"Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life"

[EnemyPartyII]

The Talmud changes according to the circumstance of it's society, doesn't it?

Are not laws in it re-writ, re-worked, according to situational ethics?

If so, then who's to say what was writ back when the OT was written down is the same today?

I'm not Jewish, so please don't take this as a definitive answer... but my understanding is that the Talmud is a collection of the teachings of senior Rabbis. It doesn't change, so much as is added to.

The Babylonian Talmud was written down during the Babylonian exile, around 500BC, and it was that that makes the clear statement that during the first 40 days the foetus is no different to water.

I'm not submitting the Talmud as scriptural here mind, my point is that the Jewish elders and scholars in 500 BC were a lot closer, buth culturally and in time, to the writing of the OT, and I'd suggest that they are probably a pretty good indication of what the authors of the OT believed.

Talmud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, since the Jewish religion is really SERIOUS about precident and respecting the teachings of elders, and the authors of the NT were brought up in a tradition where the Talmud was considered very, very highly and to be something of an authority on legal matters, that unless they specifically state otherwise, I don't think there is much reason to believe they thought much differently.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear EnemyPartyII
The Talmud does change as shown!

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

Aha! The truth comes out!

really? you think my opinion is the truth?
No that was my opinion.

I very much suspect that a great many of the people who engage in "abortion is murder!" rhetoric and would deny women the option,

Forget the spin, the debate we are having is whether abortion is murder, so those people are right if it is. And some of them don’t deny the women the choice, the choice to have sex and take the responsibility.

aren't actually that concerned about all the sweet little baby foetuses. What they really care about is trying to stop people having sex. This post further reinforces my point.

So having proposed the issue is about sex for your side of the debate you now say it’s the issue for our side.
By the way I assume you mean baby or foetus by ‘baby foetuses’

Can you do without your car? Your computer? Money? No?

Yes, and I can live with the consequences of having them and using them.
Did you not understand the point being made, it was suggesting doing without, it was suggesting doing without if one can’t accept the consequences.

So does that make your car/computer/money your God?

No because Jesus says one cant serve both, one is a slave to whatever has mastered them. Besides what has this got to do with abortion, are you implying if I can sin so can everyone else?

 

[Zeena]

Although I disagree with many of the methods espoused, I thought these quotes interesting, to say the least, in regards to the Talmud;

The first edition of the expurgated Talmud, on which most subsequent editions were based, appeared at Basel ( 1578- 1581) with the omission of the entire treatise of 'Abodah Zarah and of passages considered inimical to Christianity, together with modifications of certain phrases.

The Talmud makes little mention of Jesus or the early Christians. There are a number of quotes about individuals named Yeshu that once existed in editions of the Talmud; these quotes were long ago removed from the main text due to accusations that they referred to Jesus, and are no longer used in Talmud study.

Source --> Talmud Jewish Gemara Mishnah Study Babylonian Mishna Laws

A contraversial book, to say the least [it seems], as petains to historical accuracy and innerrancy.

IMO, not worthy of conforming to rely upon, as touching truth.

 

[Phinehas2]

To EnemyPartyII,

Um, no, I'm saying fairly blatantly that a great many people who rail agains abortion as such a great evil, don't actually give 3/5ths of a rats about "the unborn". What REALLY exercises them is the thought of people having sex for enjoyment, and what they really want is the threat of pregnancy as a deterent to sex.

Sorry but without sexual intercourse there will be no pregancy wanted or unwanted, thats a fact. That you doubt the motives of a fraction of those who are against abortion compares with my opinion that all pro-choice are depraved and mentally insane.
But how does that get us any further on who is right and why?
Can we get back to discussing the issue.

 

[Phinehas2]

lux et lex,

We won't keep the mental insanity to ourselves. There seem to be quite a few insane people amongst your ranks as well, as demonstrated by this thread. In my opinion the pro life crowd are completely out of touch with reality. Which is also demonstrated by this thread.

As I said, we can give opinions all day long, but tell me can a life begin without conception and gestation, I mean did you go through that stage like I did? What if you had been aborted and I hadnt, you wouldnt be arguing with me now.

 

[Phinehas2]

The motive of the pro-choice is pure selfishness and greed. Their god is sex thus they cant let anything get in the way of their sexual gratification. They dont admit it but then sexual intercourse does cause pregnancy, one cant naturally get pregnant without it so their arguments are rather embarrasing.
Sex has its place, no-one on the pro-life side says otherwise, that view is just a smear, but with it comes responsibilities.

Echoing the words of Mother Theresa, as far as pro-choice abortion goes one cant get more depraved when a mother kills her own child. A society that does this has lost any sense of what love is.

 

[lux et lex]

lux et lex,
As I said, we can give opinions all day long, but tell me can a life begin without conception and gestation, I mean did you go through that stage like I did? What if you had been aborted and I hadnt, you wouldnt be arguing with me now.

You're right, I wouldn't be. And I wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Phinehas2]

lux et lex,

You're right, I wouldn't be. And I wouldn't know the difference.

In fact you still havent actually answered the question, you have addressed the provcation to answer the question. The question was does life begin with conception and gestation.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We won't keep the mental insanity to ourselves. There seem to be quite a few insane people amongst your ranks as well, as demonstrated by this thread. In my opinion the pro life crowd are completely out of touch with reality. Which is also demonstrated by this thread.

When they start claiming that getting married stops a brother and sister from being siblings anymore... its kind of hard to disagree with you.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

lux et lex,
In fact you still havent actually answered the question, you have addressed the provcation to answer the question. The question was does life begin with conception and gestation.

Life does. No one has EVER suggested otherwise.

Life does NOT equate to personhood.

 

[Phinehas2]

To EnemyPartyII

. The question was does life begin with conception and gestation.

Life does. No one has EVER suggested otherwise.

Life does NOT equate to personhood.

How can it not equate to personhood if every person’s life began at conception and gestation.
Even with your approach, if the life is terminated in abortion the person who the life develops into is terminated.

If you admit abortion terminates life why not call it terminating life? The use of expressions foetus and terminating pregnancy must therefore be purpose deception to make it sound more acceptable.

The concept of a foetus and a viable person is subjective. One country sets it legal at 10 weeks and another at 24 weeks. Why the difference? As we see this is a case of life versus personhood then some countries must be guilty of killing people.

 

[stella_ku]

Even though I'm a very strict Catholic (Pro-Life) this is a topic in which even I would have trouble deciding. Each and every case would have different circumstances and as an individual, I believe that one should be very understanding - from both points of view.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII
How can it not equate to personhood if every person’s life began at conception and gestation. [/color]
Even with your approach, if the life is terminated in abortion the person who the life develops into is terminated.

If you admit abortion terminates life why not call it terminating life? The use of expressions foetus and terminating pregnancy must therefore be purpose deception to make it sound more acceptable.

The concept of a foetus and a viable person is subjective. One country sets it legal at 10 weeks and another at 24 weeks. Why the difference? As we see this is a case of life versus personhood then some countries must be guilty of killing people.

If you think it helps to call it "terminating life", I'll call it "terminating life". It still doesn't make it the same as terminating a person. If it ain't self aware, it ain't a person, simple as that. Potential is not the same as actuality. An acorn is not an oak tree, a foetus is not a person,

And for the nth time, I use the term "foetus" because it is the CORRECT term to use when discussing an organism between the stages of embryo and neonate.

 

[Phinehas2]

To EnemyPartyII,

If you think it helps to call it "terminating life", I'll call it "terminating life". It still doesn't make it the same as terminating a person.

How? Under your view the life shares the same person, zygote and foetus. It makes no sense what you are saying trying to make a distinction between the stages of a person’s life.

If it ain't self aware, it ain't a person, simple as that.

If ist a life it’s a person developing. Simple as that. I as a person was not aware I of who I am as a zygote but the zygote was still me.

Potential is not the same as actuality. An acorn is not an oak tree, a foetus is not a person,

If one destroys the acorn it’s the oak tree that wont develop, not an elm or a cabbage, so how can you say it isn’t an oak tree? Acorn is just the word for the oak tree in seed form. I was a person when I was in foetal stage because my life began at conception, foetus was just a stage of my personhood.

And for the nth time, I use the term "foetus" because it is the CORRECT term to use when discussing an organism between the stages of embryo and neonate.

But its not an organism it’s a human person in development.
And nice try avoiding another key point.
The concept of a foetus and a viable person is subjective. One country sets it legal at 10 weeks and another at 24 weeks. Why the difference? As we see this is a case of life versus personhood then some countries must be guilty of killing people.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How? Under your view the life shares the same person, zygote and foetus. It makes no sense what you are saying trying to make a distinction between the stages of a person’s life.

Is english your first language? Seriously?

If ist a life it’s a person developing. Simple as that. I as a person was not aware I of who I am as a zygote but the zygote was still me.

Other than the physical, what part of "you" existed when you were a zygote?

If one destroys the acorn it’s the oak tree that wont develop, not an elm or a cabbage, so how can you say it isn’t an oak tree? Acorn is just the word for the oak tree in seed form. I was a person when I was in foetal stage because my life began at conception, foetus was just a stage of my personhood.

So... if you paid someone to build you some oak furniture, and they gave you an acorn, would you be happy with that?

But its not an organism it’s a human person in development.
And nice try avoiding another key point.

Humans are organisms.

The concept of a foetus and a viable person is subjective. One country sets it legal at 10 weeks and another at 24 weeks. Why the difference? As we see this is a case of life versus personhood then some countries must be guilty of killing people.

Sorry, what's your point? Different country's have different laws based on different beliefs. This is news?

 

[Phinehas2]

To EnemyPartyII,

Is english your first language? Seriously?

Yes. The problem is not my language but your lack of reality and faulty logic. If my life started at conception then the zygote and foetus I was, was me, it wasn’t anyone else and it developed into what I am now. Your disconnect between the stages of life is meaningless.
Which means your arbitary judgement on whether a stage of life is a person is somewhat contradictory. Sure I didn’t have sentience but it was still me, If I had been aborted at that point it would still have been me that was aborted, you can see it is me because I wasn’t aborted.

Other than the physical, what part of "you" existed when you were a zygote?

all of me as I developed into me, nothing had to be added for me to develop. Besides what do you mean ‘other than the physical’ the physical is still me.

So...

No, never mind ‘so’ until you have addressed my question, If one destroys the acorn it’s the oak tree that wont develop, not an elm or a cabbage, so how can you say it isn’t an oak tree? Acorn is just the word for the oak tree in seed form. I was a person when I was in foetal stage because my life began at conception, foetus was just a stage of my personhood.

Humans are organisms.

Then why terminate the life of human beings by abortion?

Sorry, what's your point?

Why are some countries thus guilty of killing people if its 10 weeks when a human being becomes a person?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Then why terminate the life of human beings by abortion?

They aren't human BEINGs. Not all organisms are human BEINGS.

Why are some countries thus guilty of killing people if its 10 weeks when a human being becomes a person?

What part of "different countrys' governments have different beliefs" isn't making sense to you?

 

[Phinehas2]

To EnemyPartyII,
You haven’t addressed all my challenges to your views.
Firstly do you understand my point about life?
If my life started at conception then the zygote and foetus I was, was me, it wasn’t anyone else and it developed into what I am now. Yes?

Sure I didn’t have sentience but it was still me, If I had been aborted at that point it would still have been me that was aborted, you can see it is me as I wasn’t aborted. Yes?

Do you accept that all of me developed into me, nothing had to be added for me to develop? Yes?

Besides what do you mean ‘other than the physical’ the physical is still me.

If one destroys the acorn it’s the oak tree that wont develop, not an elm or a cabbage, so how can you say it isn’t an oak tree? Acorn is just the word for the oak tree in seed form. I was a person when I was in foetal stage because my life began at conception, foetus was just a stage of my personhood.

They aren't human BEINGs. Not all organisms are human BEINGS.

Sorry but you are again making things up..
Here is the dictionary definition …
human (hy m n)
1. A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being.
2. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans.
SO YES THEY ARE! And you had the audacity to suggest English wasn’t my first language.

What part of "different countrys' governments have different beliefs" isn't making sense to you?

The question is to you my friend not me, I understand all my question, as you obviously don’t let me clarify. The point I amking just shows you and others are just making your own arbitrary decisions about life, on the pro-life side we all know and agree when life starts and when a person is a person, on your side you cant agree.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

To EnemyPartyII,
You haven’t addressed all my challenges to your views.

You havn't addressed any of my challenges to yours either. You pretend they didn't happen and ignore them.

The only "challenges" of yours I havn't responded to are the ones that don't make anly logical or gramatical sense.

Firstly do you understand my point about life?

If my life started at conception then the zygote and foetus I was, was me, it wasn’t anyone else and it developed into what I am now. Yes?

I understand YOUR point, but are you even TRYING to understand mine?

Yes, the foetus that became you developed into you, and it was never anyone else. Thats a given.
But...

MY point... is that even though a foetus will, under the right conditions, develop INTO a person, it is not a person YET. Merely having the POTENTIAL to be something doesn't make something the same as what it has the potential to be. An acorn has THE POTENTIAL to be an oak tree, an oak tree has THE POTENTIAL to be a bed... but that does not mean that they are all interchangeable.

Sure I didn’t have sentience but it was still me, If I had been aborted at that point it would still have been me that was aborted, you can see it is me as I wasn’t aborted. Yes?

I disagree. It wouldn't have been you that was aborted, because you, in the sense of the sentient, self aware being that is you, didn't exist YET. It exists NOW, but it didn't exist THEN.

Do you accept that all of me developed into me, nothing had to be added for me to develop? Yes?

Strongly disagree.

literally millions of things had to be added to the foetus that became you for it to become "you". Not to mention all the water and nutrients, your intelect, experience, personality, and sense of self awareness all had to be added, since none of these things were present in the foetus in the womb.

Besides what do you mean ‘other than the physical’ the physical is still me.

The physical is PART of you, but I very much disagree that the physical is at all the important part of you. Its the other stuff that makes humans special, and none of the other stuff was present in the womb.

If one destroys the acorn it’s the oak tree that wont develop, not an elm or a cabbage, so how can you say it isn’t an oak tree? Acorn is just the word for the oak tree in seed form. I was a person when I was in foetal stage because my life began at conception, foetus was just a stage of my personhood.

Asked and answered.

Sorry but you are again making things up..

Here is the dictionary definition …
human(hymn)
1. A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being.
2. A member of any of the extinct species of the genus Homo, such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, that are considered ancestral or closely related to modern humans.
SO YES THEY ARE! And you had the audacity to suggest English wasn’t my first language.

Read the rest of the definition. Human CAN mean "human being", but it can ALSO mean only related to, or coming from human beings. That is why we have two different terms, because they describe different things.

The question is to you my friend not me, I understand all my question, as you obviously don’t let me clarify. The point I amking just shows you and others are just making your own arbitrary decisions about life, on the pro-life side we all know and agree when life starts and when a person is a person, on your side you cant agree.

I'm pro-life, please remember that.

So no, we don't all agree on when a person becomes a person.

And I'm waiting to hear any reason to think your decision about when a person is a person is any less arbitrary than mine? I mean, I have scriptural and scientific support to back up my position, you have, what, a thoroughly out of context bible verse about a child leaping in a womb? Which doesn't mention conception as being the start point of personhood anyway?