Woosh right over your head. I dont start with the assumption that the words you claim are 'His' are actually 'His' words. So I simply feel qualified to judge the truth of words, depending on the subject of course. You are actually more guilty than I of mis-judging 'His words'. You judge them by your own man made hermeneutic standard... then as most literalists do, you get the distinction between God's word and your hermeneutics mixed up, and argue as if they are one and the same. Were I still a Christian, I would call that idolatry.And with that final statement, you again pronounce judgement on God's actions and interactions with mankind. Having demonstrated repeatedly your absolute ignorance of the subject, you nevertheless feel totally qualified to judge the truth of His words.
Or to look at it from the correct perspective, those who support rights and liberties, vs those who take away individual rights.. again making pro-lifers (at least those who want to change the law) more similar to the Nazi's. A woman has a right to change her mind.Yes, very abstract. On one hand, those that support death. On the other, those that don't. Nothing solid to that comparison at all.
When 'allowed to live' 20%-40% of fetuses miscarry... then this doesnt even count still-borns. So no, they don't all become human.Your reading skills again... I said..."IF you find proof that even some human fetuses do not grow into "persons" when allowed to live, you could probably strenthen your pro-death views." In other words, the percentage is 0. Those that live all become someone even you can recognize as a person.
20-22 weeks.So, tell me, wilbur...how old were YOU when you grew out of your "thing" stage and became a person. Or have you made it that far, yet?
No, I simply think the value of potential (again, a potential human is not a human) might scale with other factors... perhaps on a spectrum with overpopulation at one end and extinction on the other.Ah, of course. We have plenty of people, so why would you care if the most helpless and silent ones are destroyed by their loving mothers. After all, Baal probably got really hungry during all that time when we didn't slaughter our young for him.
Pro-choice is about womens rights, not human sacrifice.
Last edited by wilbur; 01-04-2009 at 05:27 PM.
I knew that you would say that. You see, death is a negative potential. Life is a positive one. Whenever something in the world has negative potential, people try to counteract that negative potential and stop it from happening. People try to stop wars, sickness, death...the list goes on. Yet positive potential is completely different. It is encouraged. A person who is dying has the potential for life and the potential for death. A doctor sees that potential for life and tries to help the patient and at the same time is straying away from the negative potential. Parents discourage negative behavior in children and encourage the positive.Originally Posted by wilbur
A fetus also has that same potential for life, a positive potential to be lived to the fullest. Yes, it too has potential to die, but why would a negative potential be encouraged? Abortion encourages negative potential, which is completely against any common sense or logic that exists in this world. Encourging abortion would be related to encouraging wars, sickness, death...people don't do that.
Since we were specifically engaged in a discussion about human intervention in pregnancy.. it follows that you were talking about death by human intervention while excluding natural causes. If you are including natural causes... then you are basically saying that when a human fetus doesnt die, it becomes human. In that case, you are doing nothing more than restating the argument about potential.If human fetuses miscarry, they aren't allowed to live. DUH! (However, they are still human...they don't start as canine or feline or porcine.) So the answer is still that every single human fetus that lives grows into someone even a liberal moron can see is a person.
While I'm sure this is a snide dig, because obviously I must not be a person if I'm pro-choice in your eyes.... but I've clearly defined requirements that at the very least specifically give us a point at which we are unable to rule out with certainty that personhood is not present. We are all past that stage, and will be till we die.I wouldn't bet any money on that, if I were you. If being "a person" means everything you've claimed for it, you might not be there, yet. You might never make it.
This is tiring. We all agree its wrong to murder. We all know you define life at the moment of conception. We all know I disagree about this point, and I have elaborated at length as to why. You have done nothing more (and continue to do nothing more) than repeat in a myriad of ways that 'life begins at conception'. If you have an argument to make, make it... otherwise please spare this thread yet another rephrasing of 'life begins at conception'.It is murder to deliberately end a human life. I knew that long before I became a Christian. I never had an abortion because I was never stupid enough to believe that it was anything except killing a human.
A woman has every right to change her mind. A woman has every right to control her own body. Unfortunately for your "logic," the unborn human life inside a pregnant woman has these rights, also.
A potential human, an egg or a sperm cell, is not A human. A human begans when the sperm and egg meet. I have no problem with the waste of only potential.
Why is it OK to abort small women if it's all about their rights?
The major arguments for life at conception so far, in this thread, have been:
DNA - I think I've sufficiently elaborated as to why this alone is not sufficient for an entity to have human rights.
Potential - No one has been able to articulate the value of potential that would otherwise override an actualized human being's rights. There is simply no way to define a fetus prior to ~20 weeks of development as a human being with rights that wouldn't also end up forcing us to define fresh corpses or living cell cultures as human beings with rights... at all... UNLESS you mix in this concept of potential. Really think about that. Thats the key concept, and no one can actually articulate why its so vitally important. I can think of a number of reasons why potentiality is important, or some extreme circumstances which would temporarily render it more important... but nothing that under normal circumstances which make it so desirable that it requires suspending the rights and desires of a living, actualized human being.
Or if there is another point to bring up, bring it up.
Last edited by wilbur; 01-04-2009 at 08:06 PM.
And you have failed at articulating why potential is not important. Without a fetus human life is not existent. It really does not require much explanation as it is common sense to most people. Why is it that a fetus has less value? You say because it does not have a brain yet. I have to say that is absurd. Of course it does not have a brain yet, it has to develop one. Things take time to reach their full capacity. A fetus is a developing human child. If you believe a fetus is not a developing human child, then I would love for you to tell us all what a fetus is.Originally Posted by wilbur
Wilbur, you were a fetus once. Were you not alive then? If a fetus were not alive, how could it suddenly become alive?
Last edited by Mythic; 01-05-2009 at 02:50 PM.
As I actually stated, you will find that every single fetus becomes someone YOU can recognise as a person. 0% will grow into something that is not human. This is obvious because he or she was a human life from conception. Before conception exists potential. At conception exists a human life. Your insistance on personhood has no bearing on that fact.
BTW, for a guy who so greatly resents the non-existant arbitrary rules of the Creator, you sure enjoy using flawed, man-made arbitrary rules to deny other humans their God-given rights.
Well said MrsSmith
WILBUR,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, You got schooled.
"There is simply no way to define a fetus prior to ~20 weeks of development as a human being with rights that wouldn't also end up forcing us to define fresh corpses or living cell cultures as human beings with rights.. at all... UNLESS you mix in this concept of potential"
Again, think about this. The human organism goes through various stages of development. How could you describe human life, where human rights begin, in such a way that you:
1. include the organism from conception to personhood (give them human rights)
2. include organism from personhood onward- till death (give them human rights)
3. exclude living, but separate cells (we don't want to give them human rights)
4. exclude fresh corpses, where cells may alive (definitely don't want to give them human rights)
The only way to differentiate points 3 and 4 from 1, is to mix in the 'potential' concept. Cell cultures possess every single quality of a fresh zygote, except the potential... and a fully developed but dead corpse may still have many more living cells for a time than even an early term fetus.. it has MORE human qualities... but is missing the potential. Various people have been using the 'potential' argument without realizing it, all over the thread... by using arguments about DNA, or biological traits of a fetus etc. You did it again with your retort, where you said:
"That is totally false, and you "should" know it. No corpse will grow and develop. A living cell culture may grow, but cannot ever grow into all your arbitrary "rules" for personhood."
You just, once again, restated the argument of potential, but still fail to elaborate about potential and why it should supersede the rights and desires of a human being who has already REALIZED their potential. I can count at least 4-5 times your last post where you simply rephrase and restate the potential argument. Do you not realize you are simply repeating yourself and not actually engaging in a conversation or making any points? When you recognize this, you'll see almost every single point raised in this thread by pro-lifers can be reduced to 'a fetus has human potential, therefore it has human rights'. It is time for you to elaborate on potential. See Mythic's post for a start.... which I will respond to in a bit.
See above. If something has 'potential', that means it actually necessarily lacks the qualities of an actualized version of itself. A fetus with potential necessarily lacks the qualities of a human, although it could have those qualities in the future. That being the case, it is wrong and immoral to subordinate the free will and rights of a fully grown, fully potentiated woman to a non-human being... no matter how much distaste you may or may not have for her actions which led her to that point. If it has 'potential' it is not... once potential is realized, it no longer has 'potential'; it is... this is where human rights begin. Potential is a description of qualities that a thing lacksThe potential is not the arbitrary point. The potential merely differentiates from the cell cultures which can never meet your arbitrary rules. Of course, your rules are flawed in the foolish insistance that the fetus must meet them to be a person instead of the obvious fact that every single fetus that lives long enough will meet your rules. Every single one. The only way a fetus can fail your flawed and arbitrary test is to die.
Again, the rules you claim are from your creator are man-made. You accept a priori that they have no flaws... so you pretend that their perceived imperfections or oddities are simply cleverness beyond humanity's understanding. But no.. they are flaws.BTW, for a guy who so greatly resents the non-existant arbitrary rules of the Creator, you sure enjoy using flawed, man-made arbitrary rules to deny other humans their God-given rights.
Last edited by wilbur; 01-06-2009 at 02:09 AM.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|