my take on abortion:

[redleghunter]

Happy to share with you my understanding, but I question why you would want to make it all about ME.

It is precisely at birth that a new human being comes into existence.Why we so much celebrate the birth of Jesus. We do not have to know an exact moment on the clock - what we need to know is He was born then - and his (and everybody's likewise) age of being a human being is calculated from that day. No need to come up with some precise instance that is not the minute before or the minute after.
If for some obscure reason you require knowing an exact moment of a person's exiting a womb and the precise time to the nearest millisecond when the first breath entered the youngs er lungs, so be it. Perhaps you want to come up with some formula that takes both into account and have an ultra complex and complete picture of a birth - so be it, go to it. I see no reason for such precision.

Look up "birth" if you don't know what birth is. It includes exiting the womb and beginning to breathe.

Main thing is one is born - or there is no birth. A brand new animal being of the human being species is alive on the earth - or there never was any person.

Is abortion immoral?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Is abortion immoral?

I consider that an effort of entrapment, and will not humor you by telling my view on it. Might require a very long extended discussion to come to any conclusion either way.
I do notice however, you are quick to call it immoral without much effort to show that is the case. So much easier to attack somebody around here, than to actually present cogent arguments for truthfully understanding the way things are, seems to me.

Why make vague sideswipes at others rather than presenting actual arguments?

Not only is basic embryology ignored but the clear concrete language in Genesis.

I would be curious what precisely is being ignored, (and perhaps by whom), but don't expect much more than derisive personal (and impersonal) attacks. So much easier, isn't it?

 

[redleghunter]

I consider that an effort of entrapment, and will not humor you by telling my view on it. Might require a very long extended discussion to come to any conclusion either way.
I do notice however, you are quick to call it immoral without much effort to show that is the case. So much easier to attack somebody around here, than to actually present cogent arguments for truthfully understanding the way things are, seems to me.

Why make vague sideswipes at others rather than presenting actual arguments?

I would be curious what precisely is being ignored, (and perhaps by whom), but don't expect much more than derisive personal (and impersonal) attacks. So much easier, isn't it?

You ignored the post by Vicomte13. You replied yet ignored the content.

No entrapment. Abortion is either moral or it isn't.

But to avoid the normal 1% answers I will reframe it.

Is it moral to terminate a pregnancy when both mother and child are healthy?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You ignored the post by Vicomte13. You replied yet ignored the content.

No entrapment. Abortion is either moral or it isn't.

But to avoid the normal 1% answers I will reframe it.

Is it moral to terminate a pregnancy when both mother and child are healthy?

I quoted and replied directly to what Viacomte13 said, in each of posts #85, #92, & #93, with no response from him (or anyone else) to the points I directly and clearly made. You apparently have no desire (ability?) to engage in real discussion but only misrepresentation.

I suspect abortion in general may be either immoral or not, and like with any moral question, the context and reasons for the action when there is an actual action being considered probably affect the morality of it.

Entrapment because if I give the answer you expect (from your false accusations or perhaps only insinuations of my position being immoral), it's probably pretty easy to find oneself on the wrong side of a pretty severe prohibition at CF, that there be "no promotion of abortion." That rules out one answer to your question; if abortion in general is said to be NOT immoral or even indicated to be moral, that very answer would put one on the wrong side of the law around here, so entrapment. It is a question to which only one answer can be given and therefor not a sensible unbiased question.

Further to your attempted framing of me ("reframe"), the question is NONSENSE because it presumably is about pregnancy, yet in the case of pregnancy per se, there is no mother and there is no child to be either healthy or terminated (or not).

 

[redleghunter]

Further to your attempted framing of me ("reframe"), the question is NONSENSE because it presumably is about pregnancy, yet in the case of pregnancy per se, there is no mother and there is no child to be either healthy or terminated (or not).

Ok . What does pregnancy mean?

 

[redleghunter]

I quoted and replied directly to what Viacomte13 said, in each of posts #85, #92, & #93, with no response from him (or anyone else) to the points I directly and clearly made. You apparently have no desire (ability?) to engage in real discussion but only misrepresentation.

You did hit the reply tab but did not address his exegesis.

As has been mentioned by quite a few, you have not provided evidence in support of your assertions. As a matter of fact, we are on page 6 now and had a poster review with you what your position actually is.

But let's take smaller steps. Please answer the post above or here on what you define as "pregnancy."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Ok . What does pregnancy mean?

I'm sure you can find it in a dictionary ...

Somewhere ...

edit: Another way of putting it, to think of and accept pregnancy being what you suggest it is in your question, that there is already a child in a mother, is to beg the question, to operate in a context where the main thing at issue is not at issue. A child is a person and there is no mother if there is no child.

That is entirely the question in the matter of abortion - if one is serious about discussing it, that is not something to simply assume from the beginning.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You did hit the reply tab but did not address his exegesis.

As has been mentioned by quite a few, you have not provided evidence in support of your assertions. As a matter of fact, we are on page 6 now and had a poster review with you what your position actually is.

But let's take smaller steps. Please answer the post above or here on what you define as "pregnancy."

Then how about a bit of a summary of his exegesis, since you presumably know it, can recognize it. I would really like to know in a few sentences what he was trying to say. Which doe NOT require pages of obfuscation. If one at least knew the claim he was trying to make, one could deal with it and even its details.

 

[redleghunter]

Then how about a bit of a summary of his exegesis, since you presumably know it, can recognize it. I would really like to know in a few sentences what he was trying to say. Which doe NOT require pages of obfuscation. If one at least knew the claim he was trying to make, one could deal with it and even its details.

You were linked to it before, here it is again:

my take on abortion:

 

[redleghunter]

I'm sure you can find it in a dictionary ...

Somewhere ...

edit: Another way of putting it, to think of and accept pregnancy being what you suggest it is in your question, that there is already a child in a mother, is to beg the question, to operate in a context where the main thing at issue is not at issue. A child is a person and there is no mother if there is no child.

That is entirely the question in the matter of abortion - if one is serious about discussing it, that is not something to simply assume from the beginning.

Pregnant: (of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus:

Nothing to assume there.

Do you agree with the above definition of 'pregnant?'

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Pregnant: (of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus:

Nothing to assume there.

Do you agree with the above definition of 'pregnant?'

Won't even say what dictionary? Pretty good, maybe even your own fabrication.

Pretty easy to assume you went through a lot of dictionaries and came up with the sole definition that fit your purposes.

 

[redleghunter]

Won't even say what dictionary? Pretty good, maybe even your own fabrication.

Pretty easy to assume you went through a lot of dictionaries and came up with the sole definition that fit your purposes.

Doug that's the definition. Look it up.

preg·nant
ˈpreɡnənt/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
   "a pregnant woman"

pregnant | Definition of pregnant in English by Oxford Dictionaries

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Doug that's the definition. Look it up.

preg·nant
ˈpreɡnənt/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
   "a pregnant woman"

pregnant | Definition of pregnant in English by Oxford Dictionaries

That's not the best or even a very good definition, in my view.

The Merriam-Webster applicable definition is: "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body."
Definition of PREGNANT

I would suggest the Oxford definition has been corrupted by the constant use of terms like "baby" to apply to womb contents on the part of pro-life forces who have, in my opinion, thereby promoted great falsity. If one wanted to explore the past history of such definitions, I suspect one would have had much greater difficulty fifty years ago to come up with a definition like the one you found.
Since it is the role of a dictionary to indicate present usage, it is not too surprising if at this point in time there is rather a lot of your type of usage and that appears in at least one definition.

So in sum, the "definition of pregnancy" you requested will NOT resolve the dilemma of how one is to accurately and truly view womb contents.

And bear in mind that it is certainly false to claim the Oxford you gave is the definition.

 

[redleghunter]

That's not the best or even a very good definition, in my view.

The Merriam-Webster applicable definition is: "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body."
Definition of PREGNANT

I would suggest the Oxford definition has been corrupted by the constant use of terms like "baby" to apply to womb contents on the part of pro-life forces who have, in my opinion, thereby promoted great falsity. If one wanted to explore the past history of such definitions, I suspect one would have had much greater difficulty fifty years ago to come up with a definition like the one you found.
Since it is the role of a dictionary to indicate present usage, it is not too surprising if at this point in time there is rather a lot of your type of usage and that appears in at least one definition.

So in sum, the "definition of pregnancy" you requested will NOT resolve the dilemma of how one is to accurately and truly view womb contents.

And bear in mind that it is certainly false to claim the Oxford you gave is the definition.

Considering the definition I provided above the link to Oxford definition is not the Oxford definition shows just how invalid your statements truly are.

I quoted the Google definition which adopts the Oxford definition :

(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.

Either definition shows a human life in the womb.

So again I ask. Is it moral to abort a healthy human offspring in the womb if the pregnant woman is healthy?

You still have not answered that question.

The follow up would be if yes why? If no why not?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So again I ask. Is it moral to abort a healthy human offspring in the womb if the pregnant woman is healthy?
You still have not answered that question.
The follow up would be if yes why? If no why not?

I already told you the morality of a particular act (of abortion) depends on the context and reasons. You seem to think it is a totally black and white matter and all abortion is gravely immoral - you can hold that view but I don't think it is defensible ultimately. BECAUSE from what I have been able to understand, there is NEVER a person, a human being in any womb, and therefore abortion is never about murder.

You think it is about murder, if I am not mistaken, about the killing of a human being. I don't agree.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

That's not the best or even a very good definition, in my view.
The Merriam-Webster applicable definition is: "containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body."
Definition of PREGNANT
I would suggest the Oxford definition has been corrupted by the constant use of terms like "baby" to apply to womb contents on the part of pro-life forces who have, in my opinion, thereby promoted great falsity. If one wanted to explore the past history of such definitions, I suspect one would have had much greater difficulty fifty years ago to come up with a definition like the one you found.
Since it is the role of a dictionary to indicate present usage, it is not too surprising if at this point in time there is rather a lot of your type of usage and that appears in at least one definition.
So in sum, the "definition of pregnancy" you requested will NOT resolve the dilemma of how one is to accurately and truly view womb contents.
And bear in mind that it is certainly false to claim the Oxford you gave is the definition.

Considering the definition I provided above the link to Oxford definition is not the Oxford definition shows just how invalid your statements truly are.
I quoted the Google definition which adopts the Oxford definition :
(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
Either definition shows a human life in the womb.

I guess you don't understand what the bolded "the" in "the definition" means. As perhaps the more mainstream American M-W definition shows, there is more than one definition that is applicable to the situation at hand, and the British Oxford definition is NOT the only one or the definition as you claim.
And they even appear to be conflicting definitions in that you don't want to accept the one I present and I don't want to accept the one you like. At least I argue for mine, and you merely present yours as "the definition," presumptively the only one possible.

I was not going to be too picky and bother to respond to this muddled quote of you, but since it false accused me, decided to do so. Your first sentence does not make sense. And what little sense it has is false. I nowhere said your Oxford definition was not the Oxford definition!

And btw, there is not really a "Google definition" - what you refer to is what the logarithm they used happened to bring up first. It may even be something someone paid for it to come up first - perhaps not so much in the case of a definition that is garnered from dictionaries, but in many instances the first items that come up when you Google are paid ads.
That's all that your, "the Google definition which adopts the Oxford definition," can truly mean. There is no Google definition to confirm the one definition you especially like.

 

[redleghunter]

I guess you don't understand what the bolded "the" in "the definition" means. As perhaps the more mainstream American M-W definition shows, there is more than one definition that is applicable to the situation at hand, and the British Oxford definition is NOT the only one or the definition as you claim.
And they even appear to be conflicting definitions in that you don't want to accept the one I present and I don't want to accept the one you like. At least I argue for mine, and you merely present yours as "the definition," presumptively the only one possible.

I was not going to be too picky and bother to respond to this muddled quote of you, but since it false accused me, decided to do so. Your first sentence does not make sense. And what little sense it has is false. I nowhere said your Oxford definition was not the Oxford situation!

And btw, there is not really a "Google definition" - what you refer to is what the logarithm they used happened to bring up first. It may even be something someone paid for it to come up first - perhaps not so much in the case of a definition that is garnered from dictionaries, but in many instances the first items that come up when you Google are paid ads.
That's all that your, "the Google definition which adopts the Oxford definition," can truly mean. There is no Google definition to confirm the one definition you especially like.

It's simple.

Sally is pregnant. What does that mean? It means she is with child.

Now what moral grounds does a healthy Sally with healthy developing child to terminate such pregnancy?

Simple question and it is black and white. The developing offspring is either a human life or not.

 

[redleghunter]

I already told you the morality of a particular act (of abortion) depends on the context and reasons.

Meaning our moral worth as human beings made in God's image and likeness is an arbitrary subjective determination?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It's simple.

Sally is pregnant. What does that mean? It means she is with child.

Now what moral grounds does a healthy Sally with healthy developing child to terminate such pregnancy?

Simple question and it is black and white. The developing offspring is either a human life or not.

"With child" usually means "having a with child belly." Meaning she is making a child. You can take it to mean something which is not the case, but you really should be a little less ready to accept whatever is thrown at you from a "pro-life" source, seems to me.

PROVE to me there is a child, prove what is in a womb is a child. As I have pointed out already, certainly your finding one dictionary that says it is does NOT prove it.

It is the developing, prospective, soon maybe possible OFFSPRING. Until it has "offsprung" it is NOT an offspring. So what you call "the developing offspring," is not really that, but I suppose there probably are other things as well that lead you to think the fetus in the womb is a human life. Like you say, what is in the womb is either a human life, or it is not (and I take it your referent "the developing offspring" is meant to refer to a fetus). I think it is NOT.
Time for you to prove it is, IF you want people to be convinced to act on the basis of your viewpoint,

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
I already told you the morality of a particular act (of abortion) depends on the context and reasons.

Meaning our moral worth as human beings made in God's image and likeness is an arbitrary subjective determination?

Not at all. Context and reasons are not subjective or arbitrary in any fashion whatsoever.
Talking real context, real reasons. (We're not concerned with fabrications except to avoid them.)
I would think one should JUDGE, if one is going to judge, A REAL ABORTION, in a real context with real reasons. Otherwise, one is at best subjective and most likely mostly only totally fictional.

Besides, IT IS NOTHING ABOUT THE MORAL WORTH OF HUMAN BEINGS.

Someone may not understand that at first glance. It is the same point made earlier, that only when you have established that there is a human being in the womb is anything like that relevant. Otherwise you are merely assuming the conclusion by talking in that fashion.

Bear in mind what you just said, "human beings made," i.e. offsprung, fully birthed.
Didn't I already explain it?