|
Post by vertigo on Oct 20, 2004 9:08:44 GMT -5
What I meant was saying "life starts at conception" can't stand alone. With regards to abortion it doesn't mean anything.
Are you saying that if I say "the sky is blue, therefore abortion is wrong" then the colour of the sky is part of the abortion argument?
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Oct 20, 2004 12:00:28 GMT -5
Actually you might say that life starts before conception since sperm and eggs are alive and have the potential, under the right conditions, of developing into a person. The issue to address is not when life begins but rather when we've crossed the line between potentially becoming a person and actually being a person.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Oct 20, 2004 19:58:04 GMT -5
The issue to address is not when life begins but rather when we've crossed the line between potentially becoming a person and actually being a person. That is basically what I understood the article in that link was trying to cover. Not just a life-form, but rather a human person.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Oct 20, 2004 20:04:49 GMT -5
Are you saying that if I say "the sky is blue, therefore abortion is wrong" then the colour of the sky is part of the abortion argument? Preferably not if it is to be an intelligent debate. But if "bluesky" people numbered 5 billion, and "what does bluesky have to do with anything" people numbered only 800 million, then yes, in practical terms it is part of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 21, 2004 4:53:45 GMT -5
So the difference is by what we call things being 'part of the debate'. I assume then that my points were part of the debate.
My arguing that life's beginning has no relevance to the abortion argument is a part of the abortion argument? That sounds rather circular. How would you rephrase it?
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Oct 21, 2004 17:54:10 GMT -5
So the difference is by what we call things being 'part of the debate'. I assume then that my points were part of the debate. My arguing that life's beginning has no relevance to the abortion argument is a part of the abortion argument? That sounds rather circular. How would you rephrase it? First you have to distinguish between a public debate and a logical argument. Where you may be correct in excluding bad logic in a logical argument, you can absolutely expect to find circular logic in a public debate! Yes, yes!! Sorry for the confusion, my failure to communicate was in trying to accomodate reality...
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 22, 2004 6:39:24 GMT -5
Ok, I understand now. I want people to see the bad logic.
|
|
|
Post by millerrevolt on Nov 3, 2004 0:29:14 GMT -5
last time i went to prochoice.org the arguement was not when life began. in fact they admitted that the unborn child is very much alive. their arguement was that the unborn child does not recieve human rights.
i voted pro-life or anti-choice or whatever
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 3, 2004 14:15:21 GMT -5
Well I think that people are too adamant to see their way done. On the one hand you have the "abortion is bad, period" crowd, and at the other you have the "it is a woman's right, period" crowd.
Concessions must be made. I think a good compromise is a window period where abortion should be allowed, perhaps 12 weeks. 12 weeks should be enough time to allow for people to choose abortions, and it is short enough that it shouldn't seem too inhumane.
Of course there are other provisos, but the point is that one can't expect either radical view to succeed.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Nov 5, 2004 12:26:04 GMT -5
Concessions must be made. I think a good compromise is a window period where abortion should be allowed, perhaps 12 weeks. I like it. It's just asking the church to go back to its original position on the matter. No abortions after the "quickening". www.2think.org/carl_sagan_abortion.shtml
|
|
|
Post by millerrevolt on Nov 6, 2004 1:51:32 GMT -5
that article misquoted exodus 21:22-25
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. "
so for the christian it would be impossible to compromise on the issue without losing integrity.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 6, 2004 13:00:12 GMT -5
Well the Bible contains a similar clause about how disrespecting one's parents warrants a death penalty. People compromise on that. Compromise on that quote above isn't such a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by millerrevolt on Nov 6, 2004 17:41:04 GMT -5
about disrespecting your parents equals the death penalty is the old law, which christians are not under.
the point of the verse above in exodus is that you are to repay life for life. according to this verse not only is the unborn child a life, but receives human rights.
|
|
|
Post by AuntieSocial on Nov 6, 2004 20:54:15 GMT -5
about disrespecting your parents equals the death penalty is the old law, which christians are not under. Uhhh, isn't Exodus in the Old Testament? Wouldn't that also make that an "old law"? Christians seems to want to pick and choose which laws are applicable to them in this day and age. The way I see it, you can't. Yeshua said that he came to uphold the laws ... he chastized the pharisees for not following the old covenant (they weren't stoning their disobedient children) ... According to the mythology, Yeshua is part of a triune godhead, Yeshua is part of the giver of the old law. It is 1/3 his law ... and wholly his law.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Nov 7, 2004 15:39:58 GMT -5
In reply to Millerrevolt, recall the story of Phinehas:
Now, Millerrevolt, you say the point of the Exodus quote was that the unborn child was accorded human rights, so we should too. What can we similarly get from this quote? Perhaps that Christians shouldn't sleep with non-believers, lest they lose faith. The penalty here was certainly heinous. I mean, Phinehas executed them forthwith, and was greatly rewarded for that deed. What further backing do we need to take up this statute for ourselves?
Or what about the fact that Phinehas sought to exact the Lords justice? God makes specific mention of this fact, that through Phinehas' good deed the plague was stopped. Phinehas was rewarded, so we can surely read then that it is good to see the Lord's justice done, on abortion clinics and other worthy causes.
Millerrevolt, I think it is plainly obvious that compromise is definitely not a point of contention for Christians.
|
|