Methinks the post is calling the kettle black.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Life Begins at Conception
- Thread starter Darkness
- Start date
- Status
Methinks the post is calling the kettle black.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:biglaugh:
Okay, in terms of your question, make that "innocent human life."
Innocence is not relevant to human life beginning at conception, and so the term was not used in the argument.
Correct. That is the law. . .which sidesteps the issue of this thread; i.e., whether life in the womb is a human being.
In terms of your question, the responsibility of the State is to protect innocent human life, which criminals are not.
The issue of this thread is not citizenship, the issue is the nature of the being in the womb.
Natures can be mineral, or plant, or animal, or human.
But everything that exists is a being and has a nature.
The issue is: what is the nature of the being in the womb.
The law does not address that.
I agree. I'm doubled up over here. : hamster :
"Well, you are avoiding the question."--AA (post #853)
"Methinks the post is calling the kettle black."--smokydot
Make that: the pot is calling the kettle black.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Perhaps you should define "conception," because this language excludes conception which occurs outside of the womb and produces viable fetuses.
There are many places where a fertilized egg can attach that produces deadly risks for the mother and fetus but in rare cases it can carry a fetus to term.
Conception is the union of the sperm and the egg, whether it is aborted naturally or continues the process of development.
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
Well, I expected you to fail, thanks for not suprising me.
1. The mis-named "Partial Birth" act in no way protects anyone. All it does is sets in stone the criteria for when "dilation and extraction", the real name of the procedure, can be performed, and since the term is merely a anti-chioce catch phrase and not an actual medical term, the actual legal defintion of "partial birth abortions" is included in the act. The act itself in no way impacts the accessibility to abortions whatsoever.
BTW, I asked you to reference medical sources earlier for the term of "partial birth aobrtions", and I note you never supplied it. If you're going to try to be a spoksperson for anti-choice, your really need to educate yourself fully on the matter.
2. Corperal punishment is done so that murders and serial killers cannot kill again, and is an example of the "eye for an eye" theospophy, ie punishing the killers by killing them. Your example is also moot as the death penality isn't used any more in most of the country.
3. Ever hear the term "garbage in, garbage out"? That's what your argument consists of.
This one is no better than the circular argument fallacy of "natural revelation".
Luminous
non-existential luminary
I was responding to your statement that the state should do what you want it to...more specifically that it should protect "innocent" human life as you define it.
for one, i do not consider people to be innocent. and i do not consider the parasitic fetus to be "human life." to me, it is just an organ. women should not be forced to have babies. and conservatives are always wrong. abortion should have nothing to do with the state; i agree. leave women alone.
Ditto.
Unsupported assertions are cheap, and are the refuge of poor arguments. Demonstration of one's assertion is required for a good argument.
Agreed.
Somehow the statement, "It is the responsibility of the State to protect innocent human life" has morphed into the statement "The act (Partial-Abortion Ban) in no way impacts the accessibility to abortions whatsover."
Well, to address the "morph," the law's impact is to deny access to it without medical reason.
If the term was good enough for the U.S. Congress, then it's good enough for me.
Assumes fact not in evidence.
Not in my neck of the woods. . .nor did I say anything about the death penalty. . .red herring there.
The death penalty is irrelevant to support of the statement, "It is the responsiblity of the State to protect innocent human life," and every prosecution in this land of serial killers, murderers, or those who attempt murder is the State discharging its responsiblity to protect innocent human life.
What is your issue with that statement?
Why do you object to its readily apparent veracity?
What is the reason for your arguments against it?
Unsupported assertions are the refuge of poor arguments. Demonstration is better.
And I'll even show you how to demonstrate your assertion about my presentation of "natural revelation." See post #760 and #763.
Last edited:
No more parasitic than a breast-fed baby.
Persons are innocent under the law of the land until they violate that law.
Would you please refresh my memory about my saying the State should do what want it to do? Thanks.
And for the performance of what specific function for mother's body is it adapted?
Last edited:
Your "major premise" is false.
It is the responsibility of the state not to infringe on human rights. It is not the responsibility of the state to protect human rights.
And when human rights are violated, who is responsible for the redress?
It's the State, through the Court and prosecution of violators.
That's not an either/or, that's a both/and.
The State shall both not infringe on rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and
shall protect rights guraranteed by the Constitution,
of which right to life is one, as is freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.
Why is this such an issue to you?
Are you not in favor of our Constitutional form of government?
Last edited:
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
I'm not going to bother addressing all of your Auto Fail above. The simple fact that you cannot get any other members to agree with you should point out to you that you are wrong.
I will, however, address some points that you, like most anti-choice people, refuse to see.
Prior to Roe v Wade, abortion laws were not covered under the criminal law codes. They were under the auspices of commerce law.
The estimates of illegal abortions also ranged from 650,000 to nearly a million annually. I choose to believe the higher number simply because most illegal abortions would, of course, go unreported.
It is not you people who have lowered the abortion numbers to nearly pre-1973 statistics. Indeed, you people merely harm the process with your demagoguery, a process which always makes people who do not agree with you turn away and refuse the message.
It is targeted education that is the victor here.
Making it illegal would merely return abortion to bathrooms and back alleys, where not only women would die from the procedure, but the statistics would skyrocket as America has become accustomed to the practice. Making laws like requiring sonograms does not help either, but further impinges the effort to reduce abortions to a rarity.
You, young sir, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
And where do we find your "right to life" in the Constitution?
It's in the "other Constitution."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men. . .are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . ."
Declaration of Independence
Last edited:
Q.E.D.
So regarding the statement, "It is the responsiblity of the State to protect innocent human life," you aren't going to answer:
What is your issue with the statement?
Why do you object to its readily apparent veracity?
What is your reason for arguing against it?
The simple fact is that disagreement does not show that I am wrong. Demonstration shows that I am wrong, and you have none.
I've said nothing about making illegal the practice to which you refer here.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Last edited:
Responses to item #1 in post #856 are in previous posts (follow the links back from posts #806, #807, #834, #835).
One could be constructed, but there would be dispute about premises.
Nevertheless, I will present one, keeping in mind that the very premises are in dispute.
Major premise: Human life is worthy of dignity.
Minor premise: Human life begins at conception.
Conclusion: Human life, beginning at conception, is worthy of dignity.
Now let's see if we can avoid any hysteria regarding these acknowledgedly disputed premises.
Last edited:
My syllogism in post #843 does address the questions presented at that point, which were on the statement, "It is the responsiblity of the State to protect innocent human life."
Last edited:
Your question in post #853 was:
Is the baptism of John from heaven or from men?
1) I will begin with Scripture:
". . .the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him (Jesus).
'By what authority are you doing these things?' they asked. 'And who gave you authority to do this?'
Jesus replied, 'I will ask you one question. Answer me and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism--was it from heaven or from men? Tell me!' "(Mark 11:27-29)
2) My answer to your question above will involve more of that "imaginary substance" (post #763) to "connect" Jesus' response being the answer which the officials were seeking to their questions.
3) The answer to your question above is: John's baptism was from heaven.
4) That is because John was a prophet (v.32), and all prophecy is from God (2 Pet 1:21).
To answer the officials' question, Jesus tried to get them to acknowledge that John's baptism was from heaven and so, just as John's authority was from God, so was his.
But he had them on the horns of a dilemma (vv.31-32), and they would not answer his question. . .so Jesus did not tell them by what authority he was doing those things.
Last edited:
AxisMundi
E Pluribus Unum!!!
It's in the "other Constitution."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men. . .are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . ."
Declaration of Independence
The DoI isn't a US legal document, sorry, it is a Colonial document and has as much to do with our Founding Principles as the Mayflower Compact. IE nothing. It contains none of our laws, government structure, lists no rights, nothing.
Christians merely like to quite said document because it mentions Deity, where our Founding Document, the US Constitution, does not and indeed strives to keep religion and government seperated.
"No! You!" Nice debate tactic.
I despise innacuracies and misinformation, especially in such an important arguement as abortions, and your statments on the subject are highly innacurate and chock full of misinformation.
Demonstration is also neccessary to validate one's statments, something you have lacking in spades. I have no reason to show "demonstration" to something you yourseldf have not shown to be true.
So you've made every attempt to "prove" life begins at conception, and that the "State is in the business of protecting human life" why?
Your agenda is quite clear, and you're not half as clever as you think you are.
What was that about demonstration?
Very few doctors would risk their licence by conducting abortions prior to Roe v Wade. Abortions where conducted by people with little to no professional education, or certain aborifants kept in the household where used that sometimes proved jsut as fatal for the mother.
So indeed, abortion would return to backalleys and bathrooms where it was practiced prior to Roe vs Wade.
- Status