It should be Murder?

[Nic Samojluk]

What do neurologists actually say about personhood?

"In Human Embryology the terms understood to be integral in the common sense ... consensus that a human life begins at conception ..."

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html

 

[Armoured]

Abortion is a violent trauma to the womb of the mother. It should be shown in medical exam.

You should probably research these things a little before making such pronouncements. What makes you think an artificial abortion is any more violent or traumatic than a natural one?

 

[Armoured]

"In Human Embryology the terms understood to be integral in the common sense ... consensus that a human life begins at conception ..."

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html

Human life=/=human being/person

 

[Armoured]

I don't have an answer for that.

But that in no way justifies the existence of abortuaries or the legality of abortion.

But it really comes down to the fundamental problem of sin. Why are women desiring abortions? Often it is out of convenience, selfishness, coercion, fear and ignorance. The women are acting out of their inherent sinful nature. They are murderers at heart. And apart from the transforming work of God in their life, they will not seen the precious nature of all life, especially vulnerable life in the womb. They will not see the sinful risks of casual, promiscuous sexual encounters where they pursue only their selfish desires and lusts. They will not take responsibility for their actions.

Yes. Darn women!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

"In Human Embryology the terms understood to be integral in the common sense ... consensus that a human life begins at conception ..."

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html

That's not in dispute.

But if you take a few of my cells and keep them alive in a petri dish, do you allow that "human life" to have rights?

Let's say you alter the DNA of those cells so that they no longer match me. Does that "human life" have rights?

 

[redleghunter]

Since this is a societal question we answer it as a society.

That seems to not be the case. If we were truly to answer this as a society, for example, in the US then abortion would be illegal in TX and fully legal in CA. Instead we had it answered by 7 of 9 judges. That is not how society decides.

 

[Belk]

"In Human Embryology the terms understood to be integral in the common sense ... consensus that a human life begins at conception, ..."

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_04whenlifebegins1.html

That is neither a peer reviewed source nor the scientific consensus of embryologists. This not a question that science can answer.

 

[Belk]

That seems to not be the case. If we were truly to answer this as a society, for example, in the US then abortion would be illegal in TX and fully legal in CA. Instead we had it answered by 7 of 9 judges. That is not how society decides.

It most certainly is in the US.

 

[SteveB28]

What is legal does not mean that it is moral. When Hitler was in power, it was legal to kill the unproductive members of society. Before the emancipation of blacks, it was legal to mistreat blacks. Morality trumps legality.

And this discussion is, as it has been from the outset, concerned with the law!

As several people have now reminded you, if you wish a discussion on the morality of abortion, then start your own!

Your petulant persistence displays poor manners.

 

[redleghunter]

You do understand that simply searching for words like "Human being" in a science article does not make anything that match it "a scientific fact" correct? That science has to be something that directly addresses the question at hand. This is why no court has been convinced by this "science". It is not because they are biased but because this is a question science does not address no matter how many pro life sites attempt to desperately piece a case together with text books and dictionaries.

Of course. That is why you actually have to read the full text. What I gave you was a neutral list of sites to explore.

23+23 still equals 46. Can't escape that. That is the point where we have a new distinct human being. I don't see any opposing views scientifically. I do see quite a few bioethicists and philosophers arguing against 'personhood.' The science profession will not touch 'personhood' with a 10 foot pole because they know how politically charged it is. But they can't deny scientific fact.

What we have at conception is not a pig, rat or cow. It is a distinct human being----homo sapien sapien

 

[SteveB28]

Once a woman is already pregnant, the choice to not be pregnant has evaporated!

Spoken like someone who will never be pregnant!

I suppose you would also hold that a victim of rape, incest, having been taken advantage of (eg, an intellectually disabled person), all of these women have had their choice "evaporated" as well? You would have the girl who aborted the foetus produced by rape arrested for murder?

 

[Belk]

Of course. That is why you actually have to read the full text. What I gave you was a neutral list of sites to explore.

23+23 still equals 46. Can't escape that. That is the point where we have a new distinct human being. I don't see any opposing views scientifically. I do see quite a few bioethicists and philosophers arguing against 'personhood.' The science profession will not touch 'personhood' with a 10 foot pole because they know how politically charged it is. But they can't deny scientific fact.

What we have at conception is not a pig, rat or cow. It is a distinct human being----homo sapien sapien

No, the scientific community will not touch "person" because that is not a scientific question. That human reproduction produces a homo sapiens sapiens is not in question.

 

[SteveB28]

You are wrong! What you say might be true if the choice is between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn, but it is not true when the choice is between a few months of inconvenience and the permanent deprivation of life. Common sense should prevail here!

And it has.

The laws which prevail in both your country and mine reflect the common sense of our communities. I know that you hate this simple fact, but fact it is.....most people disagree with you and so do the courts!

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't recognise any claims made concerning a god's supposed wishes. This discussion is centered around HUMANS wanting to introduce a law.

Do you prefer sharia law? Or perhaps you would prefer lawlessness? Civilization does not work without law.

 

[SteveB28]

Wrong again! This is a Christian forum. Therefore, what is posted here should take into account the premise that we are the result of God's creative action.

Yes, this is a Christian forum - did you really think I hadn't noticed?

However, this discussion has commenced in a sub forum, designed for the contribution of atheists and was started by an atheist and specifically avoided the question of religious issues!

Your contention that you can railroad the discussion simply because you feel that your religious views should hold sway demonstrates the height of bad manners.

Look to your rudeness sir.

 

[SteveB28]

Do you prefer sharia law? Or perhaps you would prefer lawlessness? Civilization does not work without law.

I recognise the ONLY law that has ever been shown to exist - that drawn up by humans.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And it has.

The laws which prevail in both your country and mine reflect the common sense of our communities. I know that you hate this simple fact, but fact it is.....most people disagree with you and so do the courts!

There is no separation between religion and law. Man's law is a failure always has been and always well be. In fact that is the exact argument you are making is what a failure man's law is. If you realize it or not, only God's laws work. All of the natural laws of the universe are God's laws and they all work just fine. Without the natural laws we would have nothing. Atoms are composed of particles called protons, electrons and neutrons. They follow the natural laws to make elements and they make up the known universe. Of course very little of this universe is matter, it is mostly energy.

 

[SteveB28]

The same way we deal with other alleged crimes. Most crimes are never solved, and we do not file charges when the evidence is rather weak. Besides, we use common sense and ignore cases where pursuing them is impractical.

Rubbish, you are dodging.

You have a female neighbour on either side of where you live. The one on the right tells you one morning that her young son has had a fall at home and has died from head injuries. She doesn't want to speak further.

The neighbour on your left was obviously pregnant. One morning, she tells you that she suffered a miscarriage the day before and has 'lost' the pregnancy. She doesn't want to speak further.

What do you, the model responsible citizen, do now? Do you make a report to the authorities? In both cases? If not, why not?

 

[SteveB28]

Not silly at all. We are not allowed to shoot through a front door and kill another person just because we 'think' they may cause us harm. We don't know. With abortion as you present it, there are unknowns to your definition of personhood. Or have you defined personhood? Even so, why would your definition be valid?

My definition would be valid for me. Yours would be entirely different. And, displaying some wisdom, our courts have realised that there is indeed a wide spectrum of 'definitions' within the community and that individuals should be able to decide for themselves the relative rights of a foetus compared with that of an independent human being.

 

[SteveB28]

The money I use says: "In God we trust."

You take your understanding of the law from inscriptions written on money!?

Good grief.