Help Me Understand

[Paradoxum]

Abortion is the unintentional killing an innocent human life. That is murder.

Killing an intelligent alien or robot with a human-like mind would be murder, but it isn't human. Therefore being human isn't the significant factor. Also animals are innocent but we kill them, therefore innocence isn't the important factor either.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Personhood is the real issue not if the fetus is human.

 

[chaz345]

Obesity is one of the number one contributors to high healthcare costs. I believe only smoking tops obesity. You can't fix a state nor a country if you don't reduce healthcare costs. Relating this to abortion? I guess you can make the comparison if you're a pro-lifer, however abortions dont drive up healthcare costs so, it's a stretch at best. Also, isn't gluttony mentioned somewhere as being a no, no? There should be overwhelming support for this here, I would think.

You are missing the point though. The entire basis for abortion rights is "its my body so I can do what I want" The needs of the unborn are irrelevant. So how can you then turn around and say that the needs of society outweigh your right to do what you want with your body when it comes to banning soda?

 

[1776]

This is rather an odd thing to say after you last post going into detail about the legal status of killing a fetus along with the woman it is inside of.

That is a good point. I refer to American law once, but then say it does not matter overall because we, as Christians (Christian site here), define murder as God tell us. I should have at least separated the points I suppose. The legal American status of being charged with two deaths in that case is true, but that is under the issue of the legality of abortion in the USA. Hypocritical of the US gov't to have it that way, but then make abortion legal (at least in a sense).

Still, myself and every Christian (I'd say Bible believing Christian, but that should be clear anyway) are going to use the Biblical definition of "murder" as a base naturally anyway.

Because the issue being discussed is within the US and if you did not care about american law why the discussion of the legal status of killing a fetus via vehicular manslaughter in the last post? If US law is irrelevant to you why did you bring it into the discussion?

Like I just said, this is a fair point. These are separable issues, although under the same overarching issue. Bringing an example of US law into this was probably not most relevant thing to do.

 

[1776]

Killing an intelligent alien or robot with a human-like mind would be murder, but it isn't human. Therefore being human isn't the significant factor.

Logically fallacy. None of these things are known to exist. Your point is not relevant.

Also animals are innocent but we kill them, therefore innocence isn't the important factor either.

You are totally ignoring what God's definition of murder is. Animals have nothing to do with it. Remember the name of this website; "Christianforums."

 

[Harpuia]

Logically fallacy. None of these things are known to exist. Your point is not relevant.


You are totally ignoring what God's definition of murder is. Animals have nothing to do with it. Remember the name of this website; "Christianforums."

Robots exist...

 

[1776]

Personhood is the real issue not if the fetus is human.

Did you just claim that a baby within the womb is not a person? It most certainly is!

Here are the relevant definitions of "person", in the English language:

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

In other words, it looks like you are trying to redefine a baby, yet to be born, as not being human without using the word "human."

Fetus= baby within the womb= very young human= very young person

And yes, unborn babies do develop a personality.

 

[1776]

Robots exist...

This is a troll comment. Just in case it actually wasn't (but it was. After years of forum experience, you know exactly what she was talking about I am sure), you should not that she was not talking about robots in general.

 

[Paradoxum]

Logically fallacy.

No it isn't. Name the fallacy.

None of these things are known to exist. Your point is not relevant.

I assumed you were capable of abstract thought. You know that if these things did exist it would be wrong to murder them.

You are totally ignoring what God's definition of murder is. Animals have nothing to do with it.

I'm not ignoring it. I clarifying the concept through thought experiment.

Remember the name of this website; "Christianforums."

I didn't think truth was relative to where one was.

Robots exist...

Haha, indeed.

 

[Desk trauma]

The legal American status of being charged with two deaths in that case is true, but that is under the issue of the legality of abortion in the USA. Hypocritical of the US gov't to have it that way, but then make abortion legal (at least in a sense).

The laws related to causing fetal death are state laws and they vary widely where as laws assuring abortion rights prior to a certain point in pregnancy are federal.

In my view there is no contradiction even had the laws come down on the same bill from the same level of government as it's all down to consent. Causing a pregnancy to end due to malice or accident is to voluntary abortion as rape is to sex.

Still, myself and every Christian (I'd say Bible believing Christian, but that should be clear anyway) are going to use the Biblical definition of "murder" as a base naturally anyway.

The only direct reference to causing the death of a fetus in biblical law that I am aware of (Exodus 21:22) calls for a fine rather then the death penalty so long as the woman does not die. If there is some other biblical law about abortion that I have overlooked I would like to see it.

 

[Desk trauma]

Getting back to the original issue here, has Mayor Bloomberg made the "my body my choice" argument at any point?

Having looked over his web site I did not find any reference to abortion, which is not unusual as reproductive rights issues are well above the pay grade of a mayor.

 

[Illuminaughty]

If you believe fetuses are persons the burden of proof falls on you to substantiate the claim. pretending that your assertion is obvious isn't proof.

 

[Vylo]

Baby murder and abortion are not? I beg your pardon!

If you were driving in America and accidently hit a pregnant woman and killed both her and her unborn baby, you are not just charged with the manslaughter (or whatever charge of killing you get) of one person. You are charged with both. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human life. Intentional killing, when not as an act of self defence, is called murder.

"Pro choice" people have to play word games just to get around the fact that an innocent life is being murdered. Like it or not, unborn babies are living humans who are murdered when they are aborted.

Murder requires a person to be killed. Not all fetuses would qualify empirically as people.

 

[variant]

Makeing someone order two 16 oz sodas instead of one bit 32 oz soda is a bit differn't than makeing them birth child against their will.

All clear?

 

[Boondock_Saint]

But it is A OK if I get a 64 oz Margarita!

Got to love New York.

Bahahahaha; I love it

 

[USincognito]

Baby murder and abortion are not? I beg your pardon!

{snip bad analogies, semantics and emotionalism}

What I was referring to as not being analagous are buying large sugary sodas and abortion.

 

[1776]

Makeing someone order two 16 oz sodas instead of one bit 32 oz soda is a bit differn't than makeing them birth child against their will.

All clear?

How about KILLING a child against the child's will???

The mother can give the child for adoption. Shouldn't the child have the choice if they want to live or die? What kind of person doesn't give that choice to their own child? It is pure, 100%, selfishness on that woman's part to kill that innocent child.

Murder requires a person to be killed. Not all fetuses would qualify empirically as people.

If a fetus is not human, then is it a dog? How about a cat? Maybe it is a fish (I've seen that in old text books before)? Perhaps it is even a hybrid human/alien?

What I was referring to as not being analagous are buying large sugary sodas and abortion.

Oh, well then, we're on the same page in that one.

 

[Vylo]

If a fetus is not human, then is it a dog? How about a cat? Maybe it is a fish (I've seen that in old text books before)? Perhaps it is even a hybrid human/alien?

An aggregate of human cells with the potential to develop into a human being.

Other then the potential, there is nothing that makes them different from say, your arm, which is not a human being.

 

[1776]

An aggregate of human cells with the potential to develop into a human being.

Other then the potential, there is nothing that makes them different from say, your arm, which is not a human being.

And at what point does life begin in the womb? That life is human. To end that life is the murder of a human, however small and undeveloped it is. So, when does that life begin?

 

[Paradoxum]

How about KILLING a child against the child's will???

The mother can give the child for adoption. Shouldn't the child have the choice if they want to live or die? What kind of person doesn't give that choice to their own child? It is pure, 100%, selfishness on that woman's part to kill that innocent child.

Does the child have a will? Do animals that we kill to eat have a will? Is it selfish to kill animals just because we think they taste nice?

At what point does the child become a potential person? If you could have lots of sex with lots of women but don't aren't you being selfish not giving those potential children a chance to live?