Against abortion and against person-hood?

[glassjester]

You tell me. :idunno:

What's the point in enumerating what you claimed we cannot comprehensively denote...just three posts ago?

I said it seemed to me that you could not identify the particular factors that grant a human a right to life.

I do claim to identify the sole factor that grants a human a right to life. Being human.

Do you claim some other source of a human's right to life?

 

[glassjester]

In Judaic lore, all souls preexist and await a vessel.

My question remains.

Is this a demonstrable fact, or your own arbitrarily chosen opinion?

 

[Lon]

Little Ones
Who will speak up for the little ones, Helpless and half abandoned.
They've got a right to choose life, They don't want to lose.
I've got to speak up... Won't you?

Equal rights... Equal time, For the unborn children.
Their precious lives are on the line. Oh how can we be rid of them.

Passing laws... Passing out, Bills and new amendments.
Pay the cost then turn about, And face the un-defendant.

Who will speak up for the little ones, Helpless and half abandoned.
They've got a right to choose life, They don't want to lose.
I've got to speak up... Won't you?

Many come and many go, Conceived but not delivered.
The toll is astronomical, Oh how can we be indifferent?

Little hands... Little feet, Tears from HIM who made you.
Should all on earth forsake you now? Yet HE'll never forsake you.

Who will speak up for the little ones, Helpless and half abandoned.
They've got a right to choose life, They don't want to lose.
I've got to speak up... Won't you?

(Bridge)

Forming Hearts... Forming minds, Quenched before awakened
For so many delivered crimes, The earth will soon be shaken.

Little hands... Little feet, Tears from HIM who made you.
Should all on earth forsake you now? Yet HE'll never forsake you.

Who will speak up for the little ones, Helpless and half abandoned.
They've got a right to choose life, They don't want to lose.
I've got to speak up... Won't you?
I've got to speak up... Won't you?

 

[quip]

Again there's no "curtain" only an argument that sits plainly enough and there's only reasoning, offered as plainly.

"Oz" failed in that respect as well.

Leaving off a lamentable comparison, this isn't about a right to the woman's body. It remains about the right to be and where that right may be found and what can be done to refrain from doing that which we have no right to do.

So, a woman has no right to protect her life from a rapist/murderer, lethally so. Absurd, yes...yet, your position lends itself to this level of extremism. Answer me this: Exactly why is this not an issue about the woman's right to her own body?
SCOTUS saw fit to deliberate upon the very issue. :idunno:

 

[glassjester]

Ah, my mistake...I think it was the cow wearing earrings that threw me. :chuckle:

Those little cheeses are delicious!

 

[Crucible]

My question remains.

Is this a demonstrable fact, or your own arbitrarily chosen opinion?

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

See, when you do your homework, you better understand what is going on

 

[quip]

I do claim to identify the sole factor that grants a human a right to life. Being human.

Yet, you allude to much more than simply being human. correct?

"being human" is a necessary condition for rights though not, by itself, a sufficient one.

Nor does this simplistic take on rights encompass those cases where rights-to-life have been abrogated.

 

[glassjester]

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

See, when you do your homework, you better understand what is going on

Really, you don't have to be so condescending. It's alright.
I'd respect you just as much, maybe more, without the I'm-Better-Than-You attitude.

I've read Genesis, Brother. Give me more credit than that.

Where's the part when it says that every human will be formed the same way Adam was?

 

[glassjester]

Yet, you allude to much more than simply being human. correct?

Incorrect... I think. Did I?

"being human" is a necessary condition for rights though not, by itself, a sufficient one.

What other conditions are needed?

Nor does this simplistic take on rights encompass those cases where rights-to-life have been abrogated.

How?

 

[quip]

How?

Someone attacks you with intent to kill...though you're both "human beings". :idunno: This singular assertion really solves nothing about how this could justly be resolved.

 

[glassjester]

Someone attacks you with intent to kill...though you're both "human beings". :idunno: This singular assertion really solves nothing about how this could justly be resolved.

Sure it does.

I should try to stop him from killing me.
Others should try to stop him from killing me, too.
In order to defend my right to life.

Where's the problem?

 

[quip]

Sure it does.

I should try to stop him from killing me.
Others should try to stop him from killing me, too.
In order to defend my right to life.

Where's the problem?

No problem at all....your explication just made my point.

 

[Lon]

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

See, when you do your homework, you better understand what is going on

:nono: We might get along on a good many theological points, but not this one.
1)"You knew me in my mother's womb"
2) God can terminate a life, they are all His. You and I? :nono: Not your's and not your decision to interfere with Him.
3) When in doubt, don't. Romans tells us unless you are 100% sure, it is to that one sin.
4) "You knit me in my mother's womb." Dare you or I interrupt what God is doing without His permission? How self-willed are you as a Calvinist? How sovereign God?
5) Have you seen an abortion sonogram???
6) Are you covering up for something you just don't want to face? I've rarely seen a believer take your position without covering
for some heinous previous action. Look to forgiveness, not excuse if such.

 

[glassjester]

No problem at all....your explication just made my point.

Your point being that being human is not enough of a reason to grant a right to life?

I do not see how I've "made your point."
Really, I do not even see how you have "made your point" yet.

Care to explain?

 

[Crucible]

Really, you don't have to be so condescending. It's alright.
I'd respect you just as much, maybe more, without the I'm-Better-Than-You attitude.

I've read Genesis, Brother. Give me more credit than that.

Where's the part when it says that every human will be formed the same way Adam was?

I'm not insulting your intelligence, or being condescending. Not purposefully, anyway, but the questions you are asking are simply perpetuating something which I've consistently tackled over and over again.

>Souls preexist
>There is a distinction between Adam's body and soul, which became 'living' only when they merged

Unless you believe God would put a soul in a doomed body, then this alone explains any alleged pro-life verse.

It's pretty clear cut to me when you consider also that fetuses were property in Exodus- there's simply nothing in the Bible to suggest that abortion is murder.

 

[Town Heretic]

"Oz" failed in that respect as well.

No, there was an actual (and this is the kicker) demonstrable curtain there.

So, a woman has no right to protect her life from a rapist/murderer, lethally so.

I actually noted that self-defense where life is jeopardized is a legitimate contention within the abortion debate. Which makes your next, curious statement a bit problematic for you.

Absurd, yes...yet, your position lends itself to this level of extremism

You're free to believe that, but you'll never actually demonstrate it.

. Answer me this: Exactly why is this not an issue about the woman's right to her own body?

Because it's a vague phrase that isn't actually a right, to begin with. We have all sorts of rights. Most of them relate what we can do with our bodies, but we don't have full possession of them independent of any other consideration. To illustrate, you can't legally ingest all sorts of products, can't end your own life, can't sell your body parts, mostly can't prostitute yourself. And you can't exercise your right to control over your body with no consideration of my own, which is why your fist swinging autonomy ends at the tip of my nose. That sort of thing. So there are all sorts of rights relating to our bodies, but they require particulars to consider. The right to be is fundamental to that consideration and where that right vests begins the discussion of right and relation.

My argument goes directly to the issue of vestment, the consideration by which every subsequent consideration is framed. That issue determines. True for the arbitrary valuations, like Roe. True of my argument from necessity and right.

SCOTUS saw fit to deliberate upon the very issue. :idunno:

They deliberated over slavery too. And the latter, sharply divided Roe Court never approached the consideration I've offered. Sometimes Courts get caught up in the sentiment of an age or a moment and they're as blinkered as the next fellow. Given we've firmly established that most of those fellows are arguing over beauty, the conclusion isn't surprising...neither is the division.

 

[quip]

Because it's a vague phrase that isn't actually a right, to begin with.

To begin a discussion of rights by side-stepping the ninth amendment (retained rights) is an odd step for a man studied in law. Nuff said there.

We have all sorts of rights. Most of them relate what we can do with our bodies, but we don't have full possession of them independent of any other consideration.

Yes, we do have all sorts of rights while you could make similar arguments for most of them...defining such limits regarding this particular right is the crux of the debate. Preemption fails the entire process. Again, I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of abortion but rather arguing against (while personally surprised by) your mode of reasoning which completely fails to give "woman's rights" (in relation to abortion) equal time. If you desire to claim a rational approach then you must rebut the opposition instead of furtively sequestering it.

...which is why your fist swinging autonomy ends at the tip of my nose
That sort of thing.

This quote from you deftly illustrates the driving force behind a woman's right to her own body. You simply cannot establish positive rights-to-life for the unborn whilst ignoring said right's inherent limitations.

To cop another of your phrases: (We may grant the unborn baby a right-to-life though) "[the unborn] don't have full possession of them independent of any other consideration."

...and that consideration is -- mom.

 

[glassjester]

To cop another of your phrases: (We may grant the unborn baby a right-to-life though) "[the unborn] don't have full possession of them independent of any other consideration."

...and that consideration is -- mom.

Then you can't grant one right without violating the other (at least for three quarters of a year).

So which right would you rather violate?
The right to bodily autonomy or the right to life?




And...

Your point being that being human is not enough of a reason to grant a right to life?

I do not see how I've "made your point."
Really, I do not even see how you have "made your point" yet.

Care to explain?

 

[quip]

And...

We'll start here. Clearly you reserve - justly so - the legal option of killing another human being in the defense of your own. The singular designation "human being" fails to encompass the breadth of the subject matter.

Which makes for an apt segue....

Then you can't grant one right without violating the other (at least for three quarters of a year).

So which right would you rather violate?
The right to bodily autonomy or the right to life?

Since we're discussing limitations of rights to life by way of one human being's encroachment upon another human being....I believe the unborn equally qualify as the effective encroach-er, a scenario replete with the mother holding every moral and legal choice to alleviate...much like yours above.

i.e. the latter.

 

[Crucible]

:nono: We might get along on a good many theological points, but not this one.
1)"You knew me in my mother's womb"
2) God can terminate a life, they are all His. You and I? :nono: Not your's and not your decision to interfere with Him.
3) When in doubt, don't. Romans tells us unless you are 100% sure, it is to that one sin.
4) "You knit me in my mother's womb." Dare you or I interrupt what God is doing without His permission? How self-willed are you as a Calvinist? How sovereign God?
5) Have you seen an abortion sonogram???
6) Are you covering up for something you just don't want to face? I've rarely seen a believer take your position without covering
for some heinous previous action. Look to forgiveness, not excuse if such.

Souls preexist before bodies are even made. This isn't something stated in the Bible but is nonetheless part of orthodox Jewish belief.

Because of this, the trinity of a person is not established in the beginning. There's the soul, and then the body is formed, and upon birth as seen with Adam, spirit is introduced- along with the soul.

Also
'You knew me in the womb' is obviously a construct of predestination.
God would not make the mistake of placing a soul into something that will die due to intentional abortion, as it bear no meaning or purpose to do so.

Back to what I've stated long before, I am pro-life and see abortion as a grave, disordered sin- I just do not assign a soul to a fetus, and therefore do not see it as 'murder'.
That is something which is contrary to many things, including the sovereignty of God, as it would say that we have control even over an ethereal realm.

The biggest buster of the claim that abortion is murder can be found in Exodus when the fetus is outright made synonymous to property- the woman is the subject of concern, as she can have more children.