PureX
Well-known member
I guess that should be up to you, since no one else knows any more about what's inside the building than you do, and you have no way to find out.
And it is your building, after all. So it's your decision.
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
And it is your building, after all. So it's your decision.
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you think it would be fair for the government to create laws that require me to make sure there are no people in the building before I demolish it?
Or would you argue that it's my building, my choice?
PureX
Well-known member
In this analogy, there is no way for you to make sure. So that would be an irrational and unworkable law. All the government could do is write a law preventing you from demolishing your own building, even though it has no evidence showing that there is anyone inside it. And that would be an unjust law.
I believe that it's your building, and therefor it's your choice to make, unless someone can prove they have just cause to deny you that choice. So far, that is not possible. And so I believe the choice remains yours to make.
glassjester
Well-known member
There is a way to make sure. The government will allow me to do whatever I want to my building, but they require a 9 month waiting period, so they can make certain that there aren't any people in there.
Fair?
A declaration is neither evidence nor argument. Get on with it.
lain:
Still wondering why so many Christians believe something that the biblical authors obviously did not
If they were treated as property in the womb, and people were penalized by the death of infants, than why does a person who holds to the Bible treat abortion as murder?
It makes no sense- these people are all about self-interest, it has nothing to do with abortion. They treat it as more important than actual, suffering people in the world and, at that, don't even have enough backbone to do much about what they perceive as 'murder'.
If they were treated as property in the womb, and people were penalized by the death of infants, than why does a person who holds to the Bible treat abortion as murder?
It makes no sense- these people are all about self-interest, it has nothing to do with abortion. They treat it as more important than actual, suffering people in the world and, at that, don't even have enough backbone to do much about what they perceive as 'murder'.
glassjester
Well-known member
Still wondering why so many Christians believe something that the biblical authors obviously did not
If they were treated as property in the womb, and people were penalized by the death of infants, than why does a person who holds to the Bible treat abortion as murder?
It makes no sense- these people are all about self-interest, it has nothing to do with abortion. They treat it as more important than actual, suffering people in the world and, at that, don't even have enough backbone to do much about what they perceive as 'murder'.
Do you think it would have been morally acceptable for Mary to abort Jesus?
Abortion is a sin against natural law, just as sodomy and cannibalism.
The problem is you all arguing it by putting the focus primarily on the alleged personhood of a fetus. The result is calling people murderers, and subtracting from the value of those born.
glassjester
Well-known member
This should go without saying, but:
The human embryo is human.
A living human embryo is living.
Abortion is the intentional killing of a living, human organism. Is it not?
If that's not murder, what is?
That's just a game of semantics and technicality. Fetuses have yet to see the light of day, have no memory, and have no biological autonomy. They have more in common with the egg or sperm than of a born human being.
glassjester
Well-known member
That's just plain false.
If you all went by logic rather than emotion, you'd see that it's very true. A fetus has more in common with the seed than the born.
And
If you all did a bit of research on the matter of abortion, you will see that it was often maintained that a soul doesn't begin until he animation of the fetus, which takes anywhere from four to six months from conception to occur.
And further back, they were more like property until birth.
It's as I said, you all have simply made up your claims against abortion, it never really came from religion or history.
glassjester
Well-known member
Again, not true.
Not true in a genetic sense.
Not true in an anatomical sense.
Not true in a metabolic sense.
Not true in a developmental sense.
Just plain false.
First - Who is "you all" ?
Second - Who cares what was "often maintained" ? Slavery was "often maintained," was it not?
Third - Who mentioned a soul? We're talking about whether an abortion should legally be considered murder. Do any of our current laws prohibit murder, based on the assumption that the victim has a soul? Nope. Irrelevant. If the victim of the killing was human, then the killing was murder.
How do you define a living human?
Nonsense, but what of it? A newborn has more in common with the unborn than it does with me.
Truth by a show of hands is only a truth as it relates to opinion, not fact.
History and religion is replete with invention. I've made a rational claim and argument. You should avoid it. . .as if that was in question.
People naturally know that abortion is not murder. You, and every pro life advocate. Just like if you are a child and you know, self-evidently, that there is something wrong with homosexuality- some things are simply ingrained into human intuition.
That's why calling abortion murder is no more concerning to others as it is even for the person saying it- we fight genocidal institutions, but I don't see abortion clinics being sacked, I don't even see people sleeping uneasily about it.
So, tell me more about this 'truth' of fetal 'homicide', and how it exists even though it is not within the realm of human intuition
I'm a person. I don't agree. Most people knew the sun circled the earth once upon a time. Then someone said, "No, it really doesn't and here's why..."
The last sentence sums part of your problem...I suspect you make a habit out of forming general conclusions from anecdotal evidence. In any event I've proffered an argument, not a declaration. And until it's upended a show of hands or your extrapolating a conflagration from an ember won't and shouldn't move me.
The hubris it takes to speak for humanity while evidencing so little of it is fairly impressive, but I'm not involved in the personhood or murder sidebar. Those have a habit of descending into emotional rhetoric without any meat on the bone. Rather, I'm speaking of right and abrogation, what we are entitled to and what we must reasonably protect.So, tell me more about this 'truth' of fetal 'homicide', and how it exists even though it is not within the realm of human intuition
I'm certain that most women would agree, if they felt shame at the time of abortion, had little to do with the fetus and more to do with feeling that they were abandoning an working of their womanhood. Unlike a born child, there is no annual visit to a shrine of an aborted fetus if they die and it's precisely because of that fact.
It seems to me like when it comes down to it, many of you resort to words like 'generalization' or 'anecdotal' to dismiss something. The thing is, with this, you have a majority of society who do not see abortion as wrong in any sense- and many more who do not see it, at least, as murder- and that automatically makes such arguments frivolous.
Your certainty doesn't concern me. Your rationality and ability to engage does...or rather what you choose to substitute for that very thing. Easy declarations and little else. Why on earth would anyone expect a woman who instructed another to take the life of her child would commemorate it? I'd expect the majority to avoid the thought of it, if possible.
I won't speak for anyone else, but that's a fair statement. I use it to dismiss a flawed and unreasonable approach to establishing a rule. Anecdotes are only worthy as illustrations of rules established by a broader means. Else, you might stub your toe and declare the world hobbled with as much reason.
Simply not true. According to Gallop, last year (a better year for pro choice than many of late) only 29% of Americans thought abortion should even be legal in any circumstance. 51% allowed it should be legal in limited circumstance. 19% opposed it in every case and 1% were without opinion. So most Americans will be surprised to hear you misstate their case.
Neither declaration, nor numbers, nor the arrogance to confuse them with truth will silence truth or answer reason.
PureX
Well-known member
No.
In this analogy, tearing down the building nine months later is an irrelevant choice, as it's the equivalent of not tearing the building down at all. It destroys the analogy.
PureX
Well-known member
The Horn said:
A declaration is neither evidence nor argument. Get on with it.
It is a relevant observation that points out the apparent irrationality of treating the potentiality of a human being within in a cluster of cells as the equivalent of an actualized human being expressing physical autonomy.