What I don't understand about the arguement for Abortion.

[Incariol]

So you are conceding the debate by your continued avoidance of the answer.

I've answered you twice. You do realize everyone can see that, right? For the third time: the verses are non-literal poetry in praise of God. That is kind of the point of Psalms, if you could be bothered take your verses in context instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

You have no moral authority to support your advocacy of killing the unborn, whether from a Christian standpoint or a worldy standpoint.

Nobody advocates killing the unborn. You seem rather confused as to the topic here.

 

[mathetes123]

I've answered you twice. You do realize everyone can see that, right? For the third time: the verses are non-literal poetry in praise of God. That is kind of the point of Psalms, if you could be bothered take your verses in context instead of Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Nobody advocates killing the unborn. You seem rather confused as to the topic here.

It is poetry is not an answer.

If it is not advocacy, I don't know what it is.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Why don't you abandon this charade of a dialogue and just make the point you are so obviously aiming for already?

I've made my point quite a few times already. Here it is again, for you. Since we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, then some (if not most) abortions are killing innocent human persons. And since human persons are being killed, then personhood is a bad way to determine if an abortion should be performed.

 

[LawsonAlan]

A few things that make me wonder about how seriously anyone believes that a fertilized egg is full human being.

1) Do you plan to take the tax write-off for an extra dependent if you were pregnant in the previous tax year?
2) If you were pregnant in the previous tax year, but didn't realize it until later, would you ask the government for a retroactive refund?
3) If you sadly had a miscarriage, would you still buy a coffin and hire a funeral parlor give the egg a good Christian burial?
4) Did you open a bank account and start putting money aside for this egg's college fund? What name did you put in under, assuming you didn't know the egg's gender?
5) What color did you paint the egg's bedroom?

I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that I have provided a list of things that a human could fully expect, but that an egg wouldn't.

And I'm aware that there are some "parents" that do some of the things i have listed.

But, until the government allows us to take a tax break for the unborn and requires us to make satisfactory and ecologically sound decisions about disposing of the corpse when this life ends, why should we take piecemeal acceptance that this egg is a life?

IOW, everybody dies. When i die, my body will be burned or buried or frozen in accordance with the law. If my family got caught dumping me in the sewer, they'd face charges. Should the mother who miscarries into the toilet face the same penalties for inappropriately disposing of a body?

When those clang the bell that fertilized eggs are humans begin addressing these issues, i'll take them a lot more seriously.

Until then, fertilized eggs are about as cellularly complex as toenail clippings, and should be treated roughly the same.

And don't start in about "potential" life, when toenail clippings could hypothetically be used as DNA sources to facilitate cloning.

 

[mathetes123]

A few things that make me wonder about how seriously anyone believes that a fertilized egg is full human being.

1) Do you plan to take the tax write-off for an extra dependent if you were pregnant in the previous tax year?
2) If you were pregnant in the previous tax year, but didn't realize it until later, would you ask the government for a retroactive refund?
3) If you sadly had a miscarriage, would you still buy a coffin and hire a funeral parlor give the egg a good Christian burial?
4) Did you open a bank account and start putting money aside for this egg's college fund? What name did you put in under, assuming you didn't know the egg's gender?
5) What color did you paint the egg's bedroom?

I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that I have provided a list of things that a human could fully expect, but that an egg wouldn't.

And I'm aware that there are some "parents" that do some of the things i have listed.

But, until the government allows us to take a tax break for the unborn and requires us to make satisfactory and ecologically sound decisions about disposing of the corpse when this life ends, why should we take piecemeal acceptance that this egg is a life?

IOW, everybody dies. When i die, my body will be burned or buried or frozen in accordance with the law. If my family got caught dumping me in the sewer, they'd face charges. Should the mother who miscarries into the toilet face the same penalties for inappropriately disposing of a body?

When those clang the bell that fertilized eggs are humans begin addressing these issues, i'll take them a lot more seriously.

Until then, fertilized eggs are about as cellularly complex as toenail clippings, and should be treated roughly the same.

And don't start in about "potential" life, when toenail clippings could hypothetically be used as DNA sources to facilitate cloning.

I'll use the same argument I used before. If the life of the unborn baby is not valued because it is not fully developed, then we should discount the lives of all humans up to adulthood, because they too are not fully developed. Using this reasoning process we could pass laws in support of infanticide. If a pregnancy is inconvenient, how much more a child out of the womb.

 

[TomZzyzx]

A few things that make me wonder about how seriously anyone believes that a fertilized egg is full human being.

1) Do you plan to take the tax write-off for an extra dependent if you were pregnant in the previous tax year?
2) If you were pregnant in the previous tax year, but didn't realize it until later, would you ask the government for a retroactive refund?
3) If you sadly had a miscarriage, would you still buy a coffin and hire a funeral parlor give the egg a good Christian burial?
4) Did you open a bank account and start putting money aside for this egg's college fund? What name did you put in under, assuming you didn't know the egg's gender?
5) What color did you paint the egg's bedroom?

I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that I have provided a list of things that a human could fully expect, but that an egg wouldn't.

And I'm aware that there are some "parents" that do some of the things i have listed.

But, until the government allows us to take a tax break for the unborn and requires us to make satisfactory and ecologically sound decisions about disposing of the corpse when this life ends, why should we take piecemeal acceptance that this egg is a life?

IOW, everybody dies. When i die, my body will be burned or buried or frozen in accordance with the law. If my family got caught dumping me in the sewer, they'd face charges. Should the mother who miscarries into the toilet face the same penalties for inappropriately disposing of a body?

When those clang the bell that fertilized eggs are humans begin addressing these issues, i'll take them a lot more seriously.

Until then, fertilized eggs are about as cellularly complex as toenail clippings, and should be treated roughly the same.

And don't start in about "potential" life, when toenail clippings could hypothetically be used as DNA sources to facilitate cloning.

Nobody argues anymore that the unborn is not human. Science has already determined that the unborn is a full human being. If it's not a human being then what kind of being is it? Dog, cat, monkey, maybe fish? Humans produce humans, canines produce canines and fish produce fish. Again, science tells us that the unborn is a human "life". It's living and growing.

 

[LawsonAlan]

Nobody argues anymore that the unborn is not human. Science has already determined that the unborn is a full human being. If it's not a human being then what kind of being is it? Dog, cat, monkey, maybe fish? Humans produce humans, canines produce canines and fish produce fish. Again, science tells us that the unborn is a human "life". It's living and growing.

So, when people start buying coffins for their miscarried embryos, I'll start considering that the pro-lifers take themselves seriously.

 

[LawsonAlan]

I'll use the same argument I used before. If the life of the unborn baby is not valued because it is not fully developed, then we should discount the lives of all humans up to adulthood, because they too are not fully developed. Using this reasoning process we could pass laws in support of infanticide. If a pregnancy is inconvenient, how much more a child out of the womb.

This is called inductive reasoning. It doesn't hold water. Look up the term if you're unfamiliar with it.

 

[TomZzyzx]

So, when people start buying coffins for their miscarried embryos, I'll start considering that the pro-lifers take themselves seriously.

You can consider anything you want. It's only the facts that matter, not anyone's opinion. And that fact of abortion is that it kills an innocent human life.

 

[LawsonAlan]

You can consider anything you want. It's only the facts that matter, not anyone's opinion. And that fact of abortion is that it kills an innocent human life.

An innocent life that nobody bothers to buy a coffin for in the case of natural abortion (miscarriage)?

Nor name it?

Nor write it off their taxes?

Nor include it in family photos?

All I'm saying is that when pro-lifers make these steps, I'll take them seriously at their word of what they believe.

Until then, they keep treating miscarried embryos like sewer fodder?

 

[TomZzyzx]

An innocent life that nobody bothers to buy a coffin for in the case of natural abortion (miscarriage)?

Nor name it?

Nor write it off their taxes?

Nor include it in family photos?

All I'm saying is that when pro-lifers make these steps, I'll take them seriously at their word of what they believe.

Until then, they keep treating miscarried embryos like sewer fodder?

First off, it's a logical fallacy a non sequitur (it doesn't follow) that if a pro lifer doesn't do any of those things then they don't take the pro life position seriously. So even if pro lifers never o any of those things, it's foolishness to assume that the unborn are not worth saving.

 

[acropolis]

I only take pro-lifers seriously if they've adopted children and push for things like free prenatal care, child delivery, and daycare, otherwise they're just lazy hypocrites in my mind. You're only for life if you support those kids throughout, not just abandoning them once they're born.

 

[TomZzyzx]

I only take pro-lifers seriously if they've adopted children and push for things like free prenatal care, child delivery, and daycare, otherwise they're just lazy hypocrites in my mind. You're only for life if you support those kids throughout, not just abandoning them once they're born.

Another non sequitur answer. Another bad argument for abortion. You have no evidence that pro lifers don't adopt children or push for free prenatal care, child delivery and daycare. Are you telling me that if pro lifers did in fact do all those things you would be against abortion?

 

[LawsonAlan]

First off, it's a logical fallacy a non sequitur (it doesn't follow) that if a pro lifer doesn't do any of those things then they don't take the pro life position seriously. So even if pro lifers never o any of those things, it's foolishness to assume that the unborn are not worth saving.

On the contrary, it speaks volumes to the hypocrisy of the pro-lifers.

They are quite adamant that a fertilized egg should be afforded the exact same rights and protections as a birthed human, yet they make absolutely no case for the their simplest rights. Where is the big fight to ensure miscarried embryos get proper funerals? Where's the fight to allow embryos to be counted as dependents on tax-forms?

Nowhere?

And why is that?

I'm seriously posing this question to you. Why is the fight over abortion being labeled as a fight for the rights of an embryo as if it were a fully developed human, but nobody says boo about trying to make it illegal to flush it down the toilet?

This is inherently hypocritical. But, I'm all ears if you want to try to explain it.

 

[TomZzyzx]

On the contrary, it speaks volumes to the hypocrisy of the pro-lifers.

They are quite adamant that a fertilized egg should be afforded the exact same rights and protections as a birthed human, yet they make absolutely no case for the their simplest rights. Where is the big fight to ensure miscarried embryos get proper funerals? Where's the fight to allow embryos to be counted as dependents on tax-forms?

Nowhere?

And why is that?

I'm seriously posing this question to you. Why is the fight over abortion being labeled as a fight for the rights of an embryo as if it were a fully developed human, but nobody says boo about trying to make it illegal to flush it down the toilet?

This is inherently hypocritical. But, I'm all ears if you want to try to explain it.

And what happens before it gets flushed down the toilet? It gets aborted, and guess what? There is a big fight for the rights of the unborn. Since the unborn are human beings why is it ok to abort them?

 

[LawsonAlan]

And what happens before it gets flushed down the toilet? It gets aborted, and guess what? There is a big fight for the rights of the unborn. Since the unborn are human beings why is it ok to abort them?

I was speaking of miscarried embryos.

My question to you stands. Where are the headlines from pro-life groups demanding funerals for miscarried embryos?

Nowhere?

Because they are hypocrites?

 

[TomZzyzx]

I was speaking of miscarried embryos.

My question to you stands. Where are the headlines from pro-life groups demanding funerals for miscarried embryos?

Nowhere?

Because they are hypocrites?

Actually your wrong again. Since most pro life advocates are Christians, we believe that when someone dies his soul is no longer in the body. So a dead body is of no significance, so it's not hypocritical to not have a funeral when you have a miscarriage. Whenever a miscarriage does happen there is plenty of grieving, by the mother and the father. And that's where you should look for proof that the unborn was special, not in whether someone has a funeral for a corpse.

My question to you stands. Since the unborn is a human being, then why is ok to abort it?

I think since you and all pro choice advocates know that there is no justification for killing an innocent human being, you despritly try to think of a way to make the unborn less human, with no success.

 

[Incariol]

I've made my point quite a few times already. Here it is again, for you. Since we don't know when the unborn becomes a person, then some (if not most) abortions are killing innocent human persons. And since human persons are being killed, then personhood is a bad way to determine if an abortion should be performed.

No, only you have that problem. The rest of us know. Stop projecting your problems onto us.

 

[TomZzyzx]

No, only you have that problem. The rest of us know. Stop projecting your problems onto us.

What problem? I don't argue for or against personhood. Only pro choice advocates argue for personhood. I just show them that personhood is a bad argument for an abortion.

 

[LawsonAlan]

Actually your wrong again. Since most pro life advocates are Christians, we believe that when someone dies his soul is no longer in the body. So a dead body is of no significance, so it's not hypocritical to not have a funeral when you have a miscarriage. Whenever a miscarriage does happen there is plenty of grieving, by the mother and the father. And that's where you should look for proof that the unborn was special, not in whether someone has a funeral for a corpse.

My question to you stands. Since the unborn is a human being, then why is ok to abort it?

I think since you and all pro choice advocates know that there is no justification for killing an innocent human being, you despritly try to think of a way to make the unborn less human, with no success.

Please cite sources for the three statements I have bolded and reddened. You're just making up "facts."


I'll address them in order.

1) Christians are in a minority on this earth. There are larger religions that feel abortion is immoral. Your statement is a fabrication.

2) Christian tradition has the dead being buried (and cremated rarely) based on many accounts in the bible. God Himself buried Moses. It is the fitting end for a human life. If you're trying to say that burial is unimportant for everybody, you have a long, hard path of explaining that. The point is that Christian dispose properly of their dead, but not dead embryos. Why?

3) An embryo is a human being like a can of paint is a masterpiece of art. It is an opportunity, not an existence. Nobody cries over spilled paint.

And, in answer to your question: It is okay to abort an embryo because it fails the test for determining whether it is alive. Fire actually passes that test with a higher score in that fire consumes, replicates, and responds to outside stimulus. Late term fetuses may also pass this test, but embryos do not.

Why? Because embryos are not alive. They are more akin to ovarian cysts.

Ok, now that we've determined your logic to be based on biased and fabricated information, let's see what the bible says:

Exodus (KJV)

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,



In other words, a loss of an unborn fetus is not the same as the loss of birthed baby.


I'm not making this up, as you seem to be doing in your posts. I'm stating a fact that the bible is very clear at distinguishing the difference in value between a fetus and a baby.

Here's another translation for clarity's sake:

22 “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that [u]she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay [w]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life

This translation that shows that "life for a life" does not apply in the destruction of a fetus. Why? A fetus is not biblically "alive."