HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Is it okay to kill?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2012, 07:26 PM
  #101
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Do you understand how much harm you are doing to your children when you spank them? I mean the experts are pretty much all in agreement on this except for a few nutcases.
I have had the same basic argument with Big Phil before about spanking and although I find your logic to be spot on, he does not. He believes pain to be an effective teaching tool and will not entertain any notion that he could be wrong.

People like us always entertain the notion that we could be wrong. It's why we keep questioning.

I have had disagreements with you as a poster before, but I do notice that you have a questioning mind and that you continually seek answers to difficult questions.

Even though you and I may disagree, you have my respect.

ddawg1950 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:10 AM
  #102
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,921
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Nope, no Freudian slip at all. The heart and lungs are on the same level more or less. Who said they weren't. That is hardly the point and I'd like to think you know you're just fishing here. The point isn't which one is more important, the point is at least one of them (as well as many other features) are prevelant when a baby is aborted. I mean, what identifies us more than fingerprints? A fetus has those when they are aborted.

That's nice that 1.4% of abortions happened at or after the 20 week, I am talking about a literal picture you can get printed out of your fetus at a far earlier time than that. Like I said, 3 months, which is more or less 13 weeks. That is a human in there as the day is long and not even Johnny Cochrane could defend that. At around 20 weeks which is closing in on 5 months you can tell the gender of the child in some instances. So we're getting pretty personal here. Science is a wonderful thing.
You are circling again. While prevalent, the heart is not an indication of life, as the lungs are equally a necessity. Fortunately, fingerprints only fully develop by the 12th week, four to six weeks prior to the majority of abortions. Frankly, I'd advise you make use of google before spurting out 'facts.'

I am aware of what you were referencing and your response is wholly irrelevant as a rebuttal. Your entire argument has hinged on a human-esque appearance and 13 weeks, neither of which apply when you attribute when the majority of abortions happen. For argument sake though, assume we do. What you witness during an ultrasound is only the development stage of a potential human. Appearance does not demonstrate life and we have already settled the heart theory.

Science is a wonderful thing. Alas, it is not helping you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
I have had the same basic argument with Big Phil before about spanking and although I find your logic to be spot on, he does not. He believes pain to be an effective teaching tool and will not entertain any notion that he could be wrong.

People like us always entertain the notion that we could be wrong. It's why we keep questioning.

I have had disagreements with you as a poster before, but I do notice that you have a questioning mind and that you continually seek answers to difficult questions.

Even though you and I may disagree, you have my respect.
I will never understand that ideology. All spanking teaches is fear, whereas I would prefer to teach my children respect. Personally, when an adult has to resort to such methods. I deem it they have lost control. Perhaps, I have seen the look of terror one too many times to ever believe spanking has any sort of benefit.

In any case, this is what separates posters like Big Phil from the rest of us. There is no harm in being wrong. Tis how we learn. A shame more people cannot accept that.


Last edited by Bourne Endeavor: 11-18-2012 at 01:15 AM.
Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 02:04 AM
  #103
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,380
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
We need more abortions. Not less.

Too many people.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:00 AM
  #104
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
We need more abortions. Not less.

Too many people.
Republicans do support late term abortions in some cases.

They call it capital punishment.

ddawg1950 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 02:02 PM
  #105
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,674
vCash: 500
Republicans support abortion when their mistresses and daughters get knocked up.

Troy McClure is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 02:05 PM
  #106
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure View Post
Republicans support abortion when their mistresses and daughters get knocked up.
Enlightened self-interest???

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:02 PM
  #107
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Republicans do support late term abortions in some cases.

They call it capital punishment.
Here folks, is a prime example of a person you cannot reason with. It is impossible to be able to penetrate a person that gives a thumbs up to abortion (an innocent life) but is mortified when a murderer who made the choice to end an innocent life is to be injected and removed from society for his crime. With that mindset a person has so much to learn about life, and so much to learn about the ability to produce a good argument. And people wonder why I say the pro-choicers walk into this argument with two strikes against them right off the bat? Well, there it is. This is why it is such an easy argument to debunk. Too easy.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 09:18 PM
  #108
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy View Post
I would say the US, China, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and maybe Indonesia and Egypt are all industrialized to the point that they should be moving past capital punishment.
Out of that list I can only agree with US and Japan...Industrialized and civilized are 2 different things and Saudia Arabia, Egypt, and China are far from civilized nations. I would expect nothing less from those countries leaders.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:06 PM
  #109
Free Torts
Registered User
 
Free Torts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,510
vCash: 883
Send a message via MSN to Free Torts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Here folks, is a prime example of a person you cannot reason with.

Free Torts is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:14 AM
  #110
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
Good response. I am convinced I am on the wrong side of the fence on this one..............

In reality there is no defense from a moral standpoint for advocating abortions. The left has gone to great measures to try and de-humanize a fetus and if you wanted to advocate abortions what would make you sleep better at night, telling yourself it is your own flesh and blood or it is nothing of importance?

In light of all these discussions I actually looked back at some ultrasound photos. I know I said three months or so was when you see the first one but I was wrong. I saw an ultra sound of our son going back to August 27th (not a recent year obviously). He was born on April 13th. That means the fetus I saw was about 6-7 weeks old. He looked like a gummy bear, but clearly had the human shape to him. I will reiterate, the second someone sees an ultrasound they will ignore the silly idea that a fetus is not a human being. Or you are ignoring actual observational science that you can see with your own eyes. If you still think that fetus is not human, hehe, good luck in life.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:30 AM
  #111
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Good response. I am convinced I am on the wrong side of the fence on this one..............
At least you finally got one right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
In reality there is no defense from a moral standpoint for advocating abortions. The left has gone to great measures to try and de-humanize a fetus and if you wanted to advocate abortions what would make you sleep better at night, telling yourself it is your own flesh and blood or it is nothing of importance?

In light of all these discussions I actually looked back at some ultrasound photos. I know I said three months or so was when you see the first one but I was wrong. I saw an ultra sound of our son going back to August 27th (not a recent year obviously). He was born on April 13th. That means the fetus I saw was about 6-7 weeks old. He looked like a gummy bear, but clearly had the human shape to him. I will reiterate, the second someone sees an ultrasound they will ignore the silly idea that a fetus is not a human being. Or you are ignoring actual observational science that you can see with your own eyes. If you still think that fetus is not human, hehe, good luck in life.
Perhaps in your twisted reality.

In the real world the rights of an actual person (the pregnant woman) and her personal autonomy trump those of a non-person (the fetus). If you propose to give legal rights to a fetus then you limit those of the real person. And that is unacceptable.

As the Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, Conservative Party of Canada) said during the earlier debate on the Woodworth private member motion trying to change the definition of when a fetus becomes a human being (and he was speaking for the Harper government):
The Supreme Court has also declared that the right to liberty guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting private life. The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount and take precedence over that of the state.
...
I cannot understand why those who are adamantly opposed to abortion want to impose their beliefs on others by way of the Criminal Code. There is no law that says that a woman must have an abortion. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one.

Within the free and democratic society of Canada, if one has a world view based on a personal moral code that is somewhat different from others, then live according to those views as long as they are within the current laws. On the other hand, citizens who are also living within the reasonable limits of our culture and who may not agree with another's particular moral principles should not be compelled to follow them by the force of a new law.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...=5524696#T1800

In my reality as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament of Canada it is crystal clear - a fetus is not a human being until born.

And your "argument"??? Based upon your peculiar version of what a book of fairy tales has to say and your interpretation is not even supported by other who adhere to the same book you claim as authority.

Blathering on about ultrasounds, hearts and fingernails means absolutely nothing. You have no argument.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 11:37 AM
  #112
Epictetus
Global Moderator
Create yourself.
 
Epictetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,501
vCash: 4200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Here folks, is a prime example of a person you cannot reason with. It is impossible to be able to penetrate a person that gives a thumbs up to abortion (an innocent life) but is mortified when a murderer who made the choice to end an innocent life is to be injected and removed from society for his crime. With that mindset a person has so much to learn about life, and so much to learn about the ability to produce a good argument. And people wonder why I say the pro-choicers walk into this argument with two strikes against them right off the bat? Well, there it is. This is why it is such an easy argument to debunk. Too easy.
Can you not see the contradiction in the Republican logic as well as your logic?

As I have posted before:

Republicans and you on the abortion picture, "no human can play God".

Ok.

Now when it comes to an alleged criminal, "a human can play God" and enact the death penalty.

There is an obvious contradiction here. Can we play God or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
In reality there is no defense from a moral standpoint for advocating abortions. The left has gone to great measures to try and de-humanize a fetus and if you wanted to advocate abortions what would make you sleep better at night, telling yourself it is your own flesh and blood or it is nothing of importance?
I think you need to look up what 'moral standpoint' means because your entire conception only focuses on the fetus, which is debatable since it is not yet a fully formed human-being and you are giving those rights precedence over a fully formed human being. You also fail to take into consideration the consequences of abortions being illegal.

This is all good and can be your moral point-of-view (even if it can easily be destroyed) but to suggest there isn't another defense for a different moral standpoint in reality is incorrect. There are some good arguments for abortion. Just read this thread.

Epictetus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:07 PM
  #113
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epictetus View Post
Can you not see the contradiction in the Republican logic as well as your logic?

As I have posted before:

Republicans and you on the abortion picture, "no human can play God".

Ok.

Now when it comes to an alleged criminal, "a human can play God" and enact the death penalty.

There is an obvious contradiction here. Can we play God or not?
The argument I have is that God allowed the State to execute murderers for punishment. Most of the United States still does this. He didn't say kill a fetus that never did anything or had any choice. Which is why the phoniest phrase uttered in human existence is "pro-choice". No choice for life here.

Quote:
I think you need to look up what 'moral standpoint' means because your entire conception only focuses on the fetus, which is debatable since it is not yet a fully formed human-being and you are giving those rights precedence over a fully formed human being. You also fail to take into consideration the consequences of abortions being illegal.

This is all good and can be your moral point-of-view (even if it can easily be destroyed) but to suggest there isn't another defense for a different moral standpoint in reality is incorrect. There are some good arguments for abortion. Just read this thread.
At the end of the day advocating abortion is killing a human being and doing it without it's consent or voice. Even PETA has higher moral standards than the pro-choice side because they prefer animals to have a "voice". Pro-choicers don't even care for a fetus to have a voice. Marinate on that one. Secondly, it isn't that it should be illegal as much as it should be recognized as being wrong. It has been legal for a while but our culture has made it worse because there was a time when people knew it was happening but still thought it was generally wrong. Now, people know it happens and think it's the right choice. Big difference.

Lastly, advocating for abortions just based on a woman having a "right" is the most extreme political stance you can possibly take. Think about this, you want marijuana legal? Who does it harm? No one other than possibly the person doing it. Prostitution being legal? Well, no one will die at least. You want the right to own a gun for protection? Fine, the gun won't kill someone, the foolish person will if he uses it wrong. All of these potential rights don't kill anyone innocent directly. You are asking for a right to kill just so you can be comfortable and there is nothing more extreme than this position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
In my reality as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and Parliament of Canada it is crystal clear - a fetus is not a human being until born.

And your "argument"??? Based upon your peculiar version of what a book of fairy tales has to say and your interpretation is not even supported by other who adhere to the same book you claim as authority.

Blathering on about ultrasounds, hearts and fingernails means absolutely nothing. You have no argument.
I've said before the abortion argument is not a difficult one to win. I can do it without even needing to bring up God. Hell, you bring it up more than I ever can. Adding what God's view of abortions would be is only icing on the cake. Even in this case all you need is science and anyone with a pair of eyes can see this. I'm glad you've said for the millionth time how a fetus is defined by law. However, the argument isn't about this it is about whether it is right or wrong to de-humanize a fetus.

By the way, have you ever seen a picture of an ultrasound? I would love very much to hear your take on what in the world is in there if not a human.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:43 PM
  #114
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I've said before the abortion argument is not a difficult one to win. I can do it without even needing to bring up God. Hell, you bring it up more than I ever can. Adding what God's view of abortions would be is only icing on the cake. Even in this case all you need is science and anyone with a pair of eyes can see this. I'm glad you've said for the millionth time how a fetus is defined by law. However, the argument isn't about this it is about whether it is right or wrong to de-humanize a fetus.

By the way, have you ever seen a picture of an ultrasound? I would love very much to hear your take on what in the world is in there if not a human.
You have won nothing since your position is based upon a book of fairy tales and your peculiar take on a reality that does not exist except in your mind.

Your argument consists of ignoring anything that does not accord with your unsupported version of reality with or without the imprimatur of religion. The only way to get to your personal (and bizarre) version of reality is to act in this fashion...



OTOH I can refer to binding legal and legislative authority which is what counts in a secular society that is subject to the Rule of Law and is not subject to individual personal moral codes and thankfully not yours in particular.

The goal you seek is to try to define a fetus as a human being (or person if you will) as a back door means of imposing your view that an abortion should not be the the decision of the woman as a free individual. "It has always been part of Canada's criminal law, and it reflects the well-established legal principle that the law does not recognize a fetus or unborn child as a legal person, possessing rights separate from its mother, until it is born alive." ( per Gordon O'Connor).

Appealing to science is a red herring. And this transparent strategy was noted by Gordon O'Connor speaking for the Harper government:
The issue before us, in essence, is on what it is to be human. This has been debated as long as man has existed. Scientists, theologians, philosophers and doctors have all offered opinions.

The House of Commons, however, is not a laboratory. It is not a house of faith, an academic setting or a hospital. It is a legislature, and a legislature deals with law, specifically, in this case, subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code.

The purpose of Motion No. 312, which we are considering today, is to open to question the validity of subsection 223(1), which asserts that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. If the legal definition of when one becomes a human being were to be adjusted so that a fetus is declared to be a legal person at some earlier stage of gestation, then the homicide laws would apply. As a necessary consequence, aborting fetal development anywhere in the potentially new adjusted period would be considered homicide. Thus the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions in Canada at some fetal development stage.
And the Canadian Medical Association supports what Gordon O'Connor and the Conservative government say on this issue.
Canada’s doctors have sternly rejected what they see as a stealth attempt to recriminalize abortion.

At the general council meeting of the Canadian Medical Association on Wednesday, delegates called on the federal government to reject attempts by a Conservative backbench MP to amend the Criminal Code so that a fetus is defined as a human being.
And as far as religion, the largest Protestant Church in Canada - the United Church promotes the view that an abortion is a matter of choice for the pregnant woman so your appeal to religion does not hold water. Here is what the United Church has to say in its official policy in 1989 (and which they have consistently confirmed from that point forward) - unless your think the United Church is not really a religion, eh?
Urge the Government of Canada not to use provisions in the criminal code to regulate abortion;
..
We believe that abortion should be a personal matter between a woman and her doctor, who should earnestly consider their understanding of the particular situation permitting the woman to bring to bear her moral and religious insights into human life in reaching a decision through a free and responsive exercise of her conscience.
I am unsure how you "de-humanize" a fetus in that is is not a human being in the first place.

Yes I have seen an ultrasound and what I see is a fetus, not a human being nor a person. And what I see accords with the reality that is Canada... something that your view does not do.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 02:25 PM
  #115
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
You have won nothing since your position is based upon a book of fairy tales and your peculiar take on a reality that does not exist except in your mind.

Your argument consists of ignoring anything that does not accord with your unsupported version of reality with or without the imprimatur of religion. The only way to get to your personal (and bizarre) version of reality is to act in this fashion...
There you go again, bringing up religion when it wasn't even brought up in the first place, and I'm a Christian. That being said you don't need to be a Christian or religious at all to know that abortion is abhorrent. Not everyone who is pro-life is religious.

Quote:
And as far as religion, the largest Protestant Church in Canada - the United Church promotes the view that an abortion is a matter of choice for the pregnant woman so your appeal to religion does not hold water. Here is what the United Church has to say in its official policy in 1989 (and which they have consistently confirmed from that point forward) - unless your think the United Church is not really a religion, eh?
Then you should know how far the United Church has swayed from the actual teachings of Christ. It is really horrifying that they still consider themselves a church. Of all the Protestant and Catholic churches this is the one that has taken a stand against the teachings of Christ. You don't find that a little odd?

Quote:
I am unsure how you "de-humanize" a fetus in that is is not a human being in the first place.

Yes I have seen an ultrasound and what I see is a fetus, not a human being nor a person. And what I see accords with the reality that is Canada... something that your view does not do.
Then you should uncover your eyes. This is 2012, we have science that can physically show us what is inside of a mother's womb. You say you've seen it but still don't think it's human. You are free to tell the world what you think it is. So you are either ignorant and in denial with this issue or you're lying through your teeth and you've never seen an ultrasound in real life. Because to be honest, a grown adult doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to know that's a human in there. You see feet, hands, head maybe a nose. I'm waiting for a woman to give birth to a raptor but it just isn't happening. It's a human and it's cute that you continue to cut and paste things from Canadian law and all, I am not debating what Canadian law says, I am saying it is high time it gets re-visited which is why it was brought up in the House of Commons in the first place.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 02:59 PM
  #116
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There you go again, bringing up religion when it wasn't even brought up in the first place, and I'm a Christian. That being said you don't need to be a Christian or religious at all to know that abortion is abhorrent. Not everyone who is pro-life is religious.



Then you should know how far the United Church has swayed from the actual teachings of Christ. It is really horrifying that they still consider themselves a church. Of all the Protestant and Catholic churches this is the one that has taken a stand against the teachings of Christ. You don't find that a little odd?



Then you should uncover your eyes. This is 2012, we have science that can physically show us what is inside of a mother's womb. You say you've seen it but still don't think it's human. You are free to tell the world what you think it is. So you are either ignorant and in denial with this issue or you're lying through your teeth and you've never seen an ultrasound in real life. Because to be honest, a grown adult doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to know that's a human in there. You see feet, hands, head maybe a nose. I'm waiting for a woman to give birth to a raptor but it just isn't happening. It's a human and it's cute that you continue to cut and paste things from Canadian law and all, I am not debating what Canadian law says, I am saying it is high time it gets re-visited which is why it was brought up in the House of Commons in the first place.
Your whole argument is predicated upon religion (whether you acknowledge it or not) and even that basis is an unstable foundation upon which to base an argument but it is unfortunately for you the best that you have. Any thing else is pure unadulterated fantasy.

And the best answer you have to the United Church policy on abortion is to employ the One True Scotsman logical fallacy. BTW there are number of other churches who have the same policy as I have noted in the past but since you are living in Canada and the United Church is the largest Protestant denomination in this country it seems to blow you out of the water most effectively.

I am having problems finding the anti-abortion stance in the "teachings of Christ" although I suppose anything in your book of fairy tales with its numerous version can be twisted about..

The Bible has virtually nothing to say about abortion per se and certainly no proscription against it so it requires tortured interpretations to support the view that the Bible validates the evangelical Christian anti-abortion movement.

And when does life begin? Well the best view (and the classical view) is that when the first breath is taken. Life is equated with breath throughout the Bible, and this passage seems to validate the view a person is not living until he or she takes a first breath after birth per Genesis 2:7:
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (New International Version)
But if we choose to go with the King James versions of the passage, then it seems to also seems to settle the question of a soul:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (King James Version)
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (21st Century King James Version)
This passage from Exodus says that causing death to a fetus is not as serious a crime as causing death to a person, in fact the fetus is treated as property - sort of blows the sanctity of life of a fetus out of the water:
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, (Common English Bible, Exodus 21:22-24)
Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn’t badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (Contemporary English Version, Exodus 21:22-24)
The Jewish Bible:
“If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman’s husband and confirmed by judges. But if any harm follows, then you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
The miscarriage is treated differently from injury to the person of the pregnant woman however -- as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it's not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is. Seems pretty clear that a fetus is not the same as a person, eh?

As that noted philosopher George Carlin once remarked tongue in cheek, if a fetus is a human being why does the census not count it? In fact that view has strong support in the Bible.

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6
Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
And killing fetuses?
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
Of course as I have set out above there are other versions of the Bible and the language used in those other versions may be open to differing interpretations. But which version is God's word?

Actually none of them can be definitively proven to be so because of the way in which the Bible has been constructed over the centuries beginning with an oral tradition and copies of copies and various editions. As the Reverend Robert Ripley has noted in reviewing the Michael Coren book:


Turning to the Bible, Coren is pleased to point out that the Church predated the Bible, edited it and gave it to us. Of course the path to creating the canon of Scripture was long and hard. A wide diversity of early Christians quarrelled over their interpretation of Jesus' teachings. The church rejected a Gospel of Peter (yes, the first pope) as unorthodox and kept 1 Timothy, which is widely considered a forgery. The contentious process took over three centuries.

The result, writes Coren, has no contradictions. I can only assume Coren hasn't actually read the Bible. Otherwise he'd know that inspiration notwithstanding, the Good Book is riddled with discrepancies from the two different creation stories in Genesis to the variations on the Easter narrative, as I pointed out last week.

Coren explains that the Church is the keeper and interpreter of the Bible. This is to keep it from falling into the hands of translators and commentators such as William Tyndale who had an agenda.

Coren fails to mention that following a malleable oral tradition, and in the absence of original writings, all we have are pieces of copies of copies of copies made over centuries by scribes who made intentional alterations to make the text say what either they wanted it to say, or thought it should say. So much for maintaining the correct word of God. But that is Catholicism's claim. As Coren puts it, how can we refuse to believe in the instrument that God used to write and select this Bible - the Catholic Church.
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/colum.../18079996.html

All sorts of grown men (and women) have concluded that a fetus is not a human being. And fortunately for Canada they are also sitting as judges on the courts and running the government of Canada and they are doctors.

And I most certainly find you more than a little odd. The only ignorance and denial that I can see is coming from you because you have nothing to support your peculiar views.

Personally I support a woman's right to choose the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures in consultation with her doctor and with no state input or intervention. But there should also be education programs and readily available methods of effective contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Women now have established constitutional rights in Canada under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to life, liberty, bodily security, conscience, and equality, all of which are directly implicated in women’s decisions around pregnancy. In contrast, fetuses do not have legal rights and cannot be given any, since two beings occupying the same body would result in a serious clash of rights. In fact, if fetuses had legal personhood, pregnant women would lose theirs.

The anti-abortion movement’s concern for fetuses at the expense of the rights of pregnant women is dangerous.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 02:12 AM
  #117
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,315
vCash: 500
There is a difference between necessary and okay.

I am never okay with killing (I am a pacifist). But I do find in very extreme cases that it may become necessary. I abhor the death penalty and any type of war. I find abortion sad but I understand the reasons. I am an advocate for gun control. I give last rites to road kill. And I try not to kill any bugs. It makes me sad when people kill them

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 04:08 AM
  #118
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
every single fetus that has been aborted had a beating heart...........................anything else to add?
Do you go out of your way to be ignorant, or are you really just this misinformed?

JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:41 AM
  #119
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD View Post
Do you go out of your way to be ignorant, or are you really just this misinformed?
It counters the argument that nothing substantial is in the womb during an abortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
And the best answer you have to the United Church policy on abortion is to employ the One True Scotsman logical fallacy. BTW there are number of other churches who have the same policy as I have noted in the past but since you are living in Canada and the United Church is the largest Protestant denomination in this country it seems to blow you out of the water most effectively.
The United Church is a very torn church right now and much of it is because of a stance like this. My grandfather was a United Minister and would be rolling in his grave if he knew some higher ups in the church felt this way. It isn't exactly a mutually agreed thing with the United Church, hence the word "torn".

Quote:
The Bible has virtually nothing to say about abortion per se and certainly no proscription against it so it requires tortured interpretations to support the view that the Bible validates the evangelical Christian anti-abortion movement.

And when does life begin? Well the best view (and the classical view) is that when the first breath is taken. Life is equated with breath throughout the Bible, and this passage seems to validate the view a person is not living until he or she takes a first breath after birth per Genesis 2:7:
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (New International Version)
You know, I was waiting for that one. No one said it but it seems to come up all the time. Alright, Adam was the original creation. He wasn't in a mother's womb because there was no mother. God breathed life into him. Then Eve came, then you had the two parties responsible for creating an unborn child. It's always a weak argument because Adam wasn't conceived the way you and I were or anyone else for that matter. Apples and oranges, and I believe you know you're fishing here.


Quote:
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that she has a miscarriage but no other injury occurs, then the guilty party will be fined what the woman’s husband demands, as negotiated with the judges. 23 If there is further injury, then you will give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, (Common English Bible, Exodus 21:22-24)
The miscarriage is treated differently from injury to the person of the pregnant woman however -- as property loss, not murder. The assailant must pay a fine to the husband. The law of a life for a life does not apply. The fetus is important, but it's not human life in the same way the pregnant woman is. Seems pretty clear that a fetus is not the same as a person, eh?
If one side takes precedence between the mother and the fetus it is the mother. This applies to an abortion if the mother's life is in danger. You would rather have one corpse than two if this is your only option. However, if a fetus is injured God still puts emphasis on punishing the parties involved even if it means not the death penalty. Nowhere in the Bible does an accident involve the death penalty. The woman would be visible, the fetus would not. Therefore killing the fetus does not require the death penalty since it would be accidental. Doesn't exactly support abortion right?


Quote:
The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6
Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.
Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16
I know what you mean with these passages, but you are better off not cutting and pasting them and looking at the context. In ancient times the mortality rate was higher for children, these passages are about collecting taxes for children and dedicating service to the Lord. You can't exactly do that when the child is unborn, nor can you collect taxes on them. Since the mortality rate was high at that time it would probably have been construed as being wrong to collect taxes on a child that hasn't lived past one month. That is the best interpretation of those passages. Again, it still doesn't tell you to go forth and abort.

Quote:
And killing fetuses?
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16
It is a declaration from what should happen from God should the people not repent. You may have heard of the story of Jonah, well, the town repented much to Jonah's surprise of their sins and they were not destroyed. They believed Jonah's message from God. This is more about the punishment of man's sins should they not repent.



Look, if that's the best you've got it isn't worthwhile to even bring up this proof about abortion being promoted in the Bible. I have to ask, you continually allude to the Bible as a book of "fairy tales" yet you put more emphasis on it in the abortion issue than even I do. Abortion is an act that God would not support, which is true, but we were also given common sense and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. So in all honesty, why would you even care about what a book of "fairy tales" as you call it, has to say if you don't even believe in it? Personally I think it is because you do believe in it somehow.

If that's the case there are a million things that show the importance God has for the unborn:

Proverbs 6:16-17 says that God HATES those who shed innocent blood! Deuteronomy 27:25 says, "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen."

Jeremiah 1:5 we are told that God KNEW Jeremiah:"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (often translated as well as "I knew you before you were born").

I can go on but there are really too many passages that elevate a child or an infant and it goes beyond the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment that you would think covers enough ground that someone wouldn't be silly enough to believe abortion is advocted by God.

I'll leave with this: At two weeks pregnancy, the fetus can move alone. At four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. Whatever imaginary thing is in there in your opinion is your opinion but have you ever thought that even though we have enacted into law in Canada and the United States that we (humans) who did it could be wrong? This is why the abortion issue never goes away, it is fundamentally wrong. You really think humans are infallible that we weren't wrong for advocating it?

I've read before that about 95% of abortions are done out of convenience because they do not want a child. That's a lot of life right there. The rest is 3% or so because of danger from the mother. That leaves about 2% for r*pe and incest and I suppose it would also include if the baby was in danger. 95%, marinate on that.

The argument that a "fetus" is dependant on the mother is another argument easily thrown out the window. Have you ever seen a newborn baby carry on and take care of itself? Hell, a newborn needs their mother just as much as a fetus. What's the difference? Is it okay to throw the newborn out the window since he is basically just as "useless" as the fetus? A little common sense and compassion in your opinion would go a long way.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 11:31 AM
  #120
JCD
Registered User
 
JCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country:
Posts: 14,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It counters the argument that nothing substantial is in the womb during an abortion.
If something is factually wrong, it counters nothing. Your statement was false.

Now you follow-up your statement with a strawman? Where has anybody stated there was nothing substantial in the womb? What people have said is that it is not yet a life unto it's own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll leave with this: At two weeks pregnancy, the fetus can move alone. At four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue...
I'll just stop you there. You are, once again, factually incorrect.

In today's world, we have the internet. On it, you can enter in search terms and learn to find information. You should really try it before spouting off BS.

Here is an actual timeline of development:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112

At four weeks, it isn't even a fetus yet. It is an embryo. The neural tube hasn't even closed yet and you claim limbs are formed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The argument that a "fetus" is dependant on the mother is another argument easily thrown out the window. Have you ever seen a newborn baby carry on and take care of itself? Hell, a newborn needs their mother just as much as a fetus.
This again? How many times must you be proven wrong?

One is viable on it's own, the other is not.

Leave a newborn in a room alone for 10 minutes, when you come back it will still be alive.

Leave a 5-week embryo alone (you know, the one you claim is moving on it's own and has limbs!) in a room for 10 minutes (heck, 10 seconds) and it ceases all functions relating to life.

One is a viable entity, the other is completely dependent for it's very existence.

To be blunt, the more you talk, the more you damage your position. Educate yourself. You could have stated factually accurate information if you bothered to do a 10 second search on Google. Instead, you continue to blather on incoherently on topics you are clearly clueless about.


Last edited by JCD: 11-25-2012 at 11:48 AM.
JCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 11:39 AM
  #121
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCD View Post
Do you go out of your way to be ignorant, or are you really just this misinformed?
I will go with... both.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 12:00 PM
  #122
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,172
vCash: 50
This is still going on? Big Phil has good stamina I'll give this to him.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 12:10 PM
  #123
CDJ*
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cape Cod
Country: United States
Posts: 8,595
vCash: 500
The death penalty costs too much money to go through (appellate courts and what have you) and should be abolished. Not to mention jurors have been wrong in convicting people of capital penalties and some innocent victims have died as a result. Life in prison is a greater punishment anyway.

In an ideal world where economics don't factor in, then I would probably be pro-capital punishment simply to remove the scum of the Earth. Unfortunately, that is not the case...

In terms of abortion, it is really interesting.

I'm going to take the Scott Peterson trial as an example because it covers the "best" (lack of a better term) of both worlds:

He got charged with the murder of his wife and his unborn child. It was ruled then and there that a fetus is a person. So then why is abortion allowed if a fetus is technically a person? Because in essence, abortion clinics are doing the same thing Peterson did- killing a fetus. But they don't get charged with murder. Catch 22 central. Of course, I am glad that dick bag Peterson got everything he deserved, but I am not so sure about charging him with the murder of the fetus, especially when abortion is allowed in the US. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I personally am pro-choice however. But the above poses a really intriguing conundrum.

CDJ* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 12:14 PM
  #124
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,172
vCash: 50
I'm against death-penalty.But...

A)Some people use the argument that some innocents got convicted to abolish the death penalty.

B)Some people also claim that life in prison (or prison for life at least) is worst than death.

Why aren't these people wanting to abolish prisons if they think A+B , given that the argument (A) is also true for prison sentences and that (B) makes them even worst than death penalty?

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 12:15 PM
  #125
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It counters the argument that nothing substantial is in the womb during an abortion.
An argument that no one has made. Yet another logical fallacy (Strawman Argument) that you have employed.

The point is a fetus is not a person until born alive and that is an argument that you are unable to counter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The United Church is a very torn church right now and much of it is because of a stance like this. My grandfather was a United Minister and would be rolling in his grave if he knew some higher ups in the church felt this way. It isn't exactly a mutually agreed thing with the United Church, hence the word "torn".
And yet this policy has been official United Church policy since 1989 and it is based upon their interpretation of the Bible. Citing your grandfather means nothing. He may well have been as wacky and uninformed on this issue as you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You know, I was waiting for that one. No one said it but it seems to come up all the time. Alright, Adam was the original creation. He wasn't in a mother's womb because there was no mother. God breathed life into him. Then Eve came, then you had the two parties responsible for creating an unborn child. It's always a weak argument because Adam wasn't conceived the way you and I were or anyone else for that matter. Apples and oranges, and I believe you know you're fishing here.

If one side takes precedence between the mother and the fetus it is the mother. This applies to an abortion if the mother's life is in danger. You would rather have one corpse than two if this is your only option. However, if a fetus is injured God still puts emphasis on punishing the parties involved even if it means not the death penalty. Nowhere in the Bible does an accident involve the death penalty. The woman would be visible, the fetus would not. Therefore killing the fetus does not require the death penalty since it would be accidental. Doesn't exactly support abortion right?

I know what you mean with these passages, but you are better off not cutting and pasting them and looking at the context. In ancient times the mortality rate was higher for children, these passages are about collecting taxes for children and dedicating service to the Lord. You can't exactly do that when the child is unborn, nor can you collect taxes on them. Since the mortality rate was high at that time it would probably have been construed as being wrong to collect taxes on a child that hasn't lived past one month. That is the best interpretation of those passages. Again, it still doesn't tell you to go forth and abort.

It is a declaration from what should happen from God should the people not repent. You may have heard of the story of Jonah, well, the town repented much to Jonah's surprise of their sins and they were not destroyed. They believed Jonah's message from God. This is more about the punishment of man's sins should they not repent.

Look, if that's the best you've got it isn't worthwhile to even bring up this proof about abortion being promoted in the Bible. I have to ask, you continually allude to the Bible as a book of "fairy tales" yet you put more emphasis on it in the abortion issue than even I do. Abortion is an act that God would not support, which is true, but we were also given common sense and the ability to differentiate right from wrong. So in all honesty, why would you even care about what a book of "fairy tales" as you call it, has to say if you don't even believe in it? Personally I think it is because you do believe in it somehow.


If that's the case there are a million things that show the importance God has for the unborn:

Proverbs 6:16-17 says that God HATES those who shed innocent blood! Deuteronomy 27:25 says, "Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen."

Jeremiah 1:5 we are told that God KNEW Jeremiah:"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (often translated as well as "I knew you before you were born").

I can go on but there are really too many passages that elevate a child or an infant and it goes beyond the whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment that you would think covers enough ground that someone wouldn't be silly enough to believe abortion is advocted by God.

I'll leave with this: At two weeks pregnancy, the fetus can move alone. At four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. Whatever imaginary thing is in there in your opinion is your opinion but have you ever thought that even though we have enacted into law in Canada and the United States that we (humans) who did it could be wrong? This is why the abortion issue never goes away, it is fundamentally wrong. You really think humans are infallible that we weren't wrong for advocating it?

I've read before that about 95% of abortions are done out of convenience because they do not want a child. That's a lot of life right there. The rest is 3% or so because of danger from the mother. That leaves about 2% for r*pe and incest and I suppose it would also include if the baby was in danger. 95%, marinate on that.

The argument that a "fetus" is dependant on the mother is another argument easily thrown out the window. Have you ever seen a newborn baby carry on and take care of itself? Hell, a newborn needs their mother just as much as a fetus. What's the difference? Is it okay to throw the newborn out the window since he is basically just as "useless" as the fetus? A little common sense and compassion in your opinion would go a long way.
You were waiting for an obvious trap???? And yet you walked right into it?

And you proved my basic point - The Bible has virtually nothing to say about abortion per se and certainly no proscription against it so it requires tortured interpretations to support the view that the Bible validates the evangelical Christian anti-abortion movement.

Thank you for the assist.

You miss the basic issue... yet again. Once a fetus is born alive it has rights as a person separate from that of the birth mother and the law is clear on that point. Before that point a fetus is not a person and has no legal rights separate from that of the pregnant woman.

It is also clear that failure to provide the necessities for the baby to live is a crime. So you cannot simply throw "the newborn out the window".

Quite different issues but as usual you are unable to differentiate.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.