"Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life"

[lux et lex]

To lux et lex,
So your answer tro my question is which, two boys are or aren’t people?
except that it does, so what is your point? NO IT DOESN’T.
The person’s life starts at conception and gestation from where it develops through its life. I was a person at the foetus stage of my life, the Bible says God knows ud in the womb. Already one poster has said they were not themselves when they were a foetus which is ridiculous as the foetus would only ever develop into who they are now. For the foetus not to be a person one could not determine who the foetus will eventually be. Without the foetus the person will not develop.

I never said you did, the question was is a boy a person. Yes or no. If a boy is a person then the Bible says the boy, who is a person, was in the womb so life doesn’t begin at birth.
I didn’t say common sense either, I am leaning on my own common sense and its in line with reality and the Bible, as to ones own common sense as opposed to God’s word the Bible says trust God’s word.

Ok but that’s what pro-choice is and what I am arguing against. I don’t think that has been disputed.
That means nothing.

I feel like I've been answering the same questions over and over again, and you're not getting it. My times of doing this are coming to a close, so read closely.

In the quoted verse, it said something along the lines of it was discovered at birth that she was carrying two boys in her womb. By the time this was discovered it is presumed the boys were born or in the process where one would be able to tell. Were they male before they were born? Yes. Were they persons before they were born? No. This seems pretty cut and dried to me, I'm not sure why you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

You just said without the fetus a person would not develop. AH HA so even you are admitting that a fetus is not a person. Glad we're finally on the same page here. With that admittance I have nothing more to say on that fact, and you have proven my point. Thank you.

A boy would be a person, however, what you have built as a question to me is a straw man. What you are really dealing with is a male fetus. Which is still not a person, and we agreed on that after you admitted that without the fetus a person would not develop. Personhood is acquired with the first breath.

 

[Phinehas2]

To lux et lex,

I feel like I've been answering the same questions over and over again, and you're not getting it. My times of doing this are coming to a close, so read closely.

As OI haven’t seen yes or no I know I have been reading closely and haven’t been getting the answer.

In the quoted verse, it said something along the lines of it was discovered at birth that she was carrying two boys in her womb. By the time this was discovered it is presumed the boys were born or in the process where one would be able to tell. Were they male before they were born? Yes. Were they persons before they were born? No. This seems pretty cut and dried to me, I'm not sure why you aren't understanding what I'm saying.

I see what you are saying but the Bible says boys not foetuses, and that’s just one of the verses I cited. If you read the others and the whole Bible you would be able to reconcile why foetus is just a modern name for a person in development.
Job 31:15 “Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?”

You just said without the fetus a person would not develop. AH HA so even you are admitting that a fetus is not a person.

No. the person would not develop without them going through the foetus stage. I have always said the person begins at conception so how could I mean what you are implying?

No it isnt What you are really dealing with is a male fetus.

No you are speaking of it as a male foetus, I am speaking of the person.
The person cant begin at the first breath because the foetus doesn’t carry the DNA of anyone other than the person who takes the first breath! So the foetus is the person who takes the first breath.

 

[lux et lex]

You're giving me a headache. I have a science degree, and that's what leads me to use the term fetus. I am using the brain and knowledge God gave me to come to reasoned argument, not just pulling random verses out of the Bible (which I believe is the guidebook for Christianity not the definitive answer book) and saying "Now what about that!". You're not going to convince me no matter how hard you try that a fetus that cannot survive on its own deserves the civil rights that a born person is able to exercise. As a law student I can only imagine the headache that would stem from trying to grant property rights to a mass of cells merely days after conception, among other other things. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If something cannot exist on its own (and a baby can exist on its own with its mother because it is transferable, as can the coma patient thanks to technology...there is no technology yet that can make a fetus survive before approximately 22 weeks of gestation) it is just not a person.

 

[united4Peace]

Voted ProChoice.

 

[Zeena]

Voted ProChoice.

Just now?

 

[Archivist]

well no you aren’t.

I have cited sources and presented facts. You have yet to cite a single source in support of what you are saying.

There is no life that develops apart from conception and gestation, unless you can say what you don’t have a grasp of the reality.

Interesting because I haven't addressed that subject. What I did address was your misuse of the word "murder."

When you are willing to discuss that issue and offer facts in support of your position, I will be willing to debate the point. Otherwise thsi is a waste of my time.

Really are you some expert in Greek and Hebrew?

Are you? I'm not, but I have read the writings oif those who are.

Of course it says murder. If you are saying otherwise show me which translations don’t.

The King James Version and many others don't use the term murder. Perhaps you are not familiar with it, but the King James is one of the best-known translation.

The Bible says do not murder in several places, that is the point.

Actually, many translations, including the King James, use the term kill, not murder. Did you actually take the time to read what I wrote? The term used in the Bible is actually much closer to what we now call homicide, not murder.

Pro-choice abortion is of course under your definition pre-meditated murder.

You are not getting this. Abortion isn't murder because it isn't an illegal killing.

 

[seajoy]

You're giving me a headache. I have a science degree, and that's what leads me to use the term fetus. I am using the brain and knowledge God gave me to come to reasoned argument, not just pulling random verses out of the Bible (which I believe is the guidebook for Christianity not the definitive answer book) and saying "Now what about that!". You're not going to convince me no matter how hard you try that a fetus that cannot survive on its own deserves the civil rights that a born person is able to exercise. As a law student I can only imagine the headache that would stem from trying to grant property rights to a mass of cells merely days after conception, among other other things. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If something cannot exist on its own (and a baby can exist on its own with its mother because it is transferable, as can the coma patient thanks to technology...there is no technology yet that can make a fetus survive before approximately 22 weeks of gestation) it is just not a person.

A baby cannot survive even after it's born, without someone taking care of it. How do you feel about that child now? It's not making it on it's own, after all.

 

[Archivist]

Voted ProChoice.

Cool!

 

[Phinehas2]

To lux et lex,
Are you assuming that I don’t have a science degree?
I am also using the brain and knowledge God gave me to come to reasoned argument, but not against what God’s word says. I am also using an acknowledgement of reality. Life cannot begin apart from conception and gestation, that’s science as well as reality, so for me to say life starts and develops from conception and gestation is objective, observable and tested. To suggest life begins at any other stage has it reasons but is arbitry and subjective.

Now the other point is that I am pulling many so called random verses out of the Bible and once again getting people who fail to pull any except one random verse out making faulty criticism.

You're not going to convince me no matter how hard you try that a fetus that cannot survive on its own deserves the civil rights that a born person is able to exercise.

And you are not going to convince me that a foetus isn’t a person so I don’t know why you are bothered about that. A new baby cannot survive on its own either, so that’s not very convincing either.

As a law student I can only imagine the headache that would stem from trying to grant property rights to a mass of cells merely days after conception, among other other things.

Try giving property rights to a newly born baby. Good luck.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If something cannot exist on its own (and a baby can exist on its own with its mother because it is transferable, as can the coma patient thanks to technology...there is no technology yet that can make a fetus survive before approximately 22 weeks of gestation) it is just not a person.

Having drawn a line in a faulty place you have thought through the subsequently faulty consequences. If a new baby cannot exist on its own its not viable under your idea either, and logically if a baby can exist on its own with its mother or a surrogate then its not on its own.

 

[united4Peace]

I did...I've always been prochoice...I think that is one of the things we disagree on (along with homosexuality)...
For myself I could not get an abortion...thank goodness I don't need to think of that though...but I can't judge others...I haven't walked in their shoes...guess that's what makes me prochoice

Just now?

 

[Archivist]

Try giving property rights to a newly born baby.

Actually under the law a newly-born baby has property rights. Those rights might have to be exercised through the parents or a guardian, but they do exist.

 

[united4Peace]

I do however believe that one should not use abortion as a b/c and if a female is pregnant and not iwth the father...relationship does not work that if he wants the baby to abort it or give it up for adoption is cruel as the father should be able to raise the baby...(unless she was raped which then the father loses all rights to the baby)...just my opinion and MOO

 

[lux et lex]

On a note, you can give property rights to a newly born baby. Anyone who is living when the testator dies can receive them. They will generally be put into a trust until the child turns 18. But let's not derail this discussion with matters of property rights.

I believe I made it clear, and perhaps I didn't because both you and seajoy are stumbling at the same point is that a baby is transferable and able to survive without its mother. It can merely be transferred to another person and it will survive just fine. You cannot transfer a fetus to another person or hook it up to a machine (as of yet) to cause it to live. Without the womb it will not survive. With your reasoning a child is not a person because it cannot exist without a parent to feed it and so forth. I'm not going that far. If something can survive in the outside world with the aid of another, it is alive. If it cannot, it is not. Simple as that.

 

[seajoy]

On a note, you can give property rights to a newly born baby. Anyone who is living when the testator dies can receive them. They will generally be put into a trust until the child turns 18. But let's not derail this discussion with matters of property rights.

I believe I made it clear, and perhaps I didn't because both you and seajoy are stumbling at the same point is that a baby is transferable and able to survive without its mother. It can merely be transferred to another person and it will survive just fine. You cannot transfer a fetus to another person or hook it up to a machine (as of yet) to cause it to live. Without the womb it will not survive. With your reasoning a child is not a person because it cannot exist without a parent to feed it and so forth. I'm not going that far. If something can survive in the outside world with the aid of another, it is alive. If it cannot, it is not. Simple as that.

I think you just demonized me by saying I'm stumbling. That wasn't very nice.

 

[Phinehas2]

To Archivist,

Interesting because I haven't addressed that subject. What I did address was your misuse of the word "murder."

But it wasn’t a misuse and the fact that conception and gestation are the only objective observable beginning of life tht isnt subjective is rather crucial to the subject.

When you are willing to discuss that issue and offer facts in support of your position, I will be willing to debate the point. Otherwise thsi is a waste of my time.

Good, your choice.

Are you? I'm not, but I have read the writings oif those who are.

So have I and the ones who wrote the Bible translations, but it wasn’t me who disputed them it was you so that’s why I asked you.
I believe the experts who agree with all the experts who wrote the Bible translations.

Of course it says murder. If you are saying otherwise show me which translations don’t.

The King James Version and many others don't use the term murder.

yes they do frequently.

Perhaps you are not familiar with it, but the King James is one of the best-known translation.

Is English not your native language? We can all trade sarcasm.
The Bible says do not murder in several places, that is the point.

Actually, many translations, including the King James, use the term kill, not murder. Did you actually take the time to read what I wrote? The term used in the Bible is actually much closer to what we now call homicide, not murder.

Actually the King James version mentions murder several times so you are wrong. As to ‘don’t not murder, you are correct it says do not kill, but you cant make such incorrect blanket statements; abortion is still killing a life, I will use murder and you can use kill.

You are not getting this. Abortion isn't murder because it isn't an illegal killing

It is you who isnt getting it, I seek to follow God’s purposes.
Pro-choice explicit in the word ‘choice’ means pre meditated.

 

[Phinehas2]

To Archivist,

Actually under the law a newly-born baby has property rights. Those rights might have to be exercised through the parents or a guardian, but they do exist.

So how does that help your point if they have to be excercised by a guardian, in what way is the newly born baby any more able to do anything with property rights than the foetus? Dont tell me the foetus can't live in the same house as the mother.

 

[lux et lex]

I think you just demonized me by saying I'm stumbling. That wasn't very nice.

Stumbling over a point? No, that was more a reflection of myself that I wasn't being clear enough because you both seemed to not be understanding what I was saying. Calm down.

 

[seajoy]

Stumbling over a point? No, that was more a reflection of myself that I wasn't being clear enough because you both seemed to not be understanding what I was saying. Calm down.

I'm very calm, thank you for your concern.

 

[Archivist]

So how does that help your point if they have to be excercised by a guardian, in what way is the newly born baby any more able to do anything with property rights than the foetus? Dont tell me the foetus can't live in the same house as the mother.

Your initial statement was "Try giving property rights to a newly born baby. Good luck."

The fact is that newly born nabies have property rights. Whether they can exercise them or not is irrelevent, they have them. In the United States citizenship begins at birth and the 14th Amendment specifically provides: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I have asked you repetedly to provide facts to back up various statements that you have made in this thread. You have consistantly failed to do so. Please quit trying to substitute opinion for fact.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
Who was it then that was the foetus? [/font][/color]

NO ONE was the foetus, because the foetus isn't a person. That is the entirety of my point

But as far as I am concerned and many like me we were all people at the foetus stage, so all life at that stage.

No one is saying the foetus isn't ALIVE. It is totally ALIVE, it just isn't a person.

Well in Adam we all die and in Christ we all live, the Exodus 21 passage says "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life" God has shown His love and life for His creation, not the death in sin of the law.

Um... if there is serious injury to the woman, you are to take life for life. If you cause a miscarriage, you inly have to pay a fine, and even then, only if the woman's husband wishes.

Which is a very different penalty to what you get if you kill a PERSON

So the NT is worng for you then and the OT right? Do you follow all the OT law or not?

The NT doesn't mention abortion, or tell us anything about when a foetus becomes a person. I know, I know "the child leapt in my womb". I tell you again, this is a poetic metaphor, it is NOT intended as a literal description or a discussion about when personhood begins.