each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Subduction Zone]

RF member james dixon said in post# 258,

"It is the mother who is obligated to raise the child..."

The "obligation" mentioned by james dixon was the raising of the child, not the child birth.

That is why I said,

"No mother is under such obligation. Adoption is always an option."

A woman deciding to bear a child does not obligate her to raise that child.

Adoption is always an option.

If she wishes to take the risk, pain, and possible unwanted body changes of pregnancy, or she has another choice. That is what this thread is about. Of course no babies are actually aborted. That would be impossible.

 

[Prestor John]

According to the story, they did it that way because God told them to do it that way, period.

... but the passage has God describing his thought process; take verse 15:

“Number the sons of Levi by their fathers’ households, by their families; every male from a month old and upward you shall number.”

So according to the verse:

- God wants them to count all the sons.
- God specifies how to do this: by counting every male that’s at least a month old.
- Therefore, we can infer that God doesn’t consider male babies less than a month old to be “sons.”

So why aren’t newborn babies “sons of Levi” (or sons of the other tribes - the passage goes on to describe something similar for the other tribes)? The child’s parentage doesn’t change when he turns a month old. What could the reason be for this except that God didn’t regard the child as a person until that age?

You are falsely assuming a lot.

First off, the Lord instructed that any woman who bears a child in Israel is required to take a time of "purifying" where she is separated from others, exempt from daily labors and uses the time to rest and bond with her child (Leviticus 12:2-4).

This time of "purifying" lasted about 40 days for a son, after which time the child would be introduced into the congregation of Israel and be numbered among them.

However, the sons of Levi were treated differently, because they had been consecrated and set apart and were considered to be the Lord's (Numbers 3:12-13).

These males were those who would assist Aaron and his sons with their priestly duties and the bearing up of the tabernacle (Numbers 3:6-10).

The Levite mothers of these sons, however, were still bound to observe a time of "purifying" along with their newborn sons, yet for some reason it was shortened to 30 days for sons of Levi, instead of the 40 days required by mothers in the other Tribes.

Nothing in the text suggests that any newborn is not considered a son or daughter until the time of purifying has ended. It actually claims that the newborn is the son or daughter of the mother during that time,

"And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter..." (Leviticus 12:6)

I do not believe that the idea of "personhood" is found in the scriptures. Most likely because the entirety of Israel (as well as the rest of Mankind) knew, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that a pregnant female human gives birth to other humans.

I would also think because the question of when a child becomes a "person" is a very stupid question, not worth considering, so the Lord decided not to waste His time on it.

 

[Prestor John]

too long didn't read. It looks like a long series trying to defend one logical fallacy after another. When you are so defensive you will never learn.

So, is your excuse not to continue laziness or cowardice?

 

[Prestor John]

If she wishes to take the risk, pain, and possible unwanted body changes of pregnancy, or she has another choice. That is what this thread is about.

No one is contesting the woman's right to choose.

She can choose to abort or (in the event that she has a conscience) she can decide not to kill her baby.

I was, however, contesting the claim that a woman who does bear a child would then be obligated to raise it.

That is not true and you know it.

Of course no babies are actually aborted. That would be impossible.

Whoa there fella.

You've repeatedly said that it is up to the individual to decide what is or is not "human", so why are you combating my, or anyone's right to decide, that unborn humans are babies?

Besides, there is literally no reason, either logically, scientifically or otherwise, to assume that an unborn fetus is anything short of human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, is your excuse not to continue laziness or cowardice?

I was neither a coward or lazy. Perhaps you are projecting your flaws on others.

I will give you a helpful hint. What you just used was a loaded question. That is a dishonest debating technique and one a supposed Christian should avoid. It has a false assumption buried in it. It is on the order of me asking you:

"Have you quite beating your wife yet?"

I have no reason to think that you do beat your wife if you have one. It would be an improper attempt to smear you if I asked that seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one is contesting the woman's right to choose.

She can choose to abort or (in the event that she has a conscience) she can decide not to kill her baby.

I was, however, contesting the claim that a woman who does bear a child would then be obligated to raise it.

That is not true and you know it.

Good, we are done her then. Oops, I guess I spoke to soon. Let's go over your errors again. She can have a conscience and still abort. That she disagrees with your biased, and rather uninformed opinion, does not make her without a conscience. She is not killing a baby. That is illegal.

But yes, you are right that if she does have the child she can put it up for adoption. Congratulations! You finally got one minor point right.

Whoa there fella.

You've repeatedly said that it is up to the individual to decide what is or is not "human", so why are you combating my, or anyone's right to decide, that unborn humans are babies?

Besides, there is literally no reason, either logically, scientifically or otherwise, to assume that an unborn fetus is anything short of human.

No, no "whoa" needed. A fetus is not a child. That is clearly defined. You may choose to call one that but you would be in error. As in your use of loaded questions by misusing the word "baby" you use loaded terminology. And once again you end your argument with an equivocation fallacy. The word "human" has more than one definition and you are trying to use one definition of the word to support your argument for another usage of the term. You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human".

 

[Podo]

But the foetus isn't "her own body," it's a seperate, parasitic organism.
Send tissue samples to a histology or a genetics lab for blind testing, and the analytic results would indicate different individuals.

If it cannot survive outside of the host, it is the mother's decision what to do. As previously stated, forcing a woman to give birth is declaring that the fetus is more important than a fully grown and functional human, which is absurd. There is no argument for restricting abortion that doesn't culminate in placing the woman subordinate to the fetus, and that's just not right.

Do you think fathers should be expected to pay child support on a "clump of cells"?
Tom

If the father does not want the child but the mother does? No. Please note that this opinion only applies to this specific circumstance. My opinion of child support changes drastically if the parents split once a child is actually born, and is mostly contingent on the specific circumstance.

 

[Valjean]

Would you be+ Quote willing to share how you define both "person" and "human" and then explain how an unborn child would qualify for one but not the other?

"Human" I equate with Homo sapiens, it's a biological designation. We may say a 'human' kidney' or 'human foetus', for example.
"Person" I equate with sentience, it denotes, consciousness, self awareness and self interest.

If a saucer landed in your back yard and a delegation of Little Green Men walked up and shook your hand, I assume you would consider them persons, even though they would clearly be non-human.
Personhood entails a claim to moral obligation.

"Valjean said: ↑

True that. The support for foetuses not being children stems from other facts."

Such as?

They have no claim to moral obligation inasmuch as they lack self awareness or expectation of futurity. They lack self-interest. They are not persons.

 

[Prestor John]

"Human" I equate with Homo sapiens, it's a biological designation. We may say a 'human' kidney' or 'human foetus', for example.
"Person" I equate with sentience, it denotes, consciousness, self awareness and self interest.

If a saucer landed in your back yard and a delegation of Little Green Men walked up and shook your hand, I assume you would consider them persons, even though they would clearly be non-human.
Personhood entails a claim to moral obligation.

"Valjean said: ↑

True that. The support for foetuses not being children stems from other facts."
They have no claim to moral obligation inasmuch as they lack self awareness or expectation of futurity. They lack self-interest. They are not persons.

So if you were to wind up in a coma, you'd have no claim to moral obligation since you are no longer self aware?

Anyone could dispose of you without consequence?

 

[Valjean]

So if you were to wind up in a coma, you'd have no claim to moral obligation since you are no longer self aware?

Anyone could dispose of you without consequence?

Yes, if I had no hope of recovery I wouldn't object to someone pulling the plug.

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, if I had no hope of recovery I wouldn't object to someone pulling the plug.

Yet, there would be those who would object.

Aren't you allowing your personal preferences and feelings to dictate who should or should not be considered a "person"?

I mean, since we are talking about life and death here, should such a definition be so subjective?

 

[Prestor John]

I was neither a coward or lazy. Perhaps you are projecting your flaws on others.

I will give you a helpful hint. What you just used was a loaded question. That is a dishonest debating technique and one a supposed Christian should avoid. It has a false assumption buried in it. It is on the order of me asking you:

"Have you quite beating your wife yet?"

I have no reason to think that you do beat your wife if you have one. It would be an improper attempt to smear you if I asked that seriously.

I've read everything you have written to me and have responded directly to it. hardly lazy or cowardly.

However, running away from a discussion could be due to either.

If it was not laziness or cowardice, for what reason did you decide to run away?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read everything you have written to me and have responded directly to it. hardly lazy or cowardly.

However, running away from a discussion could be due to either.

If it was not laziness or cowardice, for what reason did you decide to run away?

You ran away from your errors and did not correct them. That is both acting cowardly and lazily. Responding with nonsense does not take any guts or work.

Do you think that you can debate properly?

 

[Prestor John]

Good, we are done her then. Oops, I guess I spoke to soon. Let's go over your errors again. She can have a conscience and still abort. That she disagrees with your biased, and rather uninformed opinion, does not make her without a conscience. She is not killing a baby. That is illegal.

But yes, you are right that if she does have the child she can put it up for adoption. Congratulations! You finally got one minor point right.

No, no "whoa" needed. A fetus is not a child. That is clearly defined. You may choose to call one that but you would be in error. As in your use of loaded questions by misusing the word "baby" you use loaded terminology. And once again you end your argument with an equivocation fallacy. The word "human" has more than one definition and you are trying to use one definition of the word to support your argument for another usage of the term. You appear to have a difficult time understanding the difference between biologically "human" and legally "human".

I understand that the law making any sort of determination on who or what is or is not "human" has led to travesty after travesty throughout human history.

Also, laws are subject to change. You believe that what is "human" should be subject to change?

It is not the law, but science and logic, that proves what is or is not a human being.

 

[Prestor John]

You ran away from your errors and did not correct them. That is both acting cowardly and lazily. Responding with nonsense does not take any guts or work.

Do you think that you can debate properly?

Well, considering that you have no idea what my position is since you don't read my posts and then repeatedly make false assumptions about what I believe, how can you accurately claim I made any errors or did not correct any errors?

And you still have yet to answer my question. If you did not run away due to laziness or cowardliness, why then did you run away?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand that the law making any sort of determination on who or what is or is not "human" has led to travesty after travesty throughout human history.

It is not the law, but science and logic, that proves what is or is not a human being.

You would be wrong there. You are only looking at the negative results. And probably misinterpreting some of those.

And you are probably the last person that should be talking about science and logic. I have seen you reject the former and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the latter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, considering that you have no idea what my position is since you don't read my posts and then repeatedly make false assumptions about what I believe, how can you accurately claim I made any errors or did not correct any errors?

And you still have yet to answer my question. If you did not run away due to laziness or cowardliness, why then did you run away?

I have read your posts and I scanned the excessively long one. Are you not paying any attention at all? You kept trying to defend your logical fallacies in that travesty.

 

[Valjean]

Yet, there would be those who would object.

Aren't you allowing your personal preferences and feelings to dictate who should or should not be considered a "person"?

I mean, since we're talking about life and death here, should such a definition be so subjective?

If you can come up with another term for a being afforded moral consideration comparable to your own I'd like to hear it. There just aren't that many suitable terms in English that I know of.

 

[Prestor John]

You would be wrong there. You are only looking at the negative results.

Maybe you could help me here then because I cannot think of any positive results.

You have a knack for giving very vague answers and criticisms which bear no actual substance.

And probably misinterpreting some of those.

Here is another example of you giving a very vague criticism. Perhaps offer some specifics?

And you are probably the last person that should be talking about science and logic. I have seen you reject the former and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the latter.

A claim to some anecdotal evidence is not very convincing.

Are you sure you didn't also decide at that time to not read or only "scan" my posts?

Maybe you only assumed my position then, like you have done repeatedly here in this thread?

I have read your posts and I scanned the excessively long one. Are you not paying any attention at all?

Of course I'm paying attention.

If you had actually read my post, instead of merely scanning it, you would know that,

1.) I proved that you had lied about your belief that the term "human" is subjective,

2.) I pointed out that your entire argument is based on an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy and is hardly effective or convincing.

3.) Your claims that I am employing "red herrings", "strawmen" or that my posts have nothing to do with the argument is based on your false assumption that you have the authority to decide the focus of this discussion.

You want this to be a discussion about how "human" is defined legally, while I have always been focusing on how "human" should only be defined biologically.

4.) Most of your criticisms are vague ad hominem attacks about my supposed inability to reason or to be honest.

5.) You have no idea what my position on this topic is since you are claiming that I want to oppose a woman's right to choose when I never said I did.

6.) You don't seem to understand what an equivocation argument is.

7.) You lack very basic knowledge of human history.

I'm sure there is more, but you'd just have to read my posts to know.

You kept trying to defend your logical fallacies in that travesty.

Once you come to understand my actual position on this matter, you'll see that I haven't been employing any of those logical fallacies.

 

[Prestor John]

If you can come up with another term for a being afforded moral consideration comparable to your own I'd like to hear it. There just aren't that many suitable terms in English that I know of.

I'm confused on why we can't use "human" and "person."