Human =/= Person.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Texas Law Banning Abortion After About Six Weeks Takes Effect
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A church or spiritual leader is not in complete charge so its not a theocratic nation, so this allusion of a state theocracy as a worst case scenario is very far fetched in a constitutional republic not designed for any religious sect or group to take complete control.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't like the survival outside the womb.
I'd like to see the cutoff when the fetus can first feel pain when it's being cut apart.
It's pretty much at the six to seven week stage.
Controversy: Can fetuses feel pain?
Last edited:
A link to an evangelical Christian "research" group in lieu of links
to actual works by Singer doesn't allay my skepticism. They
present their argument against their inference of his work.
Very agenda laden.
Ref...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Research_InstituteThe CRI
CRI differs from the Wikipedia article about Singer by claiming
infants have no rights, rather than the fetus.
Ref....
Peter Singer - Wikipedia
In this more neutral article, we see that Singer advocates abortion
rights, but his addressing a newborn doesn't have this advocacy.
Instead, it appears to be a philosophical questioning of just when
human consciousness begins. Such an issue, as with severe
disabilities & euthanasia is worth discussing. But to claim it's
actually advocating this requires affirmative statements.
But no matter. Whatever he believes, there are mainstream
beliefs held by tens of millions far more worth addressing.
I'm fair....I don't criticize prop-lifers using their loopiest
elements as the basis. Pro-livers can be reasonable,
& they're numerous. I'll argue abortion with them.
That article is from 2006. Here's a more recent and thorough one:
Do Fetuses Feel Pain? What the Science Says
And if we go by pain as the primary metric for whether abortion would be acceptable or not, then we should also consider the pain a pregnant women would experience from unwanted pregnancy and labor. We can't just dismiss that and focus on the fetus alone.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Whatever the science shows. I think laws should revolve around that.
It's a Christian bioethicist criticizing Singer's own words. He cites his sources. Take it or leave it. You're quite capable of looking things up yourself, obviouly. I don't care to talk about Singer himself. He's just an example of what I was talking about, and it seems odd to dismiss it as a thought experiment.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You have quite the imagination.
It's not my study I 'made up'.
Ever view the Silent Scream? It's not pretty.
I've shown and was shown valid science sources on the matter, but I guess your in denial of legitimate science that affirms fetuses feel pain.
We don't disagree, although I also think laws should respect the bodily autonomy and reproductive freedoms of women.
tytlyf
Not Religious
I read the conclusion, you obviously didn't. Try reading it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Im sure you did.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Your own study demolished your fantasy land. Read next time.
Conclusion
The neural circuitry for pain in fetuses is immature. More importantly, the developmental processes necessary for the mindful experience of pain are not yet developed. An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal. Nevertheless, proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence. Legal or clinical mandates for interventions to prevent such pain are scientifically unsound and may expose women to inappropriate interventions, risks, and distress. Avoiding a discussion of fetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism21 but a sound policy based on good evidence that fetuses cannot experience pain.
Notice that I did cite resources.
I just find CRI's inference from Singer's words to be
strained...not supported.
That's how it appeared in Wikipedia, which is a far more
neutral source than an evangelical Christian organization
that has an anti-abortion agenda.
Ref....
Abortion and the Moral Law | Christian Research Institute
Searching, I've found no neutral site wherein he states that
infants have no right to life. Have you?
I don't believe there is such a thing as a neutral source, so it doesn't matter to me. Wikipedia has its own biases and the quality of individual articles is all over the place. The key is just to recognize the biases.
Neutrality does vary.
Wikipedia vs an anti-abortion evangelical Christian
apologist organization....which do you think would
be more neutral regarding Singer?
Anyway, I looked at quotes from Singer. CRI's claim
isn't supported.
And we'll disagree there.
This often the best resolution, eh.
Dead horses suffer enuf on RF already.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
To bad you didn't read the rest of the abstract and just focused on a conclusion with a very narrow and ignorant viewpoint.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Strange. I've seen many animals born and seen people born. I've never seen a woman give birth to anything but a person, just like sheep always give birth to sheep. If they ain't people, why do they have human DNA?