothers, very little. How about a six month-old cousin? a year old? Can we point at any time and say there: that is a person?

---
I am troubled by a couple things. In particular, tying intrinsic value to intellectual capacity and the concept of infants "analogously" relating to persons. In the second you separate the infant overmuch from the , as they are not analogously, but actually, what we all were.

The first point (along with deny the personhood) is reminiscient of the arguments made for forced eugenics following the civil war. Also, is your life (as you are obviously highly educated) more valuble than the missionary who has a high school education, but devotes their entire life to serving others?

---

As a friendly note, I think you have gotten lost in the philosophy, and lost sight of things that faith shows us more clearly. According to the old Baltimore Catechism, man's purpose (hence value) is to know, love, and serve God in this life, and be happy with Him forever in the next. Our value does not come from within, but has been bestowed on us by the Creator.

Fair enough. Why is every instance of premarital wrong? (Maybe we should start a whole new thread for this one!) I'll go ahead and do it.

Little rusty on the arguments for that one, but let me know when its going.

In His Steps,
chris

geochron

May 12th 2006, 11:19 AM

I've posted a thread over in political science where pro-lifers can indicate what penalty they think a mother who has an abortion should receive. I'm genuinely interested in the spectrum of responses.

Those who agree abortion is murder should presumably find this an easy one, since they must have some idea what they think the penalty for murder should be.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=76930

Griffs

May 13th 2006, 04:58 PM

Ok, assuming unborn babies are persons, would abortion be wrong?It would be a wrong action, though in some cases it might be the right thing to do. (There are plenty of instances where we have to choose the lesser of two evils, which involve the sacrifice of persons.)

As a Christian, I believe in many persons who are not humans (the Big Three, plus the angels and demons).Agreed.

Biblically, it would seem that we are what and who we are from the womb. I assume you means passages here like Psalm 139:13. Plus the whole deal with the Incarnation and such. But it seems absurd to assert that who I am now at 26 is who I was in the womb. Of course, this is a problem of personal identity, and presents problems for every philosopher.

The change from the animal state to personhood would seem to be a change in the very nature of a being.How beautifully Aristotelian of you! But human beings are animals, are they not? They're just a very special kind of animal. And of course there is something very mysterious that occurs when a fetus becomes self-conscious or a baby acquires language.

But it would also seem that we would lose this personhood at times during our lives (ie sleep, coma, under the influence, etc.). Also, most lose that nature permanatly as they age. These are very good objections - you're bringing up all the right points! I've actually been discussing the problem of sleep with my advisor. It seems like you have a practical reason to suspend your reason when you go to sleep, which is very interesting! Now our intuitions lead us to think that someone does not lose her personhood by going to sleep, despite the fact that she is not acting in her role as an agent. Dunno what to say to that yet. However, I'm content to say that people in comas, drunk people, senile people, really crazy people, etc. are NOT able to act in their capacity as agents. However, I am inclined to say (and I don't know if I'm being consistent here - let me know if I'm not) that what differentiates these individuals from the fetus is the fact that they have at some point developed the capacity to be an agent, have acted in such a way, have reasoned, deliberated, made choices, and so on. There is a big difference between the necessity and facticity of the past and the mere potentiality of the future. A fetus is not yet an agent, not yet a person. If I go into a coma, my agency is obviously restricted, and I cannot act in the capacity of a person. People may have the right to make decisions for me - even regarding my life. (Unless I have a living will or something like it, that is.) That doesn't mean we can just act arbitrarily with such individuals. As I've said before, we still have moral obligations to them.

Again, it seems that all those of such an animalisitc nature are of equal value, or at least all humans of that nature would be accorded the same rights. And again, I think the difference may hinge upon having already been a person vs. not being one at all. Thought I'm not entirely sure about that.

(On a side note, it would be intresting to hear what circumstances you do oppose abortion on.) Well, as you well know, there's a lot of grey area here. But I personally think there are several instances in which abortion might be morally wrong. A few instances that I personally oppose: a) using abortion instead of or as a means of birth control; b) partial birth and third trimester abortions; c) forced or coerced abortion; etc.

Actually, a good friend of mine is writing her dissertation on the (im)permissibility of abortion. She concludes that when the fetus becomes self-conscious, that is the point at which abortion goes from morally permissible to impermissible (despite the fact that the fetus is not yet a full-fledged person). I'm actually quite sympathetic to that view, and may even endorse it.

Now what is the difference between your senile grandmother and your (pre-born) infant niece? I think I already answered that.

It would seem none, so euthanasia should be permitted. Well, I'm not opposed to euthanasia in all circumstances either. I was for pulling the plug on Terry Schiavo, for example.

Actually, as the infant most likely will become a person, they should be afforded more protection then the elderly, who are an expensive burden on society, with nothing more to give. If you're going to turn to utilitarian arguments to demonstrate that abortion should be illegal, I can give you utilitarian arguments to preserve abortion's legality.

What is the difference between said pre-born niece and her 2 month old cousin? Other than physical location with respect to their mothers, very little. How about a six month-old cousin? a year old? Can we point at any time and say there: that is a person? I think we can quite often point to people and say, "That is a person." But it's not always that easy. And as I said above, how consciousness comes to be present("develops"/"is infused"/"appears") in human beings, how we come to develop a moral sensibility or conscience, how we go from acting on instinct to making rational choices, etc. is all very mysterious. But I think it's safe to say that a 1-month-old zygote/fetus does not possess any of these capacities. I realize that you're worried about the slippery slope here, and it's a real concern, but I think there are some things we can say without worrying about the slippery slope.

I am troubled by a couple things. In particular, tying intrinsic value to intellectual capacity and the concept of infants "analogously" relating to persons. In the second you separate the infant overmuch from the , as they are not analogously, but actually, what we all were. I'm not entirely sure what you're going for here. Let me ask you instead: what, in your opinion, makes abortion morally wrong? And don't just answer "Because the fetus is a human life." Tell me why human life is intrinsically valuable. What is it about humans and persons that is lacking in, say, dogs?

Also, is your life (as you are obviously highly educated) more valuble than the missionary who has a high school education, but devotes their entire life to serving others? Definitely not. In fact, I think the world would perhaps be worse off if it lost the missionary than one lowly philosopher! :lol: Personhood doesn't come in huge gradations...I don't think. It's not how smart you are that determines how much of a person you are. Rather, it's some combo of consciousness, having the ability to exercise one's rational capacities, make choices, reflect, etc. And we all do that - whether we're PhDs or GEDs or completely uneducated.

As a friendly note, I think you have gotten lost in the philosophy, and lost sight of things that faith shows us more clearly. According to the old Baltimore Catechism, man's purpose (hence value) is to know, love, and serve God in this life, and be happy with Him forever in the next. Our value does not come from within, but has been bestowed on us by the Creator. Duly noted. All ad hominem circumstantial arguments aside, I recognize that philosophers have a tendency to lose sight of real life. However, I don't think I've done that. I thought I was engaging in an intellectual discussion about why abortion is or is not murder. And for that, one has to give reasons/arguments/etc. Faith is a very important part of Christianity (in fact, it is essential and much more difficult than just believing something of which you're not certain). And I try to have faith, but it is and should be one of the hardest things to engage in. However, if God confers us with value, does that set us apart from the rest of creation? Are we something above and beyond the rest of creation? Do we have the right to subject it to our needs?

Anyways, great talking wit' ya'.

Griffs

1.61803399

May 14th 2006, 01:00 AM

It would be a wrong action, though in some cases it might be the right thing to do. (There are plenty of instances where we have to choose the lesser of two evils, which involve the sacrifice of persons.)

ok, just wanted to make sure we were not missing any big issues by focusing on personhood.

I assume you means passages here like Psalm 139:13. Plus the whole deal with the Incarnation and such. But it seems absurd to assert that who I am now at 26 is who I was in the womb. Of course, this is a problem of personal identity, and presents problems for every philosopher.

Are you a different person in substance or s (such as experience, education, growth, etc...)? And the Incarnation is an excellent example, as well as the Psalms, Isaiah, and the Visitation

How beautifully Aristotelian of you! But human beings are animals, are they not? They're just a very special kind of animal. And of course there is something very mysterious that occurs when a fetus becomes self-conscious or a baby acquires language.

that's who that comes from! (sorry I haven't started formal philosophy studies, I only know what I've heard/read that makes sense to me) I would argue that humans are not a kind of animal, any more than I would argue that they are a kind of angel. There is a substantial difference, that of the presence of an immortal, reasoning soul. The discovery of language is a gradual process, mostly learned. If we hold that they are fulfiling their potentialities(i think that's the word?) in doing so, it is only natural and no great mystery.

These are very good objections - you're bringing up all the right points! I've actually been discussing the problem of sleep with my advisor. It seems like you have a practical reason to suspend your reason when you go to sleep, which is very interesting! Now our intuitions lead us to think that someone does not lose her personhood by going to sleep, despite the fact that she is not acting in her role as an agent. Dunno what to say to that yet. However, I'm content to say that people in comas, drunk people, senile people, really crazy people, etc. are NOT able to act in their capacity as agents. However, I am inclined to say (and I don't know if I'm being consistent here - let me know if I'm not) that what differentiates these individuals from the fetus is the fact that they have at some point developed the capacity to be an agent, have acted in such a way, have reasoned, deliberated, made choices, and so on. There is a big difference between the necessity and facticity of the past and the mere potentiality of the future. A fetus is not yet an agent, not yet a person. If I go into a coma, my agency is obviously restricted, and I cannot act in the capacity of a person. People may have the right to make decisions for me - even regarding my life. (Unless I have a living will or something like it, that is.) That doesn't mean we can just act arbitrarily with such individuals. As I've said before, we still have moral obligations to them.

And again, I think the difference may hinge upon having already been a person vs. not being one at all. Thought I'm not entirely sure about that.

Ok, to start with, I find the entire concept of time arbitrary, including the concepts of past and future. I don't know if its too much sci-fi or too much trying to understand the (fore)knowledge of God, but time seems largely irrelevant.

I think that there is a difference between agents and persons, such that all agents are persons, but there are persons who cannot act as agents. I know that I am probably not consistant with accept theories of time, but I would say that, as their having the potentialities (I guess I was right!) should be considered equal to them having actualized those potentialities, and they should be treated as such. Likewise with those who no longer actualize the potenitialities that they had actualized, they should be treated as if they have full use. In other words, we should judge person in this present moment by their best moment, whether it be past or future, in this world or the next.

I think I already answered that.
Ye, you made that clear above

If you're going to turn to utilitarian arguments to demonstrate that abortion should be illegal, I can give you utilitarian arguments to preserve abortion's legality.

That could be intresting.

I think we can quite often point to people and say, "That is a person." But it's not always that easy. And as I said above, how consciousness comes to be present("develops"/"is infused"/"appears") in human beings, how we come to develop a moral sensibility or conscience, how we go from acting on instinct to making rational choices, etc. is all very mysterious. But I think it's safe to say that a 1-month-old zygote/fetus does not possess any of these capacities. I realize that you're worried about the slippery slope here, and it's a real concern, but I think there are some things we can say without worrying about the slippery slope.

But can you be sure that *that* person follows moral sensibilities?
And I would hold that the slipery slope, which I hesitated to approach directly, could be directly seen in the application of some of the standards of personhood you presented, to the point that we would fear to go to sleep.

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for here. Let me ask you instead: what, in your opinion, makes abortion morally wrong? And don't just answer "Because the fetus is a human life." Tell me why human life is intrinsically valuable. What is it about humans and persons that is lacking in, say, dogs?

*Warning, I will definitely breach the divide into theology here, as is necessary at times*

Abortion is wrong because it is homicide, more so because it is the of those that are 1)innocent and 2) incapable of any defense.

Homicide is immoral as it is the destruction of human life. Human life is valuable because (in no particular order):

>The common relation of all men as members of the same species and society
>They are a sentinent species
>Because of an immortal, rational soul
>Because God made man the pinnacle of physical creation
>Because God forbids the destruction of it
>Because God raised man to the pinnacle of all creation by becoming man

Definitely not. In fact, I think the world would perhaps be worse off if it lost the missionary than one lowly philosopher! :lol: Personhood doesn't come in huge gradations...I don't think. It's not how smart you are that determines how much of a person you are. Rather, it's some combo of consciousness, having the ability to exercise one's rational capacities, make choices, reflect, etc. And we all do that - whether we're PhDs or GEDs or completely uneducated.

This is a problem I have with intelectual ability in the definition of a person. If a certain amount is necessary, then more would be better. But we agree that that is not the case. But what about the converse? What does the missionary have that make his loss greater?

Duly noted. All ad hominem circumstantial arguments aside, I recognize that philosophers have a tendency to lose sight of real life. However, I don't think I've done that. I thought I was engaging in an intellectual discussion about why abortion is or is not . And for that, one has to give reasons/arguments/etc. Faith is a very important part of Christianity (in fact, it is essential and much more difficult than just believing something of which you're not certain). And I try to have faith, but it is and should be one of the hardest things to engage in. However, if God confers us with value, does that set us apart from the rest of creation? Are we something above and beyond the rest of creation? Do we have the right to subject it to our needs?

Not an argument, nor an attack. A challenge, yes as we all need to be challenged, but nothing more and nothing personal. We seek fides et ratio, faith and reason. In my experience faith enlightens reason, and so I suggested faith.

To answer your questions: Yes, we are something beyond all creation, visible and invisible. We are raised higher than the angels by God, and cast lower than the demons for our rejection of Christ. "You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve, and that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulder of the greatest emperor on earth." -Aslan (Prince Caspian, book 2 of the Chronicles of Narnia)

We have the right to subject it to our needs, and the responsibilities of stewardship that come with the right. However you view Scriptures, from literalist to allegorical, the message of the story of creation includes this command: "Fill the Earth, and subdue it".

God Bless,

chris

Griffs

May 15th 2006, 06:55 PM

Hey - I don't have much time today, but I'll throw a few comments out there and see what happens.

Ok, to start with, I find the entire concept of time arbitrary, including the concepts of past and future. I don't know if its too much sci-fi or too much trying to understand the (fore)knowledge of God, but time seems largely irrelevant.So do you believe that time passes (i.e., that only the present exists)? Or do you believe that the past, present, and future all equally exist? (I assume you are more attracted to the latter view because of your views on foreknowledge.) Regardless, surely it makes sense to talk about the past and the future, right? And there seems to be some distinction between the two. The past seems necessary, insofar as there's nothing we can do to change it. But the future seems open in a way that the past does not.

I know that I am probably not consistant with accept theories of time, but I would say that, as their having the potentialities (I guess I was right!) should be considered equal to them having actualized those potentialities, and they should be treated as such. Likewise with those who no longer actualize the potenitialities that they had actualized, they should be treated as if they have full use. While I'm sympathetic to this idea, it's going to get us into trouble really quickly. Especially when it comes to determining what someone's potentiality consists in. Do you just mean their potentiality for becoming a person? Or do you mean something more specific? Also, do we need to treat every potential person that way?

That could be intresting.Well, the most common utilitarian pro-choice argument I've heard is that if you make abortion illegal, women will nevertheless continue to seek abortions, and by driving the practice underground, we will have a lot more death and disease among women due to unsanitary and unprofessional conditions.

Homicide is immoral as it is the destruction of human life. Human life is valuable because (in no particular order):

>The common relation of all men as members of the same species and societyDidn't really understand this one. Are you just referring to the fact that human beings are social animals?

>They are a sentinent speciesI'm on board with this - if by 'sentient' we mean 'self-conscious'.

>Because of an immortal, rational soul And what is the soul? Is it an immaterial substance? Is it the soul that makes me me? What happens to it when you die?

>Because God forbids the destruction of it God forbids murder, which is (by definition) "wrongful homicide" or "wrongful killing of another person."

>Because God made man the pinnacle of physical creation
>Because God raised man to the pinnacle of all creation by becoming man Wait, which one is it? Were we created "at the top"? Or do we only later get "top dog" status.

This is a problem I have with intelectual ability in the definition of a person. If a certain amount is necessary, then more would be better.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about gradations of intellect. I'm talking about the all-or-nothing status of having an intellect, or of being self-aware and reflective. You've either got it or you don't.

But we agree that that is not the case. But what about the converse? What does the missionary have that make his loss greater? I was joking about the missionary. But we'd probably say it's a greater loss if the missionary died than if, say, Hitler died. Which is weird, I admit. I wonder if you can forfeit your value in some way. I'm inclined to say no, but who knows?

Not an argument, nor an attack. A challenge, yes as we all need to be challenged, but nothing more and nothing personal. No worries. People engage in ad hominem argumentation all the time, myself included. And I didn't take it personally at all. (In fact, I'm used to the charge that philosophers tend to lose sight of the "real world.") :teeth:

We seek fides et ratio, faith and reason. In my experience faith enlightens reason, and so I suggested faith. See, and I'm not so sure faith enlightens reason. In fact, I think the propositions of faith are generally in conflict with reason. But I have a really strong view of faith.

Yes, we are something beyond all creation, visible and invisible. Huh?

We have the right to subject it to our needs, and the responsibilities of stewardship that come with the right. However you view Scriptures, from literalist to allegorical, the message of the story of creation includes this command: "Fill the Earth, and subdue it". Sounds great. I just don't like at all what we've taken this command to mean. We have not lived up to our "reponsibilities of stewardship," as you call it. But that's a discussion for another time and place.

Take care,
Griffs

jimmybob479

May 15th 2006, 10:22 PM

I didn't want to make another topic relating to abortion, so I'm going to try to relate / add in my own questions and thoughts into this. Today in school we were talking about abortion and it got me thinking...here are my thoughts and questions...

With reguards to whether it's right or not, is there any way to know whether it truly is or not? I'm leaning towards "yes" due to the fact that I believe morals are absolute. But if it really is wrong this leads me into my next question...

What happens to Christian women who DO have abortions? Is it like the Galatians verses about murder and how they won't inherit the kingdom of God? I think I remember somone posting a reply to that saying that if they truly have the HS they won't have an abortion. And if they do, and truly repent, God will forgive them.

(Rom 8:8,9) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

That is, whether or not we are in the flesh does not hinge upon what we decide to do day-by-day, but upon whether or not the Spirit of God dwells within us.

So, in the end, (although we may legally fight to make it illegal), it is between the person and God whether or not they are saved if they do things such as have abortions, and between them and God on convicting them that it is a sin, etc? That seems to be what i'm leaning towards.

1.61803399

May 15th 2006, 11:35 PM

Hey - I don't have much time today, but I'll throw a few comments out there and see what happens.

So do you believe that time passes (i.e., that only the present exists)? Or do you believe that the past, present, and future all equally exist? (I assume you are more attracted to the latter view because of your views on foreknowledge.) Regardless, surely it makes sense to talk about the past and the future, right? And there seems to be some distinction between the two. The past seems necessary, insofar as there's nothing we can do to change it. But the future seems open in a way that the past does not.

The latter, but from God's perspective. Our's is somewhat murkier. To tell the truth, I haven't though much on our perspective of time, only how God's perspective would be different. I'm not entirely sure we can't influence the past (not directly, but through our prayers; and not that we would remember any change). The future, meanwhile seems less open, as we choose within our experience, genetics, and God's grace.

While I'm sympathetic to this idea, it's going to get us into trouble really quickly. Especially when it comes to determining what someone's potentiality consists in. Do you just mean their potentiality for becoming a person? Or do you mean something more specific? Also, do we need to treat every potential person that way?

Potentialities (in general) would be that which they can achieve. I don't believe they have potentiality for becoming a person (as I believe they already are one), but for the sake of the discussion, yes. And yes, they all deserve to be treated as persons.

Well, the most common utilitarian pro-choice argument I've heard is that if you make abortion illegal, women will nevertheless continue to seek abortions, and by driving the practice underground, we will have a lot more and disease among women due to unsanitary and unprofessional conditions.

So we should participate in providing a moral evil, so that those who commit the evil do not have undertake such grave risks? The grave risks to their own health would make the number of abortions fewer.

Didn't really understand this one. Are you just referring to the fact that human beings are social animals?

No, because I do not classify humans as animals (our bodies may lie in that domain, but that is only half the story).

I'm on board with this - if by 'sentient' we mean 'self-conscious'.

This may come up again.

And what is the soul? Is it an immaterial substance? Is it the soul that makes me me? What happens to it when you die?

The rational, spiritual part of man. It is immaterial, and I guess philosophically could be considered substance (not sure on that). It is a major part of what makes you you. It (you) go to the particular judgement, and then from there to heaven, purgatory, or hell (in Catholic belief, no purgatory otherwise). Your body will join your soul on the last day.

God forbids murder, which is (by definition) "wrongful homicide" or "wrongful of another person."

Homicide=wrongful of a man, ie of a member of the species homo sapiens (actually could apply it to the genus, I guess)

Wait, which one is it? Were we created "at the top"? Or do we only later get "top dog" status.

Of physical creation, we were created "on top", but only in the Incarnation and Crucifixtion are we raised above the angels.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about gradations of intellect. I'm talking about the all-or-nothing status of having an intellect, or of being self-aware and reflective. You've either got it or you don't.

I understand you, but not your position. Why? If one is barely self aware, are they as much a person as a saint or sage? I think its an arbitrary line, why do you draw it there?

No worries. People engage in ad hominem argumentation all the time, myself included. And I didn't take it personally at all. (In fact, I'm used to the charge that philosophers tend to lose sight of the "real world.") :teeth:

It was a personal comment, not an argument. Therefore it could not be an ad hominem argument, I would thank you to refain from poinoning the well.

See, and I'm not so sure faith enlightens reason. In fact, I think the propositions of faith are generally in conflict with reason. But I have a really strong view of faith.

But which is true, where is truth to be found, faith or reason? If either one holds the answer alone, then we must forsake the other as the folly it is! Else if both are true, then they must agree. The only remaining option they are both false, and then why bother?!?

Huh?
Yes, we are something beyond all creation, visible and invisible.

We are beyond all things made by God, physical and spiritual. (in dignity) What is the confusion.

Sounds great. I just don't like at all what we've taken this command to mean. We have not lived up to our "reponsibilities of stewardship," as you call it. But that's a discussion for another time and place.

We may not have lived up to our reponsibilities, but that does not let us off the hook.

God Bless,

chris
Come Holy Spirit, enlighten the hearts of the faithful!

Griffs

May 16th 2006, 12:46 AM

I'm not entirely sure we can't influence the past (not directly, but through our prayers; and not that we would remember any change). The future, meanwhile seems less open, as we choose within our experience, genetics, and God's grace. Wait, so we might be able to effect backwards causation (gasp!), but we can't have an effect on the future? Oh, and is there freedom on this view?

Potentialities (in general) would be that which they can achieve. I don't believe they have potentiality for becoming a person (as I believe they already are one), but for the sake of the discussion, yes. And yes, they all deserve to be treated as persons. So we should always treat people according to what they could have been, not what they are? Or only sometimes?

So we should participate in providing a moral evil, so that those who commit the evil do not have undertake such grave risks? The grave risks to their own health would make the number of abortions fewer. Not saying it's a good argument - just one I've heard. And, of course, as I've intimated, I'm not so sure we're providing a moral evil in the first place.

The rational, spiritual part of man. It is immaterial, and I guess philosophically could be considered substance (not sure on that). It is a major part of what makes you you. It (you) go to the particular judgement, and then from there to heaven, purgatory, or hell (in Catholic belief, no purgatory otherwise). Your body will join your soul on the last day. What's your soul doing in the meantime? Is it just hanging out in heaven/hell/purgatory? Can it have new experiences? What's are pure "soul-experiences" like?

Of physical creation, we were created "on top", but only in the Incarnation and Crucifixtion are we raised above the angels. How are we physically on top? Brain complexity? 'Cause it sure ain't strength or brawn! And why do we get raised above the angels post-Incarnation? Does the Atonement do something?

I understand you, but not your position. Why? If one is barely self aware, are they as much a person as a saint or sage? I think its an arbitrary line, why do you draw it there? It seems like a fairly straightforward line to draw. Oh and what's your criterion of personhood again? Just remind me...need a refresher. :blush:

But which is true, where is truth to be found, faith or reason? If either one holds the answer alone, then we must forsake the other as the folly it is! Else if both are true, then they must agree. The only remaining option they are both false, and then why bother?!? Well, generally we use reason to figure out the truth. But faith is certainty in something for which we don't have the evidence - or in something for which the evidence points the other way. If reason and faith agree, however, then we don't really need faith - just follow reason! Hence one of the reasons I think they generally conflict.

We are beyond all things made by God, physical and spiritual. (in dignity) What is the confusion. So all you're saying is that we're more valuable [to God?] than any other aspect of creation?

We may not have lived up to our reponsibilities, but that does not let us off the hook. Agreed.

Later!
Griffs

1.61803399

May 16th 2006, 10:11 PM

Wait, so we might be able to effect backwards causation (gasp!), but we can't have an effect on the future? Oh, and is there freedom on this view?

I poorly stated the part on the future. It is less open then it might seem, but there is still room for choice.

So we should always treat people according to what they could have been, not what they are? Or only sometimes?

Always treat people as the best they could ever be, yup.

Not saying it's a good argument - just one I've heard. And, of course, as I've intimated, I'm not so sure we're providing a moral evil in the first place.

you responded to mine by saying you had your own. I responded to the substance of yours...

What's your soul doing in the meantime? Is it just hanging out in heaven/hell/purgatory? Can it have new experiences? What's are pure "soul-experiences" like?

Enjoying the bliss of heaven, or suffering the torments of purgatory or hell would hardly be considered "hanging out". We have little evidence to base the particulars of after life on reason, but plenty through faith.

How are we physically on top? Brain complexity? 'Cause it sure ain't strength or brawn! And why do we get raised above the angels post-Incarnation? Does the Atonement do something?

We are on top of the physical world, not on top physically. We are only half of this world (our body) and half spirit (soul). As the only such part of physical creation, we are its peak. When the second person of God becomes man, He raises our dignity as man above that of the angels.

It seems like a fairly straightforward line to draw. Oh and what's your criterion of personhood again? Just remind me...need a refresher. :blush:

You could just ask me outright, as you know I haven't posted a definition of person. Again, as I hold to faith enlightening reason, I approach the question first through faith. A person then, is a rational spirit or a being with a rational soul. (How to effectively combine the two without losing clarity, I'm not sure.)

As to the clarity of your line, what about the questions already raised (sleep, coma, etc)? Or where in the decline into senility? At what age for a child? Or high functiong autistic or downs? Is your line really that straightfoward?

Well, generally we use reason to figure out the truth. But faith is certainty in something for which we don't have the evidence - or in something for which the evidence points the other way. If reason and faith agree, however, then we don't really need faith - just follow reason! Hence one of the reasons I think they generally conflict.

Then which do you serve, your reason or faith? If truth is only found in reason, than you are a fool to embrace Christianity, the Cross, without faith is nothing but supreme foolishness.

So all you're saying is that we're more valuable [to God?] than any other aspect of creation?

No, I am saying that each one of us is more precious in His eyes then the whole remainder of the universe!

chris

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Your Love.

Griffs

May 30th 2006, 07:31 PM

Hey! Sorry, dude, for the tardy response, but I was on vacation. It was awesome. Anyways...back to it, I guess! :tongue:

I poorly stated the part on the future. It is less open then it might seem, but there is still room for choice. So we do have free will. Whew. But then someone like me wants to deny divine foreknowledge. (Yikes!) But that is a deal from another thread.

Always treat people as the best they could ever be, yup. Now I'm a little worried. To treat a person as the best he or she could ever be would be to, say, ignore a person's moral failings. "Let's just treat this serial killer as the best he could have been." Counterfactual-land is no place to set up residence! (Though we philosophers like to camp there quite often! :lol:)

Enjoying the bliss of heaven, or suffering the torments of purgatory or hell would hardly be considered "hanging out". We have little evidence to base the particulars of after life on reason, but plenty through faith. Sorry, I was probably straw-manning a little bit. But you didn't answer my question about what "soul-experiences" would be like. Personally, I think the notion of disembodied souls is incoherent. One cannot have new experiences without sensory experience. That is, if there are disembodied souls, they're not "doing" anything at all...at least until reunification with the body.

We are on top of the physical world, not on top physically. We are only half of this world (our body) and half spirit (soul). As the only such part of physical creation, we are its peak. OK...So there are degrees of being? And we're better than all the rest? That's fair.

When the second person of God becomes man, He raises our dignity as man above that of the angels. Yes...I asked why the Incarnation accomplishes that.

You could just ask me outright, as you know I haven't posted a definition of person. Whoa, sorry. I just couldn't remember if you had or not, and didn't have time to go back and look. So...sorry again.

Again, as I hold to faith enlightening reason, I approach the question first through faith. A person then, is a rational spirit or a being with a rational soul. (How to effectively combine the two without losing clarity, I'm not sure.) And so I assume fetuses have rational souls? How do we know?

As to the clarity of your line, what about the questions already raised (sleep, coma, etc)? Or where in the decline into senility? At what age for a child? Or high functiong autistic or downs? Is your line really that straightfoward? My "line" was just stating one of the necessary conditions for personhood, namely self-consciousness. All of your grey-area examples are difficult ones, to be sure. Those people are definitely not rational agents. Whether or not they're persons, though, I'm not sure. As for fetuses and infants, I'm inclined to say they're not persons because they don't and never have had all the necessary conditions for full-blown personhood. But I'm still working on my view, as you can tell.

Then which do you serve, your reason or faith? If truth is only found in reason, than you are a fool to embrace Christianity, the Cross, without faith is nothing but supreme foolishness. I never claimed that truth is only found via reason. I said that generally we use reason to get to the truth. However, to repeat what I said in my last post, if reason and faith always agreed, then faith would not be faith - it'd just be automatically reasonable to accept whatever "faith" proclaimed! (I think that, by definition, 'faith' implies something different from mere reason.) That doesn't make faith bad...just rationally (or at least epistemically) unjustified.

Anyways, take care!

Griffs

Chaotic Void

June 24th 2007, 02:18 PM

rONniE

June 30th 2007, 12:41 PM

I think think that Creation should be taught in schools instead of Evolution. Then everyone will begin understand the value of human life.

Then instead of thinking that they are getting rid of "biological growth", a feotus or an embry they'll understand it's a child that they are killing. for the Gabriel told Mary that she'll bear a Child...not a feotus. There's not mention of the word feotus or embryo.....Instead it's always refered as unborn child....

dizzle

June 30th 2007, 12:51 PM

Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Your Love.

Decolores!

Jackie Fox

September 6th 2007, 12:34 PM

I really do not think that the practice of abortion will ever cease.

That's realistic on your part since it's been around as long as pregnancy has been around.

Question is what would happen if we outlawed abortion? If we made the practice illegal as it once was? There certainly would be doctors and individuals willing to break the law in an act of 'civil disobedience', for the 'reproductive rights' of the woman, or for a myriad of other reasons. These would probably be 'backdoor' abortions, increasing the potential for the mother to face complications as a result of the procedure. Quite possibly even death.

Certainly true. Criminalizing abortion would be a terrible public policy mistake.

My take on the issue is so be it. If a woman is so willing to kill the unborn life within her, that she has been given charge over, then she should take on the consequence of that action. All actions have consequences.

A woman who finds herself at the point of seeking out the termination of the new life which struggles within her, should not be viewed as an 'enemy' [

The first statement there is contradicted by the second. There is no support for women in your pompous assertion. Your hypocricy in claiming to not view the woman as the enemy coupled with your earlier reprehensible statement betrays you.

Chaotic Void

September 6th 2007, 06:14 PM

That's realistic on your part since it's been around as long as pregnancy has been around.

Certainly true. Criminalizing abortion would be a terrible public policy mistake.

The first statement there is contradicted by the second. There is no support for women in your pompous assertion. Your hypocricy in claiming to not view the woman as the enemy coupled with your earlier reprehensible statement betrays you.

dumb question, but whats the point you are making on this post?

Jackie Fox

September 6th 2007, 07:34 PM

dumb question, but whats the point you are making on this post?

I'm not sure how to answer that. Could you be more specific?

Chaotic Void

September 6th 2007, 09:30 PM

I'm not sure how to answer that. Could you be more specific?

were you just commenting or what?

Jackie Fox

September 7th 2007, 09:57 AM

were you just commenting or what?

Isn't everyone posting here "just commenting"?

Storico

September 7th 2007, 11:17 AM

Sparko

September 7th 2007, 12:36 PM

me too Jackie.

Chaotic Void

September 7th 2007, 12:39 PM

Count me in, Storico and Sparko.... I'd like to hear Jackie Fox's opinion myself

Jackie Fox

September 7th 2007, 12:50 PM

Jackie, what's your take on abortion, then? Up to what point in a pregnancy is it okay or not okay to abort, according to you? And based on your convictions, should women be responsible for taking a human life? Should abortion doctors be responsible? What if someone was, say, 7 or 8 months pregnant, and wanted to abort? On the flip side, which social programs and organizations do you think ought to be in place to either make sure abortion doesn't often happen, or to make women are properly cared for? And since this is the "Biblical ethics" forum, how do you figure the Bible approaches the value of life, either of the born or unborn?

I'd like your thoughts. :smile:

I don't understand what you mean by some of your terms. "Okay" how? "Responsible" how?

Like most people I'm opposed to abortion but also opposed to criminalizing it. The Bible is entirely silent on the matter and abortion has occurred as long as pregnancy has. I mostly regard anti-abortion groups as fronts for terrorism. Perhaps you've heard of Eric Rudolph, who committed his terrorist acts in this region with aid from supposedly nonviolent anti-abortion people.

Storico

September 7th 2007, 02:27 PM

Up to what point in a pregnancy is it morally acceptable (to God, to us, to the fetus) to abort? That's what I meant by "okay." As for what I meant by responsible.... let's start with legal responsibility. We could also talk about personal responsibility or, in other words, a personal conviction someone feels. Should a woman having an abortion be legally responsible? Is it her personal responsibility as the future mother of an unborn baby to carry it to term? And how about abortion doctors themselves? What kind of legal or personal moral restrictions should be placed on them?

Now that my definitions are hopefully a bit more clear.....

The questions I asked.

You said you were opposed to abortion, but opposed to criminalization of it. Okay. Up to how far along are you personally opposed to it? The whole pregnancy? Up to which point do you oppose it being criminalized? Like in my example of a woman being 7 or 8 months pregnant and wanting to abort, would you mind if that abortion was criminalized?

How about social programs? What do you think should be in place to prevent women from wanting to abort? If women are GOING to abort, what do you think should be in place for them and their families?

And I asked, also, "how do you figure the Bible approaches the value of life, either of the born or the unborn?" Your answer was that the Bible is entirely silent on the matter. Of abortion, yes, but since the Bible is very vocal on the subject of the sanctity of life, I guess it's not so silent. It's more a logical preposition. Let's pretend that A is the opposite of B. Everything A stands for, B stands against. Now let's say the Bible has some wonderful things to say about A. Would it not be disagreeing with B, if B was A's opposite? In our case, if the Bible recognizes that God starts all life and that God knows us before we're born, do you think God would approve of abortion or condone it?

I'm trying to find out how your own spiritual beliefs would address the issue. How long abortion's existed for doesn't make abortion right. According to the Bible, murder occurred not very far into the creation story when one brother killed another, but the length of time something's been happening never usually means God'll be silent on it.

Your thoughts?

Oh, and what you said about anti-abortion groups: it really depends. I don't regard them as fronts for terrorism if they're like the one I saw here, standing outside a clinic with a sign that said "I will adopt your baby. Come talk to me."

Chaotic Void

September 7th 2007, 06:11 PM

I don't understand what you mean by some of your terms. "Okay" how? "Responsible" how?

Like most people I'm opposed to abortion but also opposed to criminalizing it. The Bible is entirely silent on the matter and abortion has occurred as long as pregnancy has. I mostly regard anti-abortion groups as fronts for terrorism. Perhaps you've heard of Eric Rudolph, who committed his terrorist acts in this region with aid from supposedly nonviolent anti-abortion people.

Does the term "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ring a bell?

"I mostly regard Anti-Abortion Groups as Fronts for Terrorism"
.....What do you mean by this?

Jackie Fox

September 7th 2007, 06:52 PM

Before I answer I can see you're trying to do the old 'arm-around-the-shoulder-be-my-pal-bit-which-suddenly-turns-into-the-anaconda-around-the-neck' bit but that's okay.

Up to what point in a pregnancy is it morally acceptable (to God, to us, to the fetus) to abort? That's what I meant by "okay."

We are not gods, and the decision is not ours to make.

Should a woman having an abortion be legally responsible?

For what?

Is it her personal responsibility as the future mother of an unborn baby to carry it to term?

Absolutely not.

And how about abortion doctors themselves? What kind of legal or personal moral restrictions should be placed on them?

Other than standard medical protocols, none.

You said you were opposed to abortion, but opposed to criminalization of it. Okay. Up to how far along are you personally opposed to it? The whole pregnancy? Up to which point do you oppose it being criminalized? Like in my example of a woman being 7 or 8 months pregnant and wanting to abort, would you mind if that abortion was criminalized?

Like I said I'm against it but I'm against it being criminalized and that's without qualifiers.

How about social programs?

We need some.

What do you think should be in place to prevent women from wanting to abort?

Nothing specifically. I favor Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" formulation but ultimately the decision is the woman's and no one else's.

If women are GOING to abort, what do you think should be in place for them and their families?

Social justice.

And I asked, also, "how do you figure the Bible approaches the value of life, either of the born or the unborn?" Your answer was that the Bible is entirely silent on the matter. Of abortion, yes, but since the Bible is very vocal on the subject of the sanctity of life, I guess it's not so silent. It's more a logical preposition. Let's pretend that A is the opposite of B. Everything A stands for, B stands against. Now let's say the Bible has some wonderful things to say about A. Would it not be disagreeing with B, if B was A's opposite? In our case, if the Bible recognizes that God starts all life and that God knows us before we're born, do you think God would approve of abortion or condone it?

Sorry, this is just begging the question. We cannot know the intentions of God per se. When you consider how the same extremist groups opposing abortion promote war, the death penalty, hatred, social inequality, etc. their support against abortion is laughable.

I'm trying to find out how your own spiritual beliefs would address the issue. How long abortion's existed for doesn't make abortion right. According to the Bible, murder occurred not very far into the creation story when one brother killed another, but the length of time something's been happening never usually means God'll be silent on it.

Your thoughts?

That's more than I have time for now but I'll consider replying to it later.

Oh, and what you said about anti-abortion groups: it really depends. I don't regard them as fronts for terrorism if they're like the one I saw here, standing outside a clinic with a sign that said "I will adopt your baby. Come talk to me."

That's a rarity. The right wing thugs attacking clinics are usually more direct in their expressions of hatred against the clinic staff and patients.

sc_q_jayce

September 7th 2007, 06:59 PM

Anaconda, Storico is not.

Continue sans snakes.

Sparko

September 7th 2007, 07:29 PM

Jackie if you have opinions on the topic of abortion, just come out and say it clearly, please. You don't seem to have any qualms with calling people who hold opposing political views names like "cowards" and "terrorists" but when someone tries to get you to just spit out what you think about abortion, you start hemming and hawing and dodging all over the place..

If you are against abortion being criminalized that tells us nothing about what you think of the morality of abortion itself, does it?

This thread is about discussing the morality of Abortion.

You basically accused me of being a coward because I was in favor of the Pro-Life Activism forum. well this forum has no restrictions such as that, so please let it all loose. Let me have it.

Do you think abortion is morally wrong at any point during a pregnancy? if so, where do you draw that line?

Storico

September 8th 2007, 05:26 AM

Thanks for your replies so far, Jackie. I'll respond back in depth when I'm more awake. But no, I'm not trying to "do the old 'arm-around-the-shoulder-be-my-pal-bit-which-suddenly-turns-into-the-anaconda-around-the-neck' bit". In an attempt to be friendly, I asked you for your opinion. (Sometimes things really ARE as they seem.) I still have questions I wouldn't mind you clarifying, but I'll ask later. :smile:

Lizard

September 8th 2007, 01:19 PM

Certainly true. Criminalizing abortion would be a terrible public policy mistake.

Can you elaborate on why you think it would be terrible public plicy to outlaw arbortion?

Chaotic Void

September 9th 2007, 07:51 PM

Pardon the crass comment, but I think the answer everyone's gonna get is gonna be on the lines of "It's Legal, that makes it Okay". Her statements reek of Legalism, IMHO.

Jackie Fox

September 10th 2007, 10:13 AM

And I asked, also, "how do you figure the Bible approaches the value of life, either of the born or the unborn?" Your answer was that the Bible is entirely silent on the matter. Of abortion, yes, but since the Bible is very vocal on the subject of the sanctity of life, I guess it's not so silent. It's more a logical preposition. Let's pretend that A is the opposite of B. Everything A stands for, B stands against. Now let's say the Bible has some wonderful things to say about A. Would it not be disagreeing with B, if B was A's opposite? In our case, if the Bible recognizes that God starts all life and that God knows us before we're born, do you think God would approve of abortion or condone it?

I'm trying to find out how your own spiritual beliefs would address the issue. How long abortion's existed for doesn't make abortion right. According to the Bible, murder occurred not very far into the creation story when one brother killed another, but the length of time something's been happening never usually means God'll be silent on it.

Your thoughts?

The focus of the right wing extremist groups on abortion when there are so many other ways one could be "pro-life" if that was their intent, reveals the deceptive nature of the rhetoric.

IMO abortion is not murder, and a fetus is not a person and any attempt to make it such is an act of deception and manipulation.

A god that would support the oppression - supporting anti-abortion groups would simply be not a god one could regard as good. I do not believe such a god exists.

Jackie Fox

September 10th 2007, 10:52 AM

Jackie if you have opinions on the topic of abortion, just come out and say it clearly, please.

As a social problem, it should not be addressed through criminal law at all, ever.

You don't seem to have any qualms with calling people who hold opposing political views names like "cowards" and "terrorists" but when someone tries to get you to just spit out what you think about abortion, you start hemming and hawing and dodging all over the place..[QUOTE]

So you say. I'll characterize others p'ositions as I see fit as I am sure you will do as well. I think the above is as clear as needed.

[QUOTE]If you are against abortion being criminalized that tells us nothing about what you think of the morality of abortion itself, does it?

This thread is about discussing the morality of Abortion. [QUOTE]

I don't believe it is appropriate to judge such by others. I am opposed to it, for me, for moral reasons. I don not find the moral high ground ever being taken tb the anti-abortion groups.

[QUOTE]You basically accused me of being a coward because I was in favor of the Pro-Life Activism forum. well this forum has no restrictions such as that, so please let it all loose. Let me have it.

I have to know where you stand. Other than engaging in bullying here you appear to stand for little else other than someone who likes what they see in the mirror.

Do you think abortion is morally wrong at any point during a pregnancy? if so, where do you draw that line?

For me, entirely. For anyone else, not my or your or anyone else's concern.

Sparko

September 10th 2007, 11:45 AM

As a social problem, it should not be addressed through criminal law at all, ever.

You don't seem to have any qualms with calling people who hold opposing political views names like "cowards" and "terrorists" but when someone tries to get you to just spit out what you think about abortion, you start hemming and hawing and dodging all over the place..

So you say. I'll characterize others p'ositions as I see fit as I am sure you will do as well. I think the above is as clear as needed.

If you are against abortion being criminalized that tells us nothing about what you think of the morality of abortion itself, does it?

This thread is about discussing the morality of Abortion.

I don't believe it is appropriate to judge such by others. I am opposed to it, for me, for moral reasons. I don not find the moral high ground ever being taken tb the anti-abortion groups.

I have to know where you stand. Other than engaging in bullying here you appear to stand for little else other than someone who likes what they see in the mirror.

For me, entirely. For anyone else, not my or your or anyone else's concern.

Me bullying? ha.

You are the one stomping around in here calling people names and telling them that they are terrorists and such, and you have no qualms at all about telling everyone that what they believe is wrong, but when it comes to you telling us what you believe, you act like your beliefs are private and not up for debate.

Well then if that is the case, do us a favor and leave our beliefs alone too. If you want to discuss things then you need to tell us what you believe too so we can discuss whether you are right and we are wrong and vice versa. This is a discussion forum not a deposition. The conversation goes both ways.

If you consider that bullying, then so be it.

as to where I stand? I am against abortion. I think the fetus is a human being and deserves to be treated as such. From the moment of conception the zygote is an individual human being separate from his/her mother in identity, genetically, and morally. To destroy that zygote or fetus because it is inconvenient is to break the commandment to not murder. God gives life and we are not to take it frivously without madate from God.

That is the type of response I am trying to get you to give us. your stand on the moral issue of abortion. I have no problem with stating what I believe clearly and without hesitation, so why do you? Are you ashamed of your own beliefs?

If you have a problem putting forth your views and beliefs on a public forum, then you probably shouldn't be here.

Jackie Fox

September 10th 2007, 12:14 PM

Can you elaborate on why you think it would be terrible public plicy to outlaw arbortion?

Done in a new thread in civics.

Jackie Fox

September 10th 2007, 12:16 PM

Pardon the crass comment, but I think the answer everyone's gonna get is gonna be on the lines of "It's Legal, that makes it Okay". Her statements reek of Legalism, IMHO.

Of course, I said nothing of the kind, but nice distortion.

How do you define "legalism"? How is anyone intervening in another's body NOT legalism? It's an exercise of "I want to so I will" and nothing more.

Jackie Fox

September 10th 2007, 12:21 PM

Me bullying? ha.

You are the one stomping around in here calling people names and telling them that they are terrorists and such, and you have no qualms at all about telling everyone that what they believe is wrong, but when it comes to you telling us what you believe, you act like your beliefs are private and not up for debate.

That's ridiculous. I've stated my beliefs. It's not my fault you're such a door debater you choose to accuse me of things I did not do.

Well then if that is the case, do us a favor and leave our beliefs alone too. If you want to discuss things then you need to tell us what you believe too so we can discuss whether you are right and we are wrong and vice versa. This is a discussion forum not a deposition. The conversation goes both ways.

If you consider that bullying, then so be it.

Woo, big man, speaking for the group. That use of the editorial we there is a pompous act of bullying and anyone willingly included in it is a little minion of yours by their own admission then.

as to where I stand? I am against abortion. I think the fetus is a human being and deserves to be treated as such. From the moment of conception the zygote is an individual human being separate from his/her mother in identity, genetically, and morally. To destroy that zygote or fetus because it is inconvenient is to break the commandment to not murder. God gives life and we are not to take it frivously without madate from God.

I believe precisely the opposite. I believe a fetus is not a human being. Abortion is not anyone's business except that of the woman involved. A god which would state such was evil has no authority at all. Of course, no such god is articulated in the JudeoChristian scriptures at all.

That is the type of response I am trying to get you to give us. your stand on the moral issue of abortion. I have no problem with stating what I believe clearly and without hesitation, so why do you? Are you ashamed of your own beliefs?

You want it, you got it. The above taunting clearly reveals your character.

If you have a problem putting forth your views and beliefs on a public forum, then you probably shouldn't be here.

I never have. To state I have done otherwise is a falsehood.

Lizard

September 10th 2007, 12:43 PM

Done in a new thread in civics.
Thanks.

Sparko

September 10th 2007, 12:44 PM

That's ridiculous. I've stated my beliefs. It's not my fault you're such a door debater you choose to accuse me of things I did not do.

Woo, big man, speaking for the group. That use of the editorial we there is a pompous act of bullying and anyone willingly included in it is a little minion of yours by their own admission then.

Jackie if you are here to just pick fights, then you won't last long. I was speaking as "we" because I am a moderator here and I know how "we" do things around here and what "we" expect from members and what the purpose of this website is all about. For someone who has been here less than a week or so, you are very opinionated, arrogant and very quick to toss out the ad homs and straw man arguments, and then cry "victim" when ever anyone calls you on it. Did they teach you that in law school?

I believe precisely the opposite. I believe a fetus is not a human being. Abortion is not anyone's business except that of the woman involved. A god which would state such was evil has no authority at all. Of course, no such god is articulated in the JudeoChristian scriptures at all.

Really? Its Evil to stop someone from killing an unborn baby? And exactly HOW is a fetus not a human being (note I am not speaking of legal definitions of "person" I am speaking of species) Do you think it is a chicken? or maybe a fish?

And the bible DOES speak of the unborn. It talks of John the baptist leaping in the womb with joy when Mary came to visit his mom. It talks about God knitting together Jeremiah in the womb, already with plans for him. It talks about Essau and Jacob in the womb, and in all cases it speaks of them as human beings, even with human emotions in the case of John.

and leviticus says:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

That's a pretty good precident against abortion, both accidental and premeditated. It shows that the life of the unborn baby is worth the same as an adult human being as far as the law is concerned.

You want it, you got it. The above taunting clearly reveals your character.

I am not taunting you. You are just being asinine. You come in here calling us terrorists and evil because we think abortion is murder, but you don't want anyone to say anything against you. If you can't take what you dish out, then just click that little red X in the upper right hand of your browser window.

I never have. To state I have done otherwise is a falsehood. Be careful there, Jackie, we take unsubstantiated accusations of lying very serious here. I was stating my opinion. Everytime someone asks you a direct question you seem to dodge around and give very slippery answers.

JackC

September 10th 2007, 01:47 PM

and leviticus says:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

That's a pretty good precident against abortion, both accidental and premeditated. It shows that the life of the unborn baby is worth the same as an adult human being as far as the law is concerned.

Is this just another case of basing our conclusions on a personal assumption?

Maybe we ought to look at how the Jews interpretated and applied these verses.

Here is what the Chumash (Jewish interpretation) says...

Shemot or Exodus 21 22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

From the Chumash:

22. If men shall fight. Unlike the dispute of verse 18, which began as a verbal argument and escalated into violence, this is a dispute in which the parties were trying to kill one another. In the course of their fight, a pregnant woman came by and a blow that was intended for one of the disputants struck her, In this verse, the case is that the blow caused her to lose her child, but she was unharmed, In the next verse, she was killed, and in verses 24-25, she was injured.

But there will be no fatality. The mother did not die or suffer an injury, but she lost her fetus.

Shall cause to be assessed. Causing the death of a fetus is not a capital offense, but the person responsible must pay damages. These damages are assessed by the court in response to a claim made by the father. Such monetary damages are computed in the following manner: The court evaluated the woman as if she were a slave with a market value. She would be worth more if she were pregnant, because a perspective buyer would receive not only her services, but also her newborn as a slave. The reduction of value as a result of the accident is the damage that the court requires the assailant to pay (Rashi) Such a payment can be employed regardless of whether slavery is practiced. A person's 'market value' consists of an assessment of his life expectancy, health, talent, experience, and so on, as if such a person's services could be 'purchased' for the rest of his life. If the person were injured, his 'value' would go down according to the extent his abilities were impaired.

But if there shall be a fatality. If the woman dies, there is a new legal problem. It is clear from verses 13 and 14 that only premeditated murder incurs the death penalty. In our verse, there is an intent to kill - the men were trying to kill one another - but there was no intent to kill her. Is this considered sufficient intent to incur the death penalty? The Sages disagree regarding this point (Sanhedrin 79a). If it is, then a life for a life is meant literally; the assailant receives the death penalty. If it is not sufficient intent, the above phrase refers to damages, i.e. he must pay her monetary value.

Quoted from The Stone Edition Chumash.

And then fast forwarding to what Jesus said about these verses...

Matthew 5 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

However one wishes to interpret these verses, I do not see anything that supports the interpretation that you offer.

However, I cannot say that any one interpretation is completely wrong or completely right.

But it seems prudent to first look at how Jews interpret their scriptures before we present our personal opinion as expert.

Our opinion may be just as valid as the next and can be used to explain ourselves. But we are walking on shaky ground when we use our opinions to judge others and what they do, think or feel.

Jack

This forum is reserved for those who hold to historical church orthodoxy view of Christianity.

Jackie Fox

September 10th 2007, 02:01 PM

Jackie if you are here to just pick fights, then you won't last long.

If fair fights were permitted that would be different.

I was speaking as "we" because I am a moderator here and I know how "we" do things around here and what "we" expect from members and what the purpose of this website is all about.

And the pompousness factor there was to the nth degree. We know.

For someone who has been here less than a week or so, you are very opinionated, arrogant and very quick to toss out the ad homs and straw man arguments, and then cry "victim" when ever anyone calls you on it. Did they teach you that in law school?

You've just described your own behavior. Most be prejecting here.

Really? Its Evil to stop someone from killing an unborn baby?

I will put is as frant as I can: the anti abortion movement in this country, whether represented by a few cases of internet addicts on a webiste or the organized groups, has evil goals as I see it. You are of course free to believe otherwise. Isn't that wonderful?

And exactly HOW is a fetus not a human being (note I am not speaking of legal definitions of "person" I am speaking of species) Do you think it is a chicken? or maybe a fish?

Your smug absurd analogies do not faze me. A fetus is not a person just as an egg is not a chicken, or a fish.

And the bible DOES speak of the unborn. It talks of John the baptist leaping in the womb with joy when Mary came to visit his mom. It talks about God knitting together Jeremiah in the womb, already with plans for him. It talks about Essau and Jacob in the womb, and in all cases it speaks of them as human beings, even with human emotions in the case of John.

and leviticus says:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

That's a pretty good precident against abortion, both accidental and premeditated. It shows that the life of the unborn baby is worth the same as an adult human being as far as the law is concerned.

All fail to pass muster. As much as the antiabortion groups wish there is no "thou shalt not have an abortion" so the entire exercise there amounts to what we call crawfishin down south.

I am not taunting you. You are just being asinine. You come in here calling us terrorists and evil because we think abortion is murder,

You convicne no one with your pathetic denial. I did not call any "us" as you say; there you go with that ridiculous use of the editorial we, looking like the schoolyard bully you hope to be.

It is well documented the organized antiabortion movement has supported terrorism against healthcare facilities. If those who support it are not terrorist enablers, neither are Saudi Sheikhs who gave millions to Osama Bin laden.

but you don't want anyone to say anything against you. If you can't take what you dish out,

You can say whatever you like about me, but whatever you say will be answered. apparently that is not the way you want it but sometimes you little bullies don't get what you want.

then just click that little red X in the upper right hand of your browser window.

Why don't you do it instead? If that is what you want me to do you are going to have to live with disappointment. since your arguing abilities as shown by this post to which I'm replying here are so poor that might be the discreet thing to do.

Be careful there, Jackie, we take unsubstantiated accusations of lying very serious here. I was stating my opinion. Everytime someone asks you a direct question you seem to dodge around and give very slippery answers.

That's a contradiction. You can like or dislike my answers as you wish but whether they're answering the questions or not is evident. I answered the questions. You just didn't like the answers.

Here is more direct impact: abortion should in my view always be legal and if it is not the moral thing to do would be to see women seeking abortions through extralegal means obtain access to them.

Sparko

September 10th 2007, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Sparko (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2069542#post2069542)
Jackie if you are here to just pick fights, then you won't last long. If fair fights were permitted that would be different. Well that was that forum and this is this one. You are welcome to put forth your views here as long as you meet the guidelines of this forum. Did you bother to read THEM? you might want to take a moment to do so just to avoid future misunderstandings.

I was speaking as "we" because I am a moderator here and I know how "we" do things around here and what "we" expect from members and what the purpose of this website is all about. And the pompousness factor there was to the nth degree. We know. If you don't what to hear what the philosophy of this board is about then you will continue to find yourself at odds with everyone here, especially the staff.

For someone who has been here less than a week or so, you are very opinionated, arrogant and very quick to toss out the ad homs and straw man arguments, and then cry "victim" when ever anyone calls you on it. Did they teach you that in law school? You've just described your own behavior. Most be prejecting here.You don't spell very well for a lawyer. But anyway, maybe you should stick to law and not try to be a psychoanalyst, because you do a very poor job of it, but you do seem pretty good at breaking irony meters
:irony:

I was trying to engage you in a discussion about abortion and what you believe and instead of debating me, you just want to pick a fight and the first whine out of you in this post was "If fair fights were permitted that would be different." showing that you do indeed like to play the victim.

Really? Its Evil to stop someone from killing an unborn baby? I will put is as frant as I can: the anti abortion movement in this country, whether represented by a few cases of internet addicts on a webiste or the organized groups, has evil goals as I see it. You are of course free to believe otherwise. Isn't that wonderful?Try the spellchecker, right click on the edit box and choose "spell check this field" I have no idea what "I will put is frant as I can" means. But have you seen me or anyone on this board put forth any evil goals? All we have said is that abortion is wrong and should be stopped. We have not condoned any bombing of abortion clinics or any other radical acts, and if you bothered ask us you would find us condemning such actions vehemently. You continue to burn strawmen in your attack against us.

And exactly HOW is a fetus not a human being (note I am not speaking of legal definitions of "person" I am speaking of species) Do you think it is a chicken? or maybe a fish? Your smug absurd analogies do not faze me. A fetus is not a person just as an egg is not a chicken, or a fish. A chicken egg is the same species as a hen. A fish egg would be the same species as the mother fish who laid it. A human fetus is a HUMAN fetus. It is not some alien attacking the mother. It is an individual human being, just younger than you are. You, Jackie WERE a fetus at one time. You were still human were you not? You had your own unique DNA, different from your mother or your father. and that DNA was HUMAN. Not "EGG"

And the bible DOES speak of the unborn. It talks of John the baptist leaping in the womb with joy when Mary came to visit his mom. It talks about God knitting together Jeremiah in the womb, already with plans for him. It talks about Essau and Jacob in the womb, and in all cases it speaks of them as human beings, even with human emotions in the case of John.

and leviticus says:

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

That's a pretty good precident against abortion, both accidental and premeditated. It shows that the life of the unborn baby is worth the same as an adult human being as far as the law is concerned. All fail to pass muster. As much as the antiabortion groups wish there is no "thou shalt not have an abortion" so the entire exercise there amounts to what we call crawfishin down south.
Handwaving away something is not debating. If you want to prove me wrong, at least give me the courtesy of putting forth a counter argument.

I am not taunting you. You are just being asinine. You come in here calling us terrorists and evil because we think abortion is murder, You convicne no one with your pathetic denial. I did not call any "us" as you say; there you go with that ridiculous use of the editorial we, looking like the schoolyard bully you hope to be.You have one of the largest chips on your shoulder I have ever seen in a while. I feel sorry for you, Jackie. You have attacked anti-abortionists as terrorists and called them evil. Well, I am an antiabortionist therefor I use "we" - is that a problem? I am identifying myself as part of the group you wish to attack and call names. And so do all the other people you have been attacking since you got here. and before you go telling me I am trying to speak for everyone else again, why yes I am. I know these people because they are my friends and I have bothered to ask what they believe and they have told me so I know that the prolife people on theology web that you have interacted with have no problem with me using "we"

It is well documented the organized antiabortion movement has supported terrorism against healthcare facilities. If those who support it are not terrorist enablers, neither are Saudi Sheikhs who gave millions to Osama Bin laden.It is only well documented that some moronic idiots who call themselves antiabortionists have done horrible things against abortion clinics. But they hardly represent the mainstream Pro-Life movement. I and every other pro-life person I know of condemns those acts as horrible. How can they claim that the life of the unborn is sacred and turn around and take the life of an adult? Hypocrisy at its finest. So please don't lump us in with those people. They no more represent Pro-Life than Fred Phelps represents Christians. but you don't want anyone to say anything against you. If you can't take what you dish out,You can say whatever you like about me, but whatever you say will be answered. apparently that is not the way you want it but sometimes you little bullies don't get what you want.there you go playing victim again.

then just click that little red X in the upper right hand of your browser window. Why don't you do it instead? If that is what you want me to do you are going to have to live with disappointment. since your arguing abilities as shown by this post to which I'm replying here are so poor that might be the discreet thing to do.so far you haven't argued against me so much as spew ad homs and straw. If you want to discuss the actual issues, let me know. Be careful there, Jackie, we take unsubstantiated accusations of lying very serious here. I was stating my opinion. Everytime someone asks you a direct question you seem to dodge around and give very slippery answers.That's a contradiction. You can like or dislike my answers as you wish but whether they're answering the questions or not is evident. I answered the questions. You just didn't like the answers.sheesh.

Here is more direct impact: abortion should in my view always be legal and if it is not the moral thing to do would be to see women seeking abortions through extralegal means obtain access to them.huh?

Chaotic Void

September 10th 2007, 05:55 PM

Of course, I said nothing of the kind, but nice distortion.
And you should know what a Distortion is, being a Lawyer and all.

How do you define "legalism"? How is anyone intervening in another's body NOT legalism? It's an exercise of "I want to so I will" and nothing more.

Legalism: What is Legal+What is Illegal= a Persons Morals [what they believe is right and wrong].

You say "intervening" as if pregnancy is a bad thing that must be dealt with.

[PS.... "Right-Wing Extremists". eh? I'm a Canadian Socialist... or a Liberal by Political Standards... yet I oppose Abortion. statements like "Right-Wing Extremists" REEKS of political Slander. Not saying it IS political slander, but it smells like that]

Storico

September 10th 2007, 06:39 PM

Jackie, what Sparko told you in post#65 is very much the view many of us hold. We do believe fetuses are human, that they are alive and growing and separate individuals with moral intrinsic value, separate from their parents. And I also use the word "we", because as Sparko pointed out, there are many of us here who both know each other and believe this. We call ourselves pro-life, but that doesn't mean we support the bombing of abortion clinics. At all. Personally, I don't support taking anyone's life in an act of murder. Life, be it an adult's or a fetuses' life, isn't mine to take in an act of murder....so there goes that argument. And if you're wondering, by the way, most of us pro-lifers in no way object to saving a mother's life by allowing for abortion in an extreme circumstance, ie, a pregnancy severely endangering a mother's life. We don't want to see ANYONE die, but if a birth will cause two deaths, we DO recognize that and would take that into consideration. Just in case you wondered -- a lot of people ask.

I also believe the Bible is a pro-life book. You say that nowhere does it tell you "do not abort your baby". You're right. On the other hand, the Bible DOES say a lot about the value of human life, both in the womb and out of it. As you've seen, it treats fetuses in the womb the way it treats adults -- as human, as alive. If you believe God, the God that Jesus came as and the God of the Israelites, would approve of abortion, please reference the Bible passages that suggest that as a possibility. I promise to consider them. This is "Biblical Ethics", so rather than relying on your own sense of what "a loving God" would condone, please try to take a look at the Bible, and see which passages do back up your own opinion. And then please share them with us.

In the end, this can't be personal opinion. As fair or unfair as we think something is, we finally come to a place where we say "either the Bible IS the word of God or it isn't, and I should either follow it and believe it, or I shouldn't." We can look for loopholes for years. We can protest "but it DOESN'T say THAT..... I mean, it kinda says something about that, but not SPECIFICALLY that...." and we can play a game of spiritual Twister if it'll make us feel better. It won't. I can tell you it won't, because I know. I tried that. I finally came to a place where everything kicked in with the help of friends and a lot of prayer, and I just decided to let God be God. I got so tired of putting values onto God I suspected He probably didn't hold anyways. I gave up "Create Your Own Version of God 101", because the real thing was actually available and I was really grateful for it.

The God we rely on, the God whose promises we believe are true about Christ and ressurrection, is the same God who gave us everything else we've got in the Bible. Word for word. That's what I believe. In reference to this pro-life issue..... yes. In all cases of pregnancy where there is no dire harm involved, I am 100% pro-life, and I believe a fetus is a full human being. To say that suddenly, somewhere in a pregnancy, a fetus stops being this non-human form and starts being one makes no sense to me. They're human from day one, and God's no less, if they're anything at all.

Amazing Rando

September 10th 2007, 07:21 PM

I also believe the Bible is a pro-life book. You say that nowhere does it tell you "do not abort your baby". You're right.

Scripture doesn't go there explicitly, but other early Christian literature from the first two centuries do pick up explicitly on what is in Scripture implicitly:

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed.

Since this is our character, what man of sound judgment would say that we are murderers? For you cannot eat human flesh until you have killed someone. For if anyone were to ask them if they had seen what they affirm, none of them would be so shameless as to say they had.

Moreover, we have slaves: some of us more, some fewer. We cannot hide anything from them; yet not one of them has made up such tall stories against us. Since they know that we cannot endure to see a man being put to death, even justly, who of them would charge us with murder or cannibalism? Who among our accusers is not eager to witness contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those organized by you? But we see little difference between watching a man being put to death and killing him. So we have given up such spectacles. How can we commit murder when we will not look at it, lest we should contract the stain of guilt? What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God? For the same person would not regard the fetus in the womb as a living thing and therefore an object of God’s care, and at the same time slay it, once it had come to life. Nor would he refuse to expose infants, on the ground that those who expose them are murderers of children and at the same time do away with the child he has reared. But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it.

:teeth: Ok, back to lurking now. :rando:

Storico

September 10th 2007, 08:29 PM

Those are all excellent resources. Thanks for sharing them! :teeth:

Storico

September 14th 2007, 04:32 PM

Jackie, I'm curious if you have a response to post 67 or post 68. We both made arguments and expressed our opinions for you, so I'm hoping you'll have something to say, since you've had a few days to consider those points, above.

Chocobear

October 31st 2007, 02:27 AM

First: I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, Spiritus Naturae, in your first post.

Secondly: I'd like to share an observation that someone once shared with me. In the Bible, whenever a redeemer was about to show up on the scene, children would be murdered. First, there's the story in Exodus 1, where Pharaoh ordered the midwives to murder the male infants. Fortunately, the midwives disobeyed him. Then he commanded all his people to cast the male infants into the river. One of the male infants that he wanted to have murdered was Moses. I believe Satan planted these ideas into Pharaoh's head, because he somehow knew that God wanted to use Moses for a special purpose. What was that special purpose? God intended to use Moses to lead His people out of captivity and to the Promised Land. In a way, Moses was a redeemer.

Then, we have the story in the second chapter of Matthew. Herod, not wanting Jesus to mess up the sweet thing he had going, decided to put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under. Satan somehow knew that something "fishy" was going on with that baby Jesus, and that this Child would play an important role in one of God's plans. So he planted the idea to have these innocent children murdered, hoping that the Great Redeemer would be killed as well.

As we know, Jesus the Christ will come back to earth to set up His kingdom. So is it a coincidence that nations all over the world have embraced the horrible act we call abortion, which is the murder of unborn children? And then, of course, we have women like Andrea Yates and Susan Smith, who murder their children when they're out of the womb.

Another thing that is tragic about this is that members of the non-believing community fail to recognize the fact that the reason abortion is embraced in this country is because secularists have worked very hard to remove God from our schools, from our government, from every aspect of public life. The moment people turn their backs on God, their moral compasses are allowed to spin out of control.

One of the fastest and most effective ways to cut down on the numbers of abortions is to stop any and all government subsidy of it (i.e. government funding of Planned Parenthood and any other agency that performs abortions.)

I agree! If a woman wants to have her unborn child murdered, she should pay for it out of her own pocket.

Another important point that I think most pro-choice advocates overlook: Many women and girls are coerced or threatened into abortion by boyfriends, husbands and even parents. Their "choice" boils down to: "get an abortion or lose your home and family." I have had friends who had abortions as the result of this kind of "choice," and if my ex-husband and his mother had once had their way, it would have happened to me too. I am thankful that by God's grace I was able to stand up to their threats and resist their bribes (my son is almost 15) but I know it's a difficult choice. I had somewhere to go- my parents backed me up- but for so many girls and women their own parents are the very ones making the abortion "choice" for them.

Again, I agree with you. We tend to focus only on the lives of the innocent newborns, and we forget the situations of the women who are having abortions.

Sparko

October 31st 2007, 09:49 AM

First: I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, Spiritus Naturae, in your first post.

Secondly: I'd like to share an observation that someone once shared with me. In the Bible, whenever a redeemer was about to show up on the scene, children would be murdered. First, there's the story in Exodus 1, where Pharaoh ordered the midwives to murder the male infants. Fortunately, the midwives disobeyed him. Then he commanded all his people to cast the male infants into the river. One of the male infants that he wanted to have murdered was Moses. I believe Satan planted these ideas into Pharaoh's head, because he somehow knew that God wanted to use Moses for a special purpose. What was that special purpose? God intended to use Moses to lead His people out of captivity and to the Promised Land. In a way, Moses was a redeemer.

Then, we have the story in the second chapter of Matthew. Herod, not wanting Jesus to mess up the sweet thing he had going, decided to put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under. Satan somehow knew that something "fishy" was going on with that baby Jesus, and that this Child would play an important role in one of God's plans. So he planted the idea to have these innocent children murdered, hoping that the Great Redeemer would be killed as well.

As we know, Jesus the Christ will come back to earth to set up His kingdom. So is it a coincidence that nations all over the world have embraced the horrible act we call abortion, which is the murder of unborn children? And then, of course, we have women like Andrea Yates and Susan Smith, who murder their children when they're out of the womb.

Another thing that is tragic about this is that members of the non-believing community fail to recognize the fact that the reason abortion is embraced in this country is because secularists have worked very hard to remove God from our schools, from our government, from every aspect of public life. The moment people turn their backs on God, their moral compasses are allowed to spin out of control.

I agree! If a woman wants to have her unborn child murdered, she should pay for it out of her own pocket.

Again, I agree with you. We tend to focus only on the lives of the innocent newborns, and we forget the situations of the women who are having abortions.

some good points. but when Jesus comes back he is not going to come as a baby this time.

Chocobear

October 31st 2007, 05:18 PM

some good points. but when Jesus comes back he is not going to come as a baby this time.

I know. I was just saying that whenever God sends a redeemer our way, children end up being murdered.

RumTumTugger

November 1st 2007, 01:46 PM

I wonder why Jackie is avoiding this thread.

Is it because she knows it will show folks that she is a troll who can only make assertions and ad hominum attacks. Someone who can't argue herself out of a paper bag so she has to put false motives on those who hold to the view that all human beings are valuable not just those she and others with her pro-abortion rights view think are convenient?.

Storico

November 1st 2007, 10:21 PM

RumTumTugger

November 1st 2007, 11:48 PM

I hope you haven't been holding your breath for a month and a half, RTT. You'd turn as blue as a smurf.... wait.... never mind. :tongue:

nope not holding my breath but I find it interesting that somone who calls us cowards is afraid to put her view and arguments for said views to the test.

Storico

November 2nd 2007, 11:26 AM

Well, whenever she speaks, let's expect fabulous responses... well thought out, articulated ones... after all, she's had long enough. Right, Jackie? :wink:

Chocobear

November 2nd 2007, 08:58 PM

Guys, with all the taunting you've been doing, it looks like you're itching for a fight. I, for one, am here to debate the issue of abortion. I'm not here to get caught in the crossfire of an argument between you and this Jackie person.

Storico

November 2nd 2007, 11:17 PM

Good stuff, Chocobear. Welcome, by the by. Debate away. What arguments, for or against, would you like to toss into the fray? Have at it.

Chocobear

November 5th 2007, 02:41 PM

I will put is as frant as I can: the anti abortion movement in this country, whether represented by a few cases of internet addicts on a webiste or the organized groups, has evil goals as I see it. You are of course free to believe otherwise. Isn't that wonderful?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Did I just read what I THOUGHT I read? You believe that the fight to protect the lives of our most innocent, defenseless citizens is EVIL? You believe that the fight to protect the DIGNITY of women is EVIL? What's your definition of evil, I wonder? Let me guess: Anything that would seek to prevent women from doing whatever they want with their bodies. Right?

You do realize that abortion is basically the violation of a woman's body. Don't you? I don't care if she's consenting. She is allowing some emotionally numb, cold-hearted murderer who's only interested in getting his precious blood money, to rip life from her body. That is a form of rape to me, and there is nothing dignified about it. Also, I'll have you know that I know a couple who are still suffering from the grief that came after they had not one, but two of their children aborted. So don't you dare suggest to me that the pro-life movement is evil. Not when abortion has ruined the lives of women and resulted in the murders of millions of innocent human beings!

If you want to be fully informed, I recommend that you read the stories of the women who have had abortions and who are still suffering from the consequences. Here's a link to one website that offers such testimonies.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/voices/index.htm

Your smug absurd analogies do not faze me. A fetus is not a person just as an egg is not a chicken, or a fish.

Prove it, Jackie. You prove to us that a fetus (which is what you abortion advocates like to call unborn children, so you won't feel bad about their murders) is not a person. Because I have seen evidence that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that that child is not only human, but that he is a person. If you feel that your position is correct and the pro-life movement is wrong, then you have no reason to avoid looking at these pictures.

FIRST TRIMESTER
www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/first-trimester/

SECOND TRIMESTER
www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/second-trimester/

THIRD TRIMESTER
www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/first-trimester/

Well, what do you know? They look like people! People YOU want to destroy, Jackie.

And remember, Jackie: You were once what you call a "non-person." Be grateful your mother didn't murder you.

You know what gets to me? How many people have complained that there has never been a woman president in the United States? Do they even realize that abortion could be killing future female presidents?

How many victims of abortion would have gone on to become the first African-American president, or the first Asian president, or the first Mexican president? We will never know, because they have been murdered.

How many aborted children would have gone on to find a cure for cancer, or for Parkinson's disease, or for AIDS? We will never know, because their lives have been taken away by self-involved mothers and doctors who are obsessed with getting their precious blood money.

I hope those of you who support Roe v. Wade are happy with yourselves. I hope you're proud of the "accomplishments" you've made, at the expense of human lives and women's dignity. Give yourselves a pat on the back while you're at it.

Good stuff, Chocobear. Welcome, by the by. Debate away. What arguments, for or against, would you like to toss into the fray? Have at it.

Thank you, Storico. The only arguments I have to add are the ones I've made in my reply to Jackie's rantings, as well as the fact that God condemns murder and that the Bible makes it very clear that unborn children are human beings.

mossrose

November 5th 2007, 02:57 PM

Welcome to Jackie's world, CB.

:lolo:

burgy

March 27th 2008, 06:01 PM

There seems to be substantial scientific evidence that the embryo has no "soul" and is therefore not a "person" until womb implantation.

On late term abortions, here are six testimonies of ladies who have had one. The first one is appended below:

See www.burgy.50megs.com/six.htm

Coreen Costello

Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Against H.R. 1833/S. 939

November 17, 1995

Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Coreen Costello. I live in Agoura, California, with my husband Jim and our son Chad and daughter Carlyn. Jim is a chiropractor and I am a full-time wife and mom.

I am a registered Republican, and very conservative. I don't believe in abortion. Because of my deeply held Christian beliefs, I knew that I would never have an abortion.

Then, on March 24 of this year, when I was seven months pregnant, I was having premature contractions and my husband and I rushed to the hospital.

During an ultrasound, the physician became very silent. Soon more physicians came in. I knew there was something very wrong. I went into the bathroom and sobbed. I begged God to let my baby be okay. I prayed like I've never prayed before in my life.

My husband reassured me that we could deal with whatever was wrong. We had talked about raising a child with disabilities and we were willing to take whatever God gave us.

My doctor arrived at two in the morning. He held my hand, and informed me that they did not expect our baby to live. She was unable to absorb the amniotic fluid and it was puddling into my uterus.

This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder and been unable to move for almost two months. The movements I had been feeling over the last few months had been nothing more than bubbles and fluid. Her chest cavity was unable to rise and fall to stretch her lungs to prepare them for air, leaving them severely underdeveloped, almost to the point of not existing. Her vital organs were atrophying. Our darling little girl was going to die.

A perinatologist recommended terminating the pregnancy. For my husband and me, this was not an option. I chose to go into labor naturally. I wanted her to come on God's time--I didn't want to interfere.

It was so difficult to go home and be pregnant and go on with life, knowing my baby was dying. I wanted to stay in bed. My husband looked at me and said, "Coreen, this baby is still with us. Let's be proud of her. Let's make these last days of her life as special as possible." I felt her life inside of me, and somehow I still glowed. At this time we chose her name-- Katherine Grace. "Katherine" means pure, and "Grace" represents God's mercy.

We went to many more experts over the next two weeks. It was discovered that Katherine's body was rigid and she was stuck in a transverse position. Due to swelling, her head was already larger than that of a full-term baby. Natural birth or an induced labor were impossible.

We considered a caesarean section, but experts at Cedars-Sinai Hospital were adamant that the risks to my health and possibly my life were too great. There was no reason to risk leaving my children motherless if there was no hope of saving Katherine.

The doctors all agreed that our only option was the intact D&E procedure. I was devastated. The thought of an abortion sent chills down my spine. I remember patting my tummy promising my little girl that I would never let anyone hurt or devalue her.

After Dr. McMahon explained the procedure, I was so comforted. He and his staff understood the pain and anguish we were feeling. I realized I was in the right place. This was the safest way for me to deliver. This left open the possibility of more children. It greatly lowered the risk of my death. Most important, it offered a peaceful, painless passing for Katherine Grace.

When I was put under the anesthesia, Katherine's heart stopped. She was able to pass away peacefully in the womb, which was the most comfortable place for her to be. Even if regular birth or a caesarean had been medically possible, my daughter would have died a agonizing death.

When I awoke a few hours later, she was brought in to us. She was beautiful. She was not missing part of her brain. She had not been stabbed in the head with scissors. She looked peaceful. My husband and I held her tight and sobbed. We stayed with her for hours, praying and singing lullabies. Giving her back was the hardest moment of my life.

Because of the safety of this procedure, I am now pregnant again.

Fortunately, most of you will never have to walk the valley we have walked. It deeply saddens me that you are making a decision having never walked in our shoes. When families like ours are given this kind of tragic news, the last people we want to seek advice from are politicians. We talk to our doctors--lots of doctors. We talk to our families and other loved ones. And we ponder, long and hard into the night, with God.

What happened to our family is heartbreaking, and it is private. But we have chosen to share our story with you because we hope it will help you act with wisdom and compassion. I hope that you can all put aside your political differences, your positions on abortion, and your party affiliations--and just try to remember us. We are the ones who know.

We are the families that ache to hold our babies, to raise them, to love and nurture them. We are the families who will forever have a hole in our hearts. We are the families that had to choose how our babies would die. Each one of you should be grateful that you and your families have not had to face such a choice. I pray that no one you love ever does. Please put a stop to this terrible bill. Families like ours are counting on you.

Sparko

March 27th 2008, 06:12 PM

There seems to be substantial scientific evidence that the embryo has no "soul" and is therefore not a "person" until womb implantation.

On late term abortions, here are six testimonies of ladies who have had one. The first one is appended below:

See www.burgy.50megs.com/six.htm (http://www.burgy.50megs.com/six.htm)

Coreen Costello

Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Against H.R. 1833/S. 939

November 17, 1995

Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Coreen Costello. I live in Agoura, California, with my husband Jim and our son Chad and daughter Carlyn. Jim is a chiropractor and I am a full-time wife and mom.

I am a registered Republican, and very conservative. I don't believe in abortion. Because of my deeply held Christian beliefs, I knew that I would never have an abortion.

Then, on March 24 of this year, when I was seven months pregnant, I was having premature contractions and my husband and I rushed to the hospital.

During an ultrasound, the physician became very silent. Soon more physicians came in. I knew there was something very wrong. I went into the bathroom and sobbed. I begged God to let my baby be okay. I prayed like I've never prayed before in my life.

My husband reassured me that we could deal with whatever was wrong. We had talked about raising a child with disabilities and we were willing to take whatever God gave us.

My doctor arrived at two in the morning. He held my hand, and informed me that they did not expect our baby to live. She was unable to absorb the amniotic fluid and it was puddling into my uterus.

This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder and been unable to move for almost two months. The movements I had been feeling over the last few months had been nothing more than bubbles and fluid. Her chest cavity was unable to rise and fall to stretch her lungs to prepare them for air, leaving them severely underdeveloped, almost to the point of not existing. Her vital organs were atrophying. Our darling little girl was going to die.

A perinatologist recommended terminating the pregnancy. For my husband and me, this was not an option. I chose to go into labor naturally. I wanted her to come on God's time--I didn't want to interfere.

It was so difficult to go home and be pregnant and go on with life, knowing my baby was dying. I wanted to stay in bed. My husband looked at me and said, "Coreen, this baby is still with us. Let's be proud of her. Let's make these last days of her life as special as possible." I felt her life inside of me, and somehow I still glowed. At this time we chose her name-- Katherine Grace. "Katherine" means pure, and "Grace" represents God's mercy.

We went to many more experts over the next two weeks. It was discovered that Katherine's body was rigid and she was stuck in a transverse position. Due to swelling, her head was already larger than that of a full-term baby. Natural birth or an induced labor were impossible.

We considered a caesarean section, but experts at Cedars-Sinai Hospital were adamant that the risks to my health and possibly my life were too great. There was no reason to risk leaving my children motherless if there was no hope of saving Katherine.

The doctors all agreed that our only option was the intact D&E procedure. I was devastated. The thought of an abortion sent chills down my spine. I remember patting my tummy promising my little girl that I would never let anyone hurt or devalue her.

After Dr. McMahon explained the procedure, I was so comforted. He and his staff understood the pain and anguish we were feeling. I realized I was in the right place. This was the safest way for me to deliver. This left open the possibility of more children. It greatly lowered the risk of my death. Most important, it offered a peaceful, painless passing for Katherine Grace.

When I was put under the anesthesia, Katherine's heart stopped. She was able to pass away peacefully in the womb, which was the most comfortable place for her to be. Even if regular birth or a caesarean had been medically possible, my daughter would have died a agonizing death.

When I awoke a few hours later, she was brought in to us. She was beautiful. She was not missing part of her brain. She had not been stabbed in the head with scissors. She looked peaceful. My husband and I held her tight and sobbed. We stayed with her for hours, praying and singing lullabies. Giving her back was the hardest moment of my life.

Because of the safety of this procedure, I am now pregnant again.

Fortunately, most of you will never have to walk the valley we have walked. It deeply saddens me that you are making a decision having never walked in our shoes. When families like ours are given this kind of tragic news, the last people we want to seek advice from are politicians. We talk to our doctors--lots of doctors. We talk to our families and other loved ones. And we ponder, long and hard into the night, with God.

What happened to our family is heartbreaking, and it is private. But we have chosen to share our story with you because we hope it will help you act with wisdom and compassion. I hope that you can all put aside your political differences, your positions on abortion, and your party affiliations--and just try to remember us. We are the ones who know.

We are the families that ache to hold our babies, to raise them, to love and nurture them. We are the families who will forever have a hole in our hearts. We are the families that had to choose how our babies would die. Each one of you should be grateful that you and your families have not had to face such a choice. I pray that no one you love ever does. Please put a stop to this terrible bill. Families like ours are counting on you.

How does that in any way show that a baby does not have a soul in the womb?

Chocobear

April 2nd 2008, 01:10 PM

As tragic as these women's experiences are, I feel that they made the wrong choice. They talked about how they wanted to save their children from pain-filled deaths. Yet take a look at what the children who were killed via the P.B.A. procedure had to go through.

Step 1 - Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
Step 2 - The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
Step 3 - The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
Step 4 - The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
Step 5 - The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm

Does this sound like a pain-free, dignity-filled procedure?! Does this sound like a quick death? Does this sound like something God wanted them to do?

I feel for these families. I really do. I wouldn't wish what happened to them on anyone. However, I agree with Spark, burgy.

How do these testimonies, in any way, show that a baby does not have a soul in the womb?

I have more questions for you: What right do we, as human beings, have to determine whether or not an unborn has a soul? What criteria do these doctors and scientists, with their fancy degrees and their so-called "higher intelligence," use to determine who has a soul and who doesn't? How do they define the word "soul"? And what is this so-called "substantial evidence" that "proves" that unborn children do not have souls?

Also, you must remember that these people who do not believe that embryos have souls usually have a goal that they are trying to achieve. Take, for instance, those who support embryonic stem cell research. Of course they are going to attempt to fool themselves and others into believing that E.S.C.R. does not result in the untimely and tragic death of the unborn. If they convince themselves and others that the embryo is just a bunch of cells, then E.S.C.R. becomes acceptable to the public.

But those of us who believe that life begins at the time of conception and that that embryo is a child who is waiting to be born ... we know better. We know that God created that child for a reason, and that we have no right (no matter how intelligent we think we are) to murder that child and steal the stem cells that rightfully belong to him or her. We believe that life is precious, and that it is God who has the right to determine how, when, where and why each of us passes on.

You can offer up all the "justification" in the world, Burgy. But at the end of the day, there are those of us who believe that all unborn children (even those who have yet to be implanted in the womb) are human beings who have the right to live, just as we do. If those of you who think there's nothing wrong with abortion and E.S.C.R. can't deal with that ... take it up with our God, because He's made it clear that murder is wrong.

To close my message, I'd like to quote a well-known Scripture.

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

Think of it this way: Those who support abortion, have performed abortions, and have chosen to have abortions are robbing their children not only of their right to physical life ... but of their right to choose to follow the Lord on this earth, and to serve Him and help others. And that, to me, is far more serious than the destruction of their physical bodies.

JenSen

April 2nd 2008, 08:49 PM

Abortion is murder, yes. It's the taking of a life that isn't yours to take. God alone has the right to give life or take it away, and though many of us love to play God, only one ever walked on earth who could genuinely claim to be Him -- and in all things, Christ was the giver of life, and sometimes even gave life back to those it had been taken from. I know from personal experience that there is NO situation in which I'd abort a precious child. I say that while being thankful that God's let me know Him, come to Him, love Him and gain the understanding I so sorely needed on this issue. It could just as easily have been a situation where I grew up never understanding the love for life God has. Now when it counts, I say yes to innocent life and no to ending it. God knows us before we're formed. Knows us intimately, has plans and dreams and a future for us, before we're born. Abortion takes all of those so abruptly away. And that's maybe one of the biggest reasons why there's so much sorrow when it comes to abortion.... the mother, the baby, family members and friends. Everyone has something that, in God's eyes, should be joy... ended so swiftly. By choice. That's the worst right there. As Choco said.... it's a joy to know God while here. Our children need to have that right, and that chance.

slaveofone

April 2nd 2008, 11:54 PM

Originally posted at my 'Xanga'-"...with all humility of mind." (http://www.xanga.com/SpiritusNaturae).

I really do not think that the practice of abortion will ever cease. While I believe government funding for programs such as "Planned Parenthood" should certainly cease, I truly doubt that it will. Abortion, endorsed by the government and the culture/public at large, is here to stay. Abortion is murder, pure and simple. A couple of years ago, I sat down and watched a video of an abortion being performed on a 3rd trimester child. Included were images of aborted babies ranging all periods of pregnancy. It was more than I could bear. I remember weeping at the sight of all those dead, unrealized lives and the brutal nature of the actual abortion footage. In the United States, a woman can abort her child anytime during her pregnancy, even in the 9th month. It all seems so unconscionable to me and should to any compassionate human being.

Question is what would happen if we outlawed abortion? If we made the practice illegal as it once was? There certainly would be doctors and individuals willing to break the law in an act of 'civil disobedience', for the 'reproductive rights' of the woman, or for a myriad of other reasons. Perhaps simply to make money on the part of the doctor or out of desperation on the part of the mother, who knows. These would probably be 'backdoor' abortions, increasing the potential for the mother to face complications as a result of the procedure. Quite possibly even death. My take on the issue is so be it. If a woman is so willing to kill the unborn life within her, that she has been given charge over, then she should take on the consequence of that action. All actions have consequences. We are not talking about a clump of cells here as so many would have us believe. These are children.

My wife made an interesting point in regards to abortions performed because a child may be born with potential birth defects. Is the termination of the pregnancy about what's best for the unborn child or is it more about mom and dad not wanting to deal with the potential pain, suffering, inconvenience and sacrifice that parents of the handicapped often have to endure? What happened to the ideas of sacrifice and denial of one's self for the betterment of our children?

The Christian community should certainly step into the breach, advocating and proclaiming alternatives to abortion for women who do not want their children or cannot care for them. It is not enough to simply say don't do it. We should show them and the culture at large, " a more excellent way". We should be out promoting a culture fully surrendered to Christ's teaching. As a community of believers, here in the states and across the globe, we could absolutely do so much more to follow Christ's directives. Caring for the widow and the orphan. Helping those who are truly in need. We shouldn't simply cater to the physical needs of those who are hungered and hurting, but to their spiritual needs as well. If in our tending to the needs of others we do not take opportunity to proclaim the reality of Christ and His Kingdom, we do a great disservice to those we intend to help.

addendum: A woman who finds herself at the point of seeking out the termination of the new life which struggles within her, should not be viewed as an 'enemy' but more accurately as a casualty of the now prevalent secular humanist worldview. This view has managed to cause in our culture a denial of the truth of "Imago Dei". Abortion and it's existence are but one evidence of that denial.

Interesting perspective. I have to disagree, however, with just about everything you said accept the fact that abortions are here to stay. Abortion is not murder. There is no such thing as human life inside the womb. A baby is not a living human being until it breathes. The only reason I can see that you would think differently is because of your Greek-based philosophy. Outside of that, almost everything you've said here is just ridiculous.

If we outlawed abortions, there might be decreases in the total amount, however, there would be INCREASES in the amount of abortions by people who otherwise might have been counseled and helped out of getting an abortion. The reason for this is simple--anyone who thinks abortion might actually be an option for them has no reason not to talk to someone about it when they won't be thrown in jail or their rights and liberties overthrown by the authorities for wanting to get one. And thus there is more opportunity and more chance to end up not having an abortion when abortion is legal. If abortion is outlawed, all those who already think abortion is a possibility will not seek outside help or advice that might have steered them away from that abortion in the first place because they'll be afraid of repercussions to themselves that they otherwise would never had any reason to fear.

A couple of years ago, I sat down and watched a video of an abortion being performed on a 3rd trimester child. Included were images of aborted babies ranging all periods of pregnancy. It was more than I could bear. I remember weeping at the sight of all those dead, unrealized lives and the brutal nature of the actual abortion footage.

I once heard someone claim about another subject that most people base their decisions entirely on an emotional reaction to it. Perhaps this has a lot to do with most of you here who are against abortion. It seems like more than mere coincidence that the emotional feeling is brought up again and again throughout this thread by abortion opponents. It obviously has an effect on you guys and you guys obviously felt the emotional impact would influence others, otherwise you wouldn't mention it so often in your arguments against abortion. It's understandable to detest something because it makes you feel ill. Seeing what actually goes on is not like watching someone get a wound sewn or watching someone emerge from an accident. Emotional reactions are fine, but they're no reason to legislate abortion.
An unorthodox Christian is not allowed to post in this forum

Chocobear

April 3rd 2008, 12:57 AM

text edited by a moderator

So the unborn child is not a living human being? What is it, then? A puppy? A kitten? A rock? A turtle? Is it not true that if you pair one human male up with one human female, you are going to end up with a human child? And if the child is not alive, then answer these questions:

How can it grow?

Why does it have a heart beat and brain waves?

How can it move?

Because let's face it: only living beings can do these things.

And if the child is not alive ... why kill it?

You can attempt to justify abortion all you want. But for you to use the, "There is no such thing as human life inside the womb. A baby is not a living human being until it breathes" excuse ... That, my friend, is ridiculous because it lacks common sense.

And how dare you tell me that the children inside my friends' wombs are not living human beings? How dare you?! How dare you attempt to play God by dictating who is and who is not a human being?! What if someone had decided that you, while you were in your mother's womb, were not a living human being and decided that it would be a good idea to have you aborted? So what makes you think that you have the right to determine that just because a child is not outside his or her mother's womb, he or she is not a living human being?

It's quite clear that logic and common sense have absolutely no place in the pro-choice movement. Not when people are insisting that the children inside the womb are not alive and are not human.

Chocobear

April 7th 2008, 08:52 PM

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely 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, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Exodus 21:22-25)

Now, if the penalty for accidentally killing the baby and/or the mother is death ... what do you think the penalty for abortion is? I do not believe that this Scripture refers only to the serious injury of the mother. If it did refer only to the serious injury of the mother, it would have said so. Notice the Scripture does not say, "But if there is serious injury to the mother, yet not to the child, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc." The Scripture, therefore, includes the death penalty for the deaths of the child and/or his mother.

Griffs

April 30th 2008, 01:48 PM

OK...it's been over a year since I posted on this same thread, and I've forgotten exactly what I have already argued and what I have not. However, especially in debates over hot topics like abortion, I think it is important to get clear on our language. What do we mean by these concepts? Are we consistent in our applications of these concepts? Will we be able to come to some sort of general agreement about our use of language in these contexts?

So the unborn child is not a living human being? What is it, then? A puppy? A kitten? A rock? A turtle? Is it not true that if you pair one human male up with one human female, you are going to end up with a human child? And if the child is not alive, then answer these questions:
How can it grow?
Why does it have a heart beat and brain waves?
How can it move?
Because let's face it: only living beings can do these things.

I don't think any pro-choice advocate would claim that an unborn fetus is not of the human species, nor that it is not alive. That, of course, would be absurd. However, what might be claimed is that the human fetus is not a person in the relevant sense needed for having the same kinds of moral standing we attribute to persons. This seems to be one central debate in the pro-choice/pro-life debate. (Whether it's the most productive debate is another question.)

As I understand it, many strong pro-lifers argue that a "fetus" is intrinsically valuable from the moment of conception. (I put 'fetus' in scare quotes here because I think a developing human only counts as a fetus from the 8th week after conception.) And the question here is why. Is it because at the moment of conception it is imbued or endowed with a soul? Why should we think this? Or is it because any human life, regardless of resemblance to other persons, is intrinsically valuable? And if so, by virtue of what?

Many philosophers think that what makes human beings intrinsically valuable (if they are) is something like the possession of a good will, or of self-consciousness, or of the ability to reflect, deliberate, and make choices...and so on. But it is not clear to me that a "fetus" has any of these capacities prior to the 3rd or 4th month of development. And if the latter criterion is really the criterion for being intrinsically valuable, then I'm not even sure babies count as persons in this sense.

And if the child is not alive ... why kill it?

I don't understand this claim. One cannot kill what is not alive. I guess that's your point.

What if someone had decided that you, while you were in your mother's womb, were not a living human being and decided that it would be a good idea to have you aborted?

I'm not actually sure counterfactuals like this make sense. If "I" had been aborted whilst in the womb, there would be no "me" to worry about whether or not I lived. I think using counterfactual thought experiments of this nature don't actually get us very far in the debate and are generally counterproductive. I also sometimes worry about talk of "potential persons," but that's a slightly different matter.

It's quite clear that logic and common sense have absolutely no place in the pro-choice movement. Not when people are insisting that the children inside the womb are not alive and are not human.

I hope to have shown in this post that the first statement is false. Now, of course, if certain pro-choicers are insisting that fetuses are not alive, I would wonder what exactly they mean by that. I suspect they mean "are not persons" or "are not fully-developed living organisms" or something like that.

Responses?

joel

June 6th 2008, 09:02 PM

As I understand it, many strong pro-lifers argue that a "fetus" is intrinsically valuable from the moment of conception. (I put 'fetus' in scare quotes here because I think a developing human only counts as a fetus from the 8th week after conception.) And the question here is why. Is it because at the moment of conception it is imbued or endowed with a soul? Why should we think this? Or is it because any human life, regardless of resemblance to other persons, is intrinsically valuable? And if so, by virtue of what?

By virtue of their being a living being with the capacity for reason and choice.

Many philosophers think that what makes human beings intrinsically valuable (if they are) is something like the possession of a good will, or of self-consciousness, or of the ability to reflect, deliberate, and make choices...and so on. But it is not clear to me that a "fetus" has any of these capacities prior to the 3rd or 4th month of development.
You do agree that at some point a human does have that capacity. But a human reaches that point by self-growth, self-development. Therefore the capacity is already present before that point.

Passerby

June 11th 2008, 12:43 PM

If a child is not a person with a soul in the womb, when does the child become a person? When do we get a soul?
Because we cannot exactly answer this question, I would say that it would be better to let the child live. There is no reason for abortion; any child can be carried full term and given up for adoption. Inconvenience is not a sufficient answer. The one answer I can understand is rape victims, but even then, I would say it is not moral. The girl would have the scarring from rape and then the emptiness of an abortion afterwards. Once you become a mother, things change-life should be lived for the child. Beyond that, one should trust that the Lord can provide.

Sparko

June 11th 2008, 01:05 PM

any Christian who is not certain of when a fetus becomes a person should always err on the side of caution. NOT deciding that line themselves. each of us is a unique creation by God. We are not accidents. If God has put a life in a womb, who are we to take that life without just cause? How many generations are we dooming to nonexistence with each abortion?

Griffs

June 11th 2008, 07:38 PM

First, let me say how incredibly disappointed I am with all the ad hominems and appeals to emotion that are being made here. From a philosophical, theological, and rhetorical standpoint, it iseems this thread has gone way downhill. Surely we can all do a little better than this.

By virtue of their being a living being with the capacity for reason and choice.

You do agree that at some point a human does have that capacity. But a human reaches that point by self-growth, self-development. Therefore the capacity is already present before that point.

Thank you, joel, for putting forward a respectable (i.e., non-insulting and not-all-too-question-begging) position, albeit one I find a bit worrisome.

I agree that most human beings have that capacity at some point in their lives. But the word 'capacity' in this context is quite ambiguous. If it means an occurrent ability someone has, then the 3-4 month old fetus definitely does not possess it. Of course, it might mean something like 'dispositional property', but even here I'm not sure a fetus has the dispositional property to reason and choose in the way that might be relevant to personhood. If we understand dispositional properties counterfactually, such that 'the capacity for reason and choice' means 'if the individual were presented with two alternatives, (s)he would be able to come to a rational decision', it still seems the fetus lacks this capacity.

What I assume you mean by 'capacity for reason and choice' is something like the following: 'if the fetus were allowed to develop in "normal" ways, (s)he would develop into a human being who could make rational choices in certain situations'. But here there are also worries. First, there are no guarantees the fetus would develop in such-and-such a way. Second, there does not seem to be the relevant analogy between a fetus and a person that there is, say, between an Alzheimer's patient and a person. Third, there are other beings (in this case, persons) whose well-being may trump those of the fetus.

I am not a fan of abortions late in pregnancy, but a fetus in the first trimester does not seem to me to have the relevant characteristics of personhood that might make them intrinsically valuable. (Note here that the fetus may have extrinsic value, and that is not to be discounted. But we were talking about intrinsic value.)

If I have time tonight or tomorrow, I will try to address some of the other posts here that present actual argument s(or something akin to an actual argument), but I would again like to register my disappointment with the turn this thread has taken.

joel

June 11th 2008, 09:35 PM

Thank you, joel, for putting forward a respectable (i.e., non-insulting and not-all-too-question-begging) position, albeit one I find a bit worrisome.

Sure, let's take a look at it.

But the word 'capacity' in this context is quite ambiguous. If it means an occurrent ability someone has, then the 3-4 month old fetus definitely does not possess it.
I don't know what you mean by "occurrent ability".

Of course, it might mean something like 'dispositional property', but even here I'm not sure a fetus has the dispositional property to reason and choose in the way that might be relevant to personhood.
I think you'll have to explain 'dispositional property' to me too.

If we understand dispositional properties counterfactually, such that 'the capacity for reason and choice' means 'if the individual were presented with two alternatives, (s)he would be able to come to a rational decision', it still seems the fetus lacks this capacity.
It seems to me that when you ask the question of whether a being A has the capacity for X, you are either
1) Asking whether A can do X ever
or
2) Asking whether A can do X within a particular amount of time T.
If you mean (1), then assuming the human survives long enough, (s)he will be able to come to a rational decision.
On the other hand, if you mean (2), then it seems to me that we are imposing an arbitrary time limit.

Also, I don't think it hinges on any particular choice of alternatives. I was thinking more of general reasoning and choosing.

What I assume you mean by 'capacity for reason and choice' is something like the following: 'if the fetus were allowed to develop in "normal" ways, (s)he would develop into a human being who could make rational choices in certain situations'. But here there are also worries. First, there are no guarantees the fetus would develop in such-and-such a way.
If you are talking about accidents, then you could use the same logic to argue that you are free to murder anyone, say Bob, because they might die before the next time they make a rational choice anyway--Bob has no guarantees.
If there are no indications that it's abnormal, then there's no basis for denying it the right to life we'd grant otherwise. Feti (unless something prevents them) normally do develop to the point where they reason and choose.

Second, there does not seem to be the relevant analogy between a fetus and a person that there is, say, between an Alzheimer's patient and a person.
Can you explain this too?

Third, there are other beings (in this case, persons) whose well-being may trump those of the fetus.
Of course the argument I presented was only regarding the question of personhood. Given the personhood of the fetus, where rights belong is another matter. We can discuss that too, if you wish.

Essentially my point was that capacity is transitive. If A has the capacity to get to point B, and A-at-point-B has the capacity to do C, then A has the capacity to do C--that is, A has the capacity to do whatever steps necessary to accomplish C.