each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Until near death, when the "pro-lifers" insist that the dying person suffer as long as possible.

Way back when I was a CNA, there was a guy who had stopped eating and his family refused a feeding tube. We were LIVID because he was a big, stocky guy and starving to death would take awhile. We all just kinda prayed God would take him quickly. I don't know if he was on comfort meds like morphine or anything. I've never worked with hospice but I share a lot of their outlook. I'm fine with respecting patients' desires (even if they're really, REALLY dumb), but I believe that when the body is clearly shutting down, that's a sign the end credits are about to roll and putting the last five minutes of the movie on slow-mo isn't going to change that.

We also have secular, reality based, science to use.

And a cluster of cells with neither a functioning nervous system nor anything else really may be human genetically, but it is not a PERSON.

Where I live, it didn't used to include black people.

While science let itself be bamboozled by racists for a long stretch of its history, the problem with this false equivalency is that we can prove black people have reasoning skills, nervous systems, etc. You will NOT get that from a zygote, no matter how you try to stretch it. If a single celled human is a PERSON, then so is every other single celled organism, and we shouldn't use antibiotics because we're killing "life".

Here’s the illuminating kicker: we don’t hold funerals for miscarriages. If the fetus is a living human being, why wouldn’t we?

And chimeras, conjoined twins, etc are also problems when it comes to pro-life arguments. Not that they should be destroyed, but if there are clearly two genetic "people" in one body, how do we say the soul works then?

Are identical twins, who were born of a single cell, the same soul?

Not everyone has the same moral views. Personally I'm against abortion, but I don't think the government should get involved telling people what to do.

I'm for it for practical reasons, but I believe that free birth control could make both sides happy.

You shouldn't be asking whether there is life, but whether the soul has presented itself. Your other questions, and answers, proceed from that point.

EXACTLY. Lots of things are alive but we kill them anyway. Our immune system kills life 24/7. It is impossible to live without killing SOMETHING. What matters is sentience/personhood.

I mean, sometimes people will claim that election fraud is rampant and "dead people vote". Well, they SHOULD if human is the only qualification for personhood, because just because they're dead doesn't mean their species changed.

It doesn't matter what you believe, human beings begin at conception and end at death.

Not for those who believe in various types of afterlives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Way back when I was a CNA, there was a guy who had stopped eating and his family refused a feeding tube. We were LIVID because he was a big, stocky guy and starving to death would take awhile. We all just kinda prayed God would take him quickly. I don't know if he was on comfort meds like morphine or anything. I've never worked with hospice but I share a lot of their outlook. I'm fine with respecting patients' desires (even if they're really, REALLY dumb), but I believe that when the body is clearly shutting down, that's a sign the end credits are about to roll and putting the last five minutes of the movie on slow-mo isn't going to change that.


And a cluster of cells with neither a functioning nervous system nor anything else really may be human genetically, but it is not a PERSON.


While science let itself be bamboozled by racists for a long stretch of its history, the problem with this false equivalency is that we can prove black people have reasoning skills, nervous systems, etc. You will NOT get that from a zygote, no matter how you try to stretch it. If a single celled human is a PERSON, then so is every other single celled organism, and we shouldn't use antibiotics because we're killing "life".


And chimeras, conjoined twins, etc are also problems when it comes to pro-life arguments. Not that they should be destroyed, but if there are clearly two genetic "people" in one body, how do we say the soul works then?

Are identical twins, who were born of a single cell, the same soul?


I'm for it for practical reasons, but I believe that free birth control could make both sides happy.


EXACTLY. Lots of things are alive but we kill them anyway. Our immune system kills life 24/7. It is impossible to live without killing SOMETHING. What matters is sentience/personhood.

I mean, sometimes people will claim that election fraud is rampant and "dead people vote". Well, they SHOULD if human is the only qualification for personhood, because just because they're dead doesn't mean their species changed.


Not for those who believe in various types of afterlives.

My Dad is in a "home" right now and I could face that dilemma. I do believe a feeding tube is a no no in his living will, but after he had the fall that put him in this home he was on one for a short while. Just a few days, but still. He was about 78 and fell going downstairs one morning. My mother woke up several hours later and found him at the bottom of the stairs. That was ten years ago and though he came back a bit he has been on a slow downhill degrade since then. He went from very active to wheelchair bound overnight.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My grandfather agreed to surgery when his aorta ruptured. My mom asked if he would be okay. I shook my head. I could see the "writing on the wall." He was certain he'd have to go to a nursing home, but I convinced him I would try to get him admitted to the rehab hospital where I worked. I'm glad he got to see me being a successful nurse/educator there, but the aorta burst again and he died. I was suicidal for months. I couldn't even go near the room where he had been for weeks. I finally quit my job because my asthma was getting worse and I wasn't okay emotionally either.

 

[sojourner]

Are identical twins, who were born of a single cell, the same soul?

Obviously, one has a counterfeit soul. Since Jacob was born last, grasping Esau’s heel, and since Jacob was the one favored by God, we can extrapolate that it is the second born twin who has the real soul. In the case of multiple births, quads, quints, etc., the last one born has the real soul.

 

[Sleeppy]

Obviously, one has a counterfeit soul. Since Jacob was born last, grasping Esau’s heel, and since Jacob was the one favored by God, we can extrapolate that it is the second born twin who has the real soul. In the case of multiple births, quads, quints, etc., the last one born has the real soul.

I'm hoping this is just really stealthy sarcasm.

 

[sojourner]

I'm hoping this is just really stealthy sarcasm.

Indeed it is.

 

[Prestor John]

She may not have acted; she may have been acted upon.

Aw, the classic "What if she was raped?" argument to justify all abortions.

If all pregnancies that were the result of rape were aborted in a given year, that would make up less than .04% of the abortions that year.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed because a baby would be considered inconvenient.

And she didn’t create life; she assisted in creating tissue.

Nope. I played with all of my sons while they were in the womb, from the moment their mother could feel them moving.

God makes us nephesh by giving us breath.

When God breathed life into Adam, the man "became a living nephesh."

Adam was a nephesh the moment his body was formed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aw, the classic "What if she was raped?" argument to justify all abortions.

If all pregnancies that were the result of rape were aborted in a given year, that would make up less than .04% of the abortions that year.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed because a baby would be considered inconvenient.

Nope. I played with all of my sons while they were in the womb, from the moment their mother could feel them moving.

When God breathed life into Adam, the man "became a living nephesh."

Adam was a nephesh the moment his body was formed.

You may believe that your children had a soul before they were born. I know you cannot support that claim. Other Christians and many theists believe that it is at birth. Some people do not have such a belief at all. Since you cannot reasonably support your position how do you justify telling women what they have to do with their bodies?

 

[Prestor John]

You may believe that your children had a soul before they were born. I know you cannot support that claim. Other Christians and many theists believe that it is at birth. Some people do not have such a belief at all. Since you cannot reasonably support your position how do you justify telling women what they have to do with their bodies?

I never mentioned forcing anyone to do anything.

All I have am doing is reminding women who get pregnant that they have a human life growing inside them and they should be responsible for it.

Sharing what I believe to be true and encouraging others to live up to certain standards is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Also, I never told any woman what to do with their own body - only not to destroy their children's bodies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never mentioned forcing anyone to do anything.

All I have am doing is reminding women who get pregnant that they have a human life growing inside them and they should be responsible for it.

Sharing what I believe to be true and encouraging others to live up to certain standards is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Also, I never told any woman what to do with their own body - only not to destroy their children's bodies.

that depends on how one defies "human". And they are clearly not destroying their children's bodies, that would be illegal.

 

[sojourner]

Nope. I played with all of my sons while they were in the womb, from the moment their mother could feel them moving

That doesn’t make them human beings. I play with my cats.

When God breathed life into Adam, the man "became a living nephesh."

Adam was a nephesh the moment his body was formed

Yeah, that’s not How the Hebrew Works. There is no distinction between nephesh and “living nephesh.”

 

[sojourner]

Aw, the classic "What if she was raped?" argument to justify all abortions

Y’know, if one woman can be spared that violence through a legal and safe abortion, the legality of abortion is worth it.

 

[sojourner]

If all pregnancies that were the result of rape were aborted in a given year, that would make up less than .04% of the abortions that year.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed because a baby would be considered inconvenient

What about dire health concerns for either mother or fetus? What about family and environment concerns? Convenience isn't the only reason for abortion.

 

[sojourner]

All I have am doing is reminding women who get pregnant that they have a human life growing inside them and they should be responsible for it.

Are you as concerned about smoking, alcohol and substance abuse during pregnancy? What about obesity and healthful eating? Aren’t these responsibility issues? How shall we address them?

Just what are we saving these babies from when we don’t abort? Does an abortion always indicate irresponsibility?

 

[Prestor John]

that depends on how one defies "human".

Again, I have been sharing what I believe.

I believe that abortion destroys human life.

As I said previously, I am sharing what I believe and encouraging others to live up to certain standards.

And they are clearly not destroying their children's bodies, that would be illegal.

I don't know what to say in response to something so...not smart.

History is full of examples of immoral things being legal.

Abortion being legal does not change the fact that the aborted are children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, I have been sharing what I believe.

I believe that abortion destroys human life.

Yes, that much is obvious. It is the supporting of such beliefs that appear to be beyond you.

As I said previously, I am sharing what I believe and encouraging others to live up to certain standards.

I don't know what to say in response to something so...not smart.

History is full of examples of immoral things being legal.

Abortion being legal does not change the fact that the aborted are children.

So what? It also has a history of moral acts being legal too. If you want to claim that abortion is immoral you need to be able to demonstrate that.

 

[Prestor John]

I feel like you sorta glazed over my responses without properly reading or considering them.

That doesn’t make them human beings. I play with my cats.

My comment about my playing with my children in the womb was in response to what you said in post # 190,

"And she didn’t create life; she assisted in creating tissue."(Bold and italics added)

I'm sure we can both agree that your cats are alive, aren't they? They aren't just "tissue"?

Children are alive in the womb. They are the life created inside of the woman.

So, trying to move the "goal post" from life to human beings is rather disingenuous.

I also never heard of a human female giving birth to any cats, so it's safe to say that those are human beings playing patty-cake with me in the womb.

Yeah, that’s not How the Hebrew Works. There is no distinction between nephesh and “living nephesh.”

You could not be any more incorrect.

The word nephesh is used many hundreds of times in the Old Testament and was used to describe a myriad of things, but is best translated as "person" or "being."

Thus, Adam was described as a "living nephesh" as opposed to a corpse, which was described as a "dead nephesh."

Y’know, if one woman can be spared that violence through a legal and safe abortion, the legality of abortion is worth it.

I don't understand what would cause someone to refer to child birth as "violence" being perpetrated on the mother.

How anyone could blame the innocent unborn child for the natural process of child birth is beyond me!

Needless to say, you may have an argument for aborting the products of rape here, but no other.

What about dire health concerns for either mother or fetus?

That would be a discussion to be had between the expectant mother and her doctor.

What about family and environment concerns?

Adoption.
[/QUOTE]Convenience isn't the only reason for abortion.[/QUOTE]
If you actually read what I wrote, you'd already know that I never said that convenience was the only reason or abortion.

I said that the "overwhelming majority" of abortions are those of convenience.

Are you as concerned about smoking, alcohol and substance abuse during pregnancy?

Yes, that is child abuse. Aren't you concerned with child abuse?

What about obesity and healthful eating? Aren’t these responsibility issues?

Any parent who is obese from unhealthy eating habits is being an irresponsible parent or person.

How shall we address them?

Let's draw the line at killing unwanted babies and work up from there.

Just what are we saving these babies from when we don’t abort?

Death.

Does an abortion always indicate irresponsibility?

The Lord has counseled that there are a few situations that may warrant the termination of an unborn child.

1.) If the unborn child is the product of rape,
2.) If the unborn child is the product of incest,
3.) If the unborn child poses a real threat to the life of the mother,
4.) Due to a physical malady, the unborn child would not survive child birth,

None of these situations are grounds for the automatic termination of the unborn child.

The mother should consult with the Lord, her doctors and her spouse before deciding to terminate the pregnancy.

The decision is ultimately hers to make, but she should act with all due diligence.

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, that much is obvious. It is the supporting of such beliefs that appear to be beyond you.

How so?

I have all of human history to support the fact that human females give birth to other human beings.

You are the one trying to claim that what is in the womb of the mother is anything other than human.

So what? It also has a history of moral acts being legal too.

Thus proving my point that using the standard of something being "legal" makes it "right" and something being "illegal" makes it "wrong" is...not smart.

Therefore, your claim that abortion is not destroying the bodies of children because it's legal is stupid.

If you want to claim that abortion is immoral you need to be able to demonstrate that.

In what world would I need to prove that killing babies is wrong?

 

[Valjean]

Again, I have been sharing what I believe.

I believe that abortion destroys human life.

OK, but but does something have a claim to moral consideration just because of its species, or because of its potential, future status?

I believe killing people is wrong, but how does one define "person?" The features that, in my mind, define personhood are not the same as those that designate species, nor is potential, future personhood the same as personhood.

A young foetus is 'human', but is not a person. It lacks the features associated with personhood, therefore, any claim moral consideration needs further support.

I grant moral consideration to persons, but not necessarily to humans.

History is full of examples of immoral things being legal.

Hear! Hear!

Abortion being legal does not change the fact that the aborted are children.

True that. The support for foetuses not being children stems from other facts..

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so?

I have all of human history to support the fact that human females give birth to other human beings.

You are the one trying to claim that what is in the womb of the mother is anything other than human.

Thus proving my point that using the standard of something being "legal" makes it "right" and something being "illegal" makes it "wrong" is...not smart.

Therefore, your claim that abortion is not destroying the bodies of children because it's legal is stupid.

In what world would I need to prove that killing babies is wrong?

Your ability to use logic properly is extremely limited. You base quite a bit of your argument in a myth which is of course self defeating and now you are employing a strawman argumentargument, a logical fallacy.