Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[Husband&Father]

You could be wrong...or are you infallible?

You could be wrong...or are you infallible?

avatar382 wrote:
[Sentinence is the issue, because the whole point is that if the fetus is not capable of sentience, it's not a person and thus killing it is not murder.]

I understand that this is YOUR belief, YOUR position, but as-such it is not worth a tinkers cuss. Your position is of no more value than mine and make no mistake one of us is wrong! This situation begs for an ultimate arbiter, a final authority.

You have to admit that it is at least 50% possible that you are wrong and God bestowed personhood on people whether they are "self aware" of not. I say when in doubt err on the side of life because the consequences of being wrong are the death of innocents.

 

[Lighthouse]

Maybe someone should cut the heads off of pro-choicers, and see if they like it. If you want to argue sentience, are you actually dumb enough to believe that feeling pain doesn't constitute sentience? The unborn child feels as much pain as you would, if your body was being sucked through a vaccuum and sliced to pieces.

 

[smothers]

a fetus can not feel pain until about the 20th week. ...


But don't let facts get in the way of your opinion.

 

[smothers]

Re: You could be wrong...or are you infallible?

Re: You could be wrong...or are you infallible?

Originally posted by Husband&Father

You have to admit that it is at least 50% possible that you are wrong and God bestowed personhood on people whether they are "self aware" of not. I say when in doubt err on the side of life because the consequences of being wrong are the death of innocents.

Until God has a press conference on the subject, why don't you keep her out of it?:

 

[Lighthouse]

God owes you nothing smothers. He didn't have to do anything for you, and He still doesn't. And for you to assume that He does is presumptious. You are selfish, and greedy. Get over yourself. You gain yourself no satisfaction when you want what isn't yours.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by avatar382

Sentinence is the issue, because the whole point is that if the fetus is not capable of sentience, it's not a person and thus killing it is not murder.

Do you think that if I walked into a coma ward and randomly started killing the comatose, I would be committing murder? After all, they aren't sentinent.

 

[avatar382]

This situation begs for an ultimate arbiter, a final authority.

Perhaps, but what if we aren't afforded the convienence of a final authority?

 

[avatar382]

Maybe someone should cut the heads off of pro-choicers, and see if they like it. If you want to argue sentience, are you actually dumb enough to believe that feeling pain doesn't constitute sentience? The unborn child feels as much pain as you would, if your body was being sucked through a vaccuum and sliced to pieces.

Feeling pain DOES constitute sentience. No one here is saying otherwise. The whole POINT is that since a zygote at conception IS NOT CAPABLE of feeling pain (among other things) and thus killing it is not murder.

Read the thread. :doh:

 

[avatar382]

Do you think that if I walked into a coma ward and randomly started killing the comatose, I would be committing murder? After all, they aren't sentinent.

Excellent point.

The comatose have something that an embryo does not - Prior sentience and an interest in regaining awareness before the onset of the comatose state. Every person who goes to sleep does so with the expectation and interest of waking up the next morning. The zygote at conception has no such thing since it never was sentient to begin with.

The difference between the two is that one has temporarily lost sentience and can regain it, where as the other never had it and is not capable of it (yet).

To answer your question directly:

Yes, generally, killing the comatose (defined as someone who was previously sentient, but is no longer) is murder, unless it can be shown that the one who is comatose and being killed has a 0% (close enough to 0% to be effectively zero) chance of leaving the comatose state.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by avatar382

Excellent point.

The comatose have something that an embryo does not - Prior sentience and an interest in regaining awareness before the onset of the comatose state. Every person who goes to sleep does so with the expectation and interest of waking up the next morning. The zygote at conception has no such thing since it never was sentient to begin with.

The difference between the two is that one has temporarily lost sentience and can regain it, where as the other never had it and is not capable of it (yet).

To answer your question directly:

Yes, generally, killing the comatose (defined as someone who was previously sentient, but is no longer) is murder, unless it can be shown that the one who is comatose and being killed has a 0% (close enough to 0% to be effectively zero) chance of leaving the comatose state.

Why would "prior" factor into the equation? The comatose aren't sentinent now. Why does past sentinence modify what one does in the present?

Sleeping, BTW, is not a lack of sentinence, it is a normal resting state. Brain function is normal during sleeping--it is different from normal brain function during waking, but it is not a lack of sentinence. Among the many benefits attatched to sleep, there is speculation that the mind is activly using the time to seek resolution to problems faced in the waking hours, which suggests a cause for frequent dreams that involve waking situations.

A fetus has a near 100% probability of achieving sentinence if not killed. Why do you view a non-sentinent adult differently? One who has, say, a 50% chance of regaining sentinence?

What does a past state have to do with determining whether one has a right to live or die, when one is not exibiting sentinence currently? For that matter, a corpse once possessed sentinence. Why would the past be a factor in the present status?

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by avatar382

Feeling pain DOES constitute sentience. No one here is saying otherwise. The whole POINT is that since a zygote at conception IS NOT CAPABLE of feeling pain (among other things) and thus killing it is not murder.

Read the thread. :doh:

No, you re-read the thread...No one can dispute that from conception to a breathing air birth, the entire process of growth to natural death is part of a verifiable life cycle.

Only a fool would ignore the obvious. The human life cycle begins at conception and ends at natural death.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by lighthouse

God owes you nothing smothers. He didn't have to do anything for you, and He still doesn't. And for you to assume that He does is presumptious. You are selfish, and greedy. Get over yourself. You gain yourself no satisfaction when you want what isn't yours.

She demands that I worship her, and attend her fan-club. I think the LEAST she can give me is absolute undisputable proof of her existance. Until then I'll continue doubting her existance.

 

[Lighthouse]

God demands nothing of you. God loves you. That is the bottom line. God doesn't even demand that you attend a church. If there is no God, why do you continue to refer to God with pronouns? God wants you to love God back, but God will not force you. Doubt all you want. One day God will prove God's existence to you.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by smothers

She demands that I worship her, and attend her fan-club. I think the LEAST she can give me is absolute undisputable proof of her existance. Until then I'll continue doubting her existance.

Mocking God will play as an endless loop in your mind while you're roasting in the "Lake of Fire." Enjoy your present existence the next one will be a living hell... :shocked:

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Mocking God will play as an endless loop in your mind while you're roasting in the "Lake of Fire." Enjoy your present existence the next one will be a living hell... :shocked:

Flater God or roast in hell? Not a religion I would want to join.

And with that I will be signing off from this thread.

 

[avatar382]

No, you re-read the thread...No one can dispute that from conception to a breathing air birth, the entire process of growth to natural death is part of a verifiable life cycle.

Only a fool would ignore the obvious. The human life cycle begins at conception and ends at natural death.

I am not arguing against the notion that the human "life-cycle" begins at conception.

I am arguing that for a time after conceception, the zygote/embryo has no brain/central nervous system, is not capable of sentience, and this, is not a person.

This "life-cycle" you keep rambling about is irrelevant.

 

[Delmar]

Originally posted by smothers

Flater God or roast in hell? Not a religion I would want to join.

And with that I will be signing off from this thread.

no problem. no one is going to force you.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by avatar382

I am not arguing against the notion that the human "life-cycle" begins at conception.

I am arguing that for a time after conceception, the zygote/embryo has no brain/central nervous system, is not capable of sentience, and this, is not a person.

This "life-cycle" you keep rambling about is irrelevant.

Listen you air-head, your childish one note argument based on what you and you alone consider an appropriate arbitrary time to kill a developing human being is beneath contempt. You and your ilk are a cancer on the soul of America today.


The human life-cycle trumps your feeble attempt to qualify life. Your arrogant presumption that you have the right to qualify human life is despicable, immoral, and inhuman. You would make a great Secular Humanist Democrat. Your credentials are first rate.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by smothers

Flater God or roast in hell? Not a religion I would want to join.

And with that I will be signing off from this thread.

LOL, can't stand the heat? Wait till one split second after you draw your last breath here on earth... :dead: :wave:

 

[Lighthouse]

Anyone notice the coward never responded to my post, before "signing off?"