Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 5:37 PM
447 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 443 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,967 Year: 6,573/21,208 Month: 2,334/2,634 Week: 522/572 Day: 8/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   A very brief history of Human Life
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 46 of 57 (798904)
02-06-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
02-06-2017 9:07 AM


Re: when does personhood begin revisited
I don't think it's relevant when something you would define as "personhood" begins, since the point I've been arguing is that if you leave it alone at any stage it will inevitably become a person, barring the effect of abnormal processes.

Well faith, that "personhood" is not important to you, doesn't mean it is not important to other people. As I've said there are a plurality of views, not a single one.

And when 55% of zygotes fail to implant that is a perfectly normal, natural part of the process, and leaving them alone will not result in a living breathing human being.

I also have a problem based on this reasoning, with any abortifacient or contraceptive that interferes after egg and sperm have combined, because all the genetic material is there for the making of the human being. I might be forced to make an exception for it just because it's popular and not gruesome like abortion, but logically I'm against the exception.

That is your belief and you are welcome to it, other people have the same right to their beliefs on this issue. This again leads to a pluralist approach to let people decide how this applies to their lives.

And when that genetic material produces an empty sac with no embrio inside, that too is a perfectly normal, natural part of the process, and leaving them alone will not result in a living breathing human being. There is no person there because there is no there there.

I expect to meet my own child in heaven, the one that I aborted when I was twenty, which was done at the age of about seven weeks. If the fertilized ovum is also a child IN GOD'S EYES, then there are going to be a lot of children meeting their Christian parents in heaven. I don't know of course. There may be an early stage of purely physical formation before the soul is infused by God. Nobody knows that. I rather think if the genetic material is all there, then it's the person in the making already. BUT, again, since we can't know that, I suppose I have to make the exception for the earliest stages.

Thank you.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-06-2017 9:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2017 6:18 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12820
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 47 of 57 (798906)
02-06-2017 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
02-06-2017 9:07 AM


Re: when does personhood begin revisited
Faith writes:

There may be an early stage of purely physical formation before the soul is infused by God. Nobody knows that.


The Levites had an app for that:
quote:
Exodus 21:20-22 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. 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.

"In God's eyes" the unborn child seems to be treated as the father's property.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 02-06-2017 9:07 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 48 of 57 (799980)
02-18-2017 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
02-06-2017 12:03 PM


News from the courts
The title sounds like an Andy Borowitz column ...

quote:
Florida Supreme Court Reminds Politicians That Women Are Capable of Making Their Own Decisions

Every day, people face important medical decisions. When tough choices arise, we consult with our health care providers about the pros and cons of different treatment options. We meditate on our goals and fears. Some of us will turn to family or friends for advice. Some of us will pray.

No one goes to the state capitol building to ask a politician their opinion.

Yet when it comes to a woman’s decision to end her pregnancy, politicians feel entitled to insert themselves into the equation. We all agree that a woman seeking abortion care, like every other patient, should receive all medically appropriate information. But in dozens of states, legislators demand that a woman who has decided to have an abortion — unlike any other patient seeking any other form of medical care — delay her procedure by a certain amount of time (typically 24 hours or more) after receiving certain state-mandated information.

Fortunately, in a victory for Florida women and for common decency, the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a lower court’s decision blocking the state’s 24-hour mandatory abortion delay law from taking effect while the litigation proceeds. In upholding the preliminary injunction, the court also found that the law likely violates the Florida Constitution’s strong right of privacy.

As the court explained, “a woman can already take all of the time she needs to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy, both before she arrives at the clinic and after she receives the required counseling information.” Thus, in practice, “[t]he Mandatory Delay Law impacts only those women who have already made the choice to end their pregnancies.”

This is not about informed consent. To the contrary, the court observed that the law “turns informed consent on its head, placing the State squarely between a woman who has already made her decision to terminate her pregnancy and her doctor who has decided that the procedure is appropriate for his or her patient.”

Moreover, if this is really just about ensuring that patients are fully informed, then why is it, the court asked, that “[n]o other medical procedure, even those with greater health consequences, requires a twenty-four hour waiting period in the informed consent process”?

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision should serve as a wake-up call to politicians to stop passing laws that have no medical justification and do nothing but insult and burden women seeking abortion care.


A victory for women and for choice.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2017 12:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 02-18-2017 6:25 PM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 49 of 57 (799982)
02-18-2017 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
02-18-2017 6:18 PM


Re: News from the courts
Only a perverted legal system could call the murder of an unborn child a "choice" to be made, a "medical decision" when there is no medical issue involved, or a "right." But I guess when you believe that morality was evolved by natural processes you can justify any heinous crime.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2017 6:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 02-18-2017 6:35 PM Faith has responded
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2017 1:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28432
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 50 of 57 (799983)
02-18-2017 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
02-18-2017 6:25 PM


Try even a little honesty Faith
Faith writes:

But I guess when you believe that morality was evolved by natural processes you can justify any heinous crime.

Sorry Faith but thank God the truth is that in the US almost all abortions are NOT crimes. We can thank the Southern Baptists for that fact.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 02-18-2017 6:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 02-18-2017 7:25 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 51 of 57 (799991)
02-18-2017 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
02-18-2017 6:35 PM


Honesty you want? Here's some
No, murder isn't a crime in America any more, sad to say. But objecting to gay marriage is a crime. Pornography which is corrupting millions is protected as "free speech," in this current perversion of America. They're even trying to get the violent riots that are miscalled protests considered as free speech; illegal aliens are called "immigrants" and given rights that don't belong to them. Muslims are destroying Europe but nobody is allowed to call them Muslims or recognize what is really going on, and that's what the Left wants to happen here too. I don't know how much crazier and dangerous it can get before it all implodes and the barbarians take over.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 02-18-2017 6:35 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 02-18-2017 8:10 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28432
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 52 of 57 (799995)
02-18-2017 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
02-18-2017 7:25 PM


Re: Honesty you want? Here's some
Faith writes:

But objecting to gay marriage is a crime.

No Faith, that too is simply not true. No one in the US has ever been charged with the crime of objecting to gay marriage.

Faith writes:

illegal aliens are called "immigrants" and given rights that don't belong to them.

No Faith, that too is simply not true. Due Process is one of the rights guaranteed to anyone in the US under our Constitution.

Faith writes:

Muslims are destroying Europe but nobody is allowed to call them Muslims or recognize what is really going on, and that's what the Left wants to happen here too.

No Faith, that too is simply not true. No one is prohibited from calling a Muslim a Muslim here or even in Europe.

Faith writes:

Pornography which is corrupting millions is protected as "free speech," in this current perversion of America.

LOL. Pornography can well be free speech Faith but do you have any evidence that it corrupts anyone?

And finally...

Faith writes:

No, murder isn't a crime in America any more, sad to say.

No Faith, that too is simply not true. In the US murder is still considered a crime.

So what we see is that every one of your assertions is factually wrong. How's that for honesty?


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 02-18-2017 7:25 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 02-18-2017 11:13 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 53 of 57 (799999)
02-18-2017 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
02-18-2017 8:10 PM


Re: Honesty you want? Here's some
No, jar, what "we see" is you finding ways to manipulate words to make true false and false true, that's all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 02-18-2017 8:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 7:15 AM Faith has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 54 of 57 (800008)
02-19-2017 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
02-18-2017 6:25 PM


Re: News from the courts
Only a perverted legal system could call the murder of an unborn child ...

The term "unborn child" is a fiction of the extreme right, not reality.

There are fundamental differences between a fetus and a child. The first breath and subsequent use of lungs is one, and it is major when that does not happen because the fetus died. A second is closing an opening in the heart so that the heart pumps the child's blood instead of the umbilical blood, and a third is the change from (2α2γ) hemoglobin to hemoglobin (2α2β). See Message 4

An empty sac pregnancy is not an unborn child it doesn't even have any potential of ever becoming a child. It is a cluster of cells enclosing fluid, period. You can't "murder" a sac of fluid.

You also can't murder a "stone baby" ...

quote:
Lithopedion

A lithopedion – also spelled lithopaedion or lithopædion – (Ancient Greek: λίθος = stone; Ancient Greek: παιδίον = small child, infant), or stone baby, is a rare phenomenon which occurs most commonly when a fetus dies during an abdominal pregnancy,[1] is too large to be reabsorbed by the body, and calcifies on the outside as part of a maternal foreign body reaction, shielding the mother's body from the dead tissue of the fetus and preventing infection.

Lithopedia may occur from 14 weeks gestation to full term. It is not unusual for a stone baby to remain undiagnosed for decades, and it is often not until a patient is examined for other conditions or a proper examination is conducted that includes an X-ray, that a stone baby is found.


This is why our legal system does not use this term -- it is medically inaccurate and misleading. Our legal system embraces a plurality of opinions, not a religious dogma of opinion.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added second paragraph

Edited by RAZD, : stone baby


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 02-18-2017 6:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28432
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 55 of 57 (800009)
02-19-2017 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
02-18-2017 11:13 PM


Re: Honesty you want? Here's some
Faith writes:

No, jar, what "we see" is you finding ways to manipulate words to make true false and false true, that's all.

I do not doubt that that is what you see, however reality is exactly as I posted.

No one in the US has ever been charged with the crime of objecting to gay marriage.

Due Process is one of the rights guaranteed to anyone in the US under our Constitution.

No one is prohibited from calling a Muslim a Muslim here or even in Europe. You have even been allowed to call Obama a Muslim even though that too is simply not true.

Pornography can well be free speech Faith but do you have any evidence that it corrupts anyone?

And finally, in the US murder is still considered a crime.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 02-18-2017 11:13 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 02-19-2017 1:17 PM jar has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 56 of 57 (800030)
02-19-2017 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
02-19-2017 7:15 AM


Re: Honesty you want? Here's some
No one in the US has ever been charged with the crime of objecting to gay marriage.

Clear case of manipulating words to pretend what I said isn't true. When businesses are fined for refusing to cater a gay wedding the refusal is treated as a crime. Your nitpicking is reprehensible. And so are all your other ridiculous arguments.
s


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 7:15 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 02-19-2017 3:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28432
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 57 of 57 (800045)
02-19-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
02-19-2017 1:17 PM


Re: Honesty you want? Here's some
Faith writes:

When businesses are fined for refusing to cater a gay wedding the refusal is treated as a crime.

Discrimination is a crime, regardless of the excuse used. Their excuse is no more a valid defense than any other excuse for breaking the law. It is not an issue of gay marriage but rather flagrant disregard of the law, common sense or basic courtesy.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 02-19-2017 1:17 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017