Human worth in 2007

[scsint]

And I quote ...

"In the United States, the life of a dog is worth more than the life of a human being! The nation has been riveted and closely following the story of NFL superstar quarterback Michael Vick. It has come to light over the past 6 years that Vick financed and was an active participant in running a dog fighting enterprise. Fighting dogs is illegal in all 50 states. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of dollars were illegally gambled on these dog fights, and what has enraged most people, was the inhumane treatment of these animals including killing them in numerous brutal ways. Vick has not only been linked to financing this dog fighting operation, but gambling on the fights and personally killing several of the dogs who didn't perform well.

Today, I want to bring a whole new perspective to the Michael Vick story that you won't hear on the news or read about in the papers. In the United States in the year 2007, it is illegal to kill a dog but legal to kill a baby! Let me say that one more time since I want this FACT to really sink in. In the United States in the year 2007, it is illegal to kill a dog, but legal to kill a baby! WOW! Does that put the whole Vick story in a different light and show just how spiritually bankrupt we are as a nation?

Want more? Michael Vick is going to be going to prison for anywhere from 1-5 years for killing dogs, yet every single day all over this nation, "doctors" are slaughtering 4,000 babies and going home to their families at the end of the day.

Michael Vick has been kicked out of the NFL and will be going to Federal prison for killing dogs, but the "doctors" who are paid very well to kill over 4,000 babies EVERY SINGLE DAY in this nation are free!

Another aspect of the Vick case that I have watched closely is the across-the-board outrage by people regarding what he did to these dogs. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who even tries to support, let alone, condone what Vick did. It has virtually been a universal response of condemnation for what he did to these dogs. What baffles me is where is that same universal condemnation over the fact we kill 4,000 babies in this nation every day? How can the masses get so riled up over the inhumane treatment and killing of a handful of dogs, yet sit back in silence as every 24 hours another 4,000 babies are slaughtered?

Here is an interesting side note that can't go unnoticed. PETA, the ultra liberal People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, have been front and center in calling for Vick's hide and have exploited the Vick story to raise millions of dollars for their cause.

The hypocrisy is that the vast percentage of people who follow and support PETA also support a woman's right to kill her baby. So you have this animal rights advocacy group who takes every opportunity to bully and intimidate people who have anything to do with animals, all the way from how cows and chickens are slaughtered to the way animals are killed by fast food restaurants to the killing of animals to make fur coats, leading the charge against Vick for fighting and killing dogs, yet this same group supports the killing of babies!

The real story of the sad and sickening Michael Vick dog fighting/killing tragedy is that in this nation we clearly put more value on the life of an animal than we do a human. It is clear that the life of a dog is more important to society than the life of a baby. This is the only conclusion you can draw since it is illegal to kill dogs but not babies, and someone like Vick who is found guilty of killing dogs is going to prison while the "doctors" who kill babies live in freedom. Society has determined that the life of a dog is more important than the life of a baby.

This is so critical since now it is easy to understand why we are in the spiritual abyss we find ourselves in. The Absolute Truth of the Bible has been replaced by "every man doing what is right in their own eyes." You see, it is no longer God our Creator who determines Truth, each person is deciding that for themselves. That is why people now accept homosexual relationships that God clearly calls a sin, redefining what God said marriage and the family were to be, all of the false gods of the world, and every other form of rebellion to God and His Word that you can name. When men determine what truth is, that is how you end up with the mass outrage over the death of a few dogs, yet no response at all to the daily slaughter of 4,000 babies!

I love you and care about you so much. In just 8 short years, all of the warnings I have been sharing with you are coming to pass. I remember getting emails telling me I was paranoid, the things I shared would never happen, yet here we are in August of 2007 and this nation is in spiritual freefall. What I have to share with you next Monday will be a loud and clear wake-up call that simply declaring the Truth of the Word in the marketplace is soon going to cease. I see a very small window that could allow us to reclaim this great nation for Christ, but with each passing day that window gets smaller. Did you know 2 days before 9/11 in the heart of New York City there will be a Muslim Day parade? That is right, those who follow the message of hate and death authored by that murdering pedophile Mohammed will be dancing in the streets of New York City 2 days before the 6-year anniversary of 9/11!

The nation has turned to the false gods of the world, the man-made idols, and has chosen to live in complete rebellion to God and the Truth of His Word. Most of Christendom has retreated behind the four walls of the church into the "Christian trough" where they have virtually no impact on the world at large. We have relegated ourselves to what amounts to a modern day leper colony. Christians have become the 21st century lepers. We are treated like outcasts. Despite having the power of Almighty God, we have chosen to hide in our Christian subculture while the world we live in is sinning its way into obliteration with souls dying and going to hell on conveyor belts!

Nothing more exemplifies this than the Vick case. Let me clearly state that I believe those who treat animals in an inhumane way should be punished. Dog fighting is a barbaric sport that should be against the law. Those who kill dogs for sport should be prosecuted. I don't feel sorry for Michael Vick at all and whatever he gets he deserves. However, the point I want you to understand today is that as heinous and horrible as Vick's actions were, the disconnect comes when heinous and horrible acts on a human being are not only legal, but supported by millions of people. Many of the same people who have gone ballistic about what Vick did to a few dogs, go equally ballistic if you talk about outlawing the killing of babies.

If you ever needed a reminder regarding the depth of spiritual decay in this country, the Michael Vick case is that reminder. The reality is that in this country, the life of a dog is more precious than the life of a baby!

God have mercy on us all.


In His love and service,
Your friend and brother in Christ,
Bill Keller

... End Quote

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reality is that in this country, the life of a dog is more precious than the life of a baby! </div></div>

To the "Blue State" people, certainly this could be said to be true.

To those that fight abortion, hardly.

This thread is a huge slap at "Blue America", the people that support the Democratic Party. And I say, awesome!!

[The Berean]

Abortion appears to be legal in 44 states.

The hypocrisy of the furor does indicate what kind of value we place on human life.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Abortion appears to be legal in 44 states. </div></div>

Well, after Roe v Wade it's legal in all 50 states...not sure where 44 comes from.

Therein lies the issue: Roe v Wade was not voted upon, but imposed upon Americans by judicial decree in 1973. It's how the Left gets their policies enacted, they know they would fail if put to a vote.

Because abortion is legal in all 50 states means no one is against it? What kind of reasoning is that?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

This thread is a crock of *****e. It adds nothing to the debate. It is no good making these comparisons because the people who are pro abortion do not see the analogy. If you want to debate, try to represent a convincing argument that an aborted foetus is the same as a tortured dog, don't just assume that everybody sees this comparison as the same thing but somehow lacks the moral fibre to act on it. As usual the anti abortion movement doesn't understand the debate.

[GenX]

Wow...a lil' anger, huh???

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">try to represent a convincing argument that an aborted foetus is the same as a tortured dog </div></div>

I'm speechless...

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Success

[The Berean]

Is a dog worth as much as a child??

[Larimar]

I think the artical is bullocks and not even worth my time.
I don't agree with abortion, I don't agree with killing torturing a dog-Is euthanizing and aborting puppies not legal? Is euthanizing a ick animal you cant pay to fix not legal? *cough* i it legal to euthanize your sick toddler? lol.no..well, I see no comparison even though I'm anti abortion

Don't know if any of you read the thread entitled specieism and being humn, but ROTMD is right in the sense that this debate (equating a dog's life with a pre-born fetus is comparing apples with oranges through the eyes of those who have totally different assumptions about life than the prolife crowd.

Read at least the following:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Let's first look at secular bioethics, the philosophy of health care and public policy taught in our most elite universities. The predominating view in bioethics is that being human is not what gives one value, but rather, possessing sufficient capacities to be considered a "person." Known as "personhood theory," believers argue that a being—whether human, animal, machine, or extraterrestrial—all must be measured by the same criteria, and each must earn the highest value by possessing minimal cognitive capacities, such as being "self aware over time." This means that there is such a thing in bioethics as the so-called "human non person," human beings who have not yet attained personhood—such as embryos, fetuses, and newborn infants—and those who lose it due to injury or illness that significantly impairs cognitive capacity.

It isn't safe to be a non person. Non persons, in this belief, do not possess the intrinsic right to life or bodily integrity. Thus some bioethicists argue for the moral righteousness of infanticide, cloned fetal farming, and the right to harvest organs from those diagnosed in persistent vegetative states.

Philosophical materialists also believe that being human alone is insufficient to convey moral value. In this view, since all life evolved out of the same primordial ooze, and because humans share genes with other life forms, species distinctions are fictional. This means, as novelist and journalist John Darnton put it in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005, "We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable."</div></div>

One of the reasons that we have poor quality arguments in this forum that go nowhere, is the very fact that we bring such diametrically opposed assumptions to the table.

Unless you deal with the presuppositions on both sides of the argument, you'll never get anywhere. You'll just keep hammering away on the same old saw. (is that a mixed metaphor?)

So lets talk presuppositions.

[CharliBean]

wow. i couldnt even finish reading that. its amazing how many times one person can say the same thing over and over again... bull****.

You're all talking with your emotions.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> One of the reasons that we have poor quality arguments in this forum that go nowhere, is the very fact that we bring such diametrically opposed assumptions to the table.

Unless you deal with the presuppositions on both sides of the argument, you'll never get anywhere.</div></div>

Of course, that's just common sense.

But is every thread supposed to be some deep and profound exposition on the subject?

I would say if a thread was supposed to be so then the author would have added such to the original post. If people want to go deep on the issue fine; but of they don't doesn't mean it's any less worthy of an issue.

Too Many Daves in NOT correct, because he falls victim on other threads to the very thing he just criticized certain people on this thread over.

"Presuppositions"? Well, I'd say they fit into two camps here: abortion is a right, or it is not.

Well, then continue to think on the surface if that 'floats your boat. But your discussions sound very much like.. well, ever hear of Sisyphus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

[GenX]

My point is some presuppositions are pretty self-evident. Is it that hard to understand when someone sees a relationship between the furor over killing INNOCENT dogs and killing the INNOCENT unborn the presupposition is the killing of innocents is wrong?

You talk of emotionalism. That's exactly what Dave showed by coming on here and decreeing this thread useless, and claiming his standard for decreeing it so is because there was supposedly an over-abundance of a priori thought weighing heavily on the thread. On some threads, yes; on this one? I don't think so.

What was needed, the modifier "very" to be put in front of "Wrong" when implying the killing of innocent lives is wrong?

Dave was the one who began arguing from a sense of emotionalism.

[KDawg]

I personally agree with Bill Keller's column, but let's forget the abortion debate and talk about murders of adults. The following article is from Jan 2001.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(Ray) Lewis, a Baltimore Ravens linebacker and the NFL's Defensive Player of Year, is likely an accessory to murder, if not worse. After last year's Super Bowl, two people were stabbed to death, outside an Atlanta bar, and three people were arrested for their murder. One of them was Lewis, who was found guilty of obstructing the murder investigation. But Lewis and Ravens Coach Brian Billick think we should just "let it go." Billick had the audacity to tell reporters that coverage of a likely murderer in the Super Bowl is "reprehensible." No, the fact that Lewis is in Sunday's game is what's reprehensible. </div></div>

link (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21491)

Lewis was not suspended by the NFL, but merely fined and spent no time in jail. Our society does place a greater value on animal life than human life.

Read that post on specieism, and get the point.

I am sure that Dave would agree that the killing of innocent humans is wrong.

But you have to persuade him (not me) that a fetus is an innocent human. To do that, you need to eventually bring up the fact that being made in the image of God gives us value and worth.. otherwise we are not distinct from the animal kingdom, and oops, Dave doesn't even believe a God exists. That's why this is a Sisyphus-type task.

Presuppositions are everything.

[Chester Field]

Regardless of what my opinions are on killing dogs or babies, the initial argument is flawed to begin with on many fronts.

1. It is not "illegal" to kill dogs. Thousands are euthanized every month -legally. It is illegal to torture and inhumanely kill dogs.

2. It is not simply legal to kill babies. By the same argument he uses about the illegality of killing dogs, he defeats his own argument because he is comparing the illegal torture and inhumane killing of dogs to the controlled medical procedure know as abortion -not to the also illegal torture and inhumane killing of babies.

3. It isn't an either/or argument -they are talking apples and oranges as previously mentioned. Some people have no qualms at all with the killing of animals, seeing them as nothing more "items" that serve a purpose; yet can be dedicated prolifers. I know of several that are steadfastly against abortion, and though they wouldn't engage in a dogfighting ring, wouldn't think twice of discarding the family dog if a convenience issue came up. Other people are against both killing of animals and human life, and others have no qualms with dogfighting or abortion.

4. The author is providing an emotional argument, by using the current Vick situation in a sensationalistic form to push his own anti-abortion agenda. He is twisting truths to make a point, and overgeneralizing two sides of what is actually two issues.

5. The inclusion of PETA in his argument... speaking of overgeneralizing one side of an argument! That is like quoting Rosie O'Donnell as the spokesperson of the Democratic Party, while arguing a Republican point of view.

While I do agree with some of what was said, the author should have stayed off the bandwagon and provided a credible argument to make his point.

[Chester Field]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KDawg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lewis was not suspended by the NFL, but merely fined and spent no time in jail. Our society does place a greater value on animal life than human life. </div></div>

I disagree with this because people are jailed all the time for this and less. Now had you said, "Our society does place a greater value on celebrity, than objectivism" /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[pylus]

Not much of a comment on this article, but it made me think of a Mark Twain quote I believe.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I thought there was a school of thought that said the bible does not consider "life" to begin at conception, but actually much later during gestation?

I am not aware of that school of thought, Dave.
But I am sure that the main line churches who support abortion are of that school.

[GenX]

The Catholic Church believes life begins at conception.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read that post on specieism, and get the point </div></div>

Oh...forgive me great master. I will do so immediately.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Human Life Begins At The First Heartbeat, During The Third Week After Conception.
Biblical quotations are taken from the authoritative King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.
Distribution Source : ArriveNet

Date : Friday, August 18, 2006


Alexandria, VA -- (ArriveNet - Aug 18, 2006) -- ( EMAILWIRE.COM, August 18, 2006 ) Alexandria, VA -- (And life ends immediately after the last heartbeat, unless extraordinary means are used to extend it. Thus the beginning and the end of normal human life are defined by the first and last heartbeats.)

Biblical quotations are taken from the authoritative King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.

Jesus Teaches Us Always To Seek The Truth

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free." ( John 8:32 KJV)


We may have strong feelings and beliefs about a subject such as abortion, but some of our feelings and beliefs might be false. Jesus teaches us to seek the truth, no matter where it leads.

Christians Search The Bible For Moral Truth And Guidance





The Bible is the inspired written Word of God, sufficient to guide all human action, for all people, at all times. Although its Source is infallible, the Bible itself is not perfectly infallible because fallible humans have introduced human error into it. Also, the Bible cannot always be understood literally, because it contains figures of speech which are never intended to be taken literally. Nevertheless, the Bible is the highest written authority in all matters which it discusses. And if it is properly understood and properly applied, it is a sufficient moral guide for all human action.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

"That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished
unto all good works."

(2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV)


The Bible Prohibits The Taking Of Innocent Life

This prohibits abortion (after life begins) in all but the most extreme cases of necessity.


Exodus 23:7 (KJV)
Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay
thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Deuteronomy 19:10 (KJV)
That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God
giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.

Deuteronomy 27:25 (KJV)
Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the
people shall say, Amen.

Psalm 106:38 (KJV)
And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their
daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land
was polluted with blood.

Proverbs 6:17 (KJV)
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,



The Bible Also Teaches Us That "Life Is In The Blood."

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat." (Genesis 9:4 KJV)


"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have
given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for
your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement
for the soul." (Leviticus 17:11 KJV)


"For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for
the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of
Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for
the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth
it shall be cut off." (Leviticus 17:14 KJV)

"Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood
is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh."
(Deuteronomy 12:23 KJV)


This means that human life does not begin until blood is present in the embryo.

Therefore, Life (As The Bible Understands It) Cannot Begin At The Moment Of Conception, Because There Is No Blood Or Heartbeat Present Until Sometime During The Third Week Of Pregnancy.

Here is the early timeline of fetal development, from Pro-Life America, an anti-abortion organization. It shows that the first heartbeat occurs at the eighteenth day after conception, and that blood is pumped at the twenty-first day.


Day 1 - conception takes place.
7 days - tiny human implants in mother's uterus.
10 days - mother's menses stop.
18 days - heart begins to beat.
21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system
with own blood type.
28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.
7 weeks - photo of thumbsucking.

Source: http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html


THEREFORE the Bible does not prohibit terminating pregnancy before the first heartbeat, during the third week after conception. Thus the so-called "morning-after pill" and other soon-after-conception methods of birth control are not prohibited by the Bible.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not aware of that school of thought, Dave.
But I am sure that the main line churches who support abortion are of that school.
</div></div>

Maine line equals "Protestant".

[Return of Too Many Daves]

What’s NOT in the Bible

Conservative Christian Beliefs in Conflict With Biblical Teachings


“Jesus preached a message of love, charity and modesty. A Fundamentalist is more likely to drive past the homeless shelter in his Mercedes while talking on his cell phone about how he hates those damn gays.”

-“Malkut”, internet post



Conservative Christians often like to speak of creating a society more in line with the values that are found in the Bible. Yet, when we examine where they stand on social issues, we find that they aren’t even supported by their vaunted scriptures. They want to steer America closer to a theocracy but feel free to violate their own sacred text as it pleases them to do so. This is not to say that adhering to a Bronze-Age tome and its backward laws is a good idea for a modern society but if Americans are to trade in our secular republic for a theocracy, it would be nice for us to know that we can at least expect our new masters to play by their own rulebook.



Arguably, three of the most common issues brought up by conservative Christians are abortion, gay rights and public endorsements of Christianity (the latter including such issues as prayer in public school, public monuments and government religious-themed slogans). They also defend their holy holidays under the false notion that these holidays were originally Christian. In support of their positions, we often hear the following repeated slogans:



“Life begins at conception.”
“Marriage = one man and one woman.”
“We need prayer in the schools.”
“Remember the reason for the season”.


As we will observe in our analysis of the Bible, none of these four slogans are biblically supported.

“Life Begins at Conception”
Where did they get this idea? It certainly never says that anywhere in the Bible. The closest passage they can dig up is a quote from Jeremiah taken out of context:



Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee…



The remainder of the verse (not quoted on their billboards) is as follows:



Jeremiah 1:5 …and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.



Taken in context of the whole chapter, it’s clear that this passage is speaking of Yahweh’s ability to see into the future. Yahweh had seen that Jeremiah would be successfully born without complications and mature to the age where he could hear that bit of revelation. It says nothing about when the soul enters the body.



The Bible at no point ever implies that abortion is murder. In fact, beating a woman and causing her to miscarry (essentially causing her to abort her unborn fetus) is specifically not treated as murder. Bold emphasis added:



(KJV) Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.



(KJV) Exodus 21:23-25 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.



For the sake of clarity, the New Oxford Version of the same passage (with the same bold emphasis added) says:



(NRSV) Exodus 21:22-25 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.[1]



Interestingly, it’s the woman’s husband who is treated as the injured party in such an event, evidenced by the fact that the husband, not the wife, is the party who demands payment. You damaged his property.



Conservative Christians often try to twist the meaning of that passage by claiming verses 23-25 indicate that causing a miscarriage is punished by death. They neglect the phrase “yet no further harm follows” in verse 22 and “if any harm follows” in verse 23. The KJV uses the Jacobean English phrases “yet no mischief follow” and “if any mischief follows” but either translation is consistent in intent.



By the light of verse 22, if you cause a woman to miscarry during your brawl but do no further injury, you have to pay a fine. We know that a miscarriage is essentially killing the fetus. It’s like an abortion that is caused either by nature, misfortune or injury.



By the light of verse 23-25, if you kill the woman, you pay with your own life. If you knock out an eye, knock out a tooth, cut off a hand, cut off a foot, burn her, wound her or cause her pain in any other way, you suffer a similar punishment.



It’s clear, from these and other Old Testament laws, that murder is punished with death. If the authors of the Bible believed that “abortion = murder”, then causing an abortion by beating a woman should be regarded as murder and therefore should be punished with death. There would be no need for such phrases as “any further harm” or “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.”. Death could have been prescribed in verse 22, making 23-25 unnecessary.



Where Is the Benevolent God Who Loves All the Children?

It’s also clear from reading the Bible that Yahweh does not love children or consider them to have any right to life:



Turn to Leviticus 27:6 and you see a census being conducted where a monetary value is placed upon all human life. No child under a month old is considered to be worth anything and children in general weren’t as valuable as adults. This passage is cited in Chapter 7, “The Not-So-Good Book” because it is a sexist rule, valuing females less than males. It’s also a passage cruel to children, as it values them less than adults.



Numbers also performs a census in which children under a month old were not counted as people:



Numbers 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them



Anyone who has ideas that the Christian god loves all the little children should read these verses of the Bible:



Exodus 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

First Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and [censored].

Second Samuel 12:14-15 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

Second Kings 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Jeremiah 19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters…

Hosea 9:16 …yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

In fairness, Jesus did express love for the “little ones”:



Matthew 18:14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.



Unfortunately, Jesus also endorses the Old Testament laws:



Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.



In sum, the Bible does not regard killing a fetus as murder, places no value on the life of a newborn baby less than a month old and has little or no regard for the lives of children.



Nature’s God and the Topic of Abortion

To quote the American Declaration of Independence, “we hold these truths self-evident” that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.[2] The question is at what point we become living, sentient, self-aware beings and assume “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle” us. [3]



Put in metaphysical terms, at what point do we have a soul?



It’s not really life we respect per se but rather sentience (self-awareness, being a thinking, feeling being). The proof is in how we chop down trees and take anti-biotics that kill countless bacteria cells, all of which involves killing or harming beings that are technically “alive” by the biological definition. We kill these living things without a second thought. Why? Because trees and bacteria aren’t sentient. It’s fellow sentient beings that we empathize with, not mindless plants and single-cell organisms. We respect their right to life in other sentient beings because we would want our right to life respected in turn.



It’s fair to say that many who call themselves “pro-life” take the position they do on abortion because they’re under the misconception (so to speak) that abortion kills a “baby”. Sometimes pro-choice billboards promote this misunderstanding by disingenuously using pictures of post-birth babies. Does abortion really violate someone’s right to life? Is the fetus being aborted a sentient, self-aware, thinking, feeling being?



To answer this question, we should turn to what Biology (the study of the real God’s work) has to say. While science has not yet unlocked the mystery of sentience, we do know that the brain is involved. Self-awareness is a higher brain function. Regardless of whether the brain is the seat of the soul or whether the “soul” is just a poetic metaphor for consciousness, the brain is an essential component.



Therefore, no brain = no sentience.



If a being isn’t sentient, it’s classed with the mindless plants and single-cell organisms. We don’t empathize with the trees as we cut them down. There’s nothing to empathize with. The tree doesn’t have a “soul”. It’s not a self-aware being. You can’t hurt its feelings or frighten it.



Therefore, no sentience = no right to life.



At conception, the zygote is a single-cell organism. It’s no more a living being than a bacteria cell. The slogan, “life begins at conception” is patently wrong. The “morning after pill”, a source of controversy for conservative Christians, can’t be regarded as “murder” any more than taking an anti-biotic. Most likely, the transition from potential life to life occurs much later in the pregnancy. To be conservative, this line could be drawn as early as week 20, when significant brain tissue develops and the fetus begins to show conscious reactions to the outside environment (such as loud noises).[4] At week 20, the pregnancy is well into the second trimester. Nearly all abortions (88.5%) occur during the first trimester while only 1.4% occur after 20 weeks.[5]



At this point, pro-life advocates will fall back to the “potential life” argument, saying something to the effect of, “The fetus is not yet a sentient being but will be one day.”



Putting aside the possibility of a natural abortion (miscarriage) or a stillbirth, either of which dispatch with the certainty implied by the “will be” part of that argument, the argument itself has no merit. Consider this alternate case to understand why: A student walks into class. The teacher asks if he did his homework. The student replies “Um, not yet”. The teacher takes this answer to mean “no”. Most of us understand the idea that “Not yet” = “No”. If the fetus isn’t yet alive, it’s not alive. When it does become a sentient being, then it will have the rights of a sentient being. Not before.



Other pro-life advocates will fall back to an “argument from ignorance” position (a logical fallacy). They might say something along the lines of, “We don’t know for sure that the zygote isn’t sentient. It might have a soul. Shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and outlaw abortion until we know for sure that it isn’t sentient?”



There are two problems with this argument. First, a negative is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. For example, let’s say someone comes up with the argument that trees have souls. Can you prove that a tree doesn’t have a soul? Sure the trees don’t seem responsive but perhaps they just lack the ability to respond. Maybe they’re screaming on the inside when you cut them down and the poor things are helpless to do anything about it. Maybe we should outlaw the entire lumber industry until we can prove that trees don’t have souls? This example underscores just how silly it would be to begin legislating on the basis of an argument from ignorance.



The second problem with this argument is such legislation runs contrary to our criminal justice system. Before you can indict someone for a crime, you need to prove that a crime was, in fact, committed. If your going to make the charge of “murder”, you must first prove that a real, living person was killed. Otherwise, we could just as easily have all lumberjacks arrested for homicide and require their defense attorneys to prove that the trees that were cut down weren’t sentient beings.



In conclusion, the woman’s right to choose what happens to her body is not in dispute. What is at issue is whether or not the unborn fetus constitutes a living sentient being who’s right to life trumps the woman’s right to choose. To settle that issue, we should prefer medical and scientific information to the dogma of radical right wing organizations.



Stem-Cell Research: No-Brainer Decision Meets Brainless Politicians

Imagine that you’re on the old game show called, “Let’s Make a Deal”. You’re handed a jar full of frozen embryos. These embryos are mindless microscopic organisms, no more alive than amebas. Behind the curtain are millions of real, fully-grown, sentient human beings who are suffering and dying from terrible debilitating illnesses, from Parkinson’s to Alzheimer’s. You can keep the jar of embryos or you can trade the jar for the chance to help the people behind the curtain. What do you do?



This choice should be a no-brainer. Of course you should risk the microorganisms for the opportunity to help your fellow sentient human beings. Perhaps there’s no guarantee that the research will produce a result tomorrow but it costs nothing of value to try. Killing microorganisms isn’t murder. Letting a patient die when they could be helped is negligent homicide. As previously mentioned, microorganisms are mindless. Suffering and dying human patients are not. Microorganisms are not sentient. Human beings are. Our priority should clearly be to help our fellow human beings.



Sadly, many American politicians don’t have their priorities straight. Some of them have decided that the microscopic mindless embryos are more important than helping millions of suffering human beings. The policies of a modern 21st century superpower are being shaped by mystical speculations that have no logical basis. It’s nothing less than a travesty that America is currently refusing to fund a promising line of medical research purely because of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo akin to astrology and voodoo magic.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Sorry to flood the thread with cut and paste jobs, but was interested to hear your views on this.

[GenX]

Dave, your argument is with those of the Protestant persuasion.

They believe in "Bible only". In the Roman Catholic faith we believe the Holy 'spirit infuses knowledge in His Church so things that may not have been apparent in the beginning are in fact now apparent and true to the teachings of Jesus. We are Bible and Tradition (the infused knowledge given to us through time). So as a Roman Catholic my answer to you is that some of these things became knowledge for us through time, as we grew in our understanding.

That's a very quick, and no doubt unworthy, synopsis of the RCC view.

Now, as to how the Protestants work through this seeming contradiction, your guess is as good as mine.

First of all, (as you are aware, I am sure) the Bible is not a medical text or a science text. I don't agree with the analysis that because 'the life is in the blood' the fetus is not considered a life in the first three weeks. Sounds like someone is r-e-a-l-l-y stretching the text.

That is putting a technical meaning and weight on the text that a non-technical biblical text was not meant to bear.

The creation mandate is clear: Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.

The killing of a fetus (historically and in biblical history) has generally been considered wrong.

[Chester Field]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Fundamentalist is more likely to drive past the homeless shelter in his Mercedes while talking on his cell phone about how he hates those damn gays.”</div></div>

A true FUNDAMENTAList shouldn't be driving a Mercedes when he can do more good works with the cash saved by buying a Hyundai, and supporting that homeless shelter /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Fundamentalist is more likely to drive past the homeless shelter in his Mercedes while talking on his cell phone about how he hates those damn gays.” </div></div>

Was that in Dave's pasted article?

If so, then I think even Dave would admit it does more harm than good for the article as far as anyone taking it seriously as an unbiased view of the issue.

That's playground tactics, pure and simple.

[Chester Field]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The creation mandate is clear: Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. </div></div>

This is also the basis for the anti-contraception argument, if you want to back the anti-abortion argument up a little bit more.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The creation mandate is clear: Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. </div></div>

Please, explain your presupposition /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

[Chester Field]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dave, your argument is with those of the Protestant persuasion. </div></div>

Not all Protestant denominations are as your broad paintbrush would have us appear. Your all-inclusive approach to Protestantism is no different than a non-Christian lumping Protestants, RCs, JWs, Mormons, etc all together as uniform in beliefs.

[GenX]

Okay, how about this:

Dave, your argument is with those of certain Protestant persuasions.

At the end of the day, the word "Protestantism" is still there.

[Chester Field]

At the end of the day, the word "Christian" is still there, and you are stereotyped and generalized into it along with the rest of us /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Speedy is back on ignore because he tries his best to turn every discussion into a Protestant-Catholic fight.

[GenX]

Not at all.

The RCC believes life starts at conception. All Protestant churches do not.

Easy concept, really.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Aydeloof</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speedy is back on ignore because he tries his best to turn every discussion into a Protestant-Catholic fight.

</div></div>

Translation: "I can't backup my faith with its myriad contradictions at all, so I character- assassinate. By the way, I'm a preacher"

[Chester Field]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not at all.

The RCC believes life starts at conception. All Protestant churches do not.

Easy concept, really. </div></div>

But not all. Your overgeneralization is no different than a non-Christian lumping all the groups that I mentioned above together.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Return of Too Many Daves</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry to flood the thread with cut and paste jobs, but was interested to hear your views on this. </div></div>

Conception (http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp)

Fetal Pain (http://http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp)

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chester Field</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Speedy the Arrogant Parrot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not at all.

The RCC believes life starts at conception. All Protestant churches do not.

Easy concept, really. </div></div>

But not all. Your overgeneralization is no different than a non-Christian lumping all the groups that I mentioned above together. </div></div>

I changed it to say SOME Protestants. What else can I do? It seems you more uncomfortable with the truth of the matter than with the wording.

[Chester Field]

No, I'm not uncomfortable with it whether it is truth or just someone's personal belief. I guess it all just comes down to the fact that we all choose where to draw our own lines on how we look at things. You appear to have either missed the point or chose not to see it.

as long as we are cutting and pasting, here is an article by Francis Beckwith, who speaks on this issue for all conservative Christians, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant.
http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureHall/A000000144.cfm


__________
Who and What are We? (What the Abortion Debate is Really About)

by Francis J. Beckwith

Where Children are Unwanted

We live in a political world,
Love don't have any place.
We're living in times where men commit crimes
And crime don't have a face …

We live in a political world
Where courage is a thing of the past
Houses are haunted, children are unwanted
The next day could be your last. …

We live in a political world
Turning and a'thrashing about,
As soon as you're awake, you're trained to take
What looks like the easy way out.

— Bob Dylan, Political World (1989)

Abortion is an issue over which Americans are deeply divided, and there is little chance that this discord will be remedied anytime soon. Each side of this cultural divide consists of citizens sincere in their convictions. But the passions that fuel these convictions about abortion often distract us from understanding the issues that really divide us.

Now it may seem odd to say "the issues that really divide us," since it seems obvious to most people that what divides us is in fact only one issue, abortion. But that is misleading. After all, if abortion did not result in the death of an unborn human being, the controversy would either cease entirely or diminish significantly. So, what we disagree over is not really abortion. But rather, our disagreement is over the nature of the being whose life abortion terminates, the unborn.

But there is another issue that percolates beneath the abortion debate: What does it mean to say that something is wrong? Suppose, for example, you are arguing with a friend over the question of whether abortion should remain legal, and your friend says to you, "If you don't like abortion, then don't have one." Although this is a common response, it really is a strange one. After all, you probably oppose abortion because you think it is wrong, not because you dislike it.

This can be better understood if we change the issue. Imagine that your friend is a defender of spousal abuse and says to you, "If you don't like spousal abuse, then don't beat your spouse." Upon hearing those words, you would instantly conclude that your friend has no idea why you oppose spousal abuse. Your opposition is not based on what you like or dislike. It is based on what you have good reason to believe is true: one ought not to abuse a fellow human being, especially one's spouse. That moral truth has nothing to do with whether or not you like or dislike spousal abuse.

In the same way, pro-lifers oppose abortion because they have reasons to believe that the unborn are full-fledged members of the human community, no different in nature than you or me. And for that reason, the unborn has a right to life that ought to be enshrined in our laws. Thus, in order to defeat the pro-lifer's point of view, the abortion advocate must show that the unborn is not a full-fledged member of the human community. At the end of the day, the abortion debate is not about likes or dislikes. It is about who and what we are, and whether the unborn is one of us.
Is the Unborn One of Us?

There is no doubt that the unborn is a human being from conception, the result of the dynamic interaction, and organic merger, of the female ovum (which contains 23 chromosomes) and the male sperm (which contains 23 chromosomes). At conception, a whole human being, with its own genome, comes into existence, needing only food, water, shelter, oxygen, and a congenial environment in which to interact. These are necessary in order to grow and develop itself to maturity in accordance with its own nature.

Like the infant, the child, and the adolescent, the unborn is a being that is in the process of unfolding its potential — the potential to grow and develop itself but not to change what it is. This unborn being, because of its nature, is actively disposed to develop into a mature version of itself, though never ceasing to be the same being. Thus, the same human being that begins as a one-cell zygote continues to exist to its birth and through its adulthood unless disease or violence stops it from doing so. This is why it makes perfect sense for any one of us to say, "When I was conceived ..."

Abortion advocates typically do not dispute that the unborn is a human being during all or most of its time in the womb. For example, philosopher David Boonin, in his book A Defense of Abortion (Cambridge University Press, 2002), writes:

On the desk in my office where most of this book was written and revised, there are several pictures of my son, Eli. In one, he is gleefully dancing on the sand along the Gulf of Mexico, the cool ocean breeze wreaking havoc with his wispy hair. … In the top drawer of my desk, I keep another picture of Eli. The picture was taken September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clearly enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows the same little boy at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point. (xiii, xiv)

Why does Professor Boonin hold this view? Like some other philosophers, Boonin maintains that the unborn, though a human being, lacks characteristics that are necessary for it to have a right to life. These characteristics typically include having a self-concept, a particular level of higher brain activity, and/or a desire for a right to life. But there are problems with this approach.

Consider first this example. Imagine that your father was involved in a car accident that put him in a temporarily comatose state. His physician tells you he will awake from the coma in nine months. His conscious experiences, memories, particular skills and abilities will be lost forever and he will have no mental record of them. This means that he will have to relearn all of his abilities and knowledge as he did before he had any conscious experiences. But they would not be the same experiences and desires he had before. That is, he is in precisely the same position as the standard unborn child, with all the basic capacities he had at the beginning of his existence. Thus, if your father has a right to life while in the coma, then so does the standard unborn child.

Another problem with the Boonin-type view is that it provides no real moral reason to oppose seemingly immoral experiments on the unborn. Imagine that there is a scientist who is able to alter the unborn's brain development in such a way that the higher brain and its functions are prevented from arising. And thus, when the child is born, it never develops a self-concept or a desire for a right to life. In fact, its organs are harvested and donated to needy patients.

Suppose that this creation of "brainless" children becomes commonplace as a demand for donor organs increases. Yet, this seems deeply immoral, even if these children had not achieved the characteristics that Boonin and others believe are required in order to have a right to life. So, Boonin's view cannot account for the wrong of purposely creating brainless children. Only the pro-life view can do that. For, according to this view, human beings are persons by nature and therefore should not be unjustly deprived of those goods — including their brains — that they are designed to acquire.
Conclusion: It's All About Who and What We Are

In the July 9, 2000 edition of the Los Angeles Times (Orange County edition), abortion advocate Eileen Padberg claimed that an implication of the pro-life position is that the unborn child "has more rights than" our "wives, sisters, and daughters."

But that is not what follows from the pro-life position. What follows is that all human beings, including wives, sisters (born and unborn), and daughters (born and unborn), retain their dignity and rights as long as they exist, from the moment they come into being.

Ironically, by excluding the unborn from the human community, Ms. Padberg diminishes, and puts in peril, the very rights she jealously, and correctly, guards. For she is saying that the government may exclude small, vulnerable, defenseless, and dependent unborn human beings from its protection for no other reason than because others consider the unborn's destruction vital to their well-being.
Be a voice for life.

But Ms. Padberg would surely, and correctly, protest a government policy that allows for the exploitation and destruction of wives, sisters, and daughters by powerful people who believe they will live better lives by engaging in such atrocities against these women. So, if the unborn is one of us, then whatever is true of our worth and dignity is true of theirs as well.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Interesting debate teetering on the brink of being an RC vs protestant slanging match. Keep it the former. I only asked because of an interview I recently heard with Sir Robert Winston. I don't know whether many (any?) of you have heard of hime, but he is a Jewish medical doctor and researcher. He is wheeled out for TV as resident scientist and expert on everything, but he is a fertility expert, and a religious man and his views on abortion, stem cell research etc are very interesting. His views on Dawkins also make for interesting reading. But he states that most major religions have text in their religious books that supports abortion at some stage, ie life does not begin at conception, and the bible is very specific as to when life begins. In fact he made and argument that the num,ber of weeks after conception that the bible claims the spirit enters the body is scarily similar to the date that scientists believe some level of self awareness arises in the foetus. A fact that obviously could not have been known by man when the bible was written.

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact he made and argument that the num,ber of weeks after conception that the bible claims the spirit enters the body is scarily similar to the date that scientists believe some level of self awareness arises in the foetus </div></div>

Can anyone find the verse/passage in the Bible that discusses this?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I haven't time to check now, but I think this is the interview:

http://download.guardian.co.uk/sys-audio/Guardian/Science/2007/06/11/ScienceExtra_RobertWinston.mp3

[GenX]

"Even from his mother's womb he will be filled with the Holy Spirit" (Luk.1:15)

"Have mercy on me, O God… remember, I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of conception" (Ps.51:5 or 7)

this doesn't support a specific date...there must be others Dave's quote was referring to.

[GenX]

Benchmark Dates:

Day 18 – blood vessels and the heart begin to form

Day 20 – foundations of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are already established

Day 25– the heart begins to pulsate and will continue until this person dies; the digestive system and parts of the eyes are forming

LINK (http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/466/43/)

After 4
weeks

* all major systems and organs begin to form
* the embryo looks like a tadpole
* the neural tube (which becomes the brain and spinal cord), the digestive system, and the heart and circulatory system begin to form
* the beginnings of the eyes and ears are developing
* tiny limb buds appear (which will develop into arms and legs)
* the heart is beating
LINK (http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site1710/printerfriendlypageS1710P0.html)

LINK (http://www.luhs.org/HEALTH/topics/pregnant/first.htm)

The fourth week marks the beginning of the embryonic period, when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form. Your baby is now 1/25 of an inch long.

The embryo is now made of three layers. The top layer - the ectoderm - will give rise to a groove along the midline of your baby's body. This will become the neural tube, where your baby's brain, spinal cord, spinal nerves and backbone will develop.

Your baby's heart and a primitive circulatory system will form in the middle layer of cells - the mesoderm. This layer of cells will also serve as the foundation for your baby's bones, muscles, kidneys and much of the reproductive system.

The inner layer of cells - the endoderm - will become a simple tube lined with mucous membranes. Your baby's lungs, intestines and bladder will develop here.

LINK (http://www.revolutionhealth.com/healthy-living/pregnancy/forty-weeks/first-trimester/fetal-development)

The eyes, limb buds, and other features begin to form, along with the heart, which begins pumping at 25 days after conception

LINK (http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0032/abortion/fetdevtri1.html)

Weeks 4 to 5

* formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
* further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm
* movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels
* beginning of the structures of the eye and ears
* the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
* arm and leg buds are visible

LINK (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm)

The embryo begins developing very rapidly, and by 22 days the heart begins to beat. By the end of the third week the backbone, spinal column and nervous system are developing. Kidneys, the liver and the digestive tract are already taking shape. By the end of the first month the embryo is ten thousand times larger than at the blastocyst stage. This tiny baby has grown to about 1/4 of an inch in length.

LINK (http://rtl.org/html/chronology_of_a_new_life.html)

At this point your embryo has three main brain sections: the forebrain, middle brain and hindbrain. Parts of the eye, including the pigment and optical stalk are visible. The beginning of a mouth with tongue is distinguishable and the thyroid and lymphatic system is forming. Lung buds are forming and the heart is quite large, with circulation well established.

LINK (http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/160.html)

Dave, with this information, would you agree abortion after Day 25, or after the first month, is indeed murder?

[GenX]

"The Canadian Medical Association's abortion policy defines abortion as the active termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks' gestation."

LINK (http://www.cbctrust.com/medical_proc.php)

No doubt a similar date range in the U.S., also.

20 weeks gestation.

That's 115 days after the heart is formed, pumping blood, and beating.

And we call ourselves civilized societies?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Yep, actually I know many Doctors in the UK (where it is 24 weeks) would like to see the latest legal date for abortion moved to earlier, but it is difficult for them to speak out on this without the anti-abortion movement using the admission that they may have been wrong to promote the anti-abortion movement (which is clearly something they would not want).

Here are some interesting details about abortion laws in europe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6235557.stm

[GenX]

So you agree abortion after 25 days is murder? Or if not totally agree, at least understand where it is the anti-abortion crowd is coming from?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I don't think 25 days, I believe 24 weeks is too late. That doesn't make me anti-abortion though. The vast majority of abortions would be uneffected by the law changes I'd like to see. Interestingly this argument would have no effect on most stem cell research.

Incidentally, I think everybody can understand where the anti-abortion lobby is coming from. It is not that those who are pro abortion think that it is okay to murder children, it is about determining when a foetus becomes a life, and balancing that against the mothers rights. If you force a mother to have a baby, you are forcing her body through all kinds of stresses.

Would you consider it okay for an individual to amputate their arm if it were causing them problems? It is alive after all. In a sense this is an analogy as silly as the tortured dog, but it serves to illustrate fundamental differences in the 2 camps beliefs, something we need to bridge somehow, in order to have rational debate.

[GenX]

Dave, do you agree the heart is beating at 25 days?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Would you consider it okay for an individual to amputate their arm if it were causing them problems? It is alive after all </div></div>

Dave, that makes the dog analogy Platonian or Aristotelian by comparison.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

So you are defining life as a beating heart? The heart only seems so relevant to you because of the emotions attach to it. I am more concerned about conciousness.

Oh and you see the analogies that way round because the dog one supports your view point, A shame this was an interesting debate but I can see us hurtling down the road towards tribalism.

[GenX]

Okay, Dave, okay, we get the point. You read or heard the word “tribalism” somewhere over the last month, and now it’s your word du jour, and as such you use it everywhere now. But that doesn’t mean it fits everywhere.

You went for the “consciousness” level because you know it is very difficult to verify or define. What is consciousness? When does it develop? All are questions that could drown out any serious debate in this instance because they have no concrete answer. That gives you the opportunity to keep the discussion in the hazy zone of semantics and personal definitions.

The heart is the life organ of the human body. When you stop a heart you stop life. I don’t care if the fetus has not reached the level of consciousness or not that you so desire, because here is a fact you glaringly left out: to stop the heart, even of an unconscious fetus, is to negate all possibility that fetus can reach the conscious level in a later stage.

You believe it is okay to abort a fetus that has not yet reached the conscious level. But to do so robs that fetus of the potentiality of reaching the later conscious state. You decide it could not reach that state. You, in essence, have played God. What gives you the right to rob that fetus of its potentiality?

And lastly, I’m afraid your ‘amputate the arm” analogy really is as bad as I first said. To equate ending a life to amputating an arm (thus proposing the arm and the human life are the same) may be the most lacking analogy I’ve run across in many, many years.

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I see you've retreated from trying to understand other peoples presuppositions, and returned to your usual debating style ie if you say something aggressively enough it must be true. interesting the importance you give to the heart, how terribly medieval. Do you have this much respect for all things with beating hearts?

No doubt you'll come back with some aggressive rant citing "personal attacks". Seems this thread is dead then.

[GenX]

Dave, care to discuss this:

You believe it is okay to abort a fetus that has not yet reached the conscious level. But to do so robs that fetus of the potentiality of reaching the later conscious state. You arbitrarily decide it will not reach that state. You, in essence, have played God. What gives you the right to rob that fetus of its potentiality?

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I haven't played god, I don't believe in god. Do you squash bugs, eat meat? Why is one beating heart, or one life more important than another? What quality is it?

[GenX]

Dave, I will answer your question in due time. But you don't want to answer my question with a question, do you?

What gives you the right to rob that fetus of its potentiality?

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you squash bugs, eat meat? Why is one beating heart, or one life more important than another? What quality is it? </div></div>

I have a hard time equating a bug or even an animal with a human being. Naturally the foundation of this difficulty in making such an equivalence is the fact my faith tells me man was made in the image of God. A dog is not made in the image of God, nor is a cat, parakeet, turtle, or even an ant or beetle.

You ask what quality defines the difference between man and animal or man and insect. I answer it is the fact man is made in the image of God.

Now, does this give us free reign to wantonly kill and destroy such things as we feel pleased to do? Of course not.

I killed ants when I was a child because I didn’t know any better. Today, I do not go out of my way to step on ants I see on the sidewalk. I have sprayed bee hives that have infiltrated inside the lamp on my light pole in the yard. I did not do this to wantonly kill, but to keep my family safe.

I do not hunt, but do not criticize those that do if it is done for the right reasons. I do not believe in hunting simply for gamesmanship. If you kill something, eat it. Since the dawn of time man has killed animals for sustenance. Today we need not kill for sustenance, but nevertheless we can still kill for food. Killing something for the fun of it is wrong, in my opinion.

I do not put animals on equal footing with mankind. That does not automatically presuppose I do not support the fair treatments of animals.

I answered your question, even though you asked it after my original question to you, which remains unanswered.

I hope you’ll return the favor.

[GenX]

Bump

[Retsevets]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WP - I am not aware of that school of thought, Dave.
But I am sure that the main line churches who support abortion are of that school.

Speedy - The Catholic Church believes life begins at conception.
</div></div>

Its called the "quickening" and the catholic church supported it until 1869. Basically it meant that the unborn male received a soul after 40 days and the female 80. It was okay to abort before then.

Saint Thomas Acquinas said the unborn progressed from plant to animal and received a soul 8-10 weeks after conception.


Steve

[GenX]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: retsevets</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WP - I am not aware of that school of thought, Dave.
But I am sure that the main line churches who support abortion are of that school.

Speedy - The Catholic Church believes life begins at conception.
</div></div>

Its called the "quickening" and the catholic church supported it until 1869. Basically it meant that the unborn male received a soul after 40 days and the female 80. It was okay to abort before then.

Saint Thomas Acquinas said the unborn progressed from plant to animal and received a soul 8-10 weeks after conception.


Steve </div></div>

So the Catholic Church was about 125 years ahead of its time then. Obviously technology has caught up to the Catholic Church in this instance.

"The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: "Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?" The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: "No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires."

LINK (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm)

[GenX]

Steve, I think you're mistaken:

Among the earliest testimonies that fetal development was irrelevant is that of St. Basil the Great, who wrote that "any hairsplitting distinction as to its being formed or unformed is inadmissible with us." [12] He also condemned suppliers of abortifacients, regardless of the stage of pregnancy: "'Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child." [13]

St. Basil's brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394), saw the fetus as a complete human being from the time of conception, and specifically rejected theories based upon formation or quickening: "There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul." [14] Even Tertullian of Carthage (c.160-c.230), a prominent Latin ecclesiastical writer who seemed to accept the formed/unformed distinction as a biological matter, dismissed its moral importance: "Abortion is a precipitation of murder, nor does it matter whether or not one takes a life when formed, or drives it away when forming, for he is also a man who is about to be one." [15]

Though less specific, Holy Scripture also recognizes that an unborn child's life is sacred, and begins no later than conception: "'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5, 6. [16] Also noteworthy is St. Luke's use of the same Greek word, brephos (baby), for both the unborn St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:44) and the newly-born Christ child (Luke 2:12). Even more indicative are those examples, in both Old and New Testaments, where God enters into a direct personal relationship with a specific individual before birth, by "consecrating," "appointing," "calling," and //setting apart" the unborn child through His grace. [17] This testifies to the Bible's view that the fetus is not only a human being but a person. That this understanding of an unborn person's receptivity to divine grace extends back to conception is further evidenced by the ancient practice, as formalized in the Church calendar, of celebrating not only the conception of Christ (Annunciation, March 25), but that of His mother (December 9), and St. John the Baptist (September 23).

The canon law of the ancient Church, still in effect in the Orthodox Church today, is entirely consistent with the foregoing exposition of theological, patristic, and scriptural evidence. The first canonical pronouncement specifically on abortion was that of the regional Council of Elvira, Spain (c.303 A.D.), imposing life-long excommunication. In 314-315 A.D., the regional Council of Ancyra adopted Canon 21:

Regarding women who become prostitutes and kill their babies, and who make it their business to concoct abortives, the former rule barred them for life from communion, and they are left without recourse. But, having found a more philanthropic alternative, we have fixed the penalty at ten years, in accordance with the fixed degrees.

The reference to prostitutes attests to the Fathers' recognition that abortion was only resorted to by women in the most desperate social circumstances. Three centuries into the Christian era, abortion was unthinkable to the broad mass of Christian people; canon law was adopted which lightened the penalty imposed upon those most in need of mercy. More importantly, the "former rule," imposing life-long excommunication, is Apostolic Canon 66, which pertains to homicide. [18] The fact that for centuries the Church treated abortion at any stage of pregnancy as homicide, without regard to fetal development, is indicative of the illusory nature of the formed/ unformed distinction.

In addition, the Roe Court's reliance upon the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), as indicative of early Christian thought was misplaced. [19] While concepts such as "ensoulment" or "quickening" gained some currency in certain ecclesiastical circles beginning in the fifth century, this serves only to underscore the danger inherent in drawing broad-based conclusions based upon excerpts of writings from selected theologians. Augustine never laid claim to being infallible, nor did he presume to speak for the entire Church. [20] In fact, in the conclusion of his final treatise, he offered his opinions humbly to the judgment of the Church: "Let those who think that I am in error consider again and again carefully what is here said, lest perchance they themselves may be mistaken. And when, by means of those who read my writings, I become not only wiser, but even more perfect, I acknowledge God's favor to me." [21]

However, there is no doubt that despite their misunderstanding of fetal development, they sought to protect the fetus and considered its destruction homicide. We can, with the benefit of historical and scientific hindsight, attribute the misapplication of a correct impulse to a biological error stemming ultimately from Aristotle. The Roe Court adopted this error as the basis of its analysis of the moral acceptability of abortion over the past two thousand years; but as would be the case with a hypothetical body of jurisprudence based on the Ptolemaic geocentric system or the phlogiston theory of combustion, this Court should not hesitate to look beyond what we now understand to be a factual error, albeit a persistent one.

Historic Christianity recognized conception as the time at which life and soul were united, and regarded abortion at any stage of pregnancy as homicide. Though the Orthodox Church, for historical reasons relating to its organizational and doctrinal continuity with historic Christianity, is more acutely aware of this fact, this should not be taken as sectarian pleading. Rather, it is a unique witness to an older and sounder tradition that is our common heritage. The fact that the theological writings of Christian antiquity were formulated by men with little understanding of biology, but whose views are entirely compatible with our modern understanding, is further testament to their moral perspicacity.

LINK (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/abortion.aspx)

[GenX]

You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.

The Didache ("The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles"). II, 2, translated by J.A. Kleist, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 6. Westminster, 1948, page 16.

You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay the child by abortion.

Barnabas (c. 70-138), Epistle, Volume II, page 19.

For us [Christians], murder is once and for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes away the life once born or destroys it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.

Tertullian, 197, Apologeticus, page 9.

Those women who use drugs to bring about an abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for their abortion.

Athenagoras of Athens, letter to Marcus Aurelius in 177, Legatio pro Christianis ("Supplication for the Christians"), page 35.

It is among you that I see newly-begotten sons at times exposed to wild beasts and birds, or dispatched by the violent death of strangulation; and there are women who, by the use of medicinal potions, destroy the unborn life in their wombs, and murder the child before they bring it forth. These practices undoubtedly are derived from a custom established by your gods; Saturn, though he did not expose his sons, certainly devoured them.

Minucius Felix, theologian (c. 200-225), Octavius, p. 30.

... if we would not kill off the human race born and developing according to God's plan, then our whole lives would be lived according to nature. Women who make use of some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo but, together with it, all human kindness.

Clement of Alexandria, priest and the "Father of Theologians" (c. 150-220), Christ the Educator, Volume II, page 10. Also see Octavius, c.30, nn. 2-3.

Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), De Nuptius et Concupiscus ("On Marriage and Concupiscence"), 1.17.

Some virgins [unmarried women], when they learn they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the ruler of the lower world guilty of three crimes; suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child.

St. Jerome, Bible Scholar and translator (c. 340-420), Letter to Eustochium, 22.13.

The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide.

St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), First Canonical Letter, from the work Three Canonical Letters. Loeb Classical Library, Volume III, pages 20 to 23.

Accordingly, among surgeon's tools, there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hood, wherewith the entire foetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of enbruosphaktes, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive ... life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.

Tertullian, theologian (150-225), Treatise on the Soul, pages 25 and 27.

Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty for murder.

Trullian (Quinisext) Council (692), Canons, 91

LINK (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM)

[GenX]

The Catholic Church has always taught that abortion is murder. However, some confusion exists because the penalties for the murder of a preborn child have been changed several times in the history of the Church.

In 1588, Pope Sixtus V tried to discourage abortion by reserving absolution to the Holy See alone. Because of the numbers of abortions taking place, it soon became evident that such an arrangement was impractical, and so in 1591, just three years later, Pope Gregory XIV returned absolution for abortion to the local ordinary (the local bishop).[4]

Paolo Zacchia, Physician-General of the Vatican, published a book in 1620 entitled Quaestiones Medico-Legales in which he argued that ensoulment takes place at conception and that development is a continuum.[5]

In 1679, Pope Innocent XI condemned the writings and teachings of two theologians, Thomas Sanchez and Joannis Marcus, who believed that abortion was lawful if the fetus was not yet animated or ensouled and the purpose of the abortion was to prevent shame to the woman.[6] This act showed decisively that the Church did not tolerate abortion, and was willing to prosecute those who spread error regarding child-killing.

The French Jesuit Theophile Raynaud (1582-1663) believed that indirect abortion of a viable baby to save the mother's life was allowable. This was notable because he was the first theologian to hold this view and his teachings were unique in the Church until about 1850. This is an early statement of the "double effect," described later in this chapter.

In 1869, Pope Pius IX took the action that 'Catholic' pro-abortionists deliberately misrepresent in order to buttress their heretical views. The abortophiles allege that, in this year, the Pope condemned abortion for the very first time.

In reality, the Pope officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the Code of Canon Law.[7] This action dealt not with theology, but with discipline, and merely made the punishment for abortion at any stage uniform. The Pope removed the distinction in order to support the Church's stance that life and ensoulment both begin at conception.

LINK (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM)

[GenX]

Some pro-abortion propagandists with no particular regard for the truth point to the fact that Saint Thomas and Saint Jerome speculated as to when the soul was infused by God, and say that this uncertainty constitutes a definite approval of abortion. Others, like Dr. Robert E. Hall, simply make flatly untrue statements such as "One can admire St. Augustine for conceding that no one will ever know when fetal life begins."[15]

Other misleading statements by bogus "Catholics" used to prop up their unjustifiable support of prenatal child killing are even more bizarre. For example, "Catholic" Marjorie Reilly Maguire, a board member of the National Abortion Rights Action League, claims with a straight face that the Annunciation "proves" that ensoulment does not take place until the mother consents to "the pregnancy that is within her."[16]

Keep in mind that, according to the Gospels, the Virgin Mary consented prior to the moment of conception.

These statements are illogical and, of course, dead wrong. Both Saints Thomas and Jerome recognized that ensoulment and abortion were two distinct and separate issues. They both condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms (see Figure 43-2 for one of St. Jerome's statements against abortion).

In any case, the matter of when the body is 'ensouled' has historically made no difference to the Catholic Church; see the quotes in Figure 43-2 by Saints Basil and Jerome, for proof. It is quite obvious from the language he uses that St. Basil had extensive experience in dealing with Fourth Century pro-abortion doublespeak.

In summary, Saints Thomas and Jerome were postulating a theory based upon the best medical knowledge of their time, which had been set forth by Aristotle centuries before. Aristotle taught that the unborn did not become human until forty days after conception. This notion was only discarded in 1621, based upon the work of Paulo Zacchia in his Quaestiones Medico-Legales, question 9.1.

Consistency at Any Ridiculous Cost?

It is quite evident that the 'ensoulment' argument is nothing more than a red herring. It is an attempt to 'prove' that the Catholic Church is 'inconsistent' in its teachings on abortion.

In reality, of course, pro-aborts couldn't care less when the soul is infused. They know that such a concept cannot be scientifically proven one way or the other, so they are 'safe.' They can continue to kill with an uncluttered conscience.

If someone suddenly developed a new and advanced technology that could definitively detect the presence of a soul in the preborn child, does any thinking pro-lifer believe that the pro-aborts would suddenly give up their precious 'right' to kill as a result?

If there are people that naive out there, we know of a slightly-used bridge for sale at a very attractive price ...

Pro-abortion groups will go to laughable extremes in their attempts to prove 'inconsistency' in Church teachings. For example, they actually say with a straight face that the Catholic Church is not consistent because it does not insist on a funeral Mass for each miscarried baby.

Can you believe it? This idiotic statement glaringly highlights the pervasive pro-abortion double standard. On the one hand, the pro-aborts insist that any mother who wants to kill her child should be able to define it out of existence with a mere thought, i.e., "This baby is unwanted, and therefore does not exist." She doesn't need the validation of Church or State or any other authority. All she needs, curiously enough, is an abortuary to eliminate this supposedly 'nonexistent' baby.

On the other hand, a grieving pro-life mother who has miscarried has to jump all kinds of hurdles before the existence of her baby can be 'validated.' The pro-abortionists say that she must have a funeral Mass and the participation of the Catholic Church, a Catholic priest, and numerous other people before her opinions and feelings are legitimized.

What blatant inconsistency!

Also, whatever happened to the 'right to privacy' cherished by the pro-aborts? Apparently, it is only for them. After all, they're special cases. Just ask them.

This is typical of the pro-abortion mentality. The mother's wishes or biological fact do not make the baby a human being; the funeral does!

The National Abortion Rights Action League even insisted in its June 1978 A Speakers and Debaters Notebook that every Catholic woman must have a formal funeral Mass and burial each time she menstruates, since the 'products of menstruation' just might include an unnoticed very early miscarriage! Population controller Garrett Hardin, always at the forefront of the abortion debate with a wide variety of silly statements, weighed in with the slightly differing (but still profoundly absurd) opinion that "Whenever a woman is late with her period, the menstrual products will have to be collected and given a proper burial."[17]

These and other pro-abortionists know that the Catholic Church is potentially their most dangerous enemy, and thus they are constantly trying to saddle it with obviously impossible missions in the name of 'consistency.' NARAL would just love to see Catholic priests spend 90 percent of their time saying funeral Masses for used Stayfree mini-pads!

Ah, the 'logic' of the abortophile mentality! As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[Return of Too Many Daves]

Sorry Speedy, I have neither the time nor the inclanation to go through arguments against the potentiality principle (which I am sure you are aware of anyway). Since I fundamentally do not agree with the logic behind the concept of worrying about terminating a bundle of cells possibility of a potential life, it seems too ridiculous to warrent serious debate. By this logic masturbation is mass murder, robbing each sperm of its possible potential life.

[GenX]

Dave, thanks for admitting you're cornered.

Better luck next time /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Return of Too Many Daves]

I've dealt with your frankly weak argument. Plus abortion is legal. Seems the pro abortion lobby have won the argument.

I'm soooo cornered.

[GenX]

Dave, if my argument is so "weak" why is it you have attempted to change the dynamics of the debate? You wanted to discuss abortion, and when confronted with the question that asked how it is you decide who it is that can and cannot reach their human potential you quickly changed the debate to the overall premise. It's a basic and old tactic utilized by those who are caught in a quandary in a debate.

The question as to how it is you can decide who does and who does not reach their potential as a human being remains wholly unanswered. Not even a cursory attempt was made on your part.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">abortion is legal. Seems the pro abortion lobby have won the argument </div></div>

That is breathtaking in its simplicity.

Is everything that is legal today mean it is off the table as far as debate over its efficacy, morality, or what have you, is concerned?

The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation. Does that mean the debate over this particular issue is over because one side has its desires codified? Has one side "won", thus ended debate, because their desire is law?

In Saudi Arabia it is considered an offense if a woman appears in public, unless accompanied by a male relative or guardian. The debate is over because it is law, correct? Has one side "won" , thus ended debate, because their desire is law?


Homosexuality was outlawed in many nations (still is today in some). Does that mean once it was codified that homosexuality was wrong the debate was over, and anti-homosexuals "won"? Has one side "won" , thus ended debate, because their desire is law?

[1337]

This might have already been said but here goes

Quoting "Today, I want to bring a whole new perspective to the Michael Vick story that you won't hear on the news or read about in the papers. In the United States in the year 2007, it is illegal to kill a dog but legal to kill a baby! Let me say that one more time since I want this FACT to really sink in. In the United States in the year 2007, it is illegal to kill a dog, but legal to kill a baby! WOW! Does that put the whole Vick story in a different light and show just how spiritually bankrupt we are as a nation?"


It is illegal to kill a baby the same way the dogs were killed.

It ISN'T illegal to kill a dog the same way the babies are. (abortion).

To go on ranting and posting about two different subject matters is ridiculous.

It isn't legal to kill a baby, there isn't any illegal baby fighting groups that I'm aware of, of which the least performing baby gets shot and killed.

[1337]

Keep in mind, any dog born with a major disability is "put down". Well i should say ANY dog, but majority of the dogs are.

Dogs that are not adopted, are put down after a period of time.


So, if YOUR right and dogs are treated better, Do they put babies down if not adopted, or do they abort babies if they are physically disabled?

I'm not pro abortion, i neutral in this case.

Actually i have no say in abortion, its a hard decision to make. If you know %100 that the child will not be alright, and live its entire life in pain and misery, would you abort?

[GenX]

It's a doggone shame.