Against abortion and against person-hood?

[ok doser]

Even the women who choose to do it are not doing it because they want to.

:doh:

 

[Rusha]

No one is arguing in favor of abortion. I have never met anyone who was actually in favor of aborting pregnancies in human women. Even the women who choose to do it are not doing it because they want to.

The fact that you continue to refuse to understand the difference between wanting to kill babies and protecting a woman's right to autonomy over her own body, you will never understand the abortion issue, nor anyone who does understand it.

There is nothing to understand. Mothers can either put their children first or dispense with them because they are an inconvenience as well as a legal allowance. The autonomy argument fails because it is based on a hypocritical demand of taking away the autonomy of her unborn baby.

 

[Town Heretic]

...no one is arguing that we do not have a fundamental right to exist.

I said the right to be and in relation to a chronological line, if you read the argument. That is most definitely the question. When that right must be recognized and protected. That's been the argument all along. Because once we recognize the vestment no one argues that the mother's rights prevail between them on that question.

Some of us feel that a person exists from the moment of conception, on...but there are differing ideas as to when. While none of us can prove our theories to be irrefutably true.

I agree, which is why I don't try to determine the moment, only recognize the right and the implications of it for every moment along that chain of being.

Well, this is your opinion, yes. Because you believe personhood begins at conception.

Doesn't matter what either of us believe...or it does. As much one as the other. My argument stands apart, as an arbiter of every differing belief, dependent on none of them, recognizing the existence of each and, most important, protecting the right itself, which is as arguably present in every moment as in any.

Succinctly put: if the existence of the right is admitted and a thing the law must protect where recognized and there is no objective litmus for determining the point of vestment, only a series of differing valuations on the point, then the only way to avoid abrogating what we have no right to abrogate is to protect every point along a chain of being wherein that right may arguably be found. The first link in that chain of being, the first new thing, is conception.

Personhood does require self will and the liberty to express it, to be manifested. It does not require absolute self will, nor absolute liberty. But it requires enough of these to allow the human biological entity to recognize that it has it's own will, and can exercise it according to it's own nature

That's not an objective truth. It's just your truth, your standard. Your point along that chronological ladder we climb. And in the name of your belief you'll empower women to potentially, arguably violate a right they have no right to.

I don't. My argument doesn't and it's the only one that can make that claim against any particular notion of the truth.

Until you can justify your automatic presumption of this right to usurp the autonomy of others, to their satisfaction, they will not give you that authority.

You think slave owners lost their property because in the end they agreed with their slaves? Some, to be sure and God bless them. Mostly not. My hope is for a peaceful, rational and moral victory.

The courts used the only reasonable criteria available to them.

You make the end sound necessary, but it wasn't, which is why that Court spoke with a divided voice.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Recognizing that the baby has the right not to be murdered could never do anything to criminalize miscarriage. This is a ridiculous claim.

It absolutely could. If a pregnant woman was unintentionally doing something that ended up causing a miscarriage (perhaps not even realizing she was pregnant), then under your unborn personhood law she would be liable for manslaughter.

If you make an unborn baby specifically a "person" then there is a whole set a provisional rules tha have to be crafted alongside it in order to protect people from situations like the one I described. That's complicated and isn't easy to come up with and propose, and much harder to pass

 

[PureX]

There is nothing to understand. Mothers can either put their children first or …

"Children" have nothing to do with the abortion issue. See … this is why it's pointless to even try and discuss the issue with you.

 

[PureX]

I said the right to be and in relation to a chronological line, if you read the argument. That is most definitely the question. When that right must be recognized and protected. That's been the argument all along. Because once we recognize the vestment no one argues that the mother's rights prevail between them on that question.

You can keep repeating this until you run out of breath (or ink, or electrons, or whatever), but no one is arguing against a human being's right to exist. The argument is about what constitutes a human being, and when a developing fetus becomes one. And once you face the reality of this debate, you're then going to have to justify your desire to usurp everyone else's opinions about it so as to enforce your own.

My suspicion is that you know you can't justify your desire to do that, and so you have to keep refusing to acknowledge the real issue at hand, and insisting that we are debating a human being's right to exist, when no one is debating that, but you.

I agree, which is why I don't try to determine the moment, only recognize the right and the implications of it for every moment along that chain of being.

Well, good for you. But not everyone else sees it that way. And you have no justification for usurping their opinions so as to enforce your own. At least none that you've tried to assert.

Doesn't matter what either of us believe...or it does. As much one as the other. My argument stands apart, as an arbiter of every differing belief, dependent on none of them, recognizing the existence of each and, most important, protecting the right itself, which is as arguably present in every moment as in any.

Restating your opinion on the matter does not make it any less an opinion than anyone else's. Trying to force everyone else to abide by it, however, is something else. Something that I think you know you can't justify. And so must avoid.

Succinctly put: if the existence of the right is admitted and a thing the law must protect where recognized and there is no objective litmus for determining the point of vestment, only a series of differing valuations on the point, then the only way to avoid abrogating what we have no right to abrogate is to protect every point along a chain of being wherein that right may arguably be found. The first link in that chain of being, the first new thing, is conception.

There is no logical reason why we as a society should take such an absolutist stance regarding the right to life of a human fetus. Especially when we do not take this absolutist stance toward any other issue involving a human being's right to life, such as capital punishment, self-defense, warfare, or even health care.

You make the end sound necessary, but it wasn't, which is why that Court spoke with a divided voice.

The court spoke with a divided voice for the same reason the general public does. We ARE divided on the issue. And that's why we need to respect the individual's right to decide for themselves, until that point where we can reasonably and collectively determine 'personhood'.

That was the decision laid down by the court, and it was the right decision for a free society, until further information, or other options, present themselves.

 

[Crucible]

and when, in human development, does a distinct individual first occur?

When they are born

 

[ok doser]

what is about the act of being born that makes the difference, do you think?

 

[Crucible]

what is about the act of being born that makes the difference, do you think?

Here are some verses to consider:

Job 3:16
"Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light."

Ecclesiastes 6:3-4
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.'"

Psalms 58:8
"Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun."


And this one is perhaps the most damning to the notion that fetuses are of the same inalienable rights and acknowledgment of those born:

Exodus 21:22-23
"If people are fighting and 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"


Right here is inevitably the woman's life being more important than the fetus, and the fetus itself being treated almost as property.

 

[Rusha]

"Children" have nothing to do with the abortion issue. See … this is why it's pointless to even try and discuss the issue with you.

Yes ... it is pointless to expect me to accept that it's fine for mother's to intentionally kill their unborn babies on the altar of convenience.

 

[Crucible]

Yes ... it is pointless to expect me to accept that it's fine for mother's to intentionally kill their unborn babies on the altar of convenience.

Cool story.

Of course, it has nothing to do with that.. you just want women of abortion to be as murderers. And so we're full circle again as to how you justify your conviction- I've provided verses, circumstances, and logical premises which prove you wrong. As far as that goes, neither you or anyone have provided rebuttals to any of it and yet repeat your arbitrary notion.

 

[Crucible]

*BUMP*

Here are some verses to consider:

Job 3:16
"Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, as infants that never saw light."

Ecclesiastes 6:3-4
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity.'"

Psalms 58:8
"Let them be as a snail which melts away as it goes along, like the miscarriages of a woman which never see the sun."


And this one is perhaps the most damning to the notion that fetuses are of the same inalienable rights and acknowledgment of those born:

Exodus 21:22-23
"If people are fighting and 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"


Right here is inevitably the woman's life being more important than the fetus, and the fetus itself being treated almost as property.

 

[Rusha]

Yes ... it is pointless to expect me to accept that it's fine for mother's to intentionally kill their unborn babies on the altar of convenience.

Cool story.

Of course, it has nothing to do with that.. you just want women of abortion to be as murderers

No ... what I want is for the women AND men who are responsible for creating a new life to SUPPORT and CARE for that life up until the time the unborn baby is born. At that point, if one or both of them are not capable of being the type of parent these innocent children deserve, they can give them up for adoption to a loving home.

And so we're full circle again as to how you justify your conviction. I've provided verses, circumstances, and logical premises which prove you wrong.

You have proven nothing other than the fact that you see no value in the unborn ... though in this case, you are even worse than other pro-abortion advocates. You, a self-proclaimed Christian, are cherry picking verses out of the Bible to support abortion aka the intentional killing of unborn babies.

 

[patrick jane]

I've never seen a Bible verse that says abortion is ok under any circumstance

 

[Rusha]

I've never seen a Bible verse that says abortion is ok under any circumstance

That's because ... there isn't.

 

[Crucible]

You have proven nothing

The fall back statement when people deny rebuttals they cannot rebuke, nothing new under the sun

All of a sudden I'm 'cherry picking', when there isn't even a cherry to suffice their own claims- the Bible is completely silent on their arbitrary notion.

 

[Rusha]

The fall back statement with people denying their own inconsistency, nothing new under the sun

That's right ... I deny that the Bible supports abortion. I deny that women should have the right to intentionally kill their unborn babies via abortion.

In case no one else has figured it out, your position on abortion is self serving in accordance to your character.

 

[Crucible]

That's right ... I deny that the Bible supports abortion. I deny that women should have the right to intentionally kill their unborn babies via abortion.

In case no one else has figured it out, your position on abortion is self serving in accordance to your character.

Those as yourself are abysmally self-righteous, prescribing life to something to call another a murderer..

I'll tell you what- amass a commensurate amount of scripture as I have to defend your case, and then you can preach to me how I'm allegedly wrong or self-serving lain:

 

[Rusha]

Those as yourself are abysmally self-righteous, prescribing life to something to call another a murderer.

.

Quote please ... where I made such a charge. Oh never mind, you are once again just making it up as you go along.

 

[Crucible]

.

Quote please ... where I made such a charge. Oh never mind, you are once again just making it up as you go along.

Then why are you arguing against the person who calls it Adamic sin for those who call it murder?

You're as transparent as glass on a spring afternoon