So, ATS, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

I can't teach you to think critically. I can't explain how one general statement, with its given context, may be applied to more specific cases. It's called deductive reasoning. I can't be expected to educate you on the basic foundations of logical thought. There's a strange disconnect here, and I can't bridge it, believe me, I've tried. Like I said, it's exhausting. Particularly frustrating is the fact that I can't bother to make arguments based on logic, only to have you fail time and time again to even understand the basis of my argument, or ignore it altogether. I thought perhaps you didn't want to acknowledge the points I've made, but I'm beginning to think you're incapable of understanding them. I am trying to disengage with you because I find this exchange frustrating, potentially hostile, and ultimately pointless.

reply to post by slugger9787


Excellent. You've clearly stated the ground for your position which is the right to life, based upon "natural law." I hope we can debate this rationally.
Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are contending that even at conception, the will to live expresses "the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention," which is the definition of "volition." I would argue that processes such as cell division and yes, even the body's gasp for breath are instinctual, and inherently lack "the capability of conscious choice...."
If believe you are making somewhat of a leap to link these instinctual processes with a "spirit" that does possess such "volition." Also, would that imply that all other natural, instinctual processes are likewise endowed with volition? That's opens up a whole new ethical can of worms, does it not?
I do believe this is a productive line of thought, and I await your response.

reply to post by bluemirage5


pregnancy from rape, which is a microscopic percent
of total abortions can be facilitated by the morning after pill.

reply to post by slugger9787

Thank you for your contributions to the thread. I respect your opinions, and my heart is happy that you
realize the first position of the Right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by slugger9787

 

Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are contending that even at conception, the will to live expresses "the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention," which is the definition of "volition." I would argue that processes such as cell division and yes, even the body's gasp for breath are instinctual, and inherently lack "the capability of conscious choice...."

cell division is instinctual?
perhaps, I see it as the inherent volition to choose life.
The marital act of intercourse, for the purpose of conception,
has the spiritual element of immortality to it does it not.
And I grant that same right to the fertilized egg.

Breathing, that is so natural that one calls it instinct,
but the personal example of holding breath,
serves to underscore that upon falling into unconsciousness,
the will forces its life seeking choice to make you begin breathing.

Breathing is such a natural function of the will to live that
one does not think about it most of the time.
When you focus your will on controlling and stopping
your breath, then the true power of the will to live is demonstrated to yourself.

Latin word Spiritus

Webster definition of
Spirit=Breath
and
Breath=Spirit

words which are commonly used in language today with the root word of SPIRIT which actually refer to Breath.

A-spire=vision of future
A-spiration is "to take one breath"
con-spire= in the identical spirit or breath with one other
e-xpire= spirit exits you die
in-spire=full of spirit
tran-spire= to occur
re-spiration= to inhale breath re-peatedly

If believe you are making somewhat of a leap to link these instinctual processes with a "spirit" that does possess such "volition." Also, would that imply that all other natural, instinctual processes are likewise endowed with volition? That's opens up a whole new ethical can of worms, does it not?
I do believe this is a productive line of thought, and I await your response.

the spirit does not encompass the will,
the spirit component of a person is deeper than the will

A model of a human, as concentric circles, would have at the center and the remainder of the components would be ripples from that life giving core or essence.They are in this order

Spiritual core or essence, life supplying
Volutional will, power of will, choice of will,
Emotional sad hurt angry afraid ashamed glad, what we call sentients, passions
Intellectual- reason, analysis, mental
Actual behavior, face expressions speech
Social in the context of a relationship with others
Physical. nine body systems

So immediately upon conception the microscopic
human chooses to seek food and oxygen.
The source of life for this being is, just like you, food and oxygen.
It operates with the life giving food and oxygen on the actual component to attach self to womb wall.
It develops a relationship on the social component with mother.
before this being even develops emotional, intellectual,
or physical components it WILLFULLY seeks life.
That is unless it is just an accident, after conception that it accidentally through chance attaches itself on the wall of womb. Accidentally, by chance which is the primordal soup recipe.
It implants itself in a location to do so.

reply to post by slugger9787


Perhaps I should have used a different term than "instinctual" to describe cell-division, but I think my point remains valid. You may claim that cell division is an expression of "volition" but that doesn't make it so. In what way do chemical, molecular interactions constitute volition?
And if you are claiming, and I think you are, that ALL natural processes constitute a volitional, will to live, wouldn't this also apply to cancers, other animals, even plant growth?
And I'm not trying to equate human life with these things, merely illustrate the problem with ascribing the characteristics of will and volition to natural processes and the obvious implications of such.

Edit to add: As for the latter part of your post concerning etymology of "spirit". You'd have to first prove that the etymology of different words and their connections has any relevance first. I'm not saying that can't be asserted, but ancient cultures and their conceptual associations can also be written off and unscientific and a tenuous argument at best.

Originally posted by igor_ats

Originally posted by slugger9787
no matter what stage of development, from conception to final death the natural law dictates that the right to life is the wellspring of all other right which humans subscribe to.

Except no one has the right to life at the expense of someone else. Because no living, already born human being has the right to demand so much as a drop of blood from another human being. Even when they are liable for their predicament.

A human baby in the womb has their own blood supply, their own heart beat, the only vital function they get from mother is OXYGEN which is the same word as spirit or breath, and food.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

pregnancy from rape, which is a microscopic percent of total abortions can be facilitated by the morning after pill.

Unfortunately Catholics, who are pro-life, refuse rape victims such "awful" things. Go to a Catholic hospital and see if they offer such services including abortion, vesectomies, emergency contraception etc.

Besides, since no one is saying rape pregnancies are the majority of pregnancies so I fail to see the relevance.

If a hundred thousand ppl are affected by a disease every year we don't ignore them because a billion aren't.

Originally posted by slugger9787

Originally posted by igor_ats

Originally posted by slugger9787
no matter what stage of development, from conception to final death the natural law dictates that the right to life is the wellspring of all other right which humans subscribe to.

Except no one has the right to life at the expense of someone else. Because no living, already born human being has the right to demand so much as a drop of blood from another human being. Even when they are liable for their predicament.

A human baby in the womb has their own blood supply, their own heart beat, the only vital function they get from mother is OXYGEN which is the same word as spirit or breath, and food.

I already explained this, even persons born, who have their own bodily integrity and "right to life" do not have the "right to life" at the expense of someone else. Even if someone else is criminally liable for creating their resource requirement. Pregnant women shouldn't be treated differently.

The only possible way to prevent women from having an abortion is to grant the z/e/f greater rights than any other living person is currently granted - the right to attack and the host not to defend against. The unwanted embryo starts the process of embedding in the uterine lining. It uses special methods for avoiding the immunity responses. Gestation requires draining an individual of bodily resources and injecting her with hormones. Pregnancy (and an unwanted one in the case of elective abortion) has fewer physical benifits and many detriments and is much more likely to lead to death than an abortion, so forcing an unwanted pregnancy to be carried to term is a complete disregard for own her health and safety.

reply to post by igor_ats


they are exercizing their right to
life as a human being with an equal
natural right to life, as their mother.
They as a human being have an equal
amount of dignity as a human being, as their mother.

they are defenseless and dependent on the equal protection of the law?
No they defenseless and dependent and as such require a greater
degree of protection from the law.
This is similar to many of the laws forbidding people in power positions to
exercize a higher degree of ethics, and not take advantage of those in more dependent positions.

Child abuse laws, laws to prevent pyschiatrists from
sexual relations with patients, elder abuse laws, and
even in government it is a law called abuse of power.

I think Bill Cliton was found guilty of abuse of power, in his monika lewenski fiasco.

those laws are created to protec the social order on the scale of defenselessness and dependency.

A baby is defenseless and dependent. there fore while the baby has equal of the right to life, the defenselessness and dependency requires a greater than equal protection from the law, protection from persons with more power who would abuse that power to deny the equal right to life and freedom from abuse of their position.

reply to post by igor_ats


unfortuantely the mean catholic hospitals have a very
deep understanding of the dignity of life, and they also
act to guarantee that dignity and that right to life for
those with the least amount of defenses to protect themselves.

I am a Roman Catholic, and certain of the Church's stance, tried and true in regards to the life issue.
The early church members, in cities around the world at the time stayed in the cities to treat sick victims of the plagues that ravraged the world, @100-300 after the death of Christ and even sooner.

The pagan and Jewish of the day were puzzled over this and asked "Why do you Christians stay and treat and help thee sick people you do not even know, you are risking your lives?"

The Christian religion has built more hospitals with their own money, more schools, more orphanages, more alcohol treatment centers than any combined group of fifteen other practioners of alternative "world views"

In Kansas, the pro abortion organization, planned parenthood is under indictment for over a hundred criminal cases.
planned parenthood does not have the same world vision as the christian churches in todays world, the christian churches do not get grants from any government, planned parenthood does.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by igor_ats

 

they are exercizing their right to
life as a human being with an equal
natural right to life, as their mother.
They as a human being have an equal
amount of dignity as a human being, as their mother.

The law is equal to all. No one has a "right to life" at the expense of someone else, even when one party is criminally liable.

Saying that the fetus is human and should be entitled to its own right of bodily integrity independent of the woman will not overcome this. A two year old child cannot force its parents to give it blood, even if the child will die because the parents have an absolute right to control their own bodies and cannot be forced (by law) to give that blood. Doubtless there are moral arguments to be made, but legally speaking, you cannot force anyone to donate a kidney, eyeball, blood, or anything else to another human being.

Any proposed law banning abortion still needs to conform to the Constitution and legal precedent to become a law in the end. Laws prohibiting abortion do not, which is why they were ruled unconstitutional.

Originally posted by slugger9787
unfortuantely the mean catholic hospitals have a very deep understanding of the dignity of life, and they also act to guarantee that dignity and that right to life for those with the least amount of defenses to protect themselves.

Denying a rape victim emergency contraception because of a religious belief that the zygote is actually a baby with a "right to life" is not "understanding the dignity of life". Even pro-lifers don't believe this looking at the flagrant disregard for this so called precious life when it comes to spontaneous abortions and IVF:

www.mainstreambaptists.org...

"
If ensoulment occurs at conception and every fertilized egg is immediately a 'person' then God/nature (whichever you prefer) plays a big trick on us...
"

"
...in the five-six days following union and sperm, between 1/3 and 1/2 of all 'persons' spontaneously degenerate and are reabsorbed or expelled. In the second week, 42% of the implanted 'persons' abort. Thus out of every 1000 'persons' conceived, only 120-160 survive to be reborn.
"

How do the anti-abortionists and theologians who denouce abortion as murder account for the prodigious waste of human life in the divine plan? - we can assume then, that the overwhelming majority of souls in heaven at the end of time wouldn't even have even have experienced sentience in life, let alone were born.

reply to post by igor_ats


the law is more protective of the weak, vulnerable,
defenseless dependent members of society.

How do the anti-abortionists and theologians who denouce abortion as murder account for the prodigious waste of human life in the divine plan? - we can assume then, that the overwhelming majority of souls in heaven at the end of time wouldn't even have even have experienced sentience in life, let alone were born.

out of these thousand of fertilized eggs that reabsorb back into nothingness and leave a mere 160, do they do that via some natural process that we are too finite in our understanding, too shallow in our perception, and too stupid in our limited knowledge, that we do not comprehend the NATURAL process of reabsorbttion?

If it is a natural process then i am fine with it, abortion is unnatural if you live according to evolution, and unnatural even if you do not.

they certainly would have had just a few short hours, or days to enjoy the spirit (oxygen) and the volution of choosing to live.

Hell the majority of them after being fertilized just use their volution to disappear, must be easier at that stage of life.

Pro-choice. Too many mouth breathers as it is.

reply to post by slugger9787


It's not that small but believe you me a deformed fetus is. Perhaps now after the Gulf spill you'll see alot more unborn babies with severe deformaties. Watch...even servicewomen coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are now at greater risk of concieving these babies who are double the risk of the wives of your servicemen. Between the Gulf spill and your servicemen and women...expect the numbers of unborn deformed babies to skyrocket like you've never seen before.

Have to ask you Slugger...if you have a daughter and she was told her unborn child is severely deformed my bet is you would expect her to go full term? And if so, the medical bills caring for that child will be so great I hardly think you'll be able to afford it. Insurance covers only a small amount. So not only would you expect her to go full term but you would expect her to spend the rest of her life caring for this child, doomed financially for all time AND be psychologically/physically a complete mess with little or no family support. This IS what happens when a child like this is born in to the world, the family tire and eventually drop off - so do the friends and 80% of the time so does the husband.

Now how many of you Pro-lifers out there want to ADOPT these babies? Hands up anyone? Any Catholics?

This alright with you? Being so rightous and religious and all

reply to post by bluemirage5


I have a son who had transmaternal hemmorrage,
he was born with hydrops ischemia.
he at birth was blind, had seizures, and other medical problems, severe mental retardation,
spastic quadraplegia.
His mane is Paul.

He is the brother of my daughter who you would be proposing to abort if deformities were discovered.

that is a hypothetical question.

probably not, we would pray.


plus me and my wife were foster parents for ten years and had over 100 foster kids.








now talking about this has tapped into my feelings of sadness and hurt from the past that is still posited in my heart, and i need to weep a little to express those emotions.

reply to post by slugger9787


Great posts. Always nice to see people with real life experience commenting in these threads. Also, some rather nicely laid out, reasonable arguments too, IMO.

In your various posts, you've hinted at many of the "greater" issues, when it comes to human life, and one that rings for me is the old idea that might still does not, make right. Sure, one could go into much legal history, interpretation, but at the core, this issue will probably always come up.

Of course, a whole lot of this debate took place already, 150 years ago, in regards to slavery. Yes, I know, people are going to slam me for making an "emotional" historical connection, but there was a fair amount of "fire" in those old Abolitionist debates that is reminiscent of what we have today, with abortion.

Is the black African human? Can we at least agree that they are partially human? How about legislating it? Compromise? Let's allow them to "count" as two-thirds of a human. Can the master kill his slave? Why not, the slave is property! Nay. If he has been accorded even partly human status, then lethal force must be used in restraint. Plantation master: It has been said that slaves are learning to read. What say you as to the meaning of this? Nonsense! "Some" slaves may have learned rudimentary "reading", but this does not prove in any way that they are fully human, much less the equal of the White Man! God forbid!

To me, especially when it comes to trotting out the various "legal" issues, it may not be quite the same issue, true, but it sort of rhymes I think?

Don't get be wrong, obviously there is an important role for the legal system to play, as issues are examined by real people, judges, and juries in many cases, from the many angles that present themselves. But looking at what happened in the past, if you buy the slave connection, perhaps only drastic measures will prevail in the end. Small wonder that some do in fact resort to extreme measures when it comes to this issue (although it does seem to be very few).

Anyway, I'm glad to see that the quality of this debate has gone up since it started. Sometimes, it goes the other way!

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


not only did early (100-300 ad) christians stay in cities to care for sick people, they also confronted the pagans very heavily, not about feeding them to the lions, but about the abortions, discarded children left outside to die, and about slavery.

the christian churches have been involved with discarded children, abortion, slavery, helping the sick, since their inception. this is very close to the eyewitnesses who knew and spoke with Christ who taught the dignity and welfare of all humans, and he said, what ever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.

in order to have slavery, one must dehumanize the slave.
in order to abort, one must dehumanize the baby human.

there is nothing new under the sun.
just the constant rebellion of hard and yes evil hearted people who justify their actions under the evolution from a glob of pond scum vs the people who know the wortth and dignity of EVERY human being.

reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer


If it's a hot girl with a rich family I care for and feel excited about having a kid with: I'm pro-life.
If its some tart I scraped off a bar-stool at last call, took home.. and treated like a farm animal: I'm pro-choice.

If the girl is a stranger: I'm pro mind my own business.