Economy trumps abortion among

LeBuick · Nov 9, 2008

I will have to read this slowly so I can digest it. I have sever ADD so have to read things a little at a time.

Scanning through it I can tell you infer God places a lot of value on the flesh. I don't see it that way, if you read my response I believe God places more value on the soul.

Mt 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

LeBuick · Nov 9, 2008

Benjamin said:

I would have to object to that thought on the Biblical grounds below. Also it is my belief that for the abortionist to make that judgment upon an innocent unborn child it is always done in selfishness; further, apart from the Christians view of death, is that people have no right taking it in their own hands, denying the baby’s right to life, God's gift; and by doing so the result is that child never gets the opportunity to see, sense and experience the sun.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can expound on how these verses apply to your above statement.

LeBuick · Nov 9, 2008

OldRegular said:

Yes. But when Jesus Christ said "suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not for such is the kingdom of God" he did not mean to murder them to hasten their journey.
Click to expand...

He was simply saying not to stop anyone from coming to Christ. It has nothing to do with life or death.

OldRegular said:

By the way life begins at conception. Have you never seen a sonogram of an unborn child? If its not alive it is sure moving around very lively.
Click to expand...

This is your belief, yes I've seen a sonogram but I also know the fetus is dependent on the umbilical chord to exist. This isn't my definition of life. I believe life begins at first breath and ends with your last breath (giving up the ghost). When one is born, God breaths into your nostrils the breath of life. That is my belief.

Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Benjamin · Nov 10, 2008

LeBuick said:

Perhaps you can expound on how these verses apply to your above statement.
Click to expand...

Those verses apply to your statement, paraphrase: "We should almost be jealous that they didn't have to go throught the trials of life."

(Ecc 11:7) Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun:

A child that is not born does not get the chance to behold the sun, which is truly sweet and a pleasant thing, this has been denied through selfishness; so I see nothing to be jealous over and think in denying a child to be born has stripped him/her of the pleasantries of life.

(Ecc 5:18) Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.

No joy through the senses of fulfilling the hungry after a hard day at labor, all the days which God gives one who does get the chance to come into the world, that is, if an abortionist doesn't deny him the protion that God give those who labor in life.

(Ecc 5:19) Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.

No chance to rejoice in his labor, which is the gift of God, because he/she is denied life.

(Ecc 8:15) Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labor the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun.

No chance to eat, drink, and be merry while laboring all the days of his/her life, that God gave, because this life was denied.

In short, a person has but once to live and I see nothing in the least to be jealous over in that life being denied.

"that child never gets the opportunity to see, sense and experience the sun." doesn't seem to need explanation beyond that loss to the unborn.

Bible-boy · Nov 10, 2008

LeBuick said:

I will have to read this slowly so I can digest it. I have sever ADD so have to read things a little at a time.

Scanning through it I can tell you infer God places a lot of value on the flesh. I don't see it that way, if you read my response I believe God places more value on the soul.

Mt 10:27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Click to expand...

Okay,

Take your time and read the posts carefully. Your initial perception that they are concerned with the flesh is incorrect. Rae is arguing for the personhood of the fetus from conception based on the fact that the Scripture provides proof that there is continuity of personal identity when it discusses the fetus at conception, the baby in the womb, and the child/adult outside the womb. The posts are about the continuity of personal identity from conception to adulthood when the Bible is speaking about the same one person in all those phases of life.

Benjamin · Nov 10, 2008

Man, all men, through creation, became a living soul with a spirit, that is the breath of life spoken of which was given to God's human creatures. This breath equates to the spirit and has nothing to do with air one breathes. To apply the breath of life given to man to air sucked in at birth is rather missing the definition of the “breath of life.” Any man that comes into this world, or is formed in this world, made of the dust, has these things. This is my belief.

annsni · Nov 10, 2008

LeBuick said:

This is your belief, yes I've seen a sonogram but I also know the fetus is dependent on the umbilical chord to exist.
Click to expand...

And a newborn child is dependent on another person to exist - otherwise they will die. Is a person on a respirator alive? My father was on one after his triple by-pass. I guess he was dead at that time?

This isn't my definition of life. I believe life begins at first breath and ends with your last breath (giving up the ghost). When one is born, God breaths into your nostrils the breath of life. That is my belief.
Click to expand...

That's not even what the medical world believes. Life is present when the heart beats and there are brain waves. That occurs in the early weeks of gestation. By 7 weeks, I believe, all is in place and by medical definition, it is a life.

Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.
Click to expand...

Did you know that in the third trimester, a baby is breathing inside the womb? This is confirmed by ultrasound. The diaphram doesn't suddenly start breathing at birth but it's been working before birth too.

Bible-boy · Nov 10, 2008

Personhood of the Fetus:
Click to expand...

Most philosophers agree that the fetus either has personhood from the point of conception or it acquires it at some point during the process of gestation. A small minority of thinkers hold that not even the newborn baby possesses personhood, thus making infanticide theoretically justifiable in some cases. But most thinkers agree that once the fetus emerges from the womb as a newborn child, it is a person with full human rights. Thus the question under debate is, At what point in the process of gestation does the fetus possess personhood? A wide variety of different points have been suggested. These are called “decisive moments,” referring to a “moment” at which the fetus can be said to be a person. In this section we will discuss these different moments.

Often a distinction is made between the fetus being a human being and the fetus being a person. Such a distinction is highly arbitrary, since the essence of the fetus is unchanged throughout the process of gestation. None of the different decisive moments suggest any relevant change in the essence of the fetus. Thus a constant process of growth and development continues from conception to adulthood.

In the abortion debate one commonly hears voices suggesting that no one has a way to determine for sure when personhood begins [like BHO’s “above my pay grade” comment]. Taking an agnostic approach to the issue, these people argue that science has provided no clear answer to the question. They maintain that since it is essentially a religious or philosophical issue and cannot be proven conclusively, it should be left to individual choice.

In response to this, the same can be said of the pro-choice view that allows for abortion. By permitting abortion throughout almost the entire nine months of pregnancy, pro-choice advocates are actually making a strong statement that personhood doesn’t begin until birth. We will examine birth as a decisive moment below. In addition, if one is admittedly agnostic about when personhood is acquired, then surely it is preferable to err on the side of life. If we are not sure that the fetus is a person, then society should not permit the taking of the life of the fetus through abortion. For example, if I am hunting with a friend who enters the woods and I then hear what sounds like the rustling of a deer at the same spot where my friend entered, I had better not shoot. After all, I cannot be sure whether the rustling sound was made by my friend or the deer. If in doubt, one should not shoot into the trees. Likewise, if in doubt about the personhood of the fetus, one should not risk the life of the fetus, since it may be a person whose life is being ended by abortion. Uncertainty about the status of the fetus justifies caution, not abortion.
Click to expand...

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 138.

*Comments in brackets [ ] were added by the poster. Likewise, the poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

Bible-boy · Nov 10, 2008

Personhood of the Fetus Continued:
Click to expand...

The most commonly proposed decisive moment, and the one currently endorsed by the Supreme Court is viability, which is the paint at which that fetus is able to live on its own outside the womb. At this point of about 24—26 weeks of gestation, the fetus is able to live on its own, a fact that is deemed significant enough to grant it the status of a person. Although it may still depend on medical technology, it no longer depends on it uterine environment.

One problem with viability as a determinant of personhood is that it cannot be measured precisely. It varies from fetus to fetus and medical technology is continually push viability back to earlier stages of pregnancy. Thus, viability keeps changing, which raises questions about its reliability as an indicator of personhood. So what does viability actually measure? Viability has more to do with the ability of medical technology to sustain life outside the womb than it has to do with the essence of the fetus. Viability relates more to the fetus’ location and dependency than to its essence or its personhood. Thus, no inherent connection exists between the fetus’ ability to survive outside the womb and its essence. Rather viability measures the progress of medical technology in helping the fetus to survive in a different location.

Perhaps the next most commonly proposed decisive moment is brain development, or the point at which the brain of the fetus begins to function, which is about 45 days into the pregnancy. The appeal of this decisive moment is the parallel with the definition of death, which is the cessation of all brain activity. Since brain activity is what measures death, or the loss of personhood, it is reasonable to take the beginning of brain activity as the indication of personhood. The problem with the analogy to brain death is that the dead brain is in an irreversible condition, unable to be revived. The brain of the developing fetus is only temporarily nonfunctional. Its electroencephalogram (EEG) is only temporarily flat, whereas the EEG of a dead person’s brain is permanently flat. Also, the embryo from the point of conception has all the necessary capacities to develop full brain activity. Until about 45 days of gestation, those capacities are not yet realized but are latent in the embryo. Just because the capacity is not exercised is not a necessary comment on the essence of the fetus, since that capacity is only temporarily latent, not irreversibly lost. Thus, using brain activity as the decisive moment for personhood raises serious questions about its usefulness in determining viability.
Click to expand...

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 139.

*The poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

Bible-boy · Nov 10, 2008

The Personhood of the Fetus Continued:
Click to expand...

A third proposal for a decisive moment is sentience, that, the point at which the fetus is capable of experiencing sensations, particularly pain. The appeal of this point for the determination of personhood is that if the fetus cannot feel pain, then there is less of a problem with abortion, and it disarms many pro-life arguments that abortion is cruel to the fetus.

As is the case with the other decisive moments, however, sentience has little inherent connection to the personhood [essence] of the fetus. This decisive moment confuses the experience of harm with the reality of harm. It does not follow that the fetus cannot be harmed simply because the fetus cannot feel pain or otherwise experience harm. Even id I am paralyzed from the waist down and cannot feel pain in my legs, I am still harmed if someone amputates my leg. In addition, to take sentience as the determinant of personhood, one would also have to admit that the person in a persistent vegetative state (i.e. irreversibly comatose), the momentarily unconscious person, and even the sleeping person are not persons. One might object that these people once did function with sentience and that the loss of sentience is only temporary. But once that objection is made, the objector is admitting that something besides sentience determines personhood, and thus sentience as a decisive moment cannot be sustained.

Another idea suggested as a decisive moment is quickening, that is, the first time that the mother feels the fetus move inside her womb. Before the advent of sophisticated medical technology such as ultrasound, which can see the fetus from the early stages of pregnancy, quickening was considered the first indication of the presence of life within the mother’s womb. Yet quickening as a determinant of personhood cannot be maintained because the essence of the fetus does not depend on someone’s awareness of it. This criteria confuses the nature of the fetus with what one can know about the fetus. Philosophically speaking, this decisive moment confuses epistemology (knowledge or awareness of the fetus) with ontology (the nature or essence of the fetus). A similar confusion is involved in the use of the appearance of humanness of the fetus as a decisive moment for personhood. The appeal of this is that the fetus begins to resemble a baby, it makes it at least emotionally more difficult to consider abortion. But the appearance of the fetus has no inherent relationship to its essence. Also, from the point of conception, the fetus has all the capacities necessary to look like a normal human being. Certainly one would not want to determine personhood on such a subjective criteria as the appearance of humanness.

A few hold that birth is the decisive moment at which the fetus acquires personhood. But no essential difference exists between the fetus on the day before its birth and the day after its birth. The only difference is location, that is, the baby now lives outside the womb. But as is the case with viability as a determinant of personhood, the essence of personhood involves more than simply location. It does not follow that my nature as a person changes just because I change locations.
Click to expand...

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 139-140.

*The poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

Baptist in Richmond · Nov 10, 2008

OldRegular said:

If you think the Republican Party controls the Supreme Court you are beyond
Click to expand...

Um, I am guessing you are in complete denial.

The GOP has indeed controlled all three branches of government. Right now, the GOP has Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy (a moderate that could possibly go with the other four on a case involving abortion - but who knows?). As a matter of fact, with the exception of Ginsburg and Breyer (both appointed by Clinton), the rest of the current Justices were nominated by a Republican POTUS. A point worth noting is that Ginsburg was recommended to then-President Clinton by none other than Orrin Hatch (you will recall that the GOP controlled Congress at the time of her confirmation).

You don't have to acknowledge it, OldRegular, but it is a fact.

Regards anyway,
BiR

Bible-boy · Nov 10, 2008

Personhood of the Fetus Continued:
Click to expand...

Finally, implantation has been proposed as a decisive moment for a number of reasons. First, at this point the embryo establishes it presence in the womb by the “signals” or the hormones it produces. Second, 20 to 50 percent of the embryos spontaneously miscarry prior to implantation, which suggests that implantation is critical not only for the development of the embryo but to its essence. It would also suggest that we have the obligation to save all of the embryos, something that very few people consider. Third, twinning, or the production of twins, normally occurs prior to implantation, suggesting that individual human personhood does not begin until after implantation.

Although placing personhood at implantation would not justify very many abortions, the implications of the decisive moment are significant. First, it would make any birth control methods that prevent implantation, such as many birth control pills and the “abortion pill,” RU-486, morally acceptable, since an unimplanted embryo is not considered a person. Further, embryos from in vitro fertilization can be either discarded or used for experimentation without any moral problem, since those embryos lack personhood.

In response to the proposal of implantation as a decisive moment, it does not follow that personhood is established at implantation just because the embryo establishes its presence by the hormonal signals it produces. The essence of the fetus cannot be dependent on another’s awareness of its existence, whether it is physical awareness, as in quickening, or chemical awareness in the production of specific hormones. Second, just because up to 50 percent of conceived embryos spontaneously miscarry, it does not follow that personhood comes at implantation, since the essential nature of the fetus is not dependent on the number of embryos that do or do not survive to implant. Even if the embryo is fully a person, we are not morally obligated to save all of them since we have no moral obligation to interfere in the embryo’s natural death. Not interfering to prevent a spontaneous miscarriage is not the same as killing an embryo just as removing life support from a terminally ill patient is not the same as actively killing such a patient. Third, just because twinning occurs prior to implantation, it does not follow that the original embryo was not fully a person before the split. Thus, the proposal of implantation as a decisive moment for personhood generates some very significant questions.

In light of the above discussion, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the fetus has full personhood from the moment of conception. The argument could look something like this:

An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception (this premise has hardly any debate).

From conception to adulthood, this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus (this is the debatable premise, but the above discussion shows that all the proposed breaks are not comments on the nature of the fetus).

Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (no one debates that this conclusion follows from the above two premises).

Also, from conception the fetus has unique and separate genetic identity, needing only nutrition and shelter to develop into a full newborn baby and later into an adult. From the moment of conception, it possesses all the capacities necessary to develop into a full adult. Thus it is incorrect to say that the fetus is a potential person. Rather, the fetus is a person with full potential to develop all of its latent capacities. It is a full human being, a person that is in the process of becoming a fully grown adult, with no breaks in the process of its development.
Click to expand...

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 141-142.

*The poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.

OldRegular · Nov 10, 2008

Baptist in Richmond said:

Um, I am guessing you are in complete denial.

The GOP has indeed controlled all three branches of government. Right now, the GOP has Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy (a moderate that could possibly go with the other four on a case involving abortion - but who knows?). As a matter of fact, with the exception of Ginsburg and Breyer (both appointed by Clinton), the rest of the current Justices were nominated by a Republican POTUS. A point worth noting is that Ginsburg was recommended to then-President Clinton by none other than Orrin Hatch (you will recall that the GOP controlled Congress at the time of her confirmation).

You don't have to acknowledge it, OldRegular, but it is a fact.

Regards anyway,
BiR
Click to expand...

You are simply showing your ignorance of the history of the Supreme Court.

OldRegular · Nov 10, 2008

Bible-boy said:

Source: Rae, Scott B., Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, pg. 141-142.

*The poster placed some text in bold font for emphasis.
Click to expand...

Good information Bible Boy, not that those who believe in killing babies will change. And BO campaigned on the slogan Change You Can Believe In.

Baptist in Richmond · Nov 10, 2008

OldRegular said:

You are simply showing your ignorance of the history of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Interesting that, yet again, you offer nothing but contumely.
Again, what I wrote are FACTS, and do not require your acknowledgement to be FACTS.

To quote Mr. Zimmerman:
"Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?"

Lyrics Copyright ©1962; renewed 1990 Special Rider Music

OldRegular · Nov 10, 2008

Baptist in Richmond said:

Interesting that, yet again, you offer nothing but contumely.
Again, what I wrote are FACTS, and do not require your acknowledgement to be FACTS.

To quote Mr. Zimmerman:
"Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?"

Lyrics Copyright ©1962; renewed 1990 Special Rider Music
Click to expand...

We have an O'Reilly on board!:thumbs: You know the guy on Fox who uses unknown or out dated words.:laugh:

Contumely: Insulting display of contempt in words or actions.:BangHead:

Right on BIR:tonofbricks:

Revmitchell · Nov 10, 2008

OldRegular said:

We have an O'Reilly on board!:thumbs: You know the guy on Fox who uses unknown or out dated words.

Contumely: Insulting display of contempt in words or actions.

Right on BIR
Click to expand...

He likes that word. he also likes:

1.:laugh:
2. :laugh: :laugh:
3. "Limbaugh said that"
4. "Hannity said that"

After that you will not see much

OldRegular · Nov 11, 2008

Revmitchell said:

He likes that word. he also likes:

1.:laugh:
2. :laugh: :laugh:
3. "Limbaugh said that"
4. "Hannity said that"

After that you will not see much
Click to expand...

Well he can't be completely out of the loop if he quotes [accurately I hope] hannity and Limbaugh.:tonofbricks:

Revmitchell · Nov 11, 2008

OldRegular said:

Well he can't be completely out of the loop if he quotes [accurately I hope] hannity and Limbaugh.:tonofbricks:
Click to expand...

Nope. he only accuses every conservative of quoting them.

Economy trumps abortion among

LeBuick New Member

LeBuick New Member

LeBuick New Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Bible-boy Active Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Bible-boy Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Economy trumps abortion among

LeBuick New Member

LeBuick New Member

LeBuick New Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Bible-boy Active Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Bible-boy Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

Bible-boy Active Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Baptist in Richmond Active Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter