That's not really true though. I can walk up and decapitate someone walking out of the confessional and they'll probably go to heaven, but I doubt any God would look favorably upon such action.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I agree. However, the development of any human (or even any animal) is a continuum, not a discrete set of points. Such demarcations are set up (zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc...) as a matter of convenience for reference, not because these are truly different organisms. At some point, every person you know was or will be a zygote, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, then an infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, middle-aged, elderly, old, very old, and ancient (assuming they live that long). Thus, I could argue (though I'll admit that I haven't thought this through very carefully) that a zygote is just as much a person as an infant, adult, or anyone else. The discretizations that are set up are fabrications based on stages of physical development, not any real change in the being itself. Think of it in these terms. Everything is comprised of two parts: accidentals (physical nature) and substance (whatever it really is). The substance of a zygote is no different from an adult as far as we can discern (though one might argue that substance changes with time, again I'm not real sure since I'm winging it), though the accidentals are much different.
My thinking was that at any given point, an object, a person, anything really, has a certain state (whether that state is defineable is another question). If that state is potentiality to become human being, it cannot be actually be a human being at the same time. While we may observe a continuum, objects/people still have states.
The problem is defining what the substance ("substantial form") of the zygote is. Does it include "human being-ness", or is that just a privation (one of the range of possibilities that the zygote might have in the future). Applying these terms to this issue simply adds another layer of words and argument, so I think this isn't the way to go.
Personally, I think all of Aquinas's/Greek thinkers ideas of substance and accidentals are outdated, since they do not bring us any closer to understanding what a thing really is. And the application of them here highlights that.
The idea that "human being-ness" is part of its essence is related to the mind/body connection, as the mind would have to be separate. I think you would have to start with the mind body issue in order to arrive at showing human being-ness as part of its essence.
Indeed, which is why I think God would look very unfavorably upon a woman killing her embryo because it can't implant in her uterus. I don't think he would have women inherently sinning in their natural functions, since he is benevolent. I wrote that to prove the point to musgrat
No, the woman is not killing anything. Actually, I think that the moment where fetuses should be protected starts after the embryo implants itself on the uterus wall. Again, just because something happens does not mean that God agrees with it. And even if the embryo dies after that, it is still not the woman's fault- it is, if you will, an act of nature. Just like a bear mauling you is. God never said that all death is bad and is someone's fault, He just said not to kill. The woman does not kill her embryo or fetus unless she aborts it. Or I heard from a friend last night of someone who fell down the stairs and had a miscarraige. It is not really her fault, but then, it would not have happened if she hadn't fallen.
EDIT: To quote myself, I still would like an answer to this.
"Since we are having all this talk of, "just because something will be something doesn't make it that something now." We have laws against people planning to kill someone. So we are in effect protecting who they will be, not who they are now. How are fetuses different?"
The woman is responsible for the fertile environment in her uterus. Regardless, I don't think God would have this loss of life. He wouldn't just create life and then have it go away 2 seconds later. This is loss of life on a massive scale, and no benevolent God would have that.
Because having a plan to kill someone is wrong in and of itself. The actual killing is a separate issue. Regardless, it doesn't matter what our laws are, since they are applied by fallible human beings. It is a simple universal law of logic that potentiality is mutually exclusive from actuality. The law you describe is an artificial law of society, and the law i describe is a law of nature.
I could just as easily show pictures of open heart surgery, and advocate against heart surgery.
Gory pictures are not relevant and have no validity within the argument.
-Max
Well I certainly agree with CycloWizard here. God has no place in a debate on abortion or most anything else. God does not exist, there is no objective evidence to support that claim. Any argument based, in part or in whole, on God or any claim of devine inspiration or knowledge is fundamentaly irrational.
Rational thought, rational discussion, rational argument cannot be engaged or sustained if God is invoked.
What we are left with are constitutional rights for living people. Certainly we know any pregnant woman has constitutional rights. The question remains at what point do dividing cells have constitutional rights--and to what degree.
I support the right of a pregnant woman to decide what happens to her body.
Can you prove God doesn't exsist?
God, Gods, Mystical Forces and other "concepts" that aren't shown with emperical evidence have no place in a rational debate. I would hope everyone would keep "religion" out of the debate as I would like to see it continue in a civil fashion as it's rather entertaining.
Invariably that's the reply de rigor.Originally posted by: Tab
Can you prove God doesn't exsist?
God, Gods, Mystical Forces and other "concepts" that aren't shown with emperical evidence have no place in a rational debate. I would hope everyone would keep "religion" out of the debate as I would like to see it continue in a civil fashion as it's rather entertaining.
I don't claim perfection or comprehensive omniscence. It is those that invoke a devine entity that indulge in those claims. Let them bring objective evidence towards those claims.
I simply point out the irrational nature of any argument based on 100% say-so.
Yeah, next time a women dumps her new born baby in a trash can, I hope the argument it's her time, her money and her life so it's her choice fly in the court.
The problem with both sides of the arguments is, one side thinks with their hearts, the other thinks with their head, and there is no right answer.
One extreme is its murder, the other extreme is youre rectifying a mistake, or protecting that future person from a life of poverty.
THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER
Calling out other technicalities and using circular thinking cant justify either side, yet both try to use it.
Im personally pro-abortion, i strongly believe that with a mutual decision of both parents that a fetus can be aborted, because it can:
1. ruin the lives of the parents
2. put the child through a life of poverty because the parents werent prepared to provide for it (especially teen parents)
I also believe in the adoption system, i think its a great path for parents that cannot provide for their children but dont believe in abortion.
Not to mention the downside of back alley clinics if you make it illegal.
One extreme is its murder, the other extreme is youre rectifying a mistake, or protecting that future person from a life of poverty.
THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER
Calling out other technicalities and using circular thinking cant justify either side, yet both try to use it.
Im personally pro-abortion, i strongly believe that with a mutual decision of both parents that a fetus can be aborted, because it can:
1. ruin the lives of the parents
2. put the child through a life of poverty because the parents werent prepared to provide for it (especially teen parents)
I also believe in the adoption system, i think its a great path for parents that cannot provide for their children but dont believe in abortion.
Not to mention the downside of back alley clinics if you make it illegal.
The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. Read the thread. And God is a bit above you and me, but He has reasons for everything that He does. You can logically explain most of what God does, and if you can't, you simply aren't smart enough, and don't know enough. But to answer you, I also agree that all people have rights to their bodies.
Ignoring the fact that there is an answer does nothing. Your argument is not that great because it appeals to emotion, morality, and opinions of civil ethics. By your admission, 2 of those have no place in this argument. But to answer, if a fetus was human, we are pretending now, do you protect the social lives of 2 irresponsible, in most cases, parents, and make sure that a kid is not raised in poverty (which you are wrongly assuming), and therefore kill it, or let social lives go to the bad place, let people be poor, and let someone live? Do social status and money outweigh life? So your argument is dependant upon the argument for or against a fetus's humanity.
That just stupidity at work and wrecklessness.
If she didnt want or couldn't support the baby for whatever reasons, it couldve been aborted long ago, or it couldve been put up for adoption on birth.
Edit: typo
we sentance people to die all the time, what's the big deal about abortion? who cares, other than the religious nut cases? How many dead in iraq so far, both "innocent" us soldiers and iraqi civlians? Why don't the jesus freaks care about those people?
There's too many people in the world anyway. I could use the elbow room.
There's about a million other things that are MUCH more significant than abortion to most thinking people. Can't you jesus kooks do something a little more productive with your lives than complain about abortion? Go volunteer in iraq maybe...? do something useful anyway....
There's too many people in the world anyway. I could use the elbow room.
There's about a million other things that are MUCH more significant than abortion to most thinking people. Can't you jesus kooks do something a little more productive with your lives than complain about abortion? Go volunteer in iraq maybe...? do something useful anyway....
This is well thought out enough to deserve a qoute.
God is a lot like the tooth fairy.....it shouldn't be seriously discussed among adults.
I care. If there are a million other things more important than abortion, there are still 40 million more victims of abortion that might think otherwise. Some of us see millions of lives as reason to start a thread. You saw a couple thousand people dying reason enough to post, and they were serving their country. Fetuses are helpless, and the gov. isn't doing a good job of protecting them. So... you accomplished nothing. Think of a way to add to the argument.
Or maybe you simply don't want to talk about it. The last time I checked, the USA is more Christian than anything else, and some of those are adults much smarter than you. Of course saying, "God said so" is not any good reason, unless you are in a church service. But no one is doing that.
Please rephrase why you beileve a fetus is not a part of a women's body, so I may expound upon your idea.
I'll also ask that we not bring "religion" or "god" into this arguement as it is not required to show if abortion is wrong or right - we do this on logic alone.
And this is what? If you have something to say, then say it. If its a person or not is a stupid little technicality that can be argued until the end of time. So what if it is?
eits
Lifer
actually, he's right. i'm a christian and i even know that you don't introduce supreme beings into discussion among adults when it comes to science and different faiths.
See the above posts for why I haven't said anything about religion unless others have tried to use it to their advantage.
A fetus is not a part of a woman's body because it is separated, does not share the mother's DNA or any other genetic information, has its own bloodstream, mainly accepts nutrients, and grows on its own, as much as you or I do. Previously, others have made the argument that it is a part of the mother like my arm is of me, and that is wrong. It is attached to the mother, but is completely genetically separate.
A fetus is not a part of a woman's body because it is separated, does not share the mother's DNA or any other genetic information, has its own bloodstream, mainly accepts nutrients, and grows on its own, as much as you or I do. Previously, others have made the argument that it is a part of the mother like my arm is of me, and that is wrong. It is attached to the mother, but is completely genetically separate.
It seems like saying that a fetus should be killed rather than living a sad, poor life, and ruining its parents' lives, is appealing to emotion. It is not rational, or logical.
EDIT: To eits, I have not said anything about religion unless someone else tried to use it to their advantage. Don't think that I started it at all. Sorry to repeat myself, but I was writing this as you were posting.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter