shmogie
Well-Known Member
No. A glob of non specialized cells is not a recognizable functional human.
-
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!
Trigger warning: Prolife with exceptions? Abortion debate.
- Thread starter YeshuaRedeemed
- Start date
-
- Tags
- abortion
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Do you misread things on purpose?
Read more carefully. A pregnant person is not "a glob of non specialized cells."
My point was that no discussion of whether the fetus is a person deserving of human rights should lose sight of the fact that the human being carrying that fetus is unquestionably a person deserving of human rights. The anti-choicers tend to forget this.
I'd argue the opposite: a god is a device used by humans to relate to the universe or aspects of it. Human traits and characteristics are the whole point.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
No, I don't forget it. However, preservation of a human life trumps another's lesser rights.
Though my moral position is that at conception a soul exists, legally that idea to most would be unacceptable. Constitutionally it would be a very difficult case to make.
I have no interest in pressing my moral positions on others if a Constitutional protection for those positions doesn't exist.
The already referred to clump of non specialized cells to the average non religious person is not a human.
An unborn child with a beating heart, limbs eyes functioning brain, is.
Thus my belief that abortion should be readily available for those in the first trimester.
Abortion is the perfect storm of clashing emotion and swirling assertions of rights.
Hardliners on both sides will never view the other sides position.
A reasoned approach that can give the most possible to both sides is the best that can be hoped for
This might be the most nuanced post I have ever read from you.
Kudos!
Nevertheless, I don't consider the Constitution to be Holy Writ. We have gotten far more sophisticated, morally and ethically, than the liberal elitists of the 1700s. And we are dealing with issues that didn't even exist at the time. The Founding Fathers couldn't have imagined a safe surgical abortion any more than an AK-47 or blacks as a voting bloc.
Tom
BSM1
What? Me worry?
This is why my second "god" in the post was intentionally lower case.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
You, so cunning...
Fair enough. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a court being involved at all. I'm fine with late-term abortion outside of emergencies. At that point, it's euthanasia of a fetus with serious disorders. Either way, I think it's a personal decision to be made with a doctor.
It happens all the time.
If I put my car in gear, I am taking responsibility for certain predictable outcomes.
If I hit a pedestrian, it doesn't matter if I meant to or was trying to be extremely careful. It doesn't matter how inconvenient taking responsibility for my Choice might be.
I Chose to drive. I have taken what is generally known as "implied consent". I owe somebody who I hit with my car a fairly substantial degree of compensation and support. No matter what I meant or felt entitled to before it happened.
Drive a car, and you are taking on a huge degree of responsibility.
Same with sex. Involve another human being (which sex often does) and you owe a debt to another human being if they get involved because you chose something.
"It's inconvenient.
Or, I didn't mean to.
Or ,whatever."
You can't just blow off the circumstances you create for others.
No. Just No.
Tom
BSM1
What? Me worry?
You sayin' I might be a cun?
You're just trying to 'bate me, aren't you?
Tom
BSM1
What? Me worry?
As long as you don't consider me a 'master' at it.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Yeah, it's complicated. As a male, with no skin in the game, as it were, I'm willing to concede on the need for a court OK. I should have instantly seen the potential for getting bogged down in a bureaucratic limbo, because not only would you have to get the judicial OK but you have to go through the rigamarole of just getting to them too. Meanwhile, time is ticking. Probably not my best idea to date.
Thanks to @9-10ths_Penguin @BSM1 and yourself for helping to change my mind a bit.
You have as much skin in the game as any woman who cannot get pregnant.
And we certainly wouldn't deny her the right to opine about abortion rights.
Btw, I dislike the phrase, "between the woman & her doctor". The doctor may
offer counsel & service, but the decision rests solely with the pregnant woman (IMO).
If she doesn't like her doc, or if he refuses the service, she may find another.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Doctor only in the aspect of giving a woman the medical or clinical information concerning her choice. Also the medical alternatives if any.
What are you doing....being reasonable?
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Btw, don't ever invite him up to see your etchings.
Apparently, "etchings" doesn't mean what you'd normally think.