Abortion?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd rather that the Hatians, Zimbabweans, and NKoreans, for example, steal enough food to survive instead of letting them starve because they can't afford food.

What do all of these three have in common?

Starvation has nothing to do with too many people, but everything to do with the quality of the management. I hardly think the folks in N. Korea starve because there are too many N. Koreans. Rather, it's Mr. Kim's policy to starve them. Get rid of Kim and I don't see why the folks in the south of the peninsula would be any better off then those in the north.

Same with Zimbabwe. Starvation just conveniently corresponded with the term of Mr. Mugabe.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for myself, my position is that the unborn child is a person, no different before as after her birth. If it's wrong to kill her afterwards, then it's wrong to kill her before.

The only situation in where abortion would be permissable is in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where it is impossible to save the life of child and the mother. In that case, it would be permissable to cut the fallopian tubes, even if that results in the death of the child, in order to save the life of the mother.

[Asher]

I was neutral to the topic before I met Ben Kenobi. Now I am ferociously pro-abortion.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Lancer
You miss my point I guess.

No, I don't think so. I get that you're trying to say that maybe because they support abortion, the baby's souls are going to come back, or maybe they'll be reborn into a baby that's going to get aborted.

I just don't see how that's germaine to the argument.

And, it's about as classy as Palin's misquoting of Albright.

And Ben, getting rid of Mugabe won't solve the issues of Zimbabwe. Getting rid of KIM Jong-Il won't make up over 60 years of mismanagement right away. The point wasn't to bring up their politics or their policies, it was to underscore that while the ideal situation would be to provide enough food--or in the case of abortion, not ever have to perform it--we don't live in an ideal society, and I'm willing to look the other way if it means more people can survive.

Since there's conclusive evidence suggesting that legality of abortion only prevents accessibility to safe procedures, and legal, affordable access to contraceptives leads to fewer seeking the procedures, I cannot justify banning abortions, even if I may disagree with the procedure.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for myself, my position is that the unborn child is a person, no different before as after her birth. If it's wrong to kill her afterwards, then it's wrong to kill her before.

I doubt that you truly believe that. You just believe what the Bible says, but if it ever came down to choosing between 2 human beings and a pregnant human being you would choose the 2 human beings without even a hesitation.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Rather than spend trillions on Obama's socialist entitlement pyramid schemes, ....

Just outta curiousity, can you name one industry which Obama has proposed nationalizing?

I thought not.

Before you shoot off your mouth, you should make sure your brain is loaded.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Just outta curiousity, can you name one industry which Obama has proposed nationalizing?

I thought not.

Before you shoot off your mouth, you should make sure your brain is loaded.

What you are proposing is nothing less than the death of Apolyton.

[Ben Kenobi]

I doubt that you truly believe that. You just believe what the Bible says, but if it ever came down to choosing between 2 human beings and a pregnant human being you would choose the 2 human beings without even a hesitation.

People don't just magically become persons at some unspecified date and time. Science says that you have another completely different individual after conception, and that individual grows from one cell, to becoming the infant we see at birth.

The only thing that changes inside the womb is both size and complexity. There is a continuum from conception onwards, of growth and development, that continues on after birth.

[Ben Kenobi]

And Ben, getting rid of Mugabe won't solve the issues of Zimbabwe. Getting rid of KIM Jong-Il won't make up over 60 years of mismanagement right away.

Nope, but I pray one day you'll have all the Koreans together again, just like the Germans. I don't see why they couldn't make a go of it without the dead weight that is Kim. Same with Mugabe.

we don't live in an ideal society, and I'm willing to look the other way if it means more people can survive.

The problem is that abortion is detrimental to society in general. Unwanted children might be a burden for the first 20 years, but what happens afterwards? The fact that a child is unwanted is not the fault of the child at all. We have an obligation to care for these children, even if the parents decline.

Since there's conclusive evidence suggesting that legality of abortion only prevents accessibility to safe procedures, and legal, affordable access to contraceptives leads to fewer seeking the procedures, I cannot justify banning abortions, even if I may disagree with the procedure.

What do you mean that contraception prevents abortions? They've both increased steadily. Contraceptive failure actually increases the abortion rate, because the parents have already decided beforehand that any child they have will be automatically unwanted.

That's a problem. We should be saying the other one, that if you are willing to be together that you should be willing to raise a child together. It would save considerable grief and heartache for everyone.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


People don't just magically become persons at some unspecified date and time. Science says that you have another completely different individual after conception, and that individual grows from one cell, to becoming the infant we see at birth.

The only thing that changes inside the womb is both size and complexity. There is a continuum from conception onwards, of growth and development, that continues on after birth.

Personhood is a concept. You're expanding the concept of personhood to fetuses. This is only because of the political issue, abortion. Before abortion became a political issue you would be considered insane for claiming that a fetus was a person.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Personhood is a concept. You're expanding the concept of personhood to fetuses. This is only because of the political issue, abortion. Before abortion became a political issue you would be considered insane for claiming that a fetus was a person.

You would be insane to consider someone who has brainwaves and human DNA to be a person?

Who in all scientifically measurable ways is alive?

You aren't making any sense.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


You would be insane to consider someone who has brainwaves and human DNA to be a person?

Who in all scientifically measurable ways is alive?

You aren't making any sense.

JM

If you have to use science to tell if someone is a person or not then you are expanding the concept or personhood.

[Jon Miller]

We use science to tell when someone is alive at the end of life. It is no expansion of the idea of person hood than that which took place ages ago.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We use science to tell when someone is alive at the end of life. It is no expansion of the idea of person hood than that which took place ages ago.

JM

I assume that you aren't talking about being alive as a concept. The point is that being a person is a concept. That means that it is whatever we think it is. So if you've already thought about what it is then why would you need science? You don't.

[Jon Miller]

What is being a person other than being human and alive?

JM