J
josie_L
Guest
Francis, don’t you go with your mother now and then? I think non-believers still attend church because they have repressed desires.
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
I have yet to write my counter-argument.nice job
J
josie_L
Guest
Are you saying you’ve had discussions about God with clergymen even now?Clergymen never like me … because of course I’m not in the market for their goods
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
You can think pink elephants are flying over Toronto right now, if you want to … nothing I can do to control that?Francis, don’t you go with your mother now and then? I think non-believers still attend church because they have repressed desires.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
no … it’s been quite a while. But when I first stopped believing I did still have some contact with clergymen (and like I said, they generally don’t like anyone who is truly convinced their religion is false … at least in my experience). They don’t mind if you’re irreligious and not very smart (then they see hope I suppose). But if you’re irreligious and well informed … different story altogether.
L
latin_rite
Guest
When does a fetus become a person? Well for one its human from the very start. But when does a human become a person? Reminds of the old debates the west had over wether or not natives were “human”(a person) Does it take a court of law to say when a human becomes a person? Do we treat all human races as some sort of “sub-species”, until a court decides just what they are, wether or not they are to have equal rights as the rest of humanity? My argument…Well statement. was about how most atheist will in defence of evolution call on how a virus or bacteria will mutate as proof of evolution. But a fetus or embryo isn’t a living thing.
LOL reminds me of my old yahoo days. The old Atheist trick of saying people are angry when they are being defeated in a debate.
Yes AN atheist will Quote atheists. or scienctist who support their view of the world. But anyone who dares differ in opinion isn’t worthy or listening to. They will look for any reason to exclude them from the debate. If they applied their rules to themselves it would be a very very short debate.
And elve. On one hand i’m sorry for upsetting your sences for leaving the c out of bacteria. and sigh i know i said virii’s instead of viruses. But on the other hand i’m happy i was able to give you a outtie. The lack of comprehension on your part…You sure did need it.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
so if proof is your prerequisite for authority … then what proof do you have that god does exist? You have none, thus you’re in a no better position then we are. However, I can make a good circumstantial case that religion is untrue.
Not true. Despite the challenge of proving a negative, a circumstantial case can be made. Given all the profound manifestations of divine power told about in scripture, isn’t it peculiar that god refuses to reveal himself to modern man in an objectively verifiable way? Is it coincidence that just as man began quantifying natural phenomena through the prism of science claims of the supernatural have become exceedingly more rare (and have never withstood rigorous scrutiny).
All contemporary world religions have one common thread. They all posit a profound reason why god has seemingly left the stage of human history. Are we to believe these claims? Should we think it’s a mere coincidence that just as mankind began understanding our physical world; claims of supernatural divine miracles have virtually ceased?
This is circumstantial evidence; and if we were talking about any other topic most people who buy into the claims of religion would likely view anyone who believed these sort of tall tales as bizarre.
The bible also says the earth is 6,000 years old and snakes can talk. You believe it, I don’t.
Great, then leave science to scientists and stay out of areas of human development where theology has no place interfering.
I’m sure I heard this same mantra before. Is this the best you got?
Yup I heard this before (you guys must grab this stuff from the same apologetic warehouse). I don’t solely believe in what I can see. I believe dark matter exists, I can’t see it. I’m not closed to the idea that a higher power of some sort might exist. I just know your bible is untrue.
Great … you’re free to believe pink elephants are flying over Houston right now if you’d like. Doesn’t mean everyone is obligated to?
There is no paradox with atheists. You guys are the ones who believe in talking snakes, flying angels, a deity who turned rivers into blood, split the red sea, raised men from the dead, yet today only exists as intangible (and unverifiable) stories promulgated by those who claim a mysterious connection with him (yet from an objective standpoint can easily be exposed as manifestations of the mind).
Yes I have a thought … I do make a conclusion about religion; although I cannot say what else may or may not exist in the universe. Religion is obviously baseless mythology, no more true than Zeus, Odin, or Mithra. However, whether there’s some sort of higher power, or even lower power out there is speculative (no one can opine on that question with any degree of certainty).
There is no god who answers prayers or who directly involves himself (or itself) in the daily affairs of mankind (at least in the way explained by the Old and New Testaments). This is mythology, just as all other world religions practiced today are. Atheists do make this judgment (agnostics are the ones who say they don’t know, and hold out the possibility that there may be some truth in religious claims). This is the distinction between atheists and agnostics.
J
josie_L
Guest
And if I told you I saw one would you believe me?You can think pink elephants are flying over Toronto right now, if you want to … nothing I can do to control that?
P.S. Do pink unicorns count?
J
josie_L
Guest
Why is killing a pregnant woman a double murder, but just killing the child is a “woman’s choice”?
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[2]
“The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). . . .”
"The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not “be construed to permit the prosecution” “of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf”, “of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child” or “of any woman with respect to her unborn child.”
**So I guess then the basis for personhood depends on whether the child is wanted. **
Now please take a look at these pictures and tell me that this isn’t a human/person (the fetus is 17 weeks old)?
layyous.com/ultasound/fetalbehavior.htm
Also:
“If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life. Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”.[8] Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.”
And “Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb - they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a “person.” In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood. What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception.1 There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even “early” abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form.”
Furthermore, “Defining personhood on the basis of brain development results in several problems. Brain development is controlled by the DNA, and so, is programmed to occur in a continuous progression of virtually indistinguishable events. There is no point at which the brain suddenly becomes functional. In fact, many aspects of brain development occur after birth. Most aspects of newborn personality do not emerge until weeks to months after birth. Therefore, a definition of personhood on the basis of brain development would allow for infanticide - at least through the first month.”
"The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”[2]
“The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a). . . .”
"The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not “be construed to permit the prosecution” “of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf”, “of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child” or “of any woman with respect to her unborn child.”
**So I guess then the basis for personhood depends on whether the child is wanted. **
Now please take a look at these pictures and tell me that this isn’t a human/person (the fetus is 17 weeks old)?
layyous.com/ultasound/fetalbehavior.htm
Also:
“If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life. Although the presence of the spiritual soul cannot be observed experimentally, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo give “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”.[8] Indeed, the reality of the human being for the entire span of life, both before and after birth, does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value, since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person.”
And “Contrary to what many non-scientists believe, human beings are not constructed in the womb - they develop. In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a “person.” In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood. What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception.1 There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even “early” abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form.”
Furthermore, “Defining personhood on the basis of brain development results in several problems. Brain development is controlled by the DNA, and so, is programmed to occur in a continuous progression of virtually indistinguishable events. There is no point at which the brain suddenly becomes functional. In fact, many aspects of brain development occur after birth. Most aspects of newborn personality do not emerge until weeks to months after birth. Therefore, a definition of personhood on the basis of brain development would allow for infanticide - at least through the first month.”
J
josie_L
Guest
I know you stated that you prayed many times before leaving your faith did you during this time visit these clergymen? And were these people close to you?
J
josie_L
Guest
Do you agree that every action has a reaction? So how then do you compare an inaction has having the same value as an action which exerts an equal but opposite reaction? The action of which I refer to is the act of creation, something real and tangible and not to be compared to some hypothetical “pie in the sky” philosophical misuse of words for the purpose of argumentation. We are talking about the real potential of human life that is killed before it ever gets a chance to be born alive and this all in the legal and binding manner of a supposed civilized nation. We kill the unborn because they are simply not wanted They are the poorest of the poor. And that you should bring up Hitler as an example is a travesty, how many people do you know who can be likened to Hitler? And is this a valid response to all the dead babies of which amount to more than 100 000 000 million that were/are killed globally? Can you justify such actions? Can you imagine the loss of potential? Or the possibility that one of those aborted babies could have stopped Hitler. Can you say that none of those who died was not your class mate or possibly your soul mate? A person who would have loved, danced and done everything that you or I did/do. Do you really not see how all of us have the right to life endowed by a Creator who willed us into existence? No one has the right to take (innocent) life away from another Please Levi, this is more than just about choice, it’s about right and wrong, good and evil, life and death, Abortion stops a beating heart.
If you are honest about seeking God then watch these videos on youtube:
youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c
youtube.com/watch?v=oIBZ-kJ6XAc&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo&NR=1
I also want you too see the actual results to an abortion (but I can understand if you do not wish to see it, it is very explicit and disturbing).
youtube.com/watch?v=_L8tdatlrJE
By the way, that was only part of a clip from “dura realidad”.
E
Eleve
Guest
The Beethoven thing has nothing to do with the value of human life. In fact, it’s entirely about the value that other humans derive from allowing the child to be born and mature. So, none of this is relevant to the quality of the Beethoven argument itself.
How many people do you know who can be likened to Beethoven? That any child who might be born, conceived or not yet conceived, might grow up to be like either one of them is a poor basis to guide your actions, and again has less to do with respect for life than with utilitarian gambling on the child’s potential contributions to society.
I do not invoke the possibility of aborting Hitler as justification for abortion itself. Certainly, if abortion truly is murder then it is an even graver matter than the Nazi genocide. I only mention Hitler as a counterexample to the utilitarian premises of the Beethoven argument.
This litany applies as equally to uconceived children as to unborn children. That’s why the Beethoven argument isn’t even a pro-life argument; it’s entirely based on what use you and I can get out of some other person’s future. We both know that this is not the position of the Catholic Church at all.
E
Eleve
Guest
That law was passed under a pro-life President and a Republican (generally pro-life) Congress, first of all, so its passage is not evidence of a double standard by pro-choice politicians and lobbyists. Secondly, part of the definition of pro-choice involves respect for the mother’s choice whether it be at any time to continue the pregnancy or not, and murder violently abrogates that choice. Without adulterating my pro-choice position, I am entirely comfortable with prosecuting anyone who terminates a pregnancy without the consent of the mother, and I am entirely comfortable with prosecuting more strictly anyone who terminates both the pregnancy and the life of a mother.
Legally, Roe v. Wade did not define the beginning of life or human personhood. It held that the right to privacy was stronger than those concerns. So, as far as the law itself goes, it is not at odds with that case law.
Please. One picture is captioned as a yawn. I have seen other such ultrasounds of a child walking. That we can see similarities to later behavior in a child not yet born does not mean that we are actually looking at the same exact thing.
I will not watch the video of an abortion, because I am squeamish.
I know that abortion is a gruesome procedure, but that’s medicine; there are plenty of bloody surgical procedures that are also life-saving. You pass legislation against an action merely because you wouldn’t want to do it yourself.Your points about the development of individuality after birth are valid, and something for me to think about.
J
josie_L
Guest
All human life has value/potential and that was exactly the intent of that story. No one knew that that child would become a Beethoven, we see only that the first three children were sickly and/or born defective, the physician was asked what he would do and opted for abortion because to him the child had no value (he did not see the potential only the flaws and inconvenience of such a child).
Well, apparently more so than there are for Hitler. And you’re missing the point of my whole argument, it isn’t just potential but the inherent value of each child (which cannot be separated from its potential) that is being discussed here. And what of the utilitarian action of abortion, how useful is that unborn child to me? Right, Levi? It’s all about how that child conceived at an inopportune time is a hidrance, so really abortion becomes the utilitarian means to end an inconvenience. And for every inconvenience they reap thousands of dollars.
I’ve mentioned already the intent behind the story and so your argument is flawed.
No it does not. Imagine I want to plant a seed but choose not to (hypothetical potential), and then imagine me actually planting a seed letting it grow only to have it ripped from its moorings to end what was potentially life (real potential). The moral of the story is to show how the doctor was ready and willing to kill an unborn child because he saw no value or potential based on the other three defective children. Ask yourself how many people would have opted to kill that child just because of perceived defects rather than value/potential?
E
Eleve
Guest
Flaws and inconvenience (besides being a bit of an understatement) are part of the potential. Many women would not choose this likelihood of suffering to keep a long shot at brilliance.
Part of the problem here is that this question, in real life, is not asked of abortionists. It is up to individual mothers, with life stories, problems, and situations that cannot be fully described in a family medical history. Even if letting Beethoven live turned out to be the right choice, you can’t legislate against any other woman’s ability to make that choice on the basis of this one example.
And what if that seed that you throw away would have been the one to accomplish whatever trees aspire to in life? You’re still denying it its shot at greatness, which is what the Beethoven story is all about.
The Beethoven anecdote never brings up the question of human life. It is entirely based around potential to develop greatness. As I conceived back in my original rebuttal, there is no difference in validity between this situation and one that is staged before conception. I think you are doing yourself a disservice by trying to build the case against abortion on such a faulty foundation.
J
josie_L
Guest
But you’ve just made my argument for me, the whole basis for Roe vs. Wade is murder made legal (because it’s a woman’s choice). In one case scenario the “child in utero” is wanted in the other it is not. So, we have in both cases the death of an unborn however the one child is protected and the other is killed by the hand of its own mother. In both cases the “child in utero” is murdered. Why do you think this law was vilified by some?
“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal” - Martin Luther King Jr.
Oh I see, as in one is a developing human/person and the other is a human person. Well, “vive la difference” as the French say.
Why won’t you watch it you support it? You call abortion life -saving, how ironic! And it’s not gruesome, it’s horrifically evil, not even the scariest of movies can compare. No, not merely because I wouldn’t but because God wouldn’t.I will not watch the video of an abortion, because I am squeamish.
Well, geez that’s so magniminous of you.
E
Eleve
Guest
Actually, the basis (more or less) is that because the state of prenatal life is unclear, the state may not regulate abortion on the basis of the rights of the unborn until the third trimester.
I understand that “legal” does not mean “right.” (Excellent letter by Dr. King, by the way.) I just wanted to cover all my bases in case you were presenting that law as a legal contradiction to Roe v. Wade.
Are you suggesting that an unborn child yawns before it can breathe, or walks around and then forgets how for several months after birth?
Frankly, I gave you my reasons, and you talked past them.
Whoever is right, we cannot be magnanimous when talking about human rights. Such arguments must be subject to scrutiny (a term, by the way, that is also part of the basis for Roe v. Wade).
J
josie_L
Guest
Many people may have probably aborted their child thinking it had a birth defect (down syndrome is a perfect example of this as the process by which to decipher this defect is imperfect). Furthermore, most defects can be surgically fixed nowadays, but the unfortunate thing is that more people are aborting their child for inconsequential imperfections (cleft palate or club foot to name a few).
Most young girls are not even told the facts when they get an abortion. And they are most certainly not given any other options. You would know a lot more about this if you studied things other than pro-choice propaganda. The pro-life movement has nothing of worldly value to lose but the abortion industry does.
We’re not throwing the seed (there is no action involved in thinking about doing something), that would be more like masterbation, which would be why the Church considers it wrong.
But I’m only giving one of many examples. Honestly, this is not the foundation for which I build my pro-life case around, but nevertheless it’s still a good one. And you are wrong, it is more than just about potential, it’s about each unique human that harbours infinite value.
P.S. Made typo error with the word “hindrance”, sorry!
J
josie_L
Guest
No, I’m suggesting given time it will do so. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a developing human person.
I talked right past them because you should be aware of what you’re supporting. I saw it (and trust me I’m squeamish too) and it put things in perspective right quick.
Do you want to learn about Catholicism, yes or no? Read those encyclicals of which you mentioned and go on that website that I refered you to. This is not an issue of which you can be wrong about.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
This is an interesting conversation because it raises the issue of eugenics. It is true that a simple and very low risk amniocentesis can determine whether or not a potential child will have any serious birth defects if the pregnancy is taken to term. As you mention Josie the test will also determine whether or not the child will have more minor defects. This is essentially eugenics. We can talk about the ethical problems with this new reality all we like; but it won’t change anything. We can expect genetic testing to become less invasive and more accurate over time (and therefore more popular); and at this point aborting a fetus is a matter of popping a simple pill. Science has all sorts of things in store for humanity. For instance, here’s an excerpt from an article you might find interesting:
*Researchers at Cornell University’s Weill Medical College in New York were able to take samples of women’s uterine tissue and get the cells to regenerate in a laboratory. Human embryos successfully attached themselves to the engineered womb and began to grow; the experiment was stopped after a few days only because of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) regulations (link here). *
Spooky stuff huh? But we will eventually have these new technologies, the question is what will we do with them? If history is any indicator we will use them; and most likely to the fullest extent possible. Future generations of women won’t have to worry about pregnancy. Indeed with invitro fertilization we probably won’t have to worry about a fetus with genetic defects, since we’ll control the fertilization process right from its inception. Will the average person opt for a short, near sighted child with a lisp? I doubt it; so we are moving toward widespread adoption of eugenics (though I’d say this is at least a few decades away).
Older women will be able to have a child risk free, those who can afford it will be able to provide their future child with every advantage, and eventually the general public will demand access to this technology (and they’ll likely get it). This technology may eventually eliminate illiteracy, retardation, and perhaps even mental illness.
I’m not rendering an opinion either way here … but I think it’s reasonable to assume this is the slippery slope we’re headed towards (and I doubt anything can stop it). I think if churches really want to serve their constituencies well – it would behoove them to adjust to this new reality (although I don’t envy the guy who has to come up with the strategy here, he’s in for a lot of work).
- Status