Many people provide an argument that the child in the womb is not really a child. They claim that because the “thing” in the womb is not a human person, then the mother carrying the “thing” has every right to destroy “it.” However, I would like to know why these people do not think that the baby in the womb is really a baby.
Do they think a baby in the womb is not a baby because science has not defined it as such? Well, for a long time, science defined Pluto as a planet and now it’s just a big star or something like that. In addition, science has failed to explain a great many things. Therefore, I do not think we can rely on science to tell us when the baby becomes a human and not simply a blob of tissue.
Do they think it is because of the baby’s size? The unborn child may be small, but he or she is still human. I am 5’ tall. Does this make me less human than someone who is 6’? Is that person less human than someone who is 7’? Of course not. Then why do we claim that a baby is not a human because of its size?
Do they think it is because of the child’s development? Is a toddler less human than a teenager, because a teenager is more developed? That’s ridiculous. Also, babies are sometimes born early. Some babies are born at 7 months and can live outside the womb. Babies in America can be killed in the womb at 9 months. If that child is not a human in the womb at 9 months, but a human outside the womb at 7 months, where is the sense in that?
Thus, do they think location defines a person? If I am in room A, am I more human than I am in room B? Do I change into something else? Thus, is a baby in the womb at 7 months any less a human than a baby outside the womb at 7 months? Unlikely.
Doe they think that the dependency of the baby makes the baby less a human? Like it or not, people are always going to be dependent on others. Is a 5-year-old less human than a 12-year-old because the 12-year-old can fix himself a meal whereas the 5-year-old needs someone else to do it? Again, that idea is ridiculous.
If you were driving at night and you saw something in the road, but did not know what it was, would you speed up or slow down? You’d probably slow down to make sure that it’s not an animal or a person. Therefore, why do we “gun it” and label all unborn babies as “blobs of tissue” because we are unsure of what the “thing” in the womb really is?
Did you know that 18 days after your conception, your heart began beating? Did you know that 35 days after your conception, your eyes, nose, arms and legs took shape? Did you know that 42 days after your conception, your brain was functioning? Did you know that 56 days after your conception, your organ systems had formed and YOU were the size of a QUARTER?
This picture is of an 8 week old baby in its mother's womb (in other words 56 days). That sure looks human to me. The baby even has FINGERNAILS!!! Pick up a quarter. That's how small that baby is and yet that is how perfectly detailed that baby is.
Information based on a talk by David Hajduk and my own ideas.
Picture:
http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/images/8-week-unborn-baby.jpg
NIce picture and good connections. I know how you feel about this and I am glad you have made the effort to make other valid points.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Thanks : ) I appreciate the support. I like the picture, too : ) It was pretty neat...at youth group a few weeks back, we had a guest speaker and he showed us actual babies that had been miscarried. They were so little, but so cute! I marvel at how people can NOT believe that the babies are human.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
I don't think it should be considered human, in the same way as you or I, because it doesn't have a brain.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks of age, which is normally when women find out they're pregnant.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
If a woman went 6 weeks without a period and still suspected she wasn't pregnant, she'd have problems. You miss your period about 2 weeks after you conceive.
Also, if pluto was a big star, we'd be screwed. It's a big ROCK; there's a rather large difference between the two.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
That's correct. But depending on the woman, there's always a chance she'd miss the first period. I know of girls who have missed a month without being pregnant. Missing two cycles tends to confirm the pregnancy for most women.
Oh, ok. I couldn't remember what the new definition for it was. Either way, they changed the definition (poor Pluto : ( ) Thanks for the info : )
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Define brainwaves.
Yes, this is a serious question. Does brainwaves mean the fetus has the beginnings of a brain or does it mean it has a developed, even slightly, sentience.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I am strongly pro life and it is finally good to see someone argue logically. Too many people fight for the cause in ways that actually turn potential supporters away.
Thanks for the support : ) A majority of my ideas are based on an awesome pro-life talk by David Hajduk. He lives in NJ, so if you're ever in that area, you should see if he's giving any talks. : )
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Hey, I go to Delbarton and Mr. Hajduk is a teacher of mine there. He is excellent and he is a great leader of our pro-life club, "Lifeguards." I'm glad to konw that he's spread his information so well.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
That's incredible! I heard him at a youth retreat earlier this year. He was totally inspiring!!! His daughter was there, too; she's really nice :)
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
I really like this. You made a lot of valid points when you were going through all the different excuses people give.
I am also staunchly pro-life. :)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/srhs-bandchic
^^^^ Take a peek ^^^^
Thank you! Glad to hear from a fellow pro-lifer! God Bless!
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
I don't care if you call it a baby or not; nobody has the right to be inside my body against my will.
If someone breaks in to my house against my will, I have the right to shoot them dead, and that is not murder. So how can it be murder to remove an unwanted intruder from my body?
Answer: abortion is not murder.
I'd call it murder if you brought someone into your house and shot them. It's the same thing. You have sex. You KNOW there's a chance you'll get pregnant. You get pregnant. Thus, you brought that baby into your body. You can't just kill the baby. That IS murder.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...I'm pro-choice, but this is not a valid argument. The only way I can see this working is in cases of rape.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Well, I don't think that argument could stand even in the case of rape. I mean, if some criminal stole from you and left his kid there, you wouldn't just shoot the kid, would you? You'd take care of him/her until the proper authorities could find something else to do with him/her. Same with the babies...you don't just kill the baby...you take care of the baby in your womb until something else can be done about it (for example, adoption).
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Well, that does depend on your definition of what life is. From the pro-choice side, the fetus isn't yet a living human.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Well, that's part of my point...what reason do they have for concluding that it's not a baby?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
It doesn't have a central nervous system.
At least, that's my reason. Once it's got a working brain, then only dire circumstances justify abortions.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
It's brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are already established by day 20 and the heart is beating by day 21. That's not to say that the organs are complete on these days, but that they are functioning before they are complete. The baby has a working brain early on in the pregnancy, but abortions are committed up until birth.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...and at best is a gross over-simplification of pre-natal development.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm a simple person when it comes to science ; )
Well, your quote didn't have a link for the reference, so I wasn't able to look into the credibility of that statement.
However, going with the assumption that that's true, that's approx 6 months pregnant. Sadly, though, abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Also, are we going to define a human being on their ability to feel pain? What about people like Christopher Reeve who was paralyzed neck down? Was he less human than I am because I can move my whole body and feel pain all over?
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Why is awareness necessary to the existence of a human life? Those that are in comas are certainly human-beings but unfortunately they do not have an awareness of their environment. This argument is better than some who claim life does not begin until the child is born, however this argument is still incorrect. It is very simple. Life begins at conception. At conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg, all proponents for life are in place and unless prevented by an outside force, life will develop. However, before fertilization, when the sperm has not combined with the egg, neither the sperm nor the egg can produce life in any way. Therefore, life begins at conception and any destruction of that life by human means is murder.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
Comatose people are not comparable to a developing fetus. The difference between a fetus and a comatose person is that the comatose person has a developed brain, which is now damaged. A fetus doesn't have the ability to recover from neurological damage in time, as some comatose people do, because the brain is not yet developed. A comatose person, while still alive, is a sentient being. A fetus is not.
Some people in comas are "killed," when there is no chance for recovery. An irreversible coma (or brain death) is one of them. I put "killed" in quotation marks because they are already passed from this life when the various plugs are pulled. The machines are not, at this point, keeping a person alive; they are keeping their organs working and in good condition for donation.
The "why is it ok to kill a fetus, but not a person in a coma" argument is not at all logical.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I second that.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Thanks,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
This thought just occured to me and I thought I would share... I think it is meant in a joking fashion, sorry if it is also offensive.
You can remove the unwanted intrudder from your body without abortion, there is a nine month waiting period though.
Love is like a box of chocolates; if you chose wisely you won’t be disappointed and have to spit it out. ~T
Haha...very true! And in the great sphere of things, nine months isn't really that long...
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
I really like this topic. It is hard to say if it is murder or not. I believe if you have sex then the out comes are your responsibility. I also believe that if a person is not financially stable to raise a child they shouldn't have the baby. It is not the child's fault, they did not ask to be conceived, therefore they shouldn't have to suffer from anything or anyone.
Thank you! : ) Yeah, if you're going to do something wrong, then you must suffer the consequences. Some situations are more serious than others, ie getting pregnant and finding yourself a mother or father at a bad time or bad age. Like you said, the child had no choice in the matter and shouldn't have to suffer the consequences.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Unfortunately, I think nbh was saying that poor people who get pregnant should have abortions because they can't give the baby what it needs. Those were the consequences nbh was talking about, as far as I can tell
Well, I definitely disagree with that, if that's the case. Adoption is an awesome way to keep the child out of it entirely.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
In 2007, 293,000 children entered our nations foster care and adoption systems, while only 51,000 were adopted back out of the system. This is a consistent trend. The vast majority of children that are put up for adoption will remain in the system throughout their lives as minors.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
But at least they were given the option to life! In a country that stresses the freedom of the individual, I'm shocked and appalled that we refuse to recognize the most basic and beautiful right to life.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...and I can actually support the suggestion to women who are considering an abortion to consider adoption as an alternative, but let's not oversell that point by suggesting that it respresents a "fix-all" for the problems that lead women to choose an abortion in the first place. As for your failure to recognize, I would suggest that your point-of-view relies on the fallacy that a fetus has the same rights as a person from the moment of its conception. The Law clearly rejects that assertion, and the arguments which support it seem to rely solely on religious premises, which of coures cannot justify the use of police power to take away the choices of these women.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Kewl, then we agree on something.
I don't think it's a fix all. But I do think it's a better option than just killing the child.
You know, in Nazi Germany, Hitler was legal.
If a woman decides to keep her baby, she's still making the choice. I don't understand the hypocrisy in stating that it's ok for women to make the choice to abort their babies, but if she decides to keep the baby, it's just the pro-life movement taking away her choice.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
The hypocrisy comes in the fact when a woman makes the choice YOU want, its okay...but when they make a different choice than YOU would, they're a "murderer." Either you respect the right for these women to make their own choices, or you do not. You can't with consistency say that you support a womans choice if you don't actually afford them the freedom to choose differently than YOU would.
And Hitler? Where did that come from? We don't live in Nazi Germany. We live in a Constitutional Republic that existed under The Rule of Law. Those Laws permit you the right to seek redress from the government in regards to Laws with which you disagree. Unfortunately for you, the question of whether or not abortion is legal in priciple in the United States is already a matter of settled law in this country, having been litigated to the point of ludicrousness at the highest levels with the results consistently finding serious fault with the basic premises of your position.
TTFN,
Blakcout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
That's not hypocrisy, that's life. Regardless of anything I say or think, those women have participating in destroying the life of their own children. What would you call that? Respecting and agreeing with are two different things. I respect your right to think whatever you want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to agree with you. I support a woman's right to an informed choice and a huge problem is that she isn't given that opportunity nearly as often as liberal media would have you believe.
My point in that statement is that legal doesn't always make it right.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Calling someone a "murderer" when they choose differently than you isn't "support[ing] a woman's right to an informed choice." Rather, it is a tactic intended to intimidate women from having a REAL choice by punishing them if they don't decide the way YOU want them to. Its not illegal, by any means, but lets not pretend that the tactic is based in respect.
As for "right" and "wrong," these are subjective concepts. If you want to make aboriton illegal, then you need an OBJECTIVE argument to support your point-of-view. You do not have one. I would also suggest that your accusation that women going to groups like Planned Parenthood are not being given access to all pertinent information is spurious.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
If I went up to a woman at a clinic and told her that she's a murderer, then yes, that would be unethical, cruel, etc. However, using the word murderer in this atmosphere is not intimidating nor is it unrespectful. It's just the truth. (Unless, of course, you're intimidated, in which case, I apologize for disturbing you, but still won't back down in my beliefs).
That's true, right and wrong are subjective. However, truth is not subjective. Part of this blog post is to question what objective and logical reason those who do not believe that the baby is really a baby have for believing such. I still haven't seen any responses...
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
If I went up to a woman at a clinic and told her that she's a murderer, then yes, that would be unethical, cruel, etc.
Based on how freely you level that term at people in these forums, I am simply not inclided to believe that you refrain from the same nastiness in other situations, sorry.
However, using the word murderer in this atmosphere is not intimidating nor is it unrespectful.
Bullshit. If you really think that these protests are not designed very specifically to intimidate the women going into these clinics, then you are either really naive or something which the TOS will not allow me to say.
It's just the truth.
Facutally incorrect. Ther term murder refers to an "unlawful killing". You may not like the fact that abortions are legal, but as long as they are then your application of the term murder is inaccurately applied.
However, truth is not subjective.
It is unless you can provide actual, objective evidence to support your version of the "truth."
Part of this blog post is to question what objective and logical reason those who do not believe that the baby is really a baby have for believing such. I still haven't seen any responses...
Actually, you've had this explained to you literally dozens of times in various discussions around this website. But since you are so stubborn, I will go over it again for you.
1) The term "baby" is an imprecise, emotionally loaded term that does not apply to this discussion. Even in common usage, the term "baby" refers to a young child only after it is born. The correct objective terms to be used in this argument are Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo and Fetus. Perhaps if you framed your questions in more accurate terms, you would receive a more satisfactory answer.
2) What you are REALLY talking about is whether or not a Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus is a "human person" as defined by the Law. THIS is the accurately expressed phrase that would if true trigger the application of basic civil rights to a developing Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus. The reasons why this designation is NOT applied is spell out plainly by the highest legal authority in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States in the decision of Roe v. Wade (1973). Until you familiarize yourself with the arguments detailed in this case, you will continue to be viewed as an uninformed commentator.
3) The simple fact is that there is no objective, scientific reason to consider a Zygote, Blastocyst, Embryo or Fetus an independant life form, until such time as it can sustain itself independantly. The Law presumes that until such time as a fetus can be reasonably judged to be viable, its rights remain a potential consequence that must be mitigated by the recognition of the mother's rights. Prior to that point, the established rights of the mother outweigh the potential rights of the unborn fetus.
4) Any arguments which rely (as your seem to, consistently) on a religious pre-supposition CANNOT be used as the basis for making the abortion procedure. Our Constitution expressly forbids it.
That should cover it.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I don't care what you believe.
It's NOT. It's to pray for them and to be there if they have questions. And you know, some women actually do walk up to them and have questions regarding the truth...don't they have the right to know? Thus, isn't it just natural that the pro-life movement would try to provide that for those women? Also, I think my spiritual director put it very well in his note on charity this morning: "There are many interesting ideas about charity first is that charity is not telling someone that something is wrong. This is not charity but actually a form of hatred."
Natural law.
There are no versions to truth.
1) Using the scientific terms allows one to look away from the matter at hand. Also, dictionary.com includes the definition "a human fetus" for baby.
2) But that's part of my point...what authority does the law have to say whether or not that baby is human? It said at one point that it was and now it is not. The baby does not change, but the law does. Thus, the law is not an authoritative source on telling us what the baby truly is.
3) A newborn can't live independently of people, too. Even a 2yo relies on everyone else to take care of it. Also, since when have humans been defined by what level of dependency they are on? Is someone with a mental or physical handicap less human than I am or you are?
4) Through separation of Church and State? Yeah, they used that a lot back then. LOL Also, these weren't religious reasons (and if I did include religious reasons, then maybe it's because some people like religion and use it as a basis of their actions), so IDK where that's coming from.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...and so I will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I don't care what you believe.
The feeling is mutual, I assure you. I don't really expect to change your "mind" on this topic. You are useful, however, as a platform to demonstrate the fundamental fallacies and dishonesty in the arguments of the "pro-life" movement to our readers. I am comfortable that they can judge for themselves the credibility of your denials.
It's NOT. It's to pray for them and to be there if they have questions.
Bullshit. It is possible that you have fooled yourself into believing this, but the reality of these protests is a direct and I maintain intentionally chilling effect on the choices of these women. If your goal was not to intimidate these women by threatening to shame them with a social stigma, you could pray for them in your church instead of in front of the clinc, and you could provide the grotequely inaccurate and fraudlent misinformation (based on the many factually inaccurate claims and dishonestly biased sources that you have presented in your many anti-abortion rants) you want to distribute though any number of less intrusive strategies.
Natural law.
What is this supposed to answer? And do you mean the general philosophical concept of "natural law," or do you mean the specifically religious version of "natural law" espoused by the Catholic Church as advanced in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica?
There are no versions to truth.
Perhaps not technically, but then my comment was intended to be sarcastic. Unless you can provide actual, objective evidence to back up your beliefs (and we both know that you cannot), then your claims that they are the "truth" is baseless and irrational. Things are necessarily "true" just because you "think" they are.
1) Using the scientific terms allows one to look away from the matter at hand. Also, dictionary.com includes the definition "a human fetus" for baby.
Bullshit. You use the word "baby" because the term is loaded. But okay...we'll play it your way for a moment. (This should be fun.) Using YOUR definition of "baby," none of the arguments you offer in opposition to abortion apply until at least the 9th week (or the 11th, depending when you start counting the start of fetal development) of pregnancy. That leaves you with two possible responses:
1) If your use the term "baby" is both honest and consistent with the definition that YOU provided, then you must conced that "human life" does NOT begin until at least several weeks after conception..
-OR-
2) You must concede that your use of the term "baby" was NOT an accurate expression around which to frame your argument, since per YOUR definition it does not encompass the development of the zygote, blastocyst and embryo.
2) But that's part of my point...what authority does the law have to say whether or not that baby is human? It said at one point that it was and now it is not. The baby does not change, but the law does. Thus, the law is not an authoritative source on telling us what the baby truly is.
You're misapplying terms again. "Baby" is not a technical term. Its defintion is set though "common usage." The terms "Zygote," "Blastocyst," "Embryo" and "Fetus" are technical terms. Their definitions are set through expert consensus in the relavant fields of scientific study. The term "human person" is also a technical term that is defined by the Law. These terms are all related, but are used in different contexts. In order to discuss the reasons why abortion is legal, you must understand the basic legal terminology that decisions like Roe v. Wade utilize. Until you do, you will just sound rediculous when you try to argue against that decision. Its like giving a book report without reading the book.
3) A newborn can't live independently of people, too. Even a 2yo relies on everyone else to take care of it. Also, since when have humans been defined by what level of dependency they are on? Is someone with a mental or physical handicap less human than I am or you are?
Again, you don't really seem to get the technical context of the relevant terms. In the context of the abortion debate, the ability to "live indepedently" refers specifcally to the technical term of foetal viability, which means "The potential of the foetus-in-utero to survive after birth."
4) Through separation of Church and State? Yeah, they used that a lot back then. LOL Also, these weren't religious reasons (and if I did include religious reasons, then maybe it's because some people like religion and use it as a basis of their actions), so IDK where that's coming from.
Whether you like it or not, our Constituiton expressly forbids religious establishements. That's why religious based arguments are irrelevant to the discussion of the legality of abortion. And, you arguments DO rely on a religious premise...specifically the catholic doctrine that human life begins at conception. When you take that away, none of your arguments really make any internally consistent sense. Nothing you have suggested reasonably follows unless one accepts the basic religious assertion that "human life" (and more relevantly to the legal discussion, "human personhood") begins at conception.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I meant "I don't care what you believe" as in "I don't care what you think about me or my motives, because you have no real way of knowing them and because you don't know me, there's no point in explaining that you're wrong."
Look...REAL women have gone up to REAL pro-lifers at REAL clinics and asked them stuff. If these women have questions, they have the right to answers. By being there, the pro-lifers are providing them with means to get those answers. Also, we do pray at churches and stuff as well.
Whichever you prefer, considering that Aquinas based his on Aristotle's philosophical concept.
That wasn't my definition...that was dictionary.com's definition that I was sharing with you because you did not know that one definition of baby is "human fetus." Also, it may very well have the effect of a loaded word, however, fetus, embryo, etc are just scientific words that take away from the general effect. You can tell someone that they have "[insert all kinds of fancy words]" when you can just say "cancer" and it means more and makes it more tangible and understandable. Same concept.
A soul is infused into the baby at the moment of conception. Who says that humanity begins with a fetus? Also, since a woman's natural body clock doesn't confirm that she's pregnant until at least 6 weeks (maybe more, depending on how regular she is), a woman isn't likely to have abortions until about the time you stated.
But abortions are legal after 7 months, so thus, with your definition, abortion kills.
I think the idea of "separation of Church and State" has been sadly misconstrued and leads people to believe that they must reject anything that is remotely religious in the law. However, this is simply not true and if you look at American history, you would see that a great deal of religion was included by politicians even after the Separation of Church and State was defined.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Look...REAL women have gone up to REAL pro-lifers at REAL clinics and asked them stuff. If these women have questions, they have the right to answers. By being there, the pro-lifers are providing them with means to get those answers. Also, we do pray at churches and stuff as well.
If the "answers" provided by these "REAL pro-lifers" is anything like the misinformation that you regularly sling around on this website, I would suggest once again that this is a source for far more "lies" that anything that you have been able to substantiate in your numerous accusations against Planned Parenthood and similar groups.
Whichever you prefer, considering that Aquinas based his on Aristotle's philosophical concept.
The reason I asked is that the general philosophical arguments of "natural law" are not inherently religious. Thomas Aquinas' version (which I suspect when pressed would be the version that your opinions are based, seeing as you are often motivated specifically by catholic doctrine) however, IS.
That wasn't my definition...that was dictionary.com's definition that I was sharing with you because you did not know that one definition of baby is "human fetus."
LOL...backpedaling? Actually, medical dictionaries do not agree with YOUR definition. Considering that we have been discussing the imprecision of commonly used terms verses their technical definition, this simply demonstrates the basic confusion and inaccuracy which your use of this term creates when applied as you used it.
But, what you are trying to dodge here is that this means that the answer to the question I asked you is 2) your use of the term "baby" was NOT an accurate expression around which to frame your argument, since per YOUR definition it does not encompass the development of the zygote, blastocyst and embryo. This reveals the dishonest spin that you are trying to insert into this discussion.
Also, it may very well have the effect of a loaded word, however, fetus, embryo, etc are just scientific words that take away from the general effect. You can tell someone that they have "[insert all kinds of fancy words]" when you can just say "cancer" and it means more and makes it more tangible and understandable. Same concept.
Its not the same concept at all, since if you are describing a specific type of "cancer" then the general term "cancer" is still accurate, though less precise. By the definition that YOU provided, the term "baby" does NOT accurately cover everything that you have tried to IMPLY that it covers in your argument. Also, there is the question of motivation. I contend that your motivation here is to evoke an emotional response for the intent purpose of drawing people away from rationally considering the abortion issue.
A soul is infused into the baby at the moment of conception.
And you have actual, objective evidence of this? Can you even prove objectively that "souls" exist? If you can't, then you argument is meaningless in this discussion.
Who says that humanity begins with a fetus?
Certainly, not I. We were addressing the implications of the terms and definitions YOU provided. And, you really need to clarify what context you mean when you say "humanity." Do you mean the term in a legal sense, i.e. "human personhood," or in a biological sense, i.e. "human life?"
Also, since a woman's natural body clock doesn't confirm that she's pregnant until at least 6 weeks (maybe more, depending on how regular she is), a woman isn't likely to have abortions until about the time you stated.
But abortions are legal after 7 months, so thus, with your definition, abortion kills.
You missed the point (again). If you can't establish objectively that "ensoulment" is a REAL event, then your arguments in support of the "life begins at conception" fall apart. This leads to the conclusion that "life begins AFTER conception." How much after is still subject to debate, but no matter how you spin it this leaves a time during the early pregnancy when your arguments fail. You may if you like present further arguments in exploration of when that compelling point occurs, but it would seem to be a question that is already answered in Roe's address of viability and human personhood.
I think the idea of "separation of Church and State" has been sadly misconstrued and leads people to believe that they must reject anything that is remotely religious in the law. However, this is simply not true and if you look at American history, you would see that a great deal of religion was included by politicians even after the Separation of Church and State was defined.
While politicians have often proved all to willing to defy the Constitution by passing illegal, religiously-motivated Laws, our Courts give us the opportuity to strike down those Laws though the process of Judicial Review. I suspect however that you probably know even less about early American history and the philosophy of the Founders regarding church and state separation than you do about the biological and historical facts relating to abortion. The fact, however, is that what separation of church and state means to our Constitutional rights has well-established by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is also certain that our early Fathers feared few things as greatly as the possibility that a religious sect gaining control over the government and using it to force other citizens to conform to its dogmas against their will.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I don't like biking, so I'm not backpedaling.
Telling the woman that there are other ways out and there are people who care isn't a lie.
OK...all babies are humans, however, not all humans are babies. Also, (and I know this is hard to believe, so sit down) it's not all about science. And again, I'm a simple person...when I'm talking about a human child in the womb, I'm going to use the term baby with no other motive beyond keeping it simple.
Baby still is accurate, if less precise. Another definition provided by dictionary.com is "the youngest member of a group, family, etc."...a baby in the womb is obviously the youngest of a family. Thus, my term is acceptable.
God gave us intellect...but you know what else He gave us? A heart...that's what creates imagination, faith, and hope. Without all these things, I believe life would be quite worthless. Sometimes, you can't rely on your scientists...you need to rely on something much deeper and even unexplainable. Unless you believe that your scientists are infallible...
Oh, so in other words, you're taking the argument away from the main point to argue something trivial so you can continue to deny what I'm saying? Typical.
But what's your reason for thinking that life doesn't begin at conception/in the womb? (and leave the Roe decision out of it, because as I've already stated, just because something is legal does not mean that it is right.)
You suspect incorrectly, but like I've said, I don't care what you think or believe when it comes to me and my motives. This country was founded on faith. Without faith and hope, these men wouldn't have had the strength to carry on. They put their lives on the line for something they believed in, even though all statistics indicated that they would lose. But they didn't lose. They WON. Without their faith, there is no way they would have had such courage and strength. Therefore, like it or not, you do, in part, have these Christians to thank for the freedoms you enjoy today.
You see, Blackout? I can play the "you're stupid, you're not getting my point, I'm going to be rude to you now" game, too. But it's not getting us anywhere. Can we PLEASE try to speak to each other civilly without the low blows and whatnot? If we cannot, I'm not responding to another thing you say, because I'm tired of being so ugly and rude when I'm talking to you. I am willing to disagree with you and discuss our disagreements, but not if they're going to turn into petty nitpick fighting as has occurred over the past few months.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
You see, Blackout? I can play the "you're stupid, you're not getting my point, I'm going to be rude to you now" game, too. But it's not getting us anywhere. Can we PLEASE try to speak to each other civilly without the low blows and whatnot?
As far as I can tell, Blackout has not once called you "stupid." Stating "you aren't getting my point" is not uncivil, nor is it an insult. And I don't think he's even being rude. Continuing to tear your arguments apart is not rude. Telling you that you are wrong, or telling you your sources are wrong, or criticizing your belief in said sources isn't being uncivil or rude. It's just not agreeing with you.
He doesn't start out his sentences with "I believe..." or "No offense, but..." or "I think you may be mistaken about..." He flat out says what he means to say and backs it up. He doesn't tiptoe around his opinion so his opponents still feel good about their own views. If he thinks you're wrong, he will tell you. Straightforward and rude are not the same thing.
However I may very well have overlooked something. If you feel that Blackout is personally attacking you, you are free to flag the offending comment and explain why. A moderator will look at it. If they contain TOS violations, they'll be edited.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Telling the woman that there are other ways out and there are people who care isn't a lie.
The problem is, that isn't all that you're saying to these women...and least not if we assume that the same arguments and claims that you have leveled in your many discussions of abortion in your blogs are likewise a part of your protest materials. Throughout your numerous blogs on this subject, we have found you guilty of spreading a great many falsehoods. Whether those inaccuracies were predicated simply by naive ignorance or perhaps by something more sinister, I cannot say. But I seriously doubt that you abandon all that when you talk to these women during your protests.
OK...all babies are humans, however, not all humans are babies. Also, (and I know this is hard to believe, so sit down) it's not all about science. And again, I'm a simple person...when I'm talking about a human child in the womb, I'm going to use the term baby with no other motive beyond keeping it simple.
With all due respect, that sounds like an excuse to me for you to avoid having to deal with the truly complex nature of the issue at hand. And, I still don't believe you, anyway. You are obviously trying to evoke an emotional response with your use of the term...i.e. "how could you do that to a baby!?!?"
Baby still is accurate, if less precise. Another definition provided by dictionary.com is "the youngest member of a group, family, etc."...a baby in the womb is obviously the youngest of a family. Thus, my term is acceptable.
I'm sorry, but to quote the infamous Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Your are stretching the definition of the term "baby" far beyond what even the most favorable definition that YOU could find can be presumed to mean though an objective reading of that definition. The meaning of the words don't just change because you discover that your arguments fall apart if they don't.
God gave us intellect...
Can you provide actual, objective evidence of that?
but you know what else He gave us? A heart...that's what creates imagination, faith, and hope. Without all these things, I believe life would be quite worthless.
Actually, its the right side of the brain (not the heart) that gives us the ability to experience these things.
Sometimes, you can't rely on your scientists...you need to rely on something much deeper and even unexplainable. Unless you believe that your scientists are infallible...
That's a matter of opinion which is of course, irrelevant to this discussion. Perhaps if you can one day discover a way to prove that your beliefs are something more than schizophrenic daydream, you can try your arguments again.
Oh, so in other words, you're taking the argument away from the main point to argue something trivial so you can continue to deny what I'm saying? Typical.
Its not "trivial" at all. In fact, this is the crux of your argument. Your entire "pro-life" crusade is predicated around the religious dogma that "life begins at conception." Your intentional mis-use of terms like "baby" are designed to evoke an emotional response that hinders any objective review of the issue. Basically, Roe ended the RATIONAL argument between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. The Court hear both arguments, and used its authority to rule that one (the pro-choice) argument made more sense. Argument over. You loose. Thus, the only way for the pro-life argument to gain traction is for its proponents to avoid rational arguments...to retreat from objective reason and to rely instead on emotional appeals. Its a transparent tactic.
But what's your reason for thinking that life doesn't begin at conception/in the womb? (and leave the Roe decision out of it, because as I've already stated, just because something is legal does not mean that it is right.)
The simple answer (as simple as I can make it for you, anyway), is that most common definitions of life and death involve two generally expressed characteristics, which are the presences of a beating heart and the presence of a functioning mind. Once again, a pre-born human just doesn't have these from the moment it is conceived.
In less simple terms, most scientific sources agree that independent life exhibits certain biological characteristics, which are (generally speaking) agreed upon by most scientific sources. These properties are usually listed to include homeostasis (the ability to maintain a constant, internal state), the organization of cells, having a metabolism, the ability to grow, the ability to adapt to an environment, the ability to respond to stimuli, and the ability to reproduce. Now, the simple fact is that a pre-born human does not possess all of these qualities from the moment of conception. Specifically, during the early stages of development, pre-born humans do not have the ability to adapt, to respond to stimuli and to reproduce itself. Those capabilities come later.
You suspect incorrectly, but like I've said, I don't care what you think or believe when it comes to me and my motives. This country was founded on faith. Without faith and hope, these men wouldn't have had the strength to carry on. They put their lives on the line for something they believed in, even though all statistics indicated that they would lose. But they didn't lose. They WON. Without their faith, there is no way they would have had such courage and strength. Therefore, like it or not, you do, in part, have these Christians to thank for the freedoms you enjoy today.
Actually many of our most prominent Founding Fathers were rather critical of the christian religion...Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Adams, Madison, etc. were all skeptics of religion to one degree or another. To quote one of the earliest acts of our Congress in a treaty commissioned by George Washington and signed into Law by the great John Adams...
Madison was quite clear with what he meant when he wrote the First Amendment, and we know because it is recorded in the Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731...
Combined with Jefferson's definitive explanation, which was cited by our Supreme Court in the case of Reynolds v. United States (1878)...
...it becomes difficult if not impossible to defend the position you suggest. Our Founding Fathers were certainly aware of the dangers of letting religion insert itself into the political process, as expressed here...
I think that one of the best rejections of your suggestion comes however from John Adams, who was arguable one of the more devoutly religious men involved in the founding (though even he is probably best described as a somewhat liberal deist)...
You see, Blackout? I can play the "you're stupid, you're not getting my point, I'm going to be rude to you now" game, too. But it's not getting us anywhere. Can we PLEASE try to speak to each other civilly without the low blows and whatnot? If we cannot, I'm not responding to another thing you say, because I'm tired of being so ugly and rude when I'm talking to you. I am willing to disagree with you and discuss our disagreements, but not if they're going to turn into petty nitpick fighting as has occurred over the past few months.
If by "civil" you mean will I refrain from correcting your when you present inaccurate information, or that I will respect your desire to infringe upon the constitutionally defined freedoms of other citizens, then the answer is "no." Until you can present your case accurately and honestly, then you will find me to be a stubbornly intractable opponent.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.