nycflasher
Active Member
By the way, go **** yourself.
Ya rude bastard.
A strong mind would point out the faults in my logic instead of insulting me.
By the way, go **** yourself.
Ya rude bastard.
A strong mind would point out the faults in my logic instead of insulting me.
The difference between this and the given argument is that only one includes a third party. Moving on...
What gets me is the idea of justification. At what point does life start? At what point is it murder? You see, nobody knows. The best thing is to avoid it altogether. What happens when you try to answer those questions is justification, that in its extreme, will change the whole definition of murder. First, you can abort during the first trimester. Then during the second. Then, it's ok to abort as long as the baby isn't born. Then, suddenly, why not just get rid of the baby even after birth, so long as you haven't taken it home. I mean, what's the difference between a newborn baby, and the baby that is a week from delivery? You see what I mean? Now, granted, I personally don't think we'll ever see the day when killing newborns is legal. However, how can a person possibly take it upon his or herself to personally define murder? Maybe we should start killing off the old people in rest homes who are confined to their beds. I mean, some unborn babies are more active than a lot of them!
-Douglas
ajwps
Active Member
Are you saying that activity in the womb is the defining point of life? Have you seen the activity in a deer or elephant's womb before the animal is born?
These mammals all have gestating foetus' which have beating hearts, limbs that move, intestinal activity, brain electrical activity and even move to sounds coming from the outside world.
Does this mean that any attempt to abort (murder) these mammal unborn means that you are taking a life? What differentiates human life in the womb from our fellow mammals in utero life?
Questions:
Where did human beings get the idea of human life being of more import than those other mammal inhabitants of this planet?
Who is wise enough to decide something other than that which is spelled out clearly in the widely published book source that life begins only after each man and woman has been formed from the dust of the earth, and then only after that formed human takes the breath of life in it's nostrils does it become a human life (or soul)?
Hate to say it, but you're confusing me. What does an elephant fetus have to do with anything? Further, I never even mentioned that activity in the womb is the "defining point in life." Although, I would go so far as to say that if the fetus is acting and reacting it is most definitely "alive."
As for your questions...
1) In my own belief system, this stems from the fact that although everything on earth (including the earth) is a creation of God, mankind is a higher creation, being formed after the very image of God. Men and women were given the ability to know good and evil, make choices, and reason - traits that are unique to us. This places us on a pedestal above the rest of the animals and such. This, however, does not justify us in doing as we wish to those very animals. Man was also given dominion over the earth - aka, responsibility to take care of it. Now, if one's belief system does not accept this, then I guess it boils down to the idea of taking the life of one's own kind, which itself is pretty disgusting.
2) When the bible mentions the "breath of life," in relation to the creation of man, I understand it to mean the entering of the spirit into the body. Hence, as the scripture says, "the Lord God...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7).
-Douglas
ajwps
Active Member
nycflasher
Active Member
Interesting comments, Douglas.
nycflasher
Active Member
I was thinking the same...
dilloduck
Diamond Member
Shouldn't a man have some say over what he has helped to create?--Why is this right strictly reserved for the woman? Sometimes the abortion issue seems to be a control issue to me and is obsfucated by arguing over when "life" begins.
nycflasher
Active Member
IMO, while the man def. has a right to a role in the child's life, I'm not sure that he should have the same rights prior to birth. For example, in the case of a woman with health problems related to her pregnancy or a woman who was raped. Ultimately, it is her body not his/ours.
brneyedgrl80
Member
Ya, I kind of agree. I think the man does have say, but ultimately the woman should have the final say because she is the one who will be carrying if for 9 months and then giving birth to it, not the man.
If the man wants a kid bad enough, he can adopt, lol
Ok, I will state the difference. We are God's children. My dog is God's creation.
I think mankind is a higher form of life, and the fact that we can know good from evil, make choices, and reason are results therefrom. As far as eating animals, I believe that all God created was for the benefit and use of man. One reason animals exist on the earth is to provide mankind with what we need, be it food, clothing, or whatever. The idea to keep forward, though, is moderation in all things. I don't think it's good for me to take my gun and just go kill as many animals as I can under the pretense that I will eat it all.
When I said what I said about the spirit, I implied that the phrase "breath of life" was symbolic. Symbolic in that it doesn't refer to someone taking a breath of oxygen, but receiving their spirit into their body. Nobody knows when exactly the spirit enters into the fetus, and therefore, nobody knows exactly when life begins. However, as I said before, if the unborn baby is already acting and reacting within the mother's womb, that is a good sign that it is, indeed, alive.
Again, the breath of life refers to the spirit, not oxygen - if there is no spirit, there is no life. If there is no life, there is no murder (my thoughts, at least).
And your point being...?
-Douglas
dilloduck
Diamond Member
Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Ya, I kind of agree. I think the man does have say, but ultimately the woman should have the final say because she is the one who will be carrying if for 9 months and then giving birth to it, not the man.
If the man wants a kid bad enough, he can adopt, lol
OK here's where this argument loses me--nature,God, whatever has made it so the woman carries the child in it's development. Does a woman feel as if she should be rewarded for this by having the right to abort it ? It is ALSO part of the father. What if I want my own child to live but the women claims it's in me now--too bad? Is pregnancy merely an incovenience?
ajwps
Active Member
What is your point? We are not talking about ownership rights but whether or not abortion is or isn't killing human life.
Ownership of unborn children is in the province of who has 2/3 rights as long as it is in their possession.
5stringJeff
Senior Member
Of course, it is the baby's body that is ultimately destroyed. and since babies can't protest their abortion, and can't march on Washington D.C. with signs saying "Keep your laws off my body," then someone has got to speak for them. Thus, the pro-life movement.
dilloduck
Diamond Member
In addition to above post, women claim MY body--My right. They are talking about ownership!
N
NewGuy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
Not to mention I have been this route before with the Bible and the definition of when life begins with ajwps in HIS former life, and he lost.
Aborting after conception is clearly murder, and one would be wise to remember:
nycflasher
Active Member
Fair enough. I see reasons for both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, I don't see a unanimous decision being reached anytime soon. Agree?
nycflasher
Active Member
IMO, bringing religion into it complicates things because we are all of different or no religion. But then again, it is a religious issue for those who are religious.
Is it possible to discuss abortion sans religion?
5stringJeff
Senior Member
Agree. My opinion is that I'm going to err on the side of preserving life.
N
NewGuy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #40
When the Bible, which is proven divine by prophecy, says when life begins, the question is not:
"Can we discuss it regardless of Biblical view?",
but
"How is it even POSSIBLE to discuss it without Biblical view?"
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
