The Abortion is Murder - Madness on the so called Christian Right

originally posted by: DBCowboy

So is a one year old.

Your point?

Wrong...... extended family, the community, the village can ALL bring up

a one year old, or indeed a new born.

But only the pregnant woman can deliver that infant 'to life' in the first

instance.

I'm not religious, i think abortion is murder.

What else would you call willingly killing a growing baby in the womb?

For all the pro choice crowd i've said it before. Go look at some pictures of late term abortions and see how long you can keep up the argument.

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: DBCowboy

So is a one year old.

Your point?

Wrong...... extended family, the community, the village can ALL bring up

a one year old, or indeed a new born.

But only the pregnant woman can deliver that infant 'to life' in the first

instance.

The unborn human being is already alive and had been since conception.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dragoon01



Maybe, before first breath, we are just animated mud.

Yes and no..

The passage you are quoting is in reference to the FIRST man. Its metephorical but its describing the process of changing man from his purely material state "the dust" to a complete being with both life and spirit.
His being raised (or his fall if you take that line of thought) from a purely animal nature to a duel nature.

Thats the process I am refering to as well. A process repeated in every birth, however what is called the "breath of life" is in reference to the spiritual "life" not the physical life. Its should not be seen as an actual physical breath of air. Its that point I am refering to where the spirit enters the physical body.

BTW Pro Life isn't telling a woman what they can do with THEIR body. It's telling them what they cant do to their unborn child.

The pro choice lobby can take the tiny fraction of abortions that are somewhat understandable (rape, incest, medical reasons) and hide behind them.

Fact is, most abortions are performed on perfectly healthy women who where quick to open their legs but then found the consequences of their actions an inconvenience to their lifestyle.

It's not your body, it's the unborn babies body that you just mutilated and dumped in the trash. That was the greatest gift you would ever have and it's flushed down the toilet.

Disgusting on all levels.

Left to natural process's that have evolved over millions of years a fetus will develop into a healthy human baby.

It's a sad day when we treat conception in the same way we do disease, cutting it out like a cancer.

What has the world come to when people vehemently defend such abhorrent actions?

a reply to: Dragoon01

The passage you are quoting is in reference to the FIRST man. Its metephorical but its describing the process of changing man from his purely material state "the dust" to a complete being with both life and spirit.

Nevertheless, the concept is embedded in Jewish law and philosophy. A fetus is part of a woman's body, is not counted as a person, and is in fact considered property, that when "taken" in an act of violence, the person responsible is punished with a monetary fine, not life for life.

Numbers 5 offers the remedy of abortion when a man suspects his wife has committed adultery, and that the child she's carrying is not his.

In the Bible, when a pregnant women commits a crime punishable by death, her sentence isn't suspended until she gives birth. Both of them were condemned.

I love how the Democrats have become baby-killers, and then try to act like they are doing good.

a reply to: eletheia

^^^^ tick or tapeworm^^^^

They are common parasites, are they not?

Or do you object to the animal inference?

Other than the fact that it demeans animals to suggest they kill their young for reasons of convenience, no.

I prefer using the correct medical technical terms.

And yet you classify unborn babies as parasites... right... tell me another one.

You do realize that, since you were once an unborn baby, you are saying you are a parasite... right?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Okay, good. We are actually getting somewhere.

You don't think human life starts at the point of sentience and I do. You think it starts at the point of conception and I do not.

I have given much elaboration on my moral position and what science is saying in respect to my position.

You're still not really conveying yours. Why do you think the starting point of human life begins at conception and not where I think it starts?

Ah, so you think that people who have mental deficiencies and are not able to communicate properly are not human beings?...

Where do you draw the line? You want to claim that because HUMAN fetus is merely starting to develop that they can't be human?...

You are treading in very dangerous waters. The very first people who also thought this type of thinking you, and the pro-choice crowd, are portraying were responsible for some of the most horrible treatment against other "humans" who were not considered as "humans" by them...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...
A fetus is part of a woman's body, is not counted as a person, and is in fact considered property, that when "taken" in an act of violence, the person responsible is punished with a monetary fine, not life for life.
...

That's false. A human fetus is NOT part of a woman's body... A human fetus has his/her own head and brain, her/his own heart, his/her own lungs, his/her own 2 arms/hands, her/his own 2 legs and feet.

Claiming that a human fetus is part of a woman's body is simply to be ignorant of factual medical knowledge, and biology.

Ironic that the very same people who yell "if you disagree with me on Climate Change you are a climate denier", (despite the fact that science also shows evidence to the contrary of these claims) are the very same people who want to deny human anatomy, biology and medical knowledge...

BTW, I am not sure if it was you, I am really bad remembering names, but this was already addressed before in another thread. In fact the law states that not only is monetary fines are to be paid but it does say that when the life of the unborn is taken, that an equal amount of penalty must be subjected to the criminal. In other words, a life for a life. But the Torah is part of the Old Testament and as such only Jewish people abide by these laws, unless they are progressive.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Numbers 5 offers the remedy of abortion when a man suspects his wife has committed adultery, and that the child she's carrying is not his.

Give a link and excerpt as to what you are talking about please.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
In the Bible, when a pregnant women commits a crime punishable by death, her sentence isn't suspended until she gives birth. Both of them were condemned.

Could you give an excerpt and a link to see what you are talking about?

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AlienView

I think, what is most disturbing, is your attempt to justify killing unborn human life.

*Your attempt to justify killing unborn 'potential' human life?*

A human fetus is not "potential life," he/she is a human life that is beginning his/her journey... Is the human fetus alive yes or no?... If he/she wasn't then he/she would be dead and wouldn't need sustenance...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Sigh.
The Supreme Court ruled, on several occasions, that a fetus is not a "person", and therefore, it has no "right to life", not me.

Secondly, The Supreme Court ruled that "viability" is the threshold for abortion. Medical science decides when viability occurs, not the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also ruled that corporations have many of the same rights as humans... Were they right on that ruling?...


The U.S. Supreme Court's Cultivation of Corporate Personhood. The liberal justices expanded the rights of corporations, without considering the limits of that doctrine.

The law of the land, in the U.S., is NOT the Supreme Court... The law of the land is the U.S. Constitution.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That's false. A human fetus is NOT part of a woman's body...

Beliefs can't be false. That's what biblical Hebrews believed.

Give a link and excerpt as to what you are talking about please.

Read the chapter for yourself. It's all there.

Could you give an excerpt and a link to see what you are talking about?

How about you provide an excerpt from the Bible where a pregnant women who was sentenced to death was given a reprieve until her baby was born.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The Supreme Court also ruled that corporations have the same rights as humans... Were they right on that ruling?...

No, they did not. SCOTUS ruled that money is speech, and that corporations have the right to free speech. They don't have the right to vote, to run for office, to serve in the military, can't be jailed, etc.

Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation and conservative advocacy group that successfully sued the Federal Election Commission in 2008 claiming its campaign finance rules represented unconstitutional restrictions on the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision ruled that the federal government cannot limit corporations - or, for that matter, unions, associations or individuals - from spending money to influence the outcome of elections. The ruling led to the creation of super PACs.

www.thoughtco.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ummm, so the Op goes off on anti-abortionists about using the bible to support their decision and here you are, a pro-abortionist, using the bible.

???

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Ummm, so the Op goes off on anti-abortionists about using the bible to support their decision and here you are, a pro-abortionist, using the bible.

???

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

I'm trying my hardest to stick to the topic. Which is to say a discussion of abortion. If you want to hear my thoughts on the morality of other issues, then we can do that, but I don't see how it pertains to this. I truly don't see how my argument applies there. Seems like a red herring to me. Perhaps just a non-sequitur. I'm always willing to engage in discussion as I love moral topics; I just don't see it's relevancy.

Pointing out what "progressive states" are doing in regards to abortion IS part of this discussion which is about...abortion... After birth abortion is also part of this debate because "progressives" are using the abortion debate to try to legalize the murder of newborns. Although "progressive" states like New York have already made it legal to murder newborns that survive abortions and are born alive...

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
No. It's not ME. It's supported by a body of scientific evidence! You know, like in the link you cited in support of your position. That was not just you, right? You were appealing to the legitimacy of scientific findings, right? What I did is no different. The science in fact shows sentience starts to arise once sufficient neurological structures have developed, and not before...

You gave one article, i gave another but we both can find several that will disagree with each other... What's your "scientific" evidence for supporting your point and not what other research papers state?... You seem to think to be the judge and jury on what research papers to believe.

Do you also believe that a "human fetus is part of a woman's body"? Or do you think that a human fetus is a distinct "human being" with his/her own genetic code, and his/her own body?

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Correct. As I said, and as that study said, and the science shows, neural development has a starting point and its maturity comes to fruition at the end of the pregnancy. You're pointing to a specific point and saying "look, EEG activity!". The study, and the science, acknowledges that observation but also says sentience is not arising at the first point in the timeline of development. Brain activity does not equal sentience. The immature neural structures indeed register activity on the EEG, but the science says those early stages of neural development are not sufficient for the emergence of sentience. That does not occur until later neural development.

Science is always evolving, and we find evidence that has contradicted previous assumptions. Somehow you seem to believe that because a human fetus does not have sentience as YOU define it that they shouldn't be viewed as human beings. But here are the facts you want to ignore. When I type "YOU" it is because you choose what peer review research to believe, and which to ignore.

The human fetus starting very early in her/his development already fulfills the requirements to be considered as a human being. In fact, the woman's immune system recognizes the "human fetus" as a foreign body, and not as part of her body.

Abstract

Pregnancy poses an immunological challenge because a genetically distinct (nonself) fetus must be supported within the pregnant female for the required gestational period.
...

Immune responses at the maternal-fetal interface

The human fetus has his/her own genetic code which is different from the mother. The human fetus is alive and needs nutrition and care to continue developing properly, even before we can detect any sentience.

Chemical Evolution and the Evolutionary Definition of Life

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
While I am a neuroscience student, I don't claim to be anything close to an authority. I do, however, believe in authority on these matters. I think the intellectually honest position would be to acknowledge what neuroscience demonstrates on fetal development. Once we do that, we can have an actual ethical argument on this issue.

Yet you keep showing which research papers to use, and which to ignore which contradict your argument about sentience being the defining factor on when "human life is important."

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
I understand that. It doesn't actually convey as much as you think. Like, okay? Cells are living. My cactus is living. Simply stating a fetus is living is not a moral argument. I'm asking for the underling reasons for your ethics..

Unless, of course, this is ultimately a theological discussion?

It actually does convey not only what I think, but what science itself states, which contradicts your argument.

A human fetus has a unique and distinct human dna, human immune system, and human body. To actually claim that a human fetus somehow is equal to your cactus is to ignore biology, immunology, and medical science in general...

A cactus has "cactus" dna... A human fetus has "human" dna... They are two distinct species, and for you to try to argue that they are equal is simply ludicrous.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The Bible is not pro-life.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Genesis 2:7

“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.”


Maybe, before first breath, we are just animated mud.

You have already been told that this was the first man. After the first man reproduction in humans became different from what Genesis states happened with the first man...