When does life begin?

[mrsx]

Good point, newperson. When secularists use biblical arguments it just rings hollow and insincere.

Biblical arguments depend on evidence and logic. That hollow ringing is just last night's booze. Pax tibi sus.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Biblical arguments depend on evidence and logic. That hollow ringing is just last night's booze. Pax tibi sus.

So now you're a fundie? Hey, I thought I was on ignore. That's two more lies for you, mrsx. The road to hell is paved with blatant lying.

 

[mrsx]

So now you're a fundie? Hey, I thought I was on ignore. That's two more lies for you, mrsx. The road to hell is paved with blatant lying.

No, you aren't the guy who used the anti-semitic slur to defend his assinine point of view. Amazing that you would think me to be a secularist. Do you think I am that Wade fella as well? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am a Congregationalist. That's a kind of Christian with a three-digit IQ. Certainly not a fundamentalist.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, you aren't the guy who used the anti-semitic slur to defend his assinine point of view. Amazing that you would think me to be a secularist. Do you think I am that Wade fella as well? As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am a Congregationalist. That's a kind of Christian with a three-digit IQ. Certainly not a fundamentalist.

What's anti semitic about saying the words "liberal jew"? There are liberals, there are jews. There are liberal jews. It's not derogatory. It's definitely not an anti semitic slur. And, for the record, I said you were using "liberal jew arguments". By this I simply meant you were using arguments previously used on this board by a person of judaic descent to justify the socially liberal position on abortion: The "breath of life" argument.

Congregationalist eh? What's their policy on transubstantiation?

 

[mrsx]

What's anti semitic about saying the words "liberal jew"? There are liberals, there are jews. There are liberal jews. It's not derogatory. It's definitely not an anti semitic slur. And, for the record, I said you were using "liberal jew arguments". By this I simply meant you were using arguments previously used on this board by a person of judaic descent to justify the socially liberal position on abortion: The "breath of life" argument.

Congregationalist eh? What's their policy on transubstantiation?

Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt; however, you should know that "Jew" is usually capitalized. While I do not think "liberal" a term of abuse, you use it that way constantly. BTW I do not consider myself a Liberal. As on most theological issues other than church polity, Congregationalists usually agree with Episcopalians. I don't think we would call an issue of belief a "policy."

Before you put on your mask and cape, let me clarify what I started this thread to discuss.
The issue of "life" as in "pro-life" can be argued from either a religious or a non-religious starting point. I am suggesting that for those starting from a basis in religious belief, embryonic right to life is more logically asserted from the Christian belief in an imortal, God-created human soul than from the biological activity of life.
You are welcome to disagree with my opinion and more than welcome to state your own. Merely calling names? Well, what kind of super hero would you be then?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am suggesting that for those starting from a basis in religious belief, embryonic right to life is more logically asserted from the Christian belief in an imortal, God-created human soul than from the biological activity of life.
You are welcome to disagree with my opinion and more than welcome to state your own.

Right. I understand what you were suggesting. And I find your conclusion fatuous, dishonest, and manipulative.

I disagree with your opinion. I disagree that soul should be the determining factor regarding the value of a given human life as you assert, it being unconfirmable and unquantifiable. I think even FROM A CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT your viewpoint is minority at best.

 

[no1tovote4]

I have never heard this proposal before. If it is medically possible, it seems like a wonderful way to preserve life without violating anyone's rights. I would guess that in almost every case, the woman would gladly take that option. Is anyone offering this choice now? It seems *really* pro-choice and pro-life!

I do not believe that anybody is at this time, and as I have stated before current technology would make it so many tiny lives would be extinguished as this particular area of medicine grew, it may be a while before the actual and true reproductive choice became a reality.

But I believe that the motive is as important as the action, that there is a major difference between offspring dying while attempting to save them than when it is a directed and complete object to destroy the life.

This is simply my idea of a true middle ground, a place where the twain can meet and agree. Unfortunately many of the Pro-Abortion or Pro-Life crowd are unwilling to even attempt to find any common ground, no matter how reasoned. If this is to become a goal of the nation I believe that it must begin at the grass roots as a moral alternative to current procedures.

 

[no1tovote4]

If this were medically feasible it could be a real solution though Im not a biologist to know the perils or problems that need to be addressed to do this. That said it certainly is worth considering. So many could adopt these babies once they were full term.

It is not yet feasible as an alternative to carrying a child as a reproductive choice, but could be as an alternative to the directed action of ending life, thus pointing doctors not at ending the lives of innocence but attempting to save them. This area of medicine is largely ignored for the larger and more permanent solutions by both sides of the political argument. It has become a political battleground where commonality is rarely sought and, if found, immediately minimized for the larger ideals of those on both sides.

Like any new area of medicine the beginning success rates, especially for younger embryos would be minute. Success would grow over time, thus building a true Reproductive Choice while attempting to save lives that would otherwise be destroyed. I wonder if the Catholic Church would be adverse to using stem cells from the young patient, after death, when the intent was not to kill but to save the life of the smallest of human life?

 

[mrsx]

Right. I understand what you were suggesting. And I find your conclusion fatuous, dishonest, and manipulative.

I disagree with your opinion. I disagree that soul should be the determining factor regarding the value of a given human life as you assert, it being unconfirmable and unquantifiable. I think even FROM A CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT your viewpoint is minority at best.

Is it your view that Christians don't believe in the immortal human soul?
Is it your view that Christians who do believe in the immortal human soul regard it as irrelevant to the question of embryonic research?
Christians believe in only one Super Hero an he ain't wearing those ridiculous tights! Back in the closet, Mr. Avenger, you aren't ready for prime time.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Is it your view that Christians don't believe in the immortal human soul?

No. It is my view that Christians respect human life even without consideration of the soul.

Is it your view that Christians who do believe in the immortal human soul regard it as irrelevant to the question of embryonic research.

Probably some do and some don't, like most things.

Christians believe in only one Super Hero an he ain't wearing those ridiculous tights! Back in the closet, Mr. Avenger, you aren't ready for prime time.

My ratings are higher than yours, wannabe!

 

[mrsx]

No. It is my view that Christians respect human life even without consideration of the soul.My ratings are higher than yours, wannabe!

Your idea of a Christian theology without consideration of a soul is ridiculous. I don't regard your high brown nose rating as anything to strive for. Trade in those points for your toaster oven and shut up about it. I thought the Avenger was interested in Truth, Justice etc., not some farcical bingo game.

 

[Bonnie]

You can't use God/Bible as an argument against abortion to someone who doesn't believe either.

No your right for those who don't believe in God the good old fashioned it's illegal to commit murder should suffice nicely.

 

[5stringJeff]

You can't use God/Bible as an argument against abortion to someone who doesn't believe either.

True, colehart. But there are non-religious justifications for being pro-life.

 

[no1tovote4]

Your idea of a Christian theology without consideration of a soul is ridiculous. I don't regard your high brown nose rating as anything to strive for. Trade in those points for your toaster oven and shut up about it. I thought the Avenger was interested in Truth, Justice etc., not some farcical bingo game.

Hmm, It seems that it wasn't theology that he was speaking about, it was abortion. It seems, like many others, he believes that even when not regarding the soul there are reasons to preserve human life. I don't think he argued that Christianity does not regard the soul.

 

[Bonnie]

Hmm, It seems that it wasn't theology that he was speaking about, it was abortion. It seems, like many others, he believes that even when not regarding the soul there are reasons to preserve human life. I don't think he argued that Christianity does not regard the soul.

Yeah I got that same idea. If I wasn't a Christian/Catholic and only believed in the self, I would still be opposed to taking a human life for any reason other than self defense because it's human nature to have some compassion and reverence for human life, especially for tiny helpless babies and animals. I couldn't even imagine another way of thinking on that, too mind boggling.

 

[mrsx]

No your right for those who don't believe in God the good old fashioned it's illegal to commit murder should suffice nicely.

Bit of a circular argument, I'm afraid: can't be murder unless that microscopic zygote is legally a person. BTW most of our abortion laws were first enacted after the Civil War. For the first 200 years, nobody thought it was the business of a government to tell a doctor or midwife how to practice. Roe v. Wade BTW is based on government interference in medicine, not a right of privacy for the pregnant lady. Ought to read it some time.

 

[no1tovote4]

Bit of a circular argument, I'm afraid: can't be murder unless that microscopic zygote is legally a person. BTW most of our abortion laws were first enacted after the Civil War. For the first 200 years, nobody thought it was the business of a government to tell a doctor or midwife how to practice. Roe v. Wade BTW is based on government interference in medicine, not a right of privacy for the pregnant lady. Ought to read it some time.

You ought to read the Doe v. Bolton decision sometime. That is the one that made it legal right up to the point of birth. The decision that came out at the same time as Roe v. Wade and the one that was underreported by the media who felt that reporting the actual legality of killing viable infants would anger society.

Also the Roe v. Wade decision was based strongly on the right of privacy in that the Government, or parents, cannot interfere in her private medical business. Thus taking the parent out of the equation for such decision for a minor child and making it the only surgical procedure my daughter can get without first consulting the parent at all let alone getting consent. My daughter cannot even get a band-aid at a hospital without my consent, but "doctors" can perform this invasive surgery without even telling me. Thus the attempt of some to get parental notification laws passed.

It was also based on incomplete information and actual admitted lies from the doctor that spoke in favor of abortion, he spoke of the fact that the "ends justified the means" in his falsified "facts" in his testimony. He was proud of the result of his lies.

 

[Bonnie]

Bit of a circular argument, I'm afraid: can't be murder unless that microscopic zygote is legally a person. BTW most of our abortion laws were first enacted after the Civil War. For the first 200 years, nobody thought it was the business of a government to tell a doctor or midwife how to practice. Roe v. Wade BTW is based on government interference in medicine, not a right of privacy for the pregnant lady. Ought to read it some time.

Nice try mrsx but Im not buying that old argument especially when many abortions are performed on babies not microscopic zygotes, secondly perhaps in our countries first two hundred years the government didn't need to step in as the people had the common sense and decency to know both the mothers life and the babies were precious and usually only terminated a pregnancy when the mother's life was in danger or the baby miscarried, and now we use the modern technology we have to terminate, destroy, and make conveneinces for women at the expense of their children. Bully for us how we have evolved so much!
Lastly Roe VS Wade was bad law made on a fictitious rape that never happened!!! And it was based on a woman's right to privacy with her doctor, I have read it extensively.

 

[MyName]

Your idea of a Christian theology without consideration of a soul is ridiculous. I don't regard your high brown nose rating as anything to strive for. Trade in those points for your toaster oven and shut up about it. I thought the Avenger was interested in Truth, Justice etc., not some farcical bingo game.

Now I have to say....RWA is anything but a brown noser lol. Anyone who has been here a while probably laughed their ass off at your calling him a brown noser. He speaks his own truth, even at his own expense.

What I dont understand is why you are so resistant to allowing other people their own truth. That seems to be in complete opposition of your words.

 

[MyName]

The other aspect of adopting a baby here however, is that it seems like you have to be a rich celebrity in order to do it!

AMEN!

We are dealing with that now.