No, You Reallly Are Not "Pro-Choice"

SPF said:

I'm not asking you to advocate for abortion. But this is the abortion section where people can give their views for abortion and state what they believe. I'm looking to see how your belief about humanity is impacting your position on abortion.

And from what I can see, because you do not believe that a human being even exists until it takes its first breath of fresh air, that would indicate to me that you do not believe that the unborn, yet to be human being possesses inherent moral worth and value. Thus, that leads us logically to a position on abortion that would suggest that abortion prior to the first breath is not an immoral action.

Would you say that accurately captures your position?

Click to expand...

No, it is NOT a place where "people can give their views for abortion," far as I can tell.
THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN FORUM IDEA is not that we should "know where people stand," it is NOT to be a personal (belief) testimony thing, but honest discussion of Christian issues.
PLEASE GET OFF YOUR "tell me what you believe so I can attack you" APPROACH. I am quite sure it is NOT the way things are intended to go around here!

Issues related to abortion can be discussed, and it seems one can very much advocate against it. A distinct bias, obviously, since the rule is very set that one is NOT to argue in favor of it. So I will try to keep out of trouble by NOT succumbing to your demand.

Douglas Hendrickson said:

Yet birth certainly is the point of immense biological/physical changes, the coming into being of a new (human) animal being.

Click to expand...

Yet you still give nothing to substantiate your claim that the fetus is not a human being before birth. Please list all these "immense biological/physical changes" that take place.

What exactly exists in a womb is what exactly is there - a fetus.
(I would have thought even you know what a fetus is, or what is a fetus.)

Click to expand...

Sure, a fetus. But you have yet to substantiate that a fetus is not a human being.

Basic thing about a human being is that it is a being, a being that is human, i.e. composed of human cells. It is a person like a pig is a pig, a member of the species, a living organism. Look up some definitions of "organism."
It is no more a person in the womb than a bunch of pig fetuses are all pigs. Nonsense to even begin to think so.

Click to expand...

Again, you don't substantiate your opinion here at all.

There is no difficulty in distinguishing between pig fetuses (that are NOT pigs!) and a real actual pig that is present upon the earth. So too there should be no problem knowing what a human fetus is, and what on the other hand is an actual human being member of the species. Almost any kid can tell, I am sure.

Click to expand...

And yet, once again, you offer no substantiation for your claim that a human fetus is not a human being.

I am NOT going to advocate for abortion, though you prompt me to do so.

Click to expand...

You already have. By defining the unborn as not human beings and not persons, you eliminate any moral objections to abortion. It can't be any more immoral than having your tonsils removed.

Further, right here:
Giving a Voice to the Voiceless
You claim a fetus is no different than a clump of cancer cells and claim it's "good" to kill such things. It's utterly preposterous to pretend you don't advocate for abortion.

-V- said:

By defining the unborn as not human beings and not persons, you eliminate any moral objections to abortion.

Click to expand...

First, I do not define anything.
I only seek to understand what can truthfully be said of that which is a human being, and that which is not. (Maybe that is what good defining is?)

I don't advocate for killing any human being, which I would think is the point.
To accede to your point that there is human being life in the womb of which we should take account is ONLY TO CONCEDE TO ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE prior to discussion of it.
Begging the question!

Douglas Hendrickson said:

First, I do not define anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do. You have repeatedly denied that the unborn are human beings. That *IS*, in fact, defining the unborn as not human beings.

I don't advocate for killing any human being, which I would think is the point.

Click to expand...

Your little word game once again. I NEVER SAID you "advocate killing HUMAN BEINGS". I said you advocate abortion. You simply do so by claiming the unborn are not human beings.

To accede to your point that there is human being life in the womb of which we should take account is ONLY TO CONCEDE TO ONE SIDE OF THE ISSUE prior to discussion of it.
Begging the question!

Click to expand...

"Prior to discussion"?? It's been discussed and pointed out over and over again that science/biology/medicine all define human fetuses as living human beings. Your statement here is just flat out false.

Sure, the "side" that states fetuses are living human beings is "one side" of the issue. But so far, it's the only side that has offered actual substantiation.

You also failed to list all the "immense biological/physical changes" that take place at birth.

-V- said:

Yes, you do. You have repeatedly denied that the unborn are human beings. That *IS*, in fact, defining the unborn as not human beings.

Click to expand...

What is this little defining game?
Suppose I agree to your point, what am I agreeing to? Does my "defining" make it so.
I doubt it - I certainly do not claim it does.

So what are you objecting to in supposed objecting to my supposed defining?

And does repeated defining that you charge me of make it even more so?

I am not doing anything that deserves to be called "defining," unless you can show that my doing so has consequences, that it changes (or constitutes) the reality of the world.
I doubt you give me such credit, so what's the big deal?

-V- said:

I said you advocate abortion. You simply do so by claiming the unborn are not human beings.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that is false.

Consider: "the unborn are not human beings."
There is NOTHING in that that says ANYTHING about whether it, "the unborn," should be killed or not, whether there should be a termination of any living flesh that is in any womb. (Which I take to be what "abortion" means.)

And besides I would never claim that "the unborn are not human beings." There is no real thing that is properly called an "unborn"; that term is manufactured in an attempt to beg the question and simply view a fetus as something yet to be born. Which may turn out to be quite false.

Of course more obviously there are a lot of things that are unborn that are not human beings, to which you would agree - my tv set for instance. So your claim about what it is I claim is NOT one I would make also because it is only partially true if at all.

-V- said:

Giving a Voice to the Voiceless
You claim a fetus is no different than a clump of cancer cells and claim it's "good" to kill such things. It's utterly preposterous to pretend you don't advocate for abortion.

Click to expand...

What I actually said was,

"Of course fetuses are alive. So too is a cancer tumor, which may even be in the same place in a body.
So that LIFE MUST CONTINUE?
We know from our experience with mice that certain things are good to be killed."

I do not say to kill fetuses, but I would like to see reasons why such should not be done.
Presumably you would also like to see such reasons and would be sure to bring them to my attention.

(In case you didn't notice, the reason I made the original point is to show that JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS ALIVE is no good reason to keep it alive.)

“Douglas Hendrickson said:

What is this little defining game?

Click to expand...

The only "game" I'm aware of is you trying to dance your way out of the corners that you keep painting yourself into.

Suppose I agree to your point, what am I agreeing to?

Click to expand...

For one, you'd be agreeing that your claim of not defining anything is false.

Does my "defining" make it so.
I doubt it - I certainly do not claim it does.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that your definitions remain completely unsubstantiated demonstrates that your definitions don't "make it so". That's the whole point - your definitions are unsubstantiated and, therefore, don't make it so.

So what are you objecting to in supposed objecting to my supposed defining?

Click to expand...

I was objecting to your claim that you don't define anything.

I am not doing anything that deserves to be called "defining,"

Click to expand...

Yes you are, as already shown.

unless you can show that my doing so has consequences, that it changes (or constitutes) the reality of the world.
I doubt you give me such credit, so what's the big deal?

Click to expand...

It has the consequence of us having to constantly, in reality, point out the errors of your arguments and claims. We have to, once again, point out that you are apparently unable to defend your position without relying on claims that just aren’t true.

I'm sorry, that is false.

Consider: "the unborn are not human beings."
There is NOTHING in that that says ANYTHING about whether it, "the unborn," should be killed or not,

Click to expand...

Sure, nothing in THAT ALONE. However, that's not all you said, now is it. No, you’ve conveniently left off a big part. You ALSO claimed the unborn are analogous to cancer cells, and then claimed it's good to kill such things.

So claiming they are not human beings *AND* comparing them to cancer cells that are good to kill, does in fact make a claim that it's good to kill the unborn.

There is no real thing that is properly called an "unborn"; that term is manufactured in an attempt to beg the question and simply view a fetus as something yet to be born. Which may turn out to be quite false.

Click to expand...

False. The term "unborn" is not an argument that they WILL BE born, it's only a statement that they have not, at that time, gone through the birthing process. No "question begging" involved.

I don’t claim the unborn are not human beings

Click to expand...

Completely untrue.

You said:

NO fetuses are human beings, where "beings" means animal beings or animals, actual organisms alive on this earth.
So you are NOT FAIR when you say "a fetus is ... the human being... in the womb," because not only is it not true,

Click to expand...

From:
Giving a Voice to the Voiceless

I’m done with you in this thread. It’s been shown time and time again that you can’t stop saying things that simply aren’t true. Time and time again, when asked to back up your claims, you’ve simply ignored such requests. Your entire argument is built on absolutely nothing but baseless claims and falsehoods.

SPF said:

Can you clarify from a 30,000 foot view what your belief is about the nature of a human being and how it isn't a human being in the womb but suddenly becomes one once it breathes?

Click to expand...

The actual human being gastrointestinal system with regulators and all the rest fully functions for the first time, and especially the lungs are something and not nothing, emptied of fluid and filled with air, along with for the first time the heart operating in conjunction in the usual human being way rather than bypassing the lungs as it does in the fetus.

Just being released from being alive only in a pool of pee, er amniotic fluid, and that totally encompassing the body, certainly that is an immense change. Consider how much different YOU would have to be to all the time only be alive "underwater." More or less an impossibility for a human being.

Yes, breathing FIRST breathing is a rather sudden thing, and clearly marks the time when there is the gigantie move from being totally imprisoned in a womb with pretty much no possibility of having any experience of the world except perhaps the noises of the pregnant woman's systems, to being released from being at the mercy of a chord to give it whatever sustenance it gets. Sure, it may be said it has eyes and ears, etc., but it is very much blind and deaf and dumb in terms of how we usually define such things. Clearly vocalization in itself is a very great transformation, and not something we should dismiss as irrelevant to considering whether there is a human being, a member of the species, a triumph of God's universe.

But your pointing to breathing should be enough all alone by itself to persuade one who from the Bible has knowledge of THE BREATH OF LIFE, and being a living soul.
Clearly breath, which comes first at birth, is vital to being a human being, and clearly the fetus does not have its own breath, its cells obtaining oxygen and expelling CO2 in quite an other way, a very parasitic and not independent way.