• 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!

Roe v Wade Overturned?

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
michel said:
Flappycat; I am with with Darkdale on this one.
It doesn't matter. "Potential" has no effect on the present state of an embryo, and an embryo has no capacity for sensation. There is no ethical justification for equating it with a child because a child actually has a basic capacity for volition, and no amount of stubborn insistence can possess it with a "soul" because no such thing exists. Without the capacity for volition, rights are meaningless.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Flappycat said:
It doesn't matter. "Potential" has no effect on the present state of an embryo, and an embryo has no capacity for sensation. There is no ethical justification for equating it with a child because a child actually has a basic capacity for volition, and no amount of stubborn insistence can possess it with a "soul" because no such thing exists. Without the capacity for volition, rights are meaningless.
That is your opinion; one with which I do not agree.:rolleyes:
 

Darkdale

World Leader Pretend
Flappycat said:
So is a cockroach, and a cockroach actually consists of quite a few more cells than a newly-concieved embryo.

I'm just not sure how you justify saying that after conception it's not human until... until when exactly?
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
Darkdale said:
I'm just not sure how you justify saying that after conception it's not human until... until when exactly?
When it develops the capacity for sensation, it is capable of being affected by compassion. When it develops the capacity for will and volition to act upon it, it is capable of having liberty. When it develops the capacity for complex emotions, it is capable of loving and being loved. Our cells alone are not what make us people.
 

Darkdale

World Leader Pretend
Flappycat said:
When it develops the capacity for sensation, it is capable of being affected by compassion. When it develops the capacity for will and volition to act upon it, it is capable of having liberty. When it develops the capacity for complex emotions, it is capable of loving and being loved. Our cells alone are not what make us people.

Hmm. Well, I guess we simply disagree. I think it is the accumulation of our cells that makes us what we are, from the moment of conception up until death.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Flappycat said:
When it develops the capacity for sensation, it is capable of being affected by compassion. When it develops the capacity for will and volition to act upon it, it is capable of having liberty. When it develops the capacity for complex emotions, it is capable of loving and being loved. Our cells alone are not what make us people.
How do you account for the fact that the Bible says:

Luke 1:41 = AND IT CAME TO PASS, THAT, WHEN ELIZABETH HEARD THE SALUTATION OF MARY, THE BABE LEAPED IN HER WOMB; AND ELIZABETH WAS FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST.

Why then does the Bible refer to it as a baby?

In Verse 44, it adds the words ...THE BABE LEAPED IN MY WOMB FOR JOY.

No sensation? No capacity for complex emotions?

The Bible says otherwise.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
The Bible also calls the bat a bird, so I'm not sure I'd trust it as far as science is concerned.
 

Flappycat

Well-Known Member
Darkdale said:
Hmm. Well, I guess we simply disagree. I think it is the accumulation of our cells that makes us what we are, from the moment of conception up until death.
Fine! If you want to think that the mere fact that something is made of human cells makes it wrong to destroy it, then JUST SAY SO! Just don't continuously take the conversation in circles until my head pulsates and explodes, splashing gray matter and blood over everyone within my vicinity and, on the brighter side, causing the nearest nun to drop dead where she stands. I think that there is something more to human life than just cells. I think it's something more special and unique than that. I feel that insisting that what makes us human is the obvious fact that we're composed of cells criminally trivializes human existence, personally. If you wish to insist that it's "the accumulation of our cells that makes us what we are," or something equally trivial and meaningless, fine. Trying to change your mind doesn't warrent risking a coronary.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Jensa said:
The Bible also calls the bat a bird, so I'm not sure I'd trust it as far as science is concerned.
God spoke to the people in terms that they could understand. This verse in Deuteronomy was long before zoologists codified animals by phylum, genera, and species.

A bat would more resemble a bird than it would a "creeping thing" or "cattle".

So, trust me, it's okay to go ahead and trust it.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
It's not too hard to explain that a bat is actually furry and not a bird. My 10 year old sister can understand that.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
So, trust me, it's okay to go ahead and trust it.
Oh..in that case I`ll just ditch this whole atheism gig I`ve got going.
Thanks for that clarification..I almost really screwed up.
:biglaugh:
However you do realise that using the Bible as a standard for legislation leaves a HUGE portion of our citizenery that holds no faith in the book under theocratic rule.
In essence forcing them to live a life that directly conflicts with their beliefs.

Do you advocate such a rule of law?

I`m with you Flappy.
:jam:
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
Flappycat said:
...Trying to change your mind doesn't warrent risking a coronary.
Now...you didn't actually start posting with the notion that you were going to change anyone's mind here...did you?:biglaugh: I'd say you have about as good a chance of that as anyone here has of changing yours.

Steering this thread back to the vicinity of the topic...yes, the topic...remember that?;) John Roberts has stated and his brief judicial record demonstrates that he is not an 'activist judge'. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the 'right to privacy' was a right reserved for the people per the 9th Amendement, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I am going out on a limb and predicting that even with Robert's confirmation and a second Bush appointment, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned any time soon.
 

ChrisP

Veteran Member
CaptainXeroid said:
Now...you didn't actually start posting with the notion that you were going to change anyone's mind here...did you?:biglaugh: I'd say you have about as good a chance of that as anyone here has of changing yours.

Steering this thread back to the vicinity of the topic...yes, the topic...remember that?;) John Roberts has stated and his brief judicial record demonstrates that he is not an 'activist judge'. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that the 'right to privacy' was a right reserved for the people per the 9th Amendement, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I am going out on a limb and predicting that even with Robert's confirmation and a second Bush appointment, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned any time soon.
I agree. From an outsiders perspective I can't see even the most conservative government repealing abortion law as it stands.

Political suicide :bonk:
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
linwood said:
Oh..in that case I`ll just ditch this whole atheism gig I`ve got going.
Good idea --- just put it back where it came from --- in the ditch.

Thanks for that clarification..I almost really screwed up.
My pleasure ... but you wouldn't have messed up for long ... sooner or later you'd notice it's written on your coins.

However you do realise that using the Bible as a standard for legislation leaves a HUGE portion of our citizenery that holds no faith in the book under theocratic rule.
I don't know about theocratic rule ... but believe me ... they'd be thankful later.

In essence forcing them to live a life that directly conflicts with their beliefs.
See above.

Do you advocate such a rule of law?
God already instituted it under the dispensation of Human Government, and it led to a Tower. They that don't know the past are bound to repeat it ... therefore NO.
 

drekmed

Member
here are a few questions to ponder, some might seem off topic.

if you are pro-life, do you believe the death penalty should be legal?
if you are pro-life, do you believe that a war can ever be justified?
if you are pro-life, do you believe any killing be justifed, for any reason?
if you are pro-life, are you agianst cloning, for the sole purpose of reproduction for the infertile?
if you are pro-life, are you against cloning, for any reason?
if you are pro-life, and not against cloning, do you believe it is ok to scratch your skin?
if you are pro-life, and against cloning, do you believe it would be ok to abort a cloned fetus?


now back on topic. i am personally against abortion. i would not want my wife or girlfriend to get an abortion, but i am still pro-choice. i believe that once a fetus is able to be kept alive outside of the womb, without major physical or mental defects, it should no longer be allowed to be aborted. with advancements in technology, the amount of time an abortion would be allowed would become less.

i asked the questions above so that you might think about some of the shades of grey on the issue. try seeing things from the other side,(not saying that anyone isn't, and not directed at anybody specific) i know i can see things from yours on this matter, but i dont feel i should attempt to impose my view on others, unless i had a part in the creating of the fetus.

RoevWade shouldn't be overturned because it keeps a state from passing a law making abortions illegal. i might be wrong on this next part but i believe it keeps states from making it illegal to get an abortion out of state, but that might not even be addressed in it, haven't looked at it lately, and am probly getting it confused with something else.

if anybody feels like they want to answer the questions on here, please include a short explanation as to why you answer a certain way. if a different thread is required for them, feel free to make it, not sure if it is warranted though, and i dont have the time tonight.

Drekmed

(be back in about 13 hours to answer any questions asked, about the questions i asked)
(sorry bought the grammar and spelling, its time to get off work and go to bed)
 
Top