But why? Why does your moral belief trump theirs? What authority has been given to you?Originally Posted by 87sooner
|
|
But why? Why does your moral belief trump theirs? What authority has been given to you?
Nobody is obviously stopping others with different beliefs on stopping to make it legal. Why shouldn't a person try to legally change something they don't believe in?
Laws change. If your argument is that abortion should be (not is, but should be) okay b/c it's legal, then there should never be any action to change any laws. Ever. If our parameters for deciding what is right and wrong are based on what is legal, then every law passed since the Founding should be repealed. There was a day when child **** wasn't illegal. Does that mean it is okay? Obviously not.
No I'm not. I'm trying to explain to you why your line of thinking is flawed. Until you understand the 'why' of those that oppose abortion, you can't ever have an honest discussion with them about it. It's not religion that makes me think the unborn are alive--it's experience.
because my moral belief is "right"...and theirs is "wrong"....of that i am certain.....
but as an individual....mine only matters in my own circumstances....which is really none since i am a man....
i have no authority because even if i was in the majority.....the court decided (in error)......that it is the only authority in this matter...
I don't know... Why should anyone's personal beliefs be opposed on someone else? There are infinite examples I could make. This nation does literally thousands of things that go against scripture. Why throw your weight at this one? Is it because it's more important? More is at stake? It's more personal?
I'm not trying to change your mind on any of this. I'm honestly curious about what drives ANYONE to restrict ANYTHING they disagree with.
Well that's the thing. I didn't say that laws couldn't change. I didn't even say abortion should or shouldn't be illegal. I specifically asked Bounce and 87 because their drive behind the issue is religious. It might not be for you, and thus this discussion would not apply to you.
The entire point of my question was not to get anyone to say I'm right or they are wrong. I legitimately want to know why someone believes their religious belief entitles them to regulate the actions of another.. even if they do not subscribe to that same belief.
They know sure as **** they wouldn't let Islamic or Jewish law dictate thier lives.
The following users like this post: oucub23
Again with a simply example. Why did Michael Vick get in trouble? If he wants to kill dogs and he believes it is ok, tehre shouldn't be a law against it. Is this where you are going with all of this? I am confused on your stance. You really think that if somebody doesn't believe the same thing that you do, they shouldn't persuit any legal action?>
No, the reason I ask this is because the courts have ruled on this. I got it. You disagree with their decision. You believe they made the wrong choice. So does half of America. I just want to know why you think your religious belief is grounds to change it. Especially when fewer and fewer citizen actually practice the same. I'm just using abortion as the example because that's the thread we are in. You could apply it to anything.
christians have been "throwing their weight" behind many things that go against scripture.....
it's a losing battle.....that doesn't mean we should stop.....
personally.....i try to throw Jesus' weight behind it.....
a saved heart is the best place to start....
fighting this in the political spectrum is a lost cause...
You're probably right.
Based on your belief, do you feel it to be okay to exempt people from your religious laws, ****uming they do not subscribe to your belief and do not commit any of your crimes against your believers?
not exactly sure what you mean by "your religious laws"...
society decides what its laws will be....
i abide by the laws of society.....and if those conflict with what i believe are God's laws.....i abide by God's.....
in the case of abortion....the law doesn't force me to sin against God....
non believers will obviously do what they want....and they will be judged by God accordingly....
i do believe my responsibility is to win hearts for Christ...and to tell believers (and non believers as well)...... the truth about all sin.....but i don't expect non believers to see it from my perspective......
The only reason I got involved in it is that I don't think they've articulated effectively that it's not a religious based opposition--it's a moral based opposition. That's why scripture is ineffectual in the discussion. The opposition to abortion for pro-life people is based in the same belief that murder is wrong--that the taking of another human life is inherently wrong, and the duty of the government is to protect life and liberty.
i don't get why it matters if I think a law is unjust b/c of religious views or personal views. Why does that matter? So is it ok for someone to want to change a law because they just feel like it but not ok because its what there religion says?
i believe the constitution was written with "God's laws" in mind......
i believe the constitution protects the life of the unborn....
They should have included that, probably.
Most documents I have ever seen from the period believe rights are granted at birth. Do you have any written record of anyone, say pre-1800, arguing that rights are granted in the womb?
When do Christians believe a soul is present in a person
maybe an amendment is needed....
why is timing even important?
Depends upon the Christian.
I don't think it is. Just fishing
I have read that prior to Pious IX, the Catholic Church subscribed to the idea that while basic life was begun at conception, ensoulment did not occur until later (the 40th day for males and the 80th day for females). The pope decreed in the late 1800s that conception was the benchmark, and made abortion punishable by excommunication.
In English common law, the organism was thought not a person until "the quickening" or when the embryo becomes fetus (basically).
One can say every born baby was alive at conception, but they can't say every conception will result in a viable fetus or baby. So, one can't say with any certainty that life begins at conception.
On another note, this is really a loser of a issue for republicans. Being pro life as a litmus test will never prevent an abortion. All it does is piss off half the voters and ensures that more liberals will get elected. Even if the repubs were able to get in enough pro lifers, at best they would get abortion back into the state's hands. If Oklahoma was pro life, then you could be sure there would be a planned parenthood bus to take women to New Mexico for their abortion. Again, not one abortion would get stopped.
I would surmise that with regards to conception, the pro-life argument is centered around what happens specifically to zygotes and later stages of actual human development, and not around other possible products of conception (such as a molar pregnancy). So, when they're saying that "life begins at conception", they're not saying that life is the only thing that can happen at conception, but rather that when life does begin, it's at conception (agreeing with your first sentence). I don't believe the intent is to imply that living human beings are the only things that can result from conception.
Disagree. I have had several discussions with those that believe life begins at conception, especially those who are non medical. They insist that the product of conception is life; therefore, you can't abort it.
I think a reasonable approach might be what you said, but many pro lifers aren't reasonable in that respect.
SoonerinTN do you subscribe to the belief that life begins once there is brain activity?
Medically it seems to be the agreement that when it ceases life ends.
Christian right now that's a straw man.
So when do the pro choice people believe abortion is no longer an option? Partial birth? Third trimester?
Is it ok for the abortionist to cut the arms legs off an unborn baby/fetus to effect an abortion?
What's too far for the pro choice crowd.
Fair enough; we regularly beat up pro-choicers over science just as much when they talk about embryos not being human beings, compare pregnancy to a symbiotic relationship, use terms like "pre-embryo" and "fertilized egg", etc.
So if life begins at conception, does that mean we can start charging women who have miscarriages with involuntary manslaughter?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Next thing you know we'll be charging people that murder pregnant women with double homicides. Oh wait...
The following users like this post: SoonerBounce
I could be convinced that life begins at the point when the brain and heart are formed and functioning, but I lean towards the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb which is 22-24 weeks. A lot of women don't know they are pregnant before formation of the brain and heart.
To me, the fetus can live after 22-24 weeks and that is ample time for a woman to know whether or not she wants an abortion. Medically, most conditions that affect the woman's life after 24 weeks can be treated with a c section just as easily and safe as an abortion.
Many pro lifers would consider an anencephalic fetus alive and they do not have a brain.
Problem with this argument is that in 10 years, that will be 20 weeks. In 20 years it'll be 15 weeks. In 25 years we will be able to grow from the zero point.
The following users like this post: SoonerBounce
There is no reason for a partial birth abortion. There are limited reasons for third trimester abortions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_murder
Double murder is the act of murdering two people. This is commonly punished by back-to-back life sentences. It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murdered, thereby killing her unborn fetus, such as in the Laci Peterson case.[1] Even though it is not necessarily correct, the term is often attached to incidents involving higher numbers of people such as if three or four people were to be murdered.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Could be. And I don't really see a problem with that. If science improves viability, I would reevaluate. 22-24 week olds used to not be viable.
Seems odd to me. If its wrong in 25 years how can it be right today? Slavery didn't become wrong because of technological advances.
Yes exactly right. Well done.
Stick to nice suites man
Theres one huge whole in this line of thinking. 100 years ago a 24 week old baby could not survive. Does that mean 100 years ago a 24 week fetus did not have life but now it does?
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Today, you can prove that a fetus is viable outside the womb at 22-24 weeks. You can't prove that a 18 week fetus is viable outside the womb. In medicine, doctors should practice evidence based medicine when available. There is evidence to support life at 22-24 weeks. As science and technology improves, so does the evidence to practice in that way.
25 years ago it was right to reuse a mask, reuse an endotracheal tube and not use a pulse oximeter when doing a general anesthetic. Today it is malpractice.
The definition of life shouldn't change because of advances in medicine. That's ridiculous
The definition of of the purposeful legality of ending said life is what is being discussed.
based on an arbitrary point of "viability outside the womb"....
doesn't matter what day or week you choose.......it's still a brutal act of killing an innocent unborn child.....
Disagree.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
No, it's science. You have ardent pro abortionists who believe that life begins at birth. You have ardent pro lifers that believe that life begins at conception. Both are belief systems not based in fact and both are wrong.
There is no way you can prove to me that the product of conception is a 100% viable baby. You just can't because it isn't so. So life can't begin with 100% certainty at conception.
There is a multitude of evidence to prove that a baby/fetus can survive before a term birth. So, you can't say life begins at birth.
So when does life begin? First trimester? 10 weeks? When? It is somewhere between conception and birth. To me, the evidence is that a fetus can survive at 22-24 weeks. I have made that my cutoff. There is evidence that the heart and brain are formed(but not completely) by week 10. Maybe that is someone else's cutoff.
I give the mother the benefit of the doubt that she may not know she is pregnant by the first trimester; thus I would extend abortion to the 22-24 week period unless there are circumstances to go beyond that time(mother's health, anencephaly, etc).
Most of you have never seen a fetus, a spontaneous abortion, anencephaly, a stillbirth or a mother die in childbirth or a mother refuse chemo to save the baby or a mother not even know she was pregnant until she was told so at the hospital. I have seen all that and more. It has allowed me to put things into a perspective that most just won't have.
2 users like soonerintn's post: Aurora, brokebacksooner
That's all irrelevant to the poin I made.
Advances in medicine should change the definition of life
I thought soonerintn already conceded that point Bounce. He said that 22-24 weeks old used to not be viable. As that changes he will re-evaluate. It will never be day 0 and there is a fully formed fetus in the womb.
Is that correct Dr. Soonerintn?
The following users like this post: Aurora
It seems as if you mean two different things when you use the term "life"/"alive" in these quotes. Yes, a baby that is born was alive at (or shortly after) conception as science confirms; that baby's life began at conception. But then when you say, "one can't say [...] that life begins at conception" and later "[t]here is no way you can prove to me that the product of conception is a 100% viable baby," you're using a different context.
I don't think there is anyone reasonably informed that claims all conceptions result in a viable fetus. Portraying pro-lifers as going around saying "life begins at conception" and then pointing out that not all products of conception result in life gives the appearance of beating them up because they haven't been precise in their terms (admittedly something I regularly do) when there is still a common understanding of what they really mean, at least in popular media and not in scientific texts. When a pro-lifer says that "life begins at conception," they indeed mean more accurately that "when life begins is at conception", which does not in itself exclude the possibility that there are oither possible products of conception that do not constitute life. I honestly do not believe that informed pro-lifers are deliberately intending to say that every time there is conception, a living human being results and only a living human being. They're merely agreeing with science that the start of a human being's life begins at (or shortly after) conception, when the spermatozoa and oocyte unite, other possible growths notwithstanding.
Likewise, using the example of a molar pregnancy to discount a pro-lifer's possibly haphazard use of the general term, "pregnancy" comes across the same way. Okay, so not all conceptions result in a zygote. And not all pregnancies involve fetuses. But when pro-lifers use the word, "conception" they mean a conception that results in a successful fertilization producing a zygote, and when they use the term, "pregnancy" they mean a pregnancy that involves an actual fetus; they don't mean to use the terms more broadly in the sense that you do, such as any possible conception or a molar pregnancy.
When you say, "life can't begin with 100% certainty at conception" there's really no argument if you mean that conception doesn't result in a life form developing 100% of the time (which is the way I read you). Because the pro-lifer is only ****erting that when there is a life involved, it began at conception.
And even if an embryo that results from conception isn't "100% viable", she's still alive in the scientific sense, even if you personally disagree that she is alive in a philosophical sense.
"viability" is just another attempt to muddy the waters with lies and confusion....
there are post birth humans that will likely be described as "non-viable" in the future.....
They already are. Brain death equates to a state where ending ones physiological death is acceptable. Why not the same with an embryo?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
