Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[avatar382]

The attached article succintly describes a dilema I have. I don't trust the pro-life crowd to tell the truth about abortion. Nor do I trust planned-parenthood either. Both have a religious/ideological/monetary axe to grind.

I don't think a fetus is a person until it has brain activity. That doesn't happen until about week 20. A non-person does not have rights and thus can be "killed" at the discretion of the mother.

I view the pictures on these threads as suspect at best. They may or may not be doctored. Whatever the truth, they do not answer the fundamental question: At what point is a fetus a person with the same rights as others? I think that point is 20 weeks.

I completely agree with this point of view.

I think that attaining personhood is not unlike attaining adulthood.

Children generally do not have the rights and responsibilites that adults do. They do not have the same capacity. Likewise, At conception, the human zygote does not have a brain, it is not yet capable of and has never possessed thought, consciousness, emotion, etc and for this reason, I don't believe the zygote is a full person.

Another point: Just because a child is a potential adult does not mean it is an adult at that point in time. Thus it is my opinion that the zygote at conception is a potential person, but not a person at that point in time.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Any and every human being is a person (regardless of their stage of development), and abortion is murder. Plain and simple.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Any and every human being is a person (regardless of their stage of development), and abortion is murder. Plain and simple.

Could you set a trend for me?

What are the arguments that support the statement that every human being is a person regardless of their stage of development.

If the prior sentance is true then of course abortion is murder. If the prior sentance is false then there is a stage in human development in which killing a human is not murder.

Do you agree or disagree. If so why?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by smothers

Could you set a trend for me?

No.

 

[smothers]

At least you are being a consistant Christian in this matter. Not one person has supplied any argument against my position. I would even accept "I have no other evidence besides what is in the Bible." as an argument. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least I would know there is no extra-biblical reason for your position.

I would assume that if the Bible had a position on the matter, and you based your reasoning on it, you would be able to point to evidence outside the bible to support your position.

If you want to get rid of abortion, you should perhaps come up with a logical defense for it. The abortion pictures are horrific and offensive, but are not compelling evidence against abortion. They only outrage those who see it against your position.

I haven't made up my mind on the matter. Perhaps a Christian can pray for wisdom from God and state why my personhood argument is incorrect.

Mark

 

[cattyfan]

gosh. what a surprise. still no response from Zakath.

 

[Lighthouse]

He's still circumventing my question to him, elsewhere. Although, he gave a more direct answer, last time.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Balder

Are you saying that the Bible teaches that babies are doomed too?

Some folks believe that, yes.

“Babies are born as the damned fruit of the lust of their redeemed parents. From the first, they are the offspring of Gehenna or Hell; they are justly children of wrath because they are sinners. If they die unbaptized, they are condemned to everlasting torments for the guilt of their birth alone�
- Pope Gregory I


Infant damnation was one of the harshest of Calvin's doctrines. Believing that all human beings were guilty of original sin through their participation (as biological and spiritual descendants) in Adam's sin, the early reformed thinkers taught that the infant in the cradle, without God's unmerited grace, was as liable to damnation as any adult. The best known account of this belief in New England letters is in Michael Wigglesworth's poem, The Day of Doom, first published in 1662 and widely reprinted and read for over a hundred years. Wigglesworth described the pleas of unelect infants who had been cast into hell to God and God's uncompromising reply:

"O Great Creator, why was our nature
Depraved and forlorn?
Why so defil'd, and made so vile
While we were yet unborn?

You sinners are and such a share
As sinners may expect
Such you shall have: for I do save
None but my own Elect."

Notes on Congregationalism and Calvinism in Early 19th Century New England

The idea that infants were not damned was promoted in the U.S. mainly by the Unitarians in the early 19th century...


[edited to add resources - Z]

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by cattyfan

gosh. what a surprise. still no response from Zakath.

Hardly.

Try yesterday afternoon...

Post #94

Is that what you were looking for? :think:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

He's still circumventing my question to him, elsewhere. Although, he gave a more direct answer, last time.

"circumvent"? How so? Which question?

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by smothers



I am not justifying murder, I am saying that until a fetus/baby has brain-waves it has no rights. After it has brain-waves it does have rights.

I guess you are still waiting for your "rights" to kick in, uh?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Zakath

"circumvent"? How so? Which question?

The one about your relation ship with God. All I wanted was a direct yes or no, and you didn't give one. But that's another thread.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

The one about your relation ship with God. All I wanted was a direct yes or no, and you didn't give one. But that's another thread.

Here's a thought, dimhouse, if it's on another thread, then why not bring it up there?

If you have nothing substantive to contribute, why try to drag this thread off topic? :think:

 

[Lighthouse]

Which comes first? Heartbeat or brain waves? Either way, I would argue that if one of those is where life begins then pro-abortionists are free game...seeing as how they have neither a heart or a brain.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Which comes first? Heartbeat or brain waves?

It is immaterial. One can sometimes use electrical stimulus to keep a heart beating after brain death, though an individual is considered legally non-living at that point.

Either way, I would argue that if one of those is where life begins then pro-abortionists are free game...

What's a "free game"? Something you download without having to pay for it?

 

[Lighthouse]

free game means that you can kill it without consequence. It was a joke.

 

[cattyfan]

No, Zakath. I was referring to the questions posed to you in posts #70 and #71, and restated for your convenience in post #100.

 

[Anne]

An unborn baby's heart starts beating by the 21st day of life. Brain waves are detectable by 45 days. Abortion is definitely murder. Little babies are being murdered who have a beating heart and brain waves.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by smothers Until a certain point none of those 40,000,000 were persons with the same rights as you or I.

At the moment of conception that individual, at that point in the human life cycle, had the same rights as you do to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[avatar382]

What defines a person? What characteristics does a "person" have? Personally I believe a "person" to have the following qualities:

-Alive
-Human in Origin
-Sentient (defined as consciously possessing interests, and a sense of self among other things)

Do you agree that a being lacking one of these three qualities is not a person? If not, why?