Abortion

[littleflower+JMJ]

four words: open a science book

geez dairy girl, thats horrible that you are pro-murder aka anti-life. thats very sad, do you not love God? if so you would not accept the killing and murder of His creation at any stage. fetus means little one in latin, it is a baby, life. a blessing. a gift from God.

i too am curious as to what denomination you are.....

abortion kills children.

[dUSt]

You are saying that the humanity of the baby is not of question; that means you side with Ironmonk. But as any look at google will tell you, you will see that many women do question the baby's humanity.

Slave owners questioned the humanity of their slaves. Does this mean that slavery should never have been made illegal? Shouldn't we have left it "up to the judgement of the slaveowner"?

If you want to convince me that I am wrong, convince me that all this freedom talk of mine is not worth more than a human because I believe in freedom and consideration of others above life.

Did I hear you correctly? You consider freedom and consideration of others more important than life?

You can not have freedom or consideration without life. That's like saying our hands are more important than our body. I'm actually baffled that you prioritize things that way.

Don't tell me. Tell the women who don't think the baby is human.

So you do believe the baby to be human? If so, how can you possibly be pro-choice? Do you also believe that mothers should be able to abort their babies after they're born as long as they use "good judgement"?

I truly think it's understandable for them to think that at the moment of conception the baby is not human. (again the whole crux of our dispute) I'm separating my belief from theirs else fall into forcing them to compliance simply because we have a majority vote.    And since it's understandable...

If you believe that all laws should be based on the violaters personal beliefs about whether they are doing the right thing or not, then I don't know what to say. How would society function if everybody defined their own laws?

Also I do not want to mention my religious affliliation because I want to stay focused on the subject.. there's no need for it.

Incidentally, no one is answering my hypotheticals..

I think there is a need, as we're having a hard time figuring out what you base your sense of morality on.

And I didn't understand the points of your hypotheticals.

God bless.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Your curiosity of my religion is understood. But I can only see telling it as distracting from the discussion. One, we would start debating that, or two you would not consider or would be more prone to consider (I know, not gonna happen anyway) any thing I said simply because I am theortically non or Catholic. Try reading things without knowing who the author is first. If you're truly open-minded it makes a big difference, try it. Or at least pretend you don't know who he is.

First, if you would read my earlier quotes, you would see how murdering a born individual is different to me than a non-born. If you have specific questions on this, quote it and ask me. I'm not doing to keep explaining myself on this matter.

You can not have freedom or consideration without life. That's like saying our hands are more important than our body. I'm actually baffled that you prioritize things that way.

Everything revolves around this issue. You say to me, what is freedom without life? I say to you, what is life without freedom? And since the baby's life is the very thing at question....

I do not see a majority vote as free, since I can understand their stance.

Furthermore, again I understand if you do not agree with me about how I make judgement calls. But that gets into my hypotheticals.

The pulling the plug argument is just to show Ironmonk the arbitary nature of his twisting my logic. Actually applied to my argument, I would say that sometimes our right to decide things can be above human life if you think this is permissable for the USA citizens. I realize it is not permissable for Catholics, but if you think it is for others, you may more willing to consider my argument.

The first one, why don't any of you fight for the baby's lives? Physically fight for them? We have just wars to save lives, and would imagine that we could fight for the born, why don't you save the unborn? I am trying to show that either you understand the conflict or priortize (I think foolishly if that's your argument with the premise that it's not reasonable to think the baby is not human) that you should not be civilly disobedient above human life, in which case you may be willing to consider my argument.

[jmjtina]

Your religion would give us a more clear understanding of where you are coming from. I find it hard to believe that someone who believes in God, (if you do) loves God, (maybe, i don't know) would be for killing innocent babies to keep a freedom YOU want.

First, if you would read my earlier quotes, you would see how murdering a born individual is different to me than a non-born. If you have specific questions on this, quote it and ask me. I'm not doing to keep explaining myself on this matter

Murder is Murder. You either choose to kill someone or you don't.

What answer are you looking for when you say, "Why don't you physically fight for them?" Are we to go as in a war and Kill doctors and the Mothers? We ARE fighting for them, praying by the abortion clinics, CAN be put in JAIL if we cross the sidewalk, counseling mothers who are going in. Is that fair ? we risk jail time for OUR freedom we supposedly have? Haven't you EVER heard of Jospeh Schlinder, Fr. Frank Pavone, and the countless OTHERS who are in the front lines in DC??? March for LIFE? We are fighting with our rosaries, the ultimate battle of good versus evil. Still, you would not acknowledge Science, you will not acknowledge Fact, and the only thing you acknowledge is your warped sense of "freedom" to choose to kill another life over a new life in the womb. Your morals need to conform to God's Will and not your own or society's.

Abortion is not permissible for ANYONE. To Murder someone is not a choice, nor a "freedom" we have to give someone. The biggest illusion is the "freedom" you think you have by choices you make.

I'm praying for you.

[Dave]

I'd like to add that anyone who agrees with murder shouldn't even call themselves Christians. And yet there are many Protestant denominations (mostly mainline) out there that refuse to take a stand on abortion or allow abortion in some circumstances.

[Lounge Daddy]

four words: open a science book

...

i too am curious as to what denomination you are.....

abortion kills children.

One of my very best friends is an Atheist… and sees human life in a more precious light than some Christians. He is very pro-life.

I am curious as to your denomination as well… if you have one.

http://www.ohioroundtable.org/cfdocs/shows...37&fromhome=YES

It’s interesting that the former “big names” in the old anti-life movement are now big players in the pro-life movement.

[cmotherofpirl]

Peoples minds change a bit when they grow up and realize its their granchildren that are being murdered. Eerybody wants a posterity.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

I wrote a wonderful reply to the idea that a fetus' life is not a human life but then it didn't go thru. I will summarize. You would not disagree that the cells of the fetus are human (they contain 46 chromosomes, unique to humans, and its genes will cause it to follow a normal human form of development). So it is human. It is life because the organism fulfils all the biological requirements for something to be alive. If it is alive, if it is human, it is human life. There are one-celled organisms called hydras, would you not say that that one cell is a hydra life? Of course, b/c to call it something else would not be biologically correct. So a fetus has human life. It may have fewer cells than an adult of the species, but babies have fewer cells than adults and they are considered human. There is no legal criterion to determine how many cells constitute a human so you can't say it's too small. Also, you cannot say that b/c it doesn't look like a human it's not human (I think this is where your 'it's understandable that people don't think it's human comes in). If this were true, burn victims, lepers and amputees would all have questionable humanity -- yet under in this country, they would all have rights. You can't say that b/c its brain function is minimal that it is not human b/c then the mentally handicapped or 'vegetables' (to be crude) would not be human -- yet they all have rights, too. What is your basis for it being understandable that a fetus does not have a human life? (we will ignore the question: does all human life deserve to be protected? b/c at the moment, it's understood that the answer is yes).

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanx Patrick, that's an interesting post arguing that it's silly not to consider the infant at all stages worthy of rights. I think I will have to reflect more whether or not it is understandable for them to think that. Because the baby is technically human and it is technically life.

But to keep my argument going as it is.

we will ignore the question: does all human life deserve to be protected? b/c at the moment, it's understood that the answer is yes

If it were understood that the baby is human* I would agree with you. I do agree that the baby is human, but the point of my argument is that it is not understood by all. And just a vote to enfore that the baby is human doesn't seem just.

*A clarification:

People still do think the baby is not human. So they must think the baby is not "enough human" (ie no heart, no brain, no lungs and unable to function with out the mother.. prolly leading them to think at this stage it is the mother) to be worthy of rights (or whatever they think).

hmm.. I will need to reflect on this.

I saw one pro-choice person say we could argue about the unborn babies "no heart, brain" having rights just as much as we could have an undead person (us) not having rights. I think this may help you understand them more.

But I still need to think about this one some more, the understandability I mean.

Edited February 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

*A clarification:

People still do think the baby is not human. So they must think the baby is not "enough human" (ie no heart, no brain, no lungs and unable to function with out the mother.. prolly leading them to think at this stage it is the mother) to be worthy of rights (or whatever they think).

hmm.. I will need to reflect on this.

I saw one pro-choice person say we could argue about the no heart, brain etc persons un-born rights just as much as we could argue an undead corpse piece. I think this may help you understand them more.

But I still need to think about this one some more.

So what if there are those who think the baby isn't human? Just because there are those who believe that doesn't mean they're right. I know you said you do believe the baby is human. Well, should we accomodate the law to suit people's individual views, or should we accomodate the law to suit THE TRUTH?

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have thought about it and even though I disagree, I think that it is understandable for someone to think that a baby with no lungs, heart, or brain isn't "enough human" for full consideration of human's natural rights.

So I stand by my arguement.

I know you said you do believe the baby is human. Well, should we accomodate the law to suit people's individual views, or should we accomodate the law to suit THE TRUTH?

I wouldn't want someone imposing what they thought as THE TRUTH on me if I didn't agree. This gets into my central arguement of valuing freedom over life when it's understandable questioning whether or not there is true life to begin with.

Edited February 8, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

I wouldn't want someone imposing what they thought as the truth on me if I didn't agree.

Incidentally, this gets into my central arguement of valuing freedom over life.

Well, lots of people don't think that murder, theft, drug abuse, drug dealing, prostitution, incest, pedophilia, etc. are wrong. Would you argue that those laws ought to be repealed too for those who don't see anything wrong with such actions?

[dairygirl4u2c]

But I wouldn't think it's understandable that they do this. We're starting to go in circles here. ^_^

Everyone else, read my last quotes when I was considering whether or not it is understandable to think the baby is not human. If you have anything I haven't answered or in a way I may not have thought about like Patrick had, post it and I'll get back with ya.

[Dave]

But I wouldn't think it's understandable that they do this. We're starting to go in circles here.  ^_^

Everyone else, read my last quotes when I was considering whether or not it is understandable to think the baby is not human. If you have anything I haven't answered or in a way I may not have thought about like Patrick had, post it and I'll get back with ya.

Well, why wouldn't it be understandable that they don't think the fetus is human? Hmmmmmm??? Until the 1970s, everyone knew the fetus was human.

Edited February 8, 2004 by Dave

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, why wouldn't it be understandable that they don't think the fetus is human? Hmmmmmm???

I think it is understandable that a baby with no lungs, heart, or brain not to be considered for full human's natural rights. That is my judgement call, and you can disagree if you want.