Abortion questions...?

Ask Rudoplh Hoss. I know u are but what am I? Genocide is never justified, though people do it out of hate, sadism, or "just following orders". No, it just comes to show that you never answered my question: Is it okay to commit cruelty if you dont enjoy it? Maybe you should just answer instead of asking if it can be done. Based on the words of youre former post, it seemed you never owned one, considering that most if not all people who own a dog will definitly testify to the dog's own personality and will. Maybe you didn't see an equal mind (though he probably was to U), but he'd probably be more loveable and better to be with. Actually, you can get jailtime for cruelty to animals, including such that kills a dog. But your right that it is not murder, just being a jackass.As for the child, a Newborn is not much different from a late term fetus (the actually being born an exception). Would you say that killing a minute or even second old newborn is murder? oh yes, that makes it right if ancient human cultures did it!! I guess we better bring back slavery and make prostitution legal!!! Instead of "Liberating" those Iraqis like we did, we shoudl have circled and starved those cities and then killed all inside. Wipe 'em out! After all, IF ANCIENT CULTURES DID IT FOR ETERNITY, IT MUST BE GOOD!!! Yet do you see the mind of an equal when you look in their eyes? Oh yes, those darn fetuses! Their threatening our women! We must STOP them at all Costs! Forget the terrorists! Carnivorous, woman killing fetuses are lurking around in our women's uteruses!! We must stop them before it's too late!! Run!! Run to the codom store now!!! Could you by chance state what a Red Herringis? I have a book which has a definition, but i'm curious as to what you think it is. When someone states they would throw puppies into rivers to drown them, Topics ussually take a different turn. Infantile? You made the same threat in an earlier thread. As for honesty, I've tried to be as honest as possible. If I did a logical fallcy or a few of em, heck I'll retrack those statements on a future post. But it seems that you are also not taking up youre threat of not talking to me either.You lay off insults in youre future posts, then I will keep from them in future posts and we will discuss this like adults. At least for a little while (I have to get ready for another semester at College)No insulting language. Nothing to rawl up each other. If you do so, then we can get back to normal discussions.Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

That in itself is a pretty childish statement: "You behave like an adult first and then I will."You said in the OP:

quote:

---

... PLEASE BE CIVIL, NO NAME CALLING, and TRY TO SHOW RESPECT FOR OTHER PEOPLES IDEAS

---

Practise what you preach.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So then you admit your question is nonsense? Good, we can move on, then. I did answer your question.You just didn't like the answer. Pointing out that your question is nonsense is an answer. It's a nonsense question, because it describes a situation that can't possibly exist. You're asking me to assess the moral qualities of a situation that is impossible. It's against the law, isn't it? Why wouldn't it be murder? You're probably going to ask me what the difference is, and the difference is this: the law says that abortion is not murder, but infanticide is. Murder, being a legal term, is defined by statute. Bring it back? Where do you think it went? If you'll hold to that, I agree. Just remember that you're the one who decided to employ such language in the first place.

This thread appears to be quite appropriate for those who wish to address the abortion issues so as not to derail other threads.

as a Christian I feel abortion is wrong, and it is homicide, and a cardinal sin.as an American I feel as if it is wrong to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their body.also as an American I feel it is wrong to hold others to my moral and religious views, and make them have the same views by law.I would try and tell someone who wanted to have an abortion to not have one and think about it, but I would do nothing from preventing them from using their free will and making their own choices in life. I would also seek to keep legislation that allows for personal choices. You can educate right and wrong but you cannot legislate it.

Hi Buz, Indeed. From Message 67 of the Politcal Compass thread: Nor is anyone really saying that you can't have sex between consenting adults. These would be the people intentionally trying to conceive, rather than anyone having sex because, gosh, it feels good, and it makes me consider my chosen companion & fellow consenting adult special, relative to those with whom I don't have sex. It helps bonding. So then what is relevant to the existence of a person: more explicitly what IS a person? Before we engage in emotional loading of the language, let's define what person is, and then we can decide whether all instances of abortion involve death of a person, some instances of abortion involve death of a person, or no instances of abortion involve death of a person.As you, and many others, likely recall, I've addressed this on another thread:First, on Legal Death, Legal Life:

quote:

---

Legal Life

​

When considering this in terms of beginning rather than end, the same conditions should apply. Where the irreversible failure of either system qualified for death, the irreversible instigation of both is logically necessary for life. Likewise "all functions" would become "any functions" of the brain. This could be reworded in a format similar to the death act above as follows:

​

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF LIFE
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who has sustained either:
(1) irreversible instigation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) irreversible instigation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem, is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

​

Note that this is derived logically from the legal definition of {death} to the form of the legal definition of {NOT death = life}, and thus it is legally applicable and morally, culturally as acceptable as the universal definition of death.

---

and on Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion:

quote:

---

Personhood

​

The second standard is a little more difficult to establish on a broad cultural and social basis except by taking into considerations the beliefs of the family involved and the diversity of levels acceptable to individuals. This includes the concept of personhood. From Biology, Consciousness, and the Definition of Death (click):

​

(NOTE: these are excerpts -- with some loss of context: see whole paper for complete context)

​

Some philosophers and scientists have argued that the whole-brain standard does not go far enough. Several leading authors on the subject have advocated a higher-brain standard, according to which death is the irreversible cessation of the capacity for consciousness. This standard is often met prior to whole-brain death, which includes death of the brainstem -- that part of the brain which allows spontaneous respiration and heartbeat but is insufficient for consciousness. Thus, a patient in a permanent coma or permanent vegetative state (PVS) meets the higher-brain, but not the whole-brain, standard of death.

​

From the present perspective, then, the core-meaning argument does not settle the question of the nature of human death. A more promising approach, on this view, is to take seriously the fact that we are not only organisms; we are also persons. According to one prominent argument for the higher-brain standard, the capacity for consciousness is essential to persons -- essential in the strict philosophical sense of being necessary: Any being lacking this capacity is not a person. It follows that when someone permanently loses the capacity for consciousness, there is no longer a person associated with the body. The person who was, is no more -- that is to say, she is dead. Thus, the argument goes, human death is captured by the higher-brain standard.

​

Finally, any effort to base a standard for human death on "our" values confronts the problem of value pluralism. While liberal intellectuals, and perhaps a majority of Americans, are likely to regard a future of permanent unconsciousness as meaningless, many people -- some of them religious fundamentalists -- would disagree. For the dissenters, biological life in PVS or permanent coma is at least life and therefore valuable (perhaps infinitely so). For at least some of these people, such a state is meaningful because it is a gift from God, a gift that must not be thrown away through active killing -- or defined away with a new definition of death.

​

It is firmly established, both in case law and in medical ethics, that competent adult patients have the right to refuse life-supporting medical treatments, even artificial nutrition and hydration. By the same token, an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.

​

This last paragraph is the key to my thinking. Until the fetus has achieved the status of "personhood" discussed above, the "appropriate surrogate" -- in this case the family -- can decide to terminate life support, and if the patient naturally expires due to failure of the {circulator and respiratory functions} to maintain life on their own, then the legal issue is settled.

---

You may not personally like the choices some people will make in the running of their lives, but you do not have the right to interfere with their rights to run their lives according to their values and to make their decisions as adults. But this doesn't define what murder is. If I shoot a monkey is that murder? Curiously, I emphatically disagree, seeing as the person is actually taking steps to resolve the unintended results of their actions, and going through a difficult process, rather than having it forced on them.You would force your solution on them, and that would prevent them from being accountable for resolving the unintended results of their own actions in their own way, as a responsible adult, making adult decisions.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This attitude has always puzzled me. I cannot understand anyone who thinks it's homicide, but believes it should not be outlawed. That you don't want to impose your beliefs about sin on others is easy to understand. But I'd appreciate it if you could expand on your reasons for believing you shouldn't prohibit others from homicide.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

From the Political Compass thread: I see. So once a woman has sex her status, by virtue of that act, regardless of anything else, is reduced to below a clump of indistinguishable cells. And don't give me any of this baby crap. You'd prohibit any termination at any stage of pregnancy, even of a blastocyst that is less than 0.2 mm in diameter. Take a dime out of your pocket, or get one from wherever you tend to accumulate change. Do it right now. Go ahead, I'll wait.***Now, look carefully at that dime. See Roosevelt's eye? How in the world without resorting to a slippery slope fallacy, can you equate something less than 0.2 mm in diameter to a fully functioning adult human being?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

As a Christian I think Abortion must be legal and available to all.I have never found anyone that takes abortion trivially, it is not simply another method of birth control, it is not murder or homicide, and any attempt to restrict abortion I find immoral and reprehensible.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Did you notice the plural "others"? The Golden Rule requires taking the woman into consideration as well as the fetus. If you don't want to be forced to be pregnant for nine months, don't force her. What about the cases where she is forced?

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

The problem I have with that is that it's not her body that's in question. It's that other person's body which she and it's father caused to become a live human being and perhaps a living soul as some of us agree is the case. According to Luke 1, John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb and leaped in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary greeted her. It's about killing a person more than what's moral. Should the babe be less safe in the womb than one minute out of the womb? There was a time when our nation did legislate it as unlawfully killing that other person unable to speak for and defend itself against pain and death.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Really? I wasn't aware there was ever a Federal Law banning abortion. Do you happen to have a citation?Also, are you planning on replying to my earlier post in this thread, or will it simply stand as silent testimony to your inability to respond?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

The place to start is with those of mutual consent. The legality of exemption for others could be on a case by case basis.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

I stand corrected. It was that the states had the right to ban it.There was once this common law which would be the closest to at least a federal restriction at one time.

quote:

---

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]

---

The federal government should allow the states to ban it. That's the way it was before Roe Wade. That's my position.I've been too busy to respond much. I'll do what I can when I can.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

The problem of exemptions is that they undermine your whole idea of "personhood". Is the fetus that was conceived out of rape less of a person?

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"