Abortionist The New Age Nazi's

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1135972' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:31 PM']
Aloysius, we've been down this road before and we've already shared our views of the scenery.

Let me explain to you my principles yet again...

1. Of course the embryo is human, it's not an alligator. My issue is not with humanity, it's with the soul. murder to most spiritual people is prematurely sending a soul away from this life, not just ending life like stepping on an ant, although there are some religions that believe that is a sin as well. I can understand them being pro life. But if you've ever killed a bug or germs then you are exempt from this philosophy.[/quote]
Do you consider yourself Christian? Do you believe in a soul?
A soul is what gives a body life. (In Aristotelian/Thomistic terms, it is the [i]form[/i] of the body, but perhaps I'm jumping ahead of myself on the philosophy.)
If a human being is alive it has a soul.
The new human life begins at conception. The human embryo (which is a distinct organism from both the mother and the father) is alive from the moment of conception. Any honest biologist can tell you that. It is alive, it takes in nutrients, it grows, it develops. It is not a piece of dead matter.

And you've already agreed that the human embryo/fetus is indeed human. It is not an alligator, ant, or gnat. It is human and alive. If it did not have a soul, it would be already dead, so it could not be killed.

[quote]2. I have no proof prooving the embryo has a soul immediatley following conception.
Other humans that do not share my faith, the only common ground that binds us is what we can proove. We can not proove that an embryo has a soul immediatley following conception.... therefore we have no plausible reason to call abortion murder... except through faith, which is not plausible when creating policy that everybody including non belivers will live under.[/quote]
When do you think a human being does gain a soul? Are you saying that God gives it a soul just after exiting the mother's womb? If it did not have a soul before, how was the unborn baby kept alive?

And, according to you, how can we know that [i]anybody[/i] has a soul at any time in their life?? Is there some concrete proof you can offer that somebody "has a soul" and thus has a life worthy of legal protection? Or are we simply to snuff out a human being's life whenever it becomes inconvenient or burdensome to others?

[quote]Therefore, I will not blindly take up and fight for a cause under the pretenses of faith, because matters of faith are best handled by God, not by humans. I'm not about to go on a crusade... haven't we already learned that lesson?
The german people didn't even KNOW about the holocaust. People were black bagged. you just didn't see them again. If you talk to any german that lived through the holocaust you would find out that they were SHOCKED and DISGUSTED to learn of the concentration camps. It's totally an unviable analogy, it doesn't make sense philisophically, and it doesn't make sense historically. The only comparison to Nazi's I see is the demonization of people according to thier believes.
They didn't turn a blind eye. It was hidden from them. Big difference.[/quote]
Plenty of people ignore the realities of abortion. They refuse to look and are disgusted at pictures of aborted babies.

The comparison of abortion with the holocaust and slavery is that in all cases human beings were legally classified as "non-persons" in order to justify killing or denying human rights to them.

Edited December 6, 2006 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

The soul is the principal of life. Anything which is living has a soul. Animal and bug and bacterial souls are mortal souls, the end of their physical life is synonymous with the end of the life of their soul. The Christian belief is that a human soul is immortal and unique, and thus it is only the ending of human life which can be considered murder.

But anything which is admitted to be "alive" is automatically admitted to have a soul.

You have a dualist philosophy, as if the soul were something distinct from life. Lives and souls are the same thing. If you are alive, you have an animating force, "anima"="soul". if human life, human souls, are unique then ending any human life is evil.

but let's assume your faulty dualist logic and wonder at which point the soul is "infused" (of course, most modernity has completely disavowed this ghost-in-the-shell view and Judeo-Christianity itself has had a long struggle back and forth balancing between this type Platonic dualism and the Hebrew understanding which equates physical life with the soul). (St. Thomas Aquinas believed that the fetus started as a vegetable with a vegetable soul, then became an animal with an animal soul, and then became a human with a human soul; but that every stage it could be considered 'alive' it had an anima, a soul; just that the animal soul and vegetable soul did not make us necessarily have to respect its life... seing as we've already admitted its humanity based on modern science, this is a non-issue)

let's list a few of the most likely possibilities:
conception
implantation
first heart beat
birth
first breath

the first three all occur prior to most abortions. There is a time line posted somewhere on one of these threads, I dont feel like finding it.

philosophically speaking, if we are to consider an infusing of the soul as the infusion of the substance of being, we ought to look for the most substantive change. the moment of conception, I would argue, is the most substantive change. it goes from a state of two cells: one cell part of the life of the man and one cell part of the life of the woman, the destruction of either one would not end the human life that they are part of; into being one unique new embryo with a unique genetic code and all the information it needs right down to the eye color.

but to give credence to a couple of the others: the first heart beat is probably one of the most important things. the end of life is often cited with the end of the heartbeat (though a heart can be re-started)

the first breath doesn't make sense to me: that would require breathing as causing one to have a soul... and everytime I held my breath I would cease to have a soul I propose. the end of breath is not really a proper end-of-life; nor can breath be considered a proper beginning of life.

birth causes no substantive change.

but most of all, I would argue against the ghost-in-the-shell dualism. Anything that is alive has a soul, that's what soul means-- life force. Anything that is human and alive therefore has a human soul. Anything which has a unique genetic code is a unique human (skin cells are part of one particular human, even sperm and egg cells are part of one particular human. once the sperm and egg are together, however, it is a total unique human person the destruction of which is the destruction of a total unique human life.

people die at all stages of developement for all sorts of natural reasons. that some embryos do not make it does not disqualify them from being uniquely alive humans.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
Do you consider yourself Christian? Do you believe in a soul?
A soul is what gives a body life. (In Aristotelian/Thomistic terms, it is the [i]form[/i] of the body, but perhaps I'm jumping ahead of myself on the philosophy.)
If a human being is alive it has a soul.
The new human life begins at conception. The human embryo (which is a distinct organism from both the mother and the father) is alive from the moment of conception. Any honest biologist can tell you that. It is alive, it takes in nutrients, it grows, it develops. It is not a piece of dead matter.[/quote]

That's not proof... that's a theory, a philosophy. It's not something that can be substantiated with physical evidence. One could also argue that the embryo at that stage is also a parisite, because it needs the woman as a host to live.

Yes I am christian. Of course I believe in a soul. But those are MY beliefs, not the world's. I render on to ceaser what is his and I pray in a closet.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
And you've already agreed that the human embryo/fetus is indeed human. It is not an alligator, ant, or gnat. It is human and alive. If it did not have a soul, it would be already dead, so it could not be killed.
When do you think a human being does gain a soul? Are you saying that God gives it a soul just after exiting the mother's womb? If it did not have a soul before, how was the unborn baby kept alive?[/quote]

I don't KNOW when a human gets his soul. Nobody does... I refuse to speculate on it and allow a policy/Law to be created with such a permeable foundation.

Do you think cells have a soul? Does a tree have a soul? they are alive are they not? have you even pulled weeds from your garden? Have you ever had an operation that purposley killed some of your cells? I believe that just because somehting is alive does not necessarily mean it has a soul. There is no proof substantiating that to be true or false, because you cannot scientifically proove the soul to exist... that has to be taken upon faith at the moment. But even if you do believe those living organizims have a soul... then you would be a hypocrite for pressing for this type of legislation.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
And, according to you, how can we know that [i]anybody[/i] has a soul at any time in their life?? Is there some concrete proof you can offer that somebody "has a soul" and thus has a life worthy of legal protection? Or are we simply to snuff out a human being's life whenever it becomes inconvenient or burdensome to others?
Plenty of people ignore the realities of abortion. They refuse to look and are disgusted at pictures of aborted babies. [/quote]

The ability to empathize. Putting yourself in somebody elses shoes is my proof of a soul. I can empathize with any child or adult. I cannot empathize with an embryo.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136006' date='Dec 5 2006, 10:59 PM']
The comparison of abortion with the holocaust and slavery is that in all cases human beings were legally classified as "non-persons" in order to justify killing or denying human rights to them.
[/quote]

wrong... The Nazi's justification for killing Jews was outright HATRED. Not writing them off as soulless... The nazi's believed the Jews to be outright evil and a cancer to the human race that needed to be removed. As I said the analogy comparing pro choicers to nazi's is just outright antisemetic.

Edited December 6, 2006 by JClives

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136017' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:09 PM']
The soul is the principal of life. Anything which is living has a soul. Animal and bug and bacterial souls are mortal souls, the end of their physical life is synonymous with the end of the life of their soul. The Christian belief is that a human soul is immortal and unique, and thus it is only the ending of human life which can be considered murder.

But anything which is admitted to be "alive" is automatically admitted to have a soul.

You have a dualist philosophy, as if the soul were something distinct from life. Lives and souls are the same thing. If you are alive, you have an animating force, "anima"="soul". if human life, human souls, are unique then ending any human life is evil.

but let's assume your faulty dualist logic and wonder at which point the soul is "infused" (of course, most modernity has completely disavowed this ghost-in-the-shell view and Judeo-Christianity itself has had a long struggle back and forth balancing between this type Platonic dualism and the Hebrew understanding which equates physical life with the soul). (St. Thomas Aquinas believed that the fetus started as a vegetable with a vegetable soul, then became an animal with an animal soul, and then became a human with a human soul; but that every stage it could be considered 'alive' it had an anima, a soul; just that the animal soul and vegetable soul did not make us necessarily have to respect its life... seing as we've already admitted its humanity based on modern science, this is a non-issue)

let's list a few of the most likely possibilities:
conception
implantation
first heart beat
birth
first breath

the first three all occur prior to most abortions. There is a time line posted somewhere on one of these threads, I dont feel like finding it.

philosophically speaking, if we are to consider an infusing of the soul as the infusion of the substance of being, we ought to look for the most substantive change. the moment of conception, I would argue, is the most substantive change. it goes from a state of two cells: one cell part of the life of the man and one cell part of the life of the woman, the destruction of either one would not end the human life that they are part of; into being one unique new embryo with a unique genetic code and all the information it needs right down to the eye color.

but to give credence to a couple of the others: the first heart beat is probably one of the most important things. the end of life is often cited with the end of the heartbeat (though a heart can be re-started)

the first breath doesn't make sense to me: that would require breathing as causing one to have a soul... and everytime I held my breath I would cease to have a soul I propose. the end of breath is not really a proper end-of-life; nor can breath be considered a proper beginning of life.

birth causes no substantive change.

but most of all, I would argue against the ghost-in-the-shell dualism. Anything that is alive has a soul, that's what soul means-- life force. Anything that is human and alive therefore has a human soul. Anything which has a unique genetic code is a unique human (skin cells are part of one particular human, even sperm and egg cells are part of one particular human. once the sperm and egg are together, however, it is a total unique human person the destruction of which is the destruction of a total unique human life.

people die at all stages of developement for all sorts of natural reasons. that some embryos do not make it does not disqualify them from being uniquely alive humans.
[/quote]

I don't have any philosophy. I don't KNOW when a soul enters the body... there is NO CONCRETE PROOF. You can quote all of the philisophical writings you want man... it's all theoretical.

[Aloysius]

basically, you don't understand what a soul is. your version of what a soul is would be laughed out of academia very quickly, because it's a ghost-in-the-shell dualist idea which modern psychology is very confident in itself having demolished any such concept.

the soul is what makes something be alive. if it is alive, it has a soul. if it is human, it has a human soul. if it is the totality of a unique human with unique DNA, then keeping it alive will keep a human alive; and killing it would kill a human.

[quote name='JClives' post='1136046' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:38 PM']
I don't have any philosophy. I don't KNOW when a soul enters the body... there is NO CONCRETE PROOF. You can quote all of the philisophical writings you want man... it's all theoretical.
[/quote]
the soul does not enter the body. the body and the soul are united. if there is a live human body, there is a human soul.

you have a philosophy whether you know it or not: and your philosophy is extremely dualist... as if the body and the soul are two different things with two different beginnings. this concept is not in line with modern science or most good philosophies, especially judeo-Christian philosophies.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136053' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:44 PM']
basically, you don't understand what a soul is. your version of what a soul is would be laughed out of academia very quickly, because it's a ghost-in-the-shell dualist idea which modern psychology is very confident in itself having demolished any such concept.

the soul is what makes something be alive. if it is alive, it has a soul. if it is human, it has a human soul. if it is the totality of a unique human with unique DNA, then keeping it alive will keep a human alive; and killing it would kill a human.
the soul does not enter the body. the body and the soul are united. if there is a live human body, there is a human soul.

you have a philosophy whether you know it or not: and your philosophy is extremely dualist... as if the body and the soul are two different things with two different beginnings. this concept is not in line with modern science or most good philosophies, especially judeo-Christian philosophies.
[/quote]

so then when you die your soul is dead? that makes no sense what so ever. The soul has to be seperate from the body if you believe in heaven.

[Aloysius]

the human soul is immortal. animal souls are not necessarily (no need to debate that here if you disagree, as it would be a red herring, somehow unless you're a vegan you justify killing animals in a way which would not justify killing humans and that's the only point I need to make in this argument). when the body dies, the soul is unnaturally seperated from the body until the end of time when the body will be re-made and re-joined with the soul.

the soul gives life to the body. once the body dies, the soul lives on without the body.

every body that is alive has a soul (a life force); not every soul that is alive has a body.

of course, we are talking about matters of public policy and therefore need to step back from discussing the afterlife, a religious belief, and continue to talk primarily about human life and when it needs to be protection. the philosophical understanding of the soul apart from any belief in the afterlife is believed from any perspective, from the faithful Christians to the godless atheists. a body is alive, its life-principal is what is called by religious folks a "soul", but by non-religious folks probably just its life principal, or the fact that it's alive, or whatever they want to call it. the fact remains that if you accept the two presuppositions 1) that the embryo is a unique human and 2) that it is alive; then it is a human person worthy of protection; and if you want to talk about souls-- the fact that it is alive proves it has a soul if you properly understand what a soul is...

the point is: it's not a religious question at this point. there is a unique human person in existence, no other human person has the right to end that unique human person's life.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136104' date='Dec 6 2006, 12:07 AM']
the human soul is immortal. animal souls are not necessarily (no need to debate that here if you disagree, as it would be a red herring, somehow unless you're a vegan you justify killing animals in a way which would not justify killing humans and that's the only point I need to make in this argument). when the body dies, the soul is unnaturally seperated from the body until the end of time when the body will be re-made and re-joined with the soul.

the soul gives life to the body. once the body dies, the soul lives on without the body.

every body that is alive has a soul (a life force); not every soul that is alive has a body.

of course, we are talking about matters of public policy and therefore need to step back from discussing the afterlife, a religious belief, and continue to talk primarily about human life and when it needs to be protection. the philosophical understanding of the soul apart from any belief in the afterlife is believed from any perspective, from the faithful Christians to the godless atheists. a body is alive, its life-principal is what is called by religious folks a "soul", but by non-religious folks probably just its life principal, or the fact that it's alive, or whatever they want to call it. the fact remains that if you accept the two presuppositions 1) that the embryo is a unique human and 2) that it is alive; then it is a human person worthy of protection; and if you want to talk about souls-- the fact that it is alive proves it has a soul if you properly understand what a soul is...

the point is: it's not a religious question at this point. there is a unique human person in existence, no other human person has the right to end that unique human person's life.
[/quote]

Aloysius I actually like that philosophy. it makes a lot of sense and is very enlightening. But let's get back on topic here for a second. you can't base a mortal law upon supernatural philosophy. America has freedom of religion. Americans have the freedom to choose what they want to do. that philospophy no matter how much I like it or no matter how much sense it makes... it cannot be proven with tangible evidence. it is still a theory and therefore cannot have laws created off of it.

[Aloysius]

it's a great thing when dialogue actually goes somewhere and people can learn by discussion even when they still don't agree on many issues

anyway: that's just the thing-- law shouldn't be made on some concept of when the "soul" is "infused" into the body: that would be a religious concept.

law should be made to protect any unique living human person from any other human person.

legal philosophy 101: no human being has the legal right to end another human being's life (except in self defence). you have admitted life and humanity are qualities of the fetus; therefore the law ought to protect it.

the only legal justification would be to attempt to call it un-human (seeing as it has a unique human genetic code, this does not hold up) or not alive (when it is clearly alive)

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1136032' date='Dec 5 2006, 11:22 PM']
That's not proof... that's a theory, a philosophy. It's not something that can be substantiated with physical evidence. One could also argue that the embryo at that stage is also a parisite, because it needs the woman as a host to live.[/quote]
Well, you've claimed that the reason it is wrong to kill people is because of their soul.

Can you offer concrete [i]physical[/i] evidence that you or any other person has a soul? And a year-old child is also dependent on others to live? Is it also a "parasite"?

[quote]Yes I am christian. Of course I believe in a soul. But those are MY beliefs, not the world's. I render on to ceaser what is his and I pray in a closet.
I don't KNOW when a human gets his soul. Nobody does... I refuse to speculate on it and allow a policy/Law to be created with such a permeable foundation. [/quote]
Well, if you're Christian, the Apostles were not afraid to go out and evangelize all nations. They certainly didn't keep their Faith hidden under a bushel basket, nor in a closet! And we are called to be in the world, not of the world. Learn the Bible before you try to refer to it.

If we don't know when anybody "gets their soul," does that mean we should be allowed to just kill anybody, since (according to you) we can never know for certain whether anyone "has a soul"?


[quote]Do you think cells have a soul? Does a tree have a soul? they are alive are they not? have you even pulled weeds from your garden? Have you ever had an operation that purposley killed some of your cells? I believe that just because somehting is alive does not necessarily mean it has a soul. There is no proof substantiating that to be true or false, because you cannot scientifically proove the soul to exist... that has to be taken upon faith at the moment. But even if you do believe those living organizims have a soul... then you would be a hypocrite for pressing for this type of legislation.[/quote]
They have non-rational animal or vegetative souls which do not survive death. (Sorry I don't have time to go into all the philosophy now). We believe the human soul is rational and immortal, and that human life is more valuable and worthy of protection than lower forms of life.

[quote]The ability to empathize. Putting yourself in somebody elses shoes is my proof of a soul. I can empathize with any child or adult. I cannot empathize with an embryo..[/quote]
You're setting up your own subjective feelings as the basis of a right to life here. Maybe some hateful bigots can't emphasize with blacks or Jews or some other people. Maybe some people can't empaphize with you. Maybe I can't empaphize with anybody.
While maybe some sensitive souls can empahize with kittens and puppy dogs and trees and insects. You've proven nothing objective here.

[quote]wrong... The Nazi's justification for killing Jews was outright HATRED. Not writing them off as soulless... The nazi's believed the Jews to be outright evil and a cancer to the human race that needed to be removed. As I said the analogy comparing pro choicers to nazi's is just outright antisemetic[/quote]
So as long as we declare the killers are not motivated by "outright hate" it's alright to kill other human beings? (And how can we read minds and determine everyone's inner motivation anyway?)

You're missing my point - they both declared human-beings "non-persons" to justify killing them.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136142' date='Dec 6 2006, 12:47 AM']
it's a great thing when dialogue actually goes somewhere and people can learn by discussion even when they still don't agree on many issues

anyway: that's just the thing-- law shouldn't be made on some concept of when the "soul" is "infused" into the body: that would be a religious concept.

law should be made to protect any unique living human person from any other human person.

legal philosophy 101: no human being has the legal right to end another human being's life (except in self defence). you have admitted life and humanity are qualities of the fetus; therefore the law ought to protect it.

the only legal justification would be to attempt to call it un-human (seeing as it has a unique human genetic code, this does not hold up) or not alive (when it is clearly alive)
[/quote]

The problem is is that the woman feels as if she IS defending herself. for whatever the reason, we have to let her make that decision. It's her nutrients that the embryo is feeding off of. Does she not have the right to choose if she wants to lone her body to another "human being?"

If you had the same bone marrow type as a lukemia patient... are you REQUIRED to give it to him? I'd be nice if you did... but should you be REQUIRED to do so? This is why The woman should have the right to choose... because if she does not have that right... then it opens up the door for all of us to be subjected to that same type of medical scrutiny.

how would you like it if the government had all of your medical records... and served you a supena to show up to the nearest hospital to donate your blood or your bone marrow? Or even worse... just like expecting a women to have a baby when the pregnency will kill her... What if donating the bone marrow will kill you? what if you've already loned so much of your bone marrow that you can't spare any more? But it doesn't matter... it's either donate and die, or refuse and end up in jail.... Because if you didn't donate, then you're letting that person die and it's murder punishible by the same legal penalties that the criminal element of this society recieves for intentionally shooting or stabbing somebody.

That legal philosophy is just that... a philosophy. It's not realistic when it comes to abortion and a woman's right to choose.

Edited December 6, 2006 by JClives

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
Well, you've claimed that the reason it is wrong to kill people is because of their soul.

Can you offer concrete [i]physical[/i] evidence that you or any other person has a soul? And a year-old child is also dependent on others to live? Is it also a "parasite"? [/quote]

No because a parasite is defined as an organisim that lives INSIDE of a hosts body. A 1 year old child lives outside silly


[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
Well, if you're Christian, the Apostles were not afraid to go out and evangelize all nations. They certainly didn't keep their Faith hidden under a bushel basket, nor in a closet! And we are called to be in the world, not of the world. Learn the Bible before you try to refer to it. [/quote]

Show me where I said I hide my faith? I was speaking on crusading.. forcing people to believe as you do.... There is a clearly distinquishable differance between evangelizing and making laws based on your beliefs, thus subjecting all non believers to your believes without thier explicit permission. I mean what the heck... God, the guy that made the first 10 laws, the same guy that created us, even HE gave us free will. What makes you think you have the right to strip that away from people?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
If we don't know when anybody "gets their soul," does that mean we should be allowed to just kill anybody, since (according to you) we can never know for certain whether anyone "has a soul"?[/quote]

No of course not. But 1 woman does not have the ability to kill another womans embryo. It's her choice.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
They have non-rational animal or vegetative souls which do not survive death. (Sorry I don't have time to go into all the philosophy now). We believe the human soul is rational and immortal, and that human life is more valuable and worthy of protection than lower forms of life.[/quote]

So Humans are to plants what Nazi's are to Jews?

Just joking I'm tired and I'm workin overtime.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
You're setting up your own subjective feelings as the basis of a right to life here. Maybe some hateful bigots can't emphasize with blacks or Jews or some other people. Maybe some people can't empaphize with you. Maybe I can't empaphize with anybody.
While maybe some sensitive souls can empahize with kittens and puppy dogs and trees and insects. You've proven nothing objective here.[/quote]

The point is, is that every human is CAPABLE of empathising with every other human being on the planet... I didn't say that everyone did or allowed themselves too. And you can't empathize with an animal. You can learn thier behavioral patterns and use them to communicate with them. That's not empathy.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
So as long as we declare the killers are not motivated by "outright hate" it's alright to kill other human beings? (And how can we read minds and determine everyone's inner motivation anyway?) You're missing my point - they both declared human-beings "non-persons" to justify killing them.
[/quote]

I didn't say that... i was retorting to your comparison between pro choicers and Nazi's. You said that Nazi's looked at jews as not being people, comparing that to how pro choicers look at babies. Nevermind the fact that pro choicers support choice and how they feel about the embryo is irrelevant.... I was simply pointing out that the Nazi's HATED the jews... never once did they deny them humanship. They Killed them with the soul purpose of having them erradicated from the planet as an entire RACE [b]OF PEOPLE[/b] . A woman having an abortion is in no way comparable to a falsly justified mass genocided glued together by a hateful philosphy.

Edited December 6, 2006 by JClives

[Aloysius]

if a unique human person lives dependent upon your body because of his connectedness to you, you do not have the right to kill it. siamese twins do not have the right to kill their other-half.

I don't intend to go into a debate about abortion to save the life of the mother here. Let's just stick to the basic ideal pregnancy situation and if abortion is justified there for the sake of the argument.

there is a fundamental difference between the situations. in one: a human being exists in his natural state where all human beings must begin. as a live human who is not infringing upon any individual in any unacceptable manner (it is acceptable for a baby to expect to be able to grow within a mother's womb; it is not acceptable for a random lukemia patient to expect your bone marrow) but rather

basically, you offer the choice to forbid one person their natural state of developement by killing them because of its burden to the person on whom they are dependent for that developement.

fundamental human rights that ought to be protected by the government:
1) the right to live.
2) the right to natural expectation of aid in growth from youth to adulthood from the parents (parents are held responsible to keep their children alive and in a situation in which they can grow through natural means)

these are things which our laws enforce... except in the womb though there is no justification for removing the protection of law from a person whilst in the womb.

legally a woman has a responsibility to allow that human person to grow inside of her; just as legally all parents have the responsibility to see to the safety and welfare of the children they procreate (even if it means giving them up for adoption; killing them is never a legal option)

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136282' date='Dec 6 2006, 02:10 AM']
if a unique human person lives dependent upon your body because of his connectedness to you, you do not have the right to kill it. siamese twins do not have the right to kill their other-half.

I don't intend to go into a debate about abortion to save the life of the mother here. Let's just stick to the basic ideal pregnancy situation and if abortion is justified there for the sake of the argument.

there is a fundamental difference between the situations. in one: a human being exists in his natural state where all human beings must begin. as a live human who is not infringing upon any individual in any unacceptable manner (it is acceptable for a baby to expect to be able to grow within a mother's womb; it is not acceptable for a random lukemia patient to expect your bone marrow) but rather

basically, you offer the choice to forbid one person their natural state of developement by killing them because of its burden to the person on whom they are dependent for that developement.

fundamental human rights that ought to be protected by the government:
1) the right to live.
2) the right to natural expectation of aid in growth from youth to adulthood from the parents (parents are held responsible to keep their children alive and in a situation in which they can grow through natural means)

these are things which our laws enforce... except in the womb though there is no justification for removing the protection of law from a person whilst in the womb.

legally a woman has a responsibility to allow that human person to grow inside of her; just as legally all parents have the responsibility to see to the safety and welfare of the children they procreate (even if it means giving them up for adoption; killing them is never a legal option)
[/quote]

It doesn't matter though... Because Even if that lukemia patient was a child... and your bone marrow transplant GUARENTEED the childs normal human development, thus making him dependant on you... you still should not have to be obligated to do so under US law.

However your logic regarding normal development is inane. In both cases... A person still has to CHOOSE whether or not to give another person life based on sacrificing thier own body. It's unfair to place that expectation on women simply because they literally have a uterous. It's sexist.

[Aloysius]

that's nature, dude. nature. not sexism, NATURE. I cannot believe how radically un-human and un-natural; even anti-human and anti-natural, your logic is.

if that lukemia patiant by some natural process became a part of me as a normal stage in his development that all human beings must go through, I would not be permitted to kill him or let him die. of course, there is no such situation; me and the lukemia patiant are non-connected individuals. the mother and child are individuals connected by nature.

step back and listen to yourself and your logic for a second. you're 1 arguing against human nature as "sexist" and 2 justifying the legality of ending of one life for the convenience of another

all parents are obligated under US law to see to it that their children are given the chance to grow and develop. no parent is permitted the right to choose to kill their child or allow their child to die in any way to get rid of them.

this is a human person, a unique human person, going through the initial natural stage of development of growing inside his mother. the law ought to protect that human person against the choice of any other human person. if that means a 9 month 'inconvenience' so be it. can a siamese twin choose to kill off one of his twins in order to have a more convenient life and personal privacy and freedom? not legally, no. not morally either of course. the two can be seperated but not at the expense of one life over the other.

[pcabibi]

Well forgive me but I just don't see how giving a woman the right to decide what happens inside her body as unhuman, unnatural, and illogical. I feel as if you are justifying sexisim with philosophy while cloaking it with principle. To me that is dangerous territory to tread in, especially when one demonizes an entire idealogy by likening it to Nazi's, when we all follow the same God.


My logic is perfectly sound. Even with your siamise twin arguement, the mother can choose to end one of thier lives to give the other one a better chance. That's happened alot actually.

Look, you can try and bait me into a philisophical discussion all day long about my views on murder and what is or is not a human... it's immaterial. Giving people who are able to make a choice, the ability to do so.. is not only crucial to me, but it's also morally sound. I apologize if you do not see it through the same window I'm looking through