My new favorite pro-life argument

[Lazerlike42]

Hitetlen:

Indeed murder is illegal and rightly so. However, termination of life is not necessirly murder. Only humans can be murdered, and fetuses are only potential humans.

Men are jailed for the murder of dogs, cats, horses, and so forth. This arguement reduces to the idea that a dog has more worth than a human fetus.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Hitetlen:

This is incorrect. I am part of humanity, not better nor worse than any other person. And thus would not take the responsibility to dictate other’s behavior, just like I don’t want others to dictate my behavior. Living in a society imposes limitations on my freedom, some of which I accept and some of which I don’t.

Again, it is not MY decision, it is the decision of the affected woman.

So the only reason you do not go on a killing rampage is because you fear of retribution? That is really scary. Other people who accepted this starting point firmly believed that God orders them to commit genocide, and they cheerfully set out to perform God’s command. The Old Testament is loaded with examples.

Everyone, because I do not believe that I have the right to make decisions for you. One of my favorite bumper-stickers: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”

The issue here is that it isthe child whose decision is not taken into account. The most ridiculous arguement for abortion is to say that, “it is my body, and I have the right to decide what goes on in my body.” This is akin to saying that a woman may terminate the life of her 1 month old child because she does not wish him to create a mess in her house, which she owns.

We say that women are “with child,” we do not refer to them as “with appendage.”

 

[RyanL]

As you have failed to adequately address the logical proof I have offered above, I will also resort to bumper-sticker theology:

"If it’s not a child, you’re not pregnant."

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[estesbob]

Hitetlen:

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?

Oh my-the usual pro-abortion talking points!! I sneaked a peek ahead in the thread ands see you pretty much touch on all of them. “Potential Life”, Chicken and egg analogoy , arguments about proper terminology , debates on what constitues “murder” and what the definition of "innocent " is. And of course I am sure we will soon be a long discussion of what a “baby” is.

Well I’ve seen them all. And all the misdirections you have posted thus far have been for the sole purpose of steering the conversation away from discussing the abject horror you support. ABORTION. Let me say the again ABORTION.

You see that is the word pro-abortion people are loathe to use. Much easier to talk about fetuses, reproductive rights, and the right to choose. Lot more fun than talking about hacking an unborn child into bits and flushing it down the drain…

So lets cut top the chase. From the moment of conception on the unborn child is seperate, distinct,** human** life. There is no argument about this at all. The deabte is whehter there are circumstances where is is ok to treminate this life. You appear to believe there are many. That is sad. But then you are a product of our culture and from reading your posts I can tell you really have’nt thought about this much in depth-in fact it appears most of your “research” has come from reading bumper stickers on the cars in the parking lot of the local abortion mill.

All I can think when i read the nonsense you post is “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

 

[RyanL]

Hitetlen:

Not insane, simply mistaken. (Please don’t put words into my mouth.)

If I were to assert that there was an 8 ft. tall invisible rabbit named Harvey to whom we should all submit our intellects and wills, and who is to be relied on for all of our decisions, what would you call me? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth; I am simply trying to follow your assertion to its logical conclusion. Mother Theresa? Talked to God, therefore insane. Severely delusional. Insert whatever pop-psychologist term you wish, but this is the logical result.

Many people believed in Jupiter, Zeus, the Sun-god, Zoroaster, all sorts of pagan gods, Allah, Jehovah, you name it. All they all “real”? What makes your God different?

Jehova and Allah are different names for the God of Abraham, i.e., the God of Christianity. Your conclusion is that if others have it wrong, no one can have it right. This is an erronious form of logic by which everything which has ever been proven can be instantly disproved.

There is a very good saying: “I sumbit we are all atheists. I simply disbelive in one more god than you do. Once you understand why you don’t belive in all those gods, you will understand why I don’t belive in yours”.

Trite and cute, but not pursuasive.

By this argument the Earth must be flat, because more people believed in a flat Earth. Consensus means nothing, only facts do.

Your assertion is factually erronious. More people have believed in a round earth than in a flat one. Look at current population statistics and population statistics from when it was discovered that the earth was round. The preponderance lies on the side of a round earth. Likewise, more people believe in God than have not. Numbers aren’t the sole indicator of truth, but they may certainly point the way. It would be a serious error to assert that they should all be dismissed out of hat simply because they disagree with your conclusion. BTW, this particular assertion makes me think you’re not that well versed in history or science.

There is not one which would give a proof. There is not even one which would substantiate God’s existence. But this really would belong to a different thread.

I agree that it should belong to a different thread, but have you read all of the proofs? Have you fully considered any of the proofs? It seems rather conclusory to assert that none could substantiate God’s existence…but we’ll leave that alone for now.

Again, can you please assert an instance where the killing of an innocent human being for the sake of killing that innocent human being is an intrinsic good? By this I mean that can you please show us where the killing of an innocent human being is a “good” end (and not the means to a greater good or a lesser evil)? If not, the proof given above still stands. It is always morally wrong to kill an innocent human being.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Anonymous_1]

Hitetlen:

No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, and not even the most ardent “pro-lifer” (aka. anti-choice) person would dare to argue that a tumor should have the right to “live”. The removal of a tumor could rightly be called “testing God” (which is a big no-no around here), because such a removal denies God the chance of performing a miracle and allowing the tumor to grow into a human being.

A question to all of you: Would you call a dish of scrambled eggs - a fried chicken? The eggs are potential chickens, not real chickens.

Another question: Would you call a medical student a fully qualified doctor? The medical student is a potential doctor, nothing more.

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?

your argument is fallacious…eggs we eat are unfertilized… i go back to my original point at 6 weeks brain waves are detectable in the unborn babies brain…if we measure death as the cessation of brain wave activity…how do you explain and justify abortion after the first trimester…you specifically say fetuses, 8 weeks after conception…

i also ask you to defend the pro “choice” position in light of the fact that babies have been born as much as three months pre mature and survived…so is a unborn fetus at 7 months alive? is it a person? if not then how the heck do they survive when they are born prematurley…sureley this means that we can not possibly justify abortion after the 6th month since advances in neonatal care have increased the liklihood of survival…what happens if technology progresses more, as it will, well now that means 5 months…do you see what im getting at?

lastly, how would you counter my objection that if we err so cautiously on the side of caution in our legal system…why do we failt o err on the side of caution here?

i restate my observationt aht hte human mind is capable of rationalizing all sorts of nonsense to justify its desires and behaviors…

by the way…there are two great quotes i saw at the march for life…all those who argue for the right to choose, why they have already been born…and the other is…pro-choice? what choice does the baby have?

 

[Anonymous_1]

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

has this become antiquated? then why do docters still swear upon it?

 

[Anonymous_1]

Hitetlen:

Not true. If you buy eggs from a farm, you may very well get eggs which are fertilized. However to make a dish out of those you still would not call that dish a fried chicken, would you?

No one suggested that the med student should be killed. I asked if he should be considered a doctor, just because he entered college. The med student is only a potential doctor.

you should refrain from eating bloody eggs…

 

[Anonymous_1]

Hitetlen:

Not so few, actually. Besides, your analogy is incorrect: even if I disagree with a law, the existence of the law is beyond doubt. Since God’s existence is only an unsupported assertion, I see no reason why to accept corollaries to this concept. If God so wishes, he can come to me and prove to me that he exists. If he would do that I would re-evaluate my position vis-a-vis the concept of “sin”. But not until then.

i would not go so far as t o say unsupported…

do you believe yourself to be a reasonable person? have you ever considered the possibility of detaching yourself from your world view and everything you think you need to stand for a moment and really consider some of the arguements being presented here…

can you really say without a reasonable doubt that an unborn fetus is without life? I mean do you really know?

I say it again, why do we err so cautiously on the side of life when sentencing a purported criminal when we fail to do so in protecting what could reasonably be a living person…inconsistency…

rationalization of the most outrageous sort of nonsense to justify our wants and behaviors…

 

[Anonymous_1]

RyanL:

As you have failed to adequately address the logical proof I have offered above, I will also resort to bumper-sticker theology:

"If it’s not a child, you’re not pregnant."

God Bless,
RyanL

lol, i think bumper stickers are the fruit of some of the most brilliant of men.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hitetlen:

No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, and not even the most ardent “pro-lifer” (aka. anti-choice) person would dare to argue that a tumor should have the right to “live”. The removal of a tumor could rightly be called “testing God” (which is a big no-no around here), because such a removal denies God the chance of performing a miracle and allowing the tumor to grow into a human being.

You make a mistake here. A tumor does not have it’s own DNA. It has the host’s DNA. The unborn child has it’s own DNA and is a separate and distinct human being.

Hitetlen:

A question to all of you: Would you call a dish of scrambled eggs - a fried chicken? The eggs are potential chickens, not real chickens.

What does it matter what we call it? But in point of fact, the egfgs in your scrambled eggs are unfertilized eggs (the egg producer runs every egg over a candling table to be sure they are not fertilized.)

But if by accident you did get a fertilized egg in your plate, you’d see something in there that you would properly call the little chicken as you complained about it to the waitress.

Hitetlen:

Another question: Would you call a medical student a fully qualified doctor? The medical student is a potential doctor, nothing more.

But we’re not talking professions, but about humanity.

Would you say you have the right to kill the medical student on the grounds that he’s not a doctor yet, and therefore not fully human?

Hitetlen:

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

Do you have children?

My children are not parasites. My unborn grandchild is not a parasite. She is a human being, and deeply loved by her parents and grand parents.

Hitetlen:

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?

Does original sin carry the death penalty?

The unborn child is innocent of any action or intent to harm anyone else.

 

[MStreeter]

Hitetlen:

No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, and not even the most ardent “pro-lifer” (aka. anti-choice) person would dare to argue that a tumor should have the right to “live”. The removal of a tumor could rightly be called “testing God” (which is a big no-no around here), because such a removal denies God the chance of performing a miracle and allowing the tumor to grow into a human being.

I’m not quite sure where you can find a connection between a “potential human” and a malignant tumor. The fetus is the continuation of life where as the malignant tumor destroys life. It is also important to notice that the malignant tumor does not have the potential (and never will have the capability) to live independently of it’s “parent.” This argument is so illogical I’m finding it difficult to even debate it. Maybe some other people will help me on this one.

Hitetlen:

A question to all of you: Would you call a dish of scrambled eggs - a fried chicken? The eggs are potential chickens, not real chickens.

As stated before… the eggs we eat are unfertilized. And even if they were fertilized, does the life of a chicken really compare to that of a human? We kill and eat animals for sustenance. However, we kill and abort “potential humans” primarily for prevention of inconvenience.

Hitetlen:

Another question: Would you call a medical student a fully qualified doctor? The medical student is a potential doctor, nothing more.

Again, how do you compare a medical student (a potential doctor) to a fetus (potential human)? I find it awfully naive to think that you can completely ignore the validity or humanity of a fetus simply because it has not yet been born. This would be comparable, using your example, to saying that the medical student has no validity in the medical field because he is not an official doctor yet. As if the knowledge and components of a doctor are not complete until he has physically received his degree.

Everything that is necessary to be a doctor is being learned and is already ready for use by graduation. Everything that makes a human human is being compiled in the womb. Therefore, comparing it to your example of course, the fetus (medical student) is a human (doctor) before the birth (graduation) just without the label of baby (doctor).

Hitetlen:

In every facet of live you all understand the difference between a potential and the final result. Why is this stubborn resistence when it comes to such an obvious difference as fetus vs. full human? (A fetus is actually a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.)

Yes, this is true. The fetus is “a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.” Since this is true, maybe we should abort every fetus as it is a parasite. Who cares what it has potential to become. (This was meant to sound sarcastic in order to show the irrational thinking.)

Btw, potential implies that someone has the capability to become something, but it does not ensure that they will meet their potential. However, a fetus will inevitably become a human (unless of course there is an accident causing their death).

Hitetlen:

And a final question: when speaking of abortion I have yet to see a “pro-lifer” NOT calling it the “murder” of an innocent baby. Regardless of the misuse of the word “baby” here, why do you call them “innocent”? Are they not guilty of the original sin? They are guilty in the eyes of God, are they not?

This is absolutely absurd and shows your complete ignorance of religious beliefs. Yes, it is true that they are born with Original Sin. However, I would like to see JUST ONE BIBLICAL PASSAGE where Original Sin has been used to validate the death of someone. No where in the Bible has Original Sin ever been used to explain or validate someone’s death. Utter ignorance.

Keep the Faith

 

[vern_humphrey]

MStreeter:

Yes, this is true. The fetus is “a parasitic being feeding off the mother’s body and gives nothing physical in return.” Since this is true, maybe we should abort every fetus as it is a parasite. Who cares what it has potential to become.

An unborn child is no more a parasite than a person living on welfare or Social Security is a parasite.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me offer you one paragraph from my “Where I stand” paper for the '04 election:

Human life is sacred.

Society and governments exist to protect the weak. It is our bounden duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. One who seeks to justify taking a human life must meet the highest possible standard of justification – and that standard is not altered by the victim’s age or state of development

 

[MStreeter]

vern humphrey:

An unborn child is no more a parasite than a person living on welfare or Social Security is a parasite.

My comment about the fetus being a parasite was meant to sound sarcastic. I don’t actually believe that a baby is parasitic. But, because some people actually believe it, I can understand the misunderstanding.

Keep the Faith

 

[vern_humphrey]

MStreeter:

My comment about the fetus being a parasite was meant to sound sarcastic. I don’t actually believe that a baby is parasitic. But, because some people actually believe it, I can understand the misunderstanding.

Keep the Faith

I knew you didn’t mean a child was a parasite --but I didn’t want to let it pass because others might think this was an acceptable argument – that even Catholics accept this sophistry.

 

[vz71]

Hitetlen:

No one in his right mind would assert that a fetus is not “alive”. It also has human DNA. But so has a malignant tumor, …

A tumor does not have its own unique genetic code.
The unborn does.

The facts are that the unborn exhinbits all criteria for life, AND it has its own unique HUMAN genetic code.
To destroy it is to destroy human life.

two cents duly deposited.

Z

 

[vern_humphrey]

vz71:

A tumor does not have its own unique genetic code.
The unborn does.

The facts are that the unborn exhinbits all criteria for life, AND it has its own unique HUMAN genetic code.
To destroy it is to destroy human life.

Exactly right – if those of us posting here are human beings, the unborn child is no less a human being.

 

[Ortho]

vz71:

A tumor does not have its own unique genetic code.
The unborn does.

The facts are that the unborn exhinbits all criteria for life, AND it has its own unique HUMAN genetic code.
To destroy it is to destroy human life.

two cents duly deposited.

Z

A clone would not have its own unique human genetic code.

 

[Ortho]

vern humphrey:

An unborn child is no more a parasite than a person living on welfare or Social Security is a parasite.

Can a fetus collect Social Security?