If you're a Christian and pro-choice, you're on the wrong side of the issue.

[bhsmte]

Something that lives on beyond us...

How do you know this?

 

[bhsmte]

Johns Hopkins Manual of Obstetrics say rate of miscarriage for all pregnancies is somewhere btwn 30% and 50%.

Voluntary abortions make up about 17% of pregnancies in the United states. So it appears double to triple that amount, are naturally aborted.

 

[durangodawood]

Voluntary abortions make up about 17% of pregnancies in the United states. So it appears double to triple that amount, are naturally aborted.

So, where's the hue and cry???

This is THE number one killer. And anyone who really feels that people are at stake here ought to be raising cain, as it were, to solve the miscarriage crisis. But what do we hear?........ Silence, pretty much. Makes me doubt that anyone really thinks a person is at stake. At least early on in pregnancy.

 

[Dave-W]

If you punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarried, you would face murder charges.

In some states. Not all jurisdictions recognize that.

 

[Chany]

So, where's the hue and cry???

This is THE number one killer. And anyone who really feels that people are at stake here ought to be raising cain, as it were, to solve the miscarriage crisis. But what do we hear?........ Silence, pretty much. Makes me doubt that anyone really thinks a person is at stake. At least early on in pregnancy.

This idea and the "miscarriage investigation" argument from earlier make up a very powerful thought experiment against personhood at conception.

 

[Belk]

Not quite. It means beyond human experience and knowledge. If you don't believe in God, how do you account for truths that are beyond human experience and knowledge? What is the source?

If you really wish to discuss this we should likely have a separate thread for it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So my right to exist ends at her right to convenience?

No. It stops at her right of bodily autonomy.

It is also this right that makes it impossible for you to force me to hand over my kidney, blood or bone marrow.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have a right to exist now.

But at some point back then, there was no You to hold that right. The question is, as always for this topic, when does a person begin. At conception? At some gray area time during pregnancy?

Honestly, it is an irrelevant point.

I'm more then willing to agree for the sake of argument that a fetus is to be seen as a "person".

It doesn't matter one bit to the topic of abortion.

No person's rights have priority over another person's right.

Human A cannot force human B to use B's body against B's will so that A can remain alive. No matter who A and B are.

A person is the master of his own body.

If I don't feel like handing over my kidney, blood, bone marrow - then nobody can force me to do so.

For the exact same reasons nobody can force a woman to hand over her uterus.

In fact, I find it a bit ironic that this argument even gains in strength if we assume that a fetus = a human / person.

 

[SteveB28]

You have a right to exist now.

But at some point back then, there was no You to hold that right. The question is, as always for this topic, when does a person begin. At conception? At some gray area time during pregnancy?

Not all lives are 'equal'. That we recognise this is evident in our attitudes towards the living things we consume for sustenance, or the animals we hunt for sport. We make a distinction between the relative value of our own lives with that of those living things.

I hold the same (or similar) value system for the unborn. As shocking as it may appear, I don't hold the same value for a living group of unorganised cells as I do for the great grandson I bounced on my knee.

 

[Chriliman]

No, he is stating they happen naturally, like earthquakes, tornadoes, disease, etc etc.

You stated all things natural should be viewed as good, correct?

If you quoted my actual words you might see why you're making wrong assumption here. I said natural things should reasonably be considered good. Meaning something natural could reasonably be considered bad if good reason that its bad is presented. If nature wasn't created then none of us would exist.

 

[Dave-W]

"How can I (my will intellect and emotions) exist if I have no life?"

Aren't you a theist?
I thought theists believed that "you" are more then your physical body.

I am a theist. The will intellect and emotions comprise the "soul" part, not the physical part. If one looks only at the physical body, then I "exist" either way - dead or alive.

 

[civilwarbuff]

In fairness, why don't we back up a moment and address a previous post and question I had for you and then we can move on to this one.

You asked me to provide evidence for a point I made and I obliged. I then asked you to support a claim you had made with evidence and I have yet to get a response.

Lets start there.

Sorry there were several..which in particular?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am a theist. The will intellect and emotions comprise the "soul" part, not the physical part. If one looks only at the physical body, then I "exist" either way - dead or alive.

Either way, it doesn't matter.

Your rights don't have priority over someone else's rights.

 

[Dave-W]

No. It stops at her right of bodily autonomy.

It is also this right that makes it impossible for you to force me to hand over my kidney, blood or bone marrow.

So I assume you are opposed to mandatory "Duty to Rescue" laws.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So I assume you are opposed to mandatory "Duty to Rescue" laws.

Only if the "duty to rescue" includes handing over organs.
Which it does not, obviously.

Nice try though...


Close, but no cigar.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry there were several..which in particular?

Posts 364 and 365.

 

[bhsmte]

If you quoted my actual words you might see why you're making wrong assumption here. I said natural things should reasonably be considered good. Meaning something natural could reasonably be considered bad if good reason that its bad is presented. If nature wasn't created then none of us would exist.

This is what you said in post 288. Notice you said; "anything natural".

"Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. Anything against nature should reasonably be considered bad"

 

[civilwarbuff]

Posts 364 and 365.

No, I have no scientific proof whatsoever; nor do I have any scripture quotes but I did qualify it as "possible".

 

[Chriliman]

This is what you said in post 288. Notice you said; "anything natural".

"Anything natural should reasonably be considered good. Anything against nature should reasonably be considered bad"

Right, I consider natural life to be reasonably good and I consider anything that causes death to be reasonably bad. Death being natural is still in direct conflict with life which is also natural.

So what's your point?

 

[Aldebaran]

EVERY child killed through abortion is innocent

and is killed without the benefit of a trial or legal protection.

It's amazing that so many people have no problem with this.

I'll never cease to be amazed by how many people will be enraged when a lion (with a human name) is killed, or if they hear that the whales are being hunted, or glaciers are melting....but when children are sucked piece-by-piece out of their mother's womb and mailed in boxes as spare parts, well, they think that's ok.

I guess this is what enlightened, evolved, tolerant, liberal humans have become in 2015. We really need to pray, brother!