What does it mean to be human" thread -split from Obama 'fail' thread

[cammerfe]

Life

I've puzzled over this whole issue for years. And I believe that regardless of the subject, if you approach with a closed mind you're better off to not approach. That means that I have to be willing to have my mind changed if the facts go against anything I've held.

A few facts (taken from the viewpoint of a degreed Sociologist.):
Although our society is sliding closer to secular all the time, we, at this point, can still look back on a long history of western society being religiously oriented. And even though at times society was very strictly, even harshly governed, there is no indication of a practice of funeral activity regarding any miscarriage or stillbirth prior to, at the very least, a close full term.

We can therefore deduce that regardless of any doctrine to the contrary-('blood')-there was never an honest finding that the result of the miscarriage was a human. In fact, even if you go outside western religious practice you don't find, for instance that a miscarried foetus is sent down the Ganges in a properly bedecked boat. American Indians didn't erect a bier of saplings for a stillbirth, and The Vikings didn't send a foetus out to sea in a longboat with a full accoutrement of swords, helmets and axes.

In present society we do not have a funeral when a woman miscarries.She very rightly grieves, but aside from expressions of sympathy, that's the end of things. Society has no ceremony in regard to the remains. It's most likely disposed of as is other surgical detritus---by unceremonious cremation.
I have therefore come to a comfortable conclusion for me---The crossover point is viability.

An acorn is not an oak tree. There's probably a crossover point in the shoot-sapling stage, but an acorn is an acorn---a POTENTIAL oak tree. You can't make a chair out of it.

And although I'm comfortable with my position, I'm a man. So I'll always have to bow to Foxy. She has what it takes to be a mother. The most I can do is to support her from my second place status.

I am irretrievably a Conservative--- but intellectual honesty has led me to this place. God gave me the ability to think and here I am.
KS

 

[foxpaws]

since I could always argue you have zero stake in this argument Cal... (thank you KS)

List the points - one by one - they get lost in your rhetoric sometime -

I will answer them...

1) I have answered over and over again why I believe the mother does have a bigger say in this question than society. If you don't agree with that answer - fine, disagree.

Tell me when life begins. Tell me that your definition overrides mine. Tell me that society is perfect and knows the answer to this question. I am sure you and society also know the meaning to the 'universe and everything' as well as 'life' (read Douglas Adams). Tell me that I don't know because my hormones are raging and I cry all the time. Tell me I don't know because I can't feed myself, let alone another. Tell me I don't know because I go to church and listen to what my faith tells me.

Tell me I don't know that moment when human life resides in me.

Tell me when it was - that moment in time - when human life resided in you.

 

[fossten]

since I could always argue you have zero stake in this argument Cal... (thank you KS)

List the points - one by one - they get lost in your rhetoric sometime -

I will answer them...

1) I have answered over and over again why I believe the mother does have a bigger say in this question than society. If you don't agree with that answer - fine, disagree.

Tell me when life begins. Tell me that your definition overrides mine. Tell me that society is perfect and knows the answer to this question. I am sure you and society also know the meaning to the 'universe and everything' as well as 'life' (read Douglas Adams). Tell me that I don't know because my hormones are raging and I cry all the time. Tell me I don't know because I can't feed myself, let alone another. Tell me I don't know because I go to church and listen to what my faith tells me.

Tell me I don't know that moment when human life resides in me.

Tell me when it was - that moment in time - when human life resided in you.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - you think just because you're a woman that you are the only one who gets it. How arrogant, and what a petulant rant besides.

You never even consider the rights of the life inside your body. Your right to control your sexual behavior does not give you the authority to decide life or death for another human being. In fact, most Americans believe there are limits to the woman's 'right to choose,' so you're actually on the fringe here.

Finally, for you fringers who don't believe life begins at conception, google Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who is formerly from NARAL. He was personally responsible for over 75,000 abortions, and even he has come to admit that life begins at conception.

 

[foxpaws]

Finally, for you fringers who don't believe life begins at conception,

Foss, you can't even imagine what rant is - if you think that was a rant...

And you better believe arrogant...

So, how do you know human life begins at conception? Science? Faith? Both?

 

[alexfranke]

So women should depend on the societal whim of the moment?. . . .I don’t place a lot of trust in ‘societal’ agreement.

We might not always like the "societal whim of the moment," but I think it needs to be there...

You never even consider the rights of the life inside your body. Your right to control your sexual behavior does not give you the authority to decide life or death for another human being.

Why not start with something you can both agree on? I don't think she believes that killing innocent people is okay -- I think you're just not agreeing on when the person actually becomes a person. Saying she doesn't have the authority to decide life/death of another human being in the context of, say, five minutes after conception, likely means nothing to her because she doesn't consider it to be a human being at that time.

In any case, it's doubtful that either of you will convince the other...

 

[foxpaws]

In any case, it's doubtful that either of you will convince the other...

Ah, Alex, I can see you are a man of great perception...

Foss and I won't agree on when human life begins - as you can see Foss believes that human life begins at conception. And Foss believes I would never, ever have any authority over my body at any time after that.

 

[foxpaws]

We might not always like the "societal whim of the moment," but I think it needs to be there...

So, is it a society of my peers?

 

[fossten]

Ah, Alex, I can see you are a man of great perception...

Foss and I won't agree on when human life begins - as you can see Foss believes that human life begins at conception. And Foss believes I would never, ever have any authority over my body at any time after that.

In case you didn't know, prostitution is illegal in most states, as is snorting cocaine and driving under the influence.

You already don't have unlimited rights over your body.

Regardless, the baby in the womb is definitely NOT part of the mother's body. Science has answered this question already.

And you don't have a right to kill another human being. If you do, born or unborn, you'll answer for it, either in this life or the next.

 

[fossten]

So, how do you know human life begins at conception? Science? Faith? Both?

Science has already come to this conclusion.

Quoted from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL:

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb.

A favourite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions?

Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma, but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

 

[alexfranke]

Oh -- I forgot to comment on this one:

You made that choice when you decided to have sexual relations. Now, your choice has been made.

Women don't choose to be women. Women don't choose whether or not to mature. And unfortunately, some women don't get to choose whether or not to have sexual relations -- or with whom. (Not that this has any bearing on the question of when a human becomes a human, but I thought I'd remind everyone that women aren't only having abortions because they decided they made a mistake...)

 

[fossten]

Oh -- I forgot to comment on this one:



Women don't choose to be women. Women don't choose whether or not to mature. And unfortunately, some women don't get to choose whether or not to have sexual relations -- or with whom. (Not that this has any bearing on the question of when a human becomes a human, but I thought I'd remind everyone that women aren't only having abortions because they decided they made a mistake...)

Spoken straight out of the mouth of Gloria Steinem:

To make abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest would force women to lie.

In effect, Steinem acknowledged the rarity of abortions resulting from rape and incest and the likelihood that many women would lie to obtain an abortion if it were only 'legal' in cases of rape and incest. In fact, Norma McCorvey (Roe in the famous case) admitted that she had fabricated a story about being gang raped in a circus as the cause of her pregnancy.

Less than half of rape pregnancies are aborted. There are studies that show this.

Instead of encouraging her to kill the child, we should provide love, compassion and concern for both the mother and the child.

In short, rape does not then justify murder.

Children shouldn't be punished for the crimes their parents commit. We wouldn't kill a 4 year old child if his father commited a murder, so why should we kill developing babies in the womb just because their biological fathers are guilty of rape or incest? Forced rape or incest is tragic, but in our society we don't kill the children of criminals.

 

[foxpaws]

but the fact remains that you will stand before God one day for both what you believe and what you do.

Once again Foss you are quick to judge...I believe you earlier condoned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He will not be pleased with this, I guarantee it.

Odd how easy it is to guarantee something, when you will not be around when I meet God.

Ah, fetology, an odd, unrecognized belief that sprung up immediately after Roe vs Wade was decided...

My science says differently...

"There is nothing unethical about destroying embryos in the course of scientific research," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "An embryo is a potential, not an actual, human being, just as canvas is a potential, not an actual, work of art. It is a primitive cluster of cells, which is no more unethical to destroy than the cells that make up one's appendix.

"Calling an embryo 'human life' is an evasion of the distinction between a mass of undifferentiated cells in a test tube and an actual, living human being. Only the mystical doctrines of religion, which hold that a human being is, not a biological entity with certain natural properties--i.e., an independent organism possessing a rational faculty--but a transcendent soul temporarily trapped in a body, could cloud that distinction.

I thought you might like the reference to appendix Alex....

And you would enjoy exploring more about Ayn Rand's philosphy of Objectivism, Foss.

 

[Calabrio]

Oh -- some women don't get to choose whether or not to have sexual relations -- or with whom.

And that revelation is only relevant when determining the legality or regulation of abortion. Society could conceivably decide that life begins on day ten, but in cases of rape or incest, it's legal and acceptable to destroy the life. This has no bearing on a discussion about when life begins, or when a human becomes a human "being", or however you want to state it. But there were 1.2 million abortions last year, most of them weren't the consequence of rape or incest.

When you're a person who is an advocate for abortion rights, for whatever reason (political, social, or personal), you realize it's in your best interest to avoid subjects like this. Once you identify or attribute human status, then you have to address the subject honestly. Once you can't just call it an unviable clump of cells. Once this happens, you have to approach any argument recognizing that it may result in the destruction of a life.... there's no need to repeat myself again regarding things like equal protection, intellectual honesty similar to a discussion about the death penalty, Peter Singer and leaving the decision of life up to the mother, ect, ect. Foxpaws still won't address them anyway.

 

[MonsterMark]

YouTube - Imagine Spot 1

 

[foxpaws]

Foxpaws still won't address them anyway.

What won't I address Cal? Just ask me a question - one. You keep telling me I dance around. You dance when I request that you ask a question in perhaps a form I can understand.

Let's just start with one. Don't muddy it up, don't ask multiple ones. Just one...

 

[alexfranke]

In effect, Steinem acknowledged the rarity of abortions resulting from rape and incest and the likelihood that many women would lie to obtain an abortion if it were only 'legal' in cases of rape and incest.
. . . .
...in our society we don't kill the children of criminals.

My point was to provide a counterexample to the "it your fault, so deal with it" argument you seemed to be making, not to suggest that I encourage people to kill their children -- that is in fact quite far from the truth. (Besides, lying to get what you want is an entirely different moral issue.)

Here's an interesting couple of questions:

1) Suppose God appeared before you (and the whole world for that matter) and made it perfectly clear that He did not consider an embryo or fetus to be a human being until it has a perfectly formed appendix. What then?

2) Suppose instead that He appeared before you and made it perfectly clear that the human being and its soul are produced and entrusted to the mother at the point of sexual intercourse -- even before conception. What then?

If your positions change at all, then we really should be citing religious texts rather than scientists.

I thought you might like the reference to appendix Alex....

Made me smile

 

[alexfranke]

And that revelation is only relevant when determining the legality or regulation of abortion. Society could conceivably decide that life begins on day ten, but in cases of rape or incest, it's legal and acceptable to destroy the life. This has no bearing on a discussion about when life begins, or when a human becomes a human "being", or however you want to state it.

Right (and similarly the death penalty). Again, I'm not taking any position on abortion-related rights -- I don't believe there's enough foundation for that here.

 

[Calabrio]

For Foxpaws,
as she attempts to win an argument by attrition. It's funny how she has trouble responding to these comments in the post, but she can find a single sentence or a minor point, to focus on an distract from the broader point, when it's convenient for her.

The issue is when does life begin, not when does a woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy decide she's comfortable terminating it. "Life" wouldn't begin in some cases at one point, but based on convenience begin at another.

The fact that one woman doesn't want to be inconvenienced, or has a medical condition, or has a difficult economic condition, doesn't have any bearing on WHAT she is carrying. She may decide what happens to it, she may seek rationalization or justification for the decision, but not what it is or isn't.

Whether a woman has the legal right to terminate a life is a separate argument than being discussed here right now.


But the government does have the right, and arguably, the responsiblity to defend innocent life. This isn't necessarily up to the discretion of a mother. Using the same logic, you can argue that a Mother should have the right to terminate a life long after birth. And I'm not just saying that to be shocking, Peter Singer, an ethics professor at Princeton, will argue that infanticide by a mother is perfectly acceptable using a similar principle..

Because your "religion" doesn't exempt you from the rule of law, and the law is supposed to be designed to protect the lives and liberty of the innocent.


The abortion laws shouldn't influence the discussion address when life begins- but the conclusion of a discussion like this should influence a discussion on abortion.

If you wish to argue that there a societal greater good by terminating a pregnancy at any point, then you may continue to do so.

This would be like me saying the death penalty isn't killing someone. Just because I think they deserve it, it's in the interest of society, or any other reason, this does not mean I can say that the condemned isn't "alive" or a "person." That designation isn't determined by social convenience. So, any debate is support of the death penalty has to recognize that there is the destruction of a life within it.


So what your saying is, the definition of whether something is alive or not is based not on a societal agreement based on thoughtful discussion and debate, but upon the individual whim, mood, circumstance, or temporary belief system of an individual woman, who may be experience a traumatic experience.

Using this logic, a fetus/baby in one womb IS a life in one instance, and based on convenience and circumstance, it is NOT when being carried by another woman. That's not how law works, that affords one being with rights while denying them to another.

If you want to argue that a Mother should have the right to destroy an embryo, a fetus, and baby, based on their belief system or convenience, then you can do so. But their individual mood or opinion does not determine whether it is alive or a human being or not.

You seem to be now arguing that since there is no clear answer to the discussion of when life begins, we should leave this decision to the individual mothers. But that isn't a sufficient "solution" either.

At what point does the Mother lose the responsibility/right of being able to terminate the life? Viability in the womb? Birth? Or at some point during the infantcy - as Peter Singer would suggest.

You're final solution doesn't resolve the issue, it actually creates more questions and ethical challenges.

And the discussion of abortion, particularly mid and late term abortions, should have the honesty to recognize that at some point, it is the discussion about ending a life.

No different than if we have a discussion about capitol punishment. I can't say that it's up to the victim to decide if a criminal is a living human or not. A death penalty discussion has to recognize that there is the destruction of a life involved, and any argument advocating it must be able to address that. At some point, if it's to have any honesty or integrity, the abortion discussion has to do the same thing.

When you're a person who is an advocate for abortion rights, for whatever reason (political, social, or personal), you realize it's in your best interest to avoid subjects like this. Once you identify or attribute human status, then you have to address the subject honestly. Once you can no longer just call it an unviable clump of cells. Once this happens, you have to approach any argument recognizing that it may result in the destruction of a life....

Of course, now the comments have no context, they aren't part of the conversation, they aren't part of an argument now. Regardless....

 

[foxpaws]

So, obviously 'one simple question' is way beyond your scope of understanding Cal...

Looking at the bolded text in your long, long, long dissertation there is a question...

At what point does the Mother lose the responsibility/right of being able to terminate the life?

Do you want me to answer that one?

I really don't think I am out of line here Cal, you obviously are wanting something from me, I am trying to ascertain what it is. You are frustrated, I can tell... I am beyond confused. Have you ever thought that I take out the points I understand?

I often say don't talk at me, talk to me. You talk at me, that doesn't work Cal.

So, I am trying to understand... One question at a time. That is a start - we can go on to more questions later - but I need a starting point...

 

[Calabrio]

So, obviously 'one simple question' is way beyond your scope of understanding Cal...

I don't do requests.

Is this all too complicated for you?
You conveniently "missed" all of that before in order to change the subject. And now you want me to take points and arguments prevented during a conversation and provide them to you completely out of context.

I really don't think I am out of line here Cal, you obviously are wanting something from me, I am trying to ascertain what it is.

Honesty, candor, a willingness to respond to challenges that are outside your comfort zone.

You are frustrated, I can tell... I am beyond confused. Have you ever thought that I take out the points I understand?

I'm not "frustrated," this is what I expect from you.
You don't take out the points you understand, you take out points that you can spin and avoid the ones that effectively challenge your position.

I'm not interested in interviewing you. You don't respond to points or challenges as they are presented. You're in perpetual propaganda mode. And frankly, I don't feel like taking all of the points and representing them out of context and presenting them to you. That's like playing baseball with a hitting tee.

If you want to address the challenges or points made, then do so. Otherwise, it's safe for everyone to conclude that you chose not to because you couldn't or you recognized it wasn't advantageous to your position to do so.

As stated, you can start with the issue of equal protection- how it's not fair for one life to be protected by the law while another is not, based upon nothing more that the whim of a mother. If a mother is the arbiter of when life begins, at what point do they lose this ability to decide?

Peter Singer, the philosopher and professor at Princeton, will argue that a mother should be able to terminate the life after it has been born, either because the child has a disability or due to the convenience or greater good of society and the mother. If you think that definition of a fetus/embryo/baby is defined by the mother- that the definition is determined by opinion and the woman's circumstance, is Singer wrong? And until when should a mother have the right to terminate the offspring?

An except of Singers work:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm
Professor at Princeton.

The determination of WHEN something become a being or alive is ENTIRELY separate from a debate about the legality of abortion. However, the objective conclusion drawn SHOULD influence and be a part of the discussion regarding the legality or restrictions on abortion.

And because of your advocacy of abortion, you exhibit the desire to limit the discussion of life. If people determine that a fetus/embryo/baby is alive at some point in the process, it's difficult to argue in support of the destruction of said being on the basis of convenience. And it really brings into focus the selfish brutality of virtually all late-term abortions. It's important for an abortion advocate to make sure that it's only a tissue mass that's being destroyed and not a life.

 

[MonsterMark]

It's important for an abortion advocate to make sure that it's only a tissue mass that's being destroyed and not a life.

And there you have it in a nutshell.

Why do you think abortion rights advocates freak out when some 'religious zealot' prints a picture of an aborted fetus and stands in front of an abortion clinic?

When my kids were born, they were wrapped up in nice blankets and given to my wife and I to share right after birth.

Why don't they take the aborted fetus (at any stage in the process) and plop it on a cold platter and present it to the mom? Hummm. It's just tissue mass, right? It's just a personal decision, right? Heck, if it is a personal decision, plop 'it' on her belly and tell her to 'live' with her decision.

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, finally Cal, somewhat stated in a form I can understand.

When you talk ‘at’ me you just make statements. I am not sure if you want me to refute or agree with those statements or, if you are using those to back up some point you are trying to make.

When you engage me (talk ‘to’ me) you ask me what is my opinion on this statement, or how do I feel about this… So I am not looking at a sea of statements trying to figure out which ones are ones that you believe are vital to the argument, and should be discussed.

Many times you preach to me – look at your last paragraph in your last post above – that is preachy. I ignore preachy-ness. So, I don’t answer things like that. You obviously have a set opinion, which includes the term ‘selfish brutality’ towards mothers. I really don’t know how, or really even want to answer a statement like that. You can't have any idea of how a mother feels, or especially how a mother would feel if she was somehow compelled to make that decision. I don't know either. However, you make a condemning statement without having any idea of individual circumstance.

I can’t take on paragraph after paragraph of diatribe. And, yes, even though you have endowed me with some great monumental of understanding, I really don’t have that much. Kind of an average girl here. There really are many things that I don’t understand, or I wait to find out if you are going to simplify them, or restate them later in a different form.

So, equal protection. Yes, I do believe there is a point in law that should be followed regarding abortion, for everyone – viability. There should never be allowed partial birth abortions, late 2nd or 3rd term abortions, unless the mother is provably at risk. And if the baby can be saved, every effort should be made to save the child.

However, my faith, my self, knows that life starts much, much earlier than that. That is a faith based opinion though, not good science, and one that I know is protected within the 1st amendment. I will not force my faith onto anyone else. I will not tell any other mother that they are “killing a baby” if they terminate theirs after the point that I know life begins. It saddens me, but just as I expect that same protection under the 1st amendment, I will allow it to others. I believe that God does entrust mothers.

I will not judge them, it is between them and God. Not between them and the law of the United States.

However, and I have stated this before Cal, the abortion question must play a factor in some way with dealing with the ‘when does life begin’ question. Especially if you are involving the government in any way. When anything is decided, regarding any question, all of the ramifications should be taken into account. Especially when making law. If the government gets into this area, declaring when ‘life begins’ then, they will also be the arbitrator and enforcer, and will have to deal with the consequences. In this case, for example if law creates life at conception, then appropriate measures must be taken. How is the first amendment going to be handled – there are many religions who don’t believe life begins at conception, do you allow for ‘exceptions’ to the rule? There will be the problems regarding the inevitability of back alley abortions, the large influx of unwanted babies, the immense strain on the public health system. Are exceptions allowed when the mother is at risk, for provable rape or violent crime. These decisions cannot be made in a bubble.

And I still don’t know why you keep bringing up Singer – I know very little about him, and really don’t feel comfortable taking him or you on regarding his ideas. I have only read small pieces by him, or about him, which probably aren’t representative of his real opinions.

Is this better Cal?

 

[fossten]

Here's an interesting couple of questions:

1) Suppose God appeared before you (and the whole world for that matter) and made it perfectly clear that He did not consider an embryo or fetus to be a human being until it has a perfectly formed appendix. What then?

I wouldn't believe it was God, because He has ALREADY made it ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY CLEAR in His Word that He does. He doesn't need to appear before me because He has already recorded it. Your 'what if' question is absurd and moot.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Note this passage from Luke 16:

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him [Lazarus' spirit] to my father's house:


Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.


Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.


Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.


Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

2) Suppose instead that He appeared before you and made it perfectly clear that the human being and its soul are produced and entrusted to the mother at the point of sexual intercourse -- even before conception. What then?

Again, another absurd question which the Bible already answers.

If your positions change at all, then we really should be citing religious texts rather than scientists.

I've already offered scientific evidence that shows that the embryo is a human being.

But I'm perfectly content to answer any Biblical questions you have.

 

[Calabrio]

So, equal protection. Yes, I do believe there is a point in law that should be followed regarding abortion, for everyone – viability.

Viability is a term that has no permanent definition. It is not determined by ethics but on the technological ability of a culture. This means that as technology advances and the means to support life outside the womb improve, the point of viability will become earlier and earlier, eventually meaning that abortion, at any stage after conception, could conceivable be made illegal.

You're also implying that it's acceptable to destroy a life in a primitive or technological inferior culture or period, where the most advanced medical advancements aren't available, but not in more advanced cultures.

There should never be allowed partial birth abortions, late 2nd or 3rd term abortions, unless the mother is provably at risk. And if the baby can be saved, every effort should be made to save the child.

First, which is it, late 2nd or 3rd? There have been several 22 week pregnancies that have been successful, so the viability argument now includes the 2nd trimester you've just reference.

You just made a little caveat there, "the mother is provably at risk." What does that mean? What constitutes "risk". At a glance, a reasonable person would see this and assume that you mean the physical health of the mother. That delivering a baby would result in serious physical damage, considerably more intense and severe than would be expected in a regular or cesarean birth. Is that what you mean? Or are you including emotional distress or other exceptions as well?

Also- so you've now imposed arbitrary restrictions on abortion. Why is it acceptable to limit abortion at the 2nd or 3rd trimester, but not at any other time? How is a decision like that achieved? Doesn't this restriction contradict your laisez faire, 'hand of my body" approach to the subject.

However, my faith, my self, knows that life starts much, much earlier than that.

Within the context of the discussion- THIS is the relevant point.
Until you participated, everyone appeared to be making a concerted effort to NOT make this a policy discussion.

That is a faith based opinion though, not good science, and one that I know is protected within the 1st amendment.

You think there's a first amendment right to killing or ending innocent life on the basis of convenience? Ethics aren't necessarily religion. And religion and values are expected to shape policy, particularly on issues like this.

I will not force my faith onto anyone else. I will not tell any other mother that they are “killing a baby” if they terminate theirs after the point that I know life begins. It saddens me, but just as I expect that same protection under the 1st amendment, I will allow it to others. I believe that God does entrust mothers.

Because the life is the property of the mother?
Because a life isn't entitled to any of the constitutional protections that you'll likely argue everyone is entitled to?

If you are being honest, and you honestly believe that a human being is being destroyed- especially when you note the BRUTAL methods in which a fetus is destroyed- then you're position is inconsistent.

I will not judge them, it is between them and God. Not between them and the law of the United States.

So should we leave the prosecution of all crimes up to God?
Should there be any laws in place the protect the individual?

However, and I have stated this before Cal, the abortion question must play a factor in some way with dealing with the ‘when does life begin’ question. Especially if you are involving the government in any way. When anything is decided, regarding any question, all of the ramifications should be taken into account.

So you're saying that we should seek a false answer to a difficult question inorder to appease abortion advocates?

If you want to advocate something, or the right to do so, you have to be willing to honestly discuss and recognize what you are doing. If you want to embrace policies that legalize the destruction of something, you need to be able to at least honestly discuss what it is you are going to destroy.

You're saying that truth should be shaped in order to defend YOUR political position. That we should lie in order to achieve and defend the social goal of abortion advocates.

ANOTHER example of the institutional method of dishonesty that is at the foundation of the American left. "We can't honestly discuss what is being abortion because the conclusion hurts our cause["/I]. So, instead of calling it what it is, we'll just reduce it to an inanimate object...that's much easier to destroy.

Especially when making law. If the government gets into this area, declaring when ‘life begins’ then, they will also be the arbitrator and enforcer, and will have to deal with the consequences.

This is amazing- you are the champion of big government.
You put faith in the federal government, you support the shift of power and responsibility to the government. You are happy to rely on the junk law decision of Roe V. Wade. But now you don't want a democratic approach to determining the societal standards of life and restrictions upon abortion.

In this case, for example if law creates life at conception, then appropriate measures must be taken.

You're going into the realm of the hypothetic.
IF that law were created.... The reality is that if Roe V Wade were overturned, you WOULD NOT end up with an abortion policy in this country that was so radical and polarizing. You'd ultimately end up with some kind of compromise. The vast majority of Americans WANT to see less abortions. They want more restrictions. But a sufficient number of women have been tricked into thinking that this is an all-or-nothing issue.

There will be the problems regarding the inevitability of back alley abortions, the large influx of unwanted babies, the immense strain on the public health system. Are exceptions allowed when the mother is at risk, for provable rape or violent crime. These decisions cannot be made in a bubble.

If it comes up for discussion, you can certainly make your various inconsistent, contradictory arguments, including the genocide for convenience one, at that time.

And I still don’t know why you keep bringing up Singer – I know very little about him, and really don’t feel comfortable taking him or you on regarding his ideas. I have only read small pieces by him, or about him, which probably aren’t representative of his real opinions.

The discussion isn't about Singer, I was using him as an example,and applying them to what you said. I provided enough of an example for you to respond to.

I'll repeat, and I'll omit any reference to Singer-

Some people will argue that a mother should be able to terminate the life after it has been born, either because the child has a disability or due to the convenience or greater good of society and the mother. They completely accepts that the fetus is alive, but that greater good needs to be achieved. If you think that definition of a fetus/embryo/baby is defined by the mother- that the definition is determined by opinion and the woman's circumstance, is that opinion wrong? And until when should a mother have the right to terminate the offspring? If you also believe that the fetus has life, and that the mother has the right to arbitrarily decide when the life can life, how do argue otherwise.

Also- you keep bring up the "first amendment" yet you never address the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection, that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." How can one being be considered life in one womb and protected by the constitution, while another one, solely on the whim of the mother, is able to have it's body ripped apart by a vacuum with a sharp edge on it?

 

[alexfranke]

I wouldn't believe it was God, because He has ALREADY made it ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY CLEAR in His Word that He does. He doesn't need to appear before me because He has already recorded it. Your 'what if' question is absurd and moot.
. . .
Again, another absurd question which the Bible already answers.

Of course they're both absurd questions. That's the point -- "for the sake of argument, let's assume..." This would allow you to get past the point that you'll never agree on, and could even lead you to an apagogical argument, which I have to say would be much more convincing than the religious ones.

I've already offered scientific evidence that shows that the embryo is a human being.

While I'm sure there are lots of scientific opinions on either side of this fence, I don't believe that there's a scientific consensus on the question at all.

But I'm perfectly content to answer any Biblical questions you have.

Okay. Here are a couple that seem relevant to the discussion:
* There's the "before I formed you in your mother's belly, I knew you" part, which would suggest that life or maybe the soul is formed even before the DNA.
* Leviticus (after all the sacrifice-related stuff) seems to suggest that blood is a requirement for life.
* Women who commit adultery seem to be put to death -- what if they are pregnant? I don't know a lot about how (or when) they were to carry out these types of penalties.
* Genesis seems to suggest that breath is or is a requirement of life.

That's all I can think of right now.