Originally posted by rhemalogosIt's worthy of death if the woman dies as the rest of the passage invokes lax talionis. That's for you too, whodey.
I have egg on my face. I read Ex 22:21-on years ago and misunderstood it. Thank you for the correction.
BUT, the punishment given to the man who caused the unborn baby's death shows that killing of the baby was wrong. Since it was ACCIDENTAL death, it was manslaughter, not murder, and was not worthy of death.
Originally posted by whodeyGerms are at least as advanced organisms as a embryo right after conception. If you believe that an embryo gains a soul at conception, then you might as well believe germs have them, too.
The question really is when does life become human or more specifically when does it have a "soul", so to speak. I don't think germs have the capacity for having a "soul", however, if you did think this way you would probably feel the same about them.
Of course, modern science has determined that most fertilized embryos "die" before "Mom" even notices its existence. So if you believe in ensoulment at conception, most human souls never even experience sentient life. This makes the whole bother about "free will" rather pointless as most human souls never have the capacity to exercise it.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo when does this happen in your opinion? Is it 5 months in the womb? Is it 8 months in the womb? Does it magically occur when the child is born? Is it when they get beyond their infancy stage etc? At what point is it immoral to takea the life of this blob of organic cells we call a fetus/infant?
[b]Germs are at least as advanced organisms as a embryo right after conception. If you believe that an embryo gains a soul at conception, then you might as well believe germs have them, too.
Originally posted by whodeyI was joking with the nazi comment lighten up.
I in no way tried to imply that you were a holocaust supporting nazi for supporting abortion. I was merely making a comparison about an extreme case such as someone who purposefully impregnats themselves as many times as possible with the full intention of having an abortion and then to top it all off records it as art. No matter you moral position concerni ...[text shortened]... ven think about doing this just as the holocaust is morally disturbing to think of as happening.
Originally posted by rhemalogosI think you will find that the thought of purposefully terminating pregnancies, in terms of a large percentage of the population, is a rather recent phenomenon in world history. I think that such an idea would be completly foreign in Biblical times, therefore, it is hard to get a grasp on how they would approach the subject. In fact, I doubt they even comtemplated it at all.
I have egg on my face. I read Ex 22:21-on years ago and misunderstood it. Thank you for the correction.
BUT, the punishment given to the man who caused the unborn baby's death shows that killing of the baby was wrong. Since it was ACCIDENTAL death, it was manslaughter, not murder, and was not worthy of death.
If you had the ability to go back in time only a few hundred years or so the population at large viewed their offspring as an asset. In fact, it a lot was at stake in terms of producing offspring. For example, who is going to harvest the fields? Who is going to make our meals? Who is going to help take care of us when we are older? Who is going to carry on the family name etc? However, today offspring are viewed as more of a financial burden than a financial necessity. Couple that with modern day techniques that are safer in aborting unborn children and what you have is what you have today which is abortion on demand.
Having said all of this, it is important to note how in both examples that a persons financial position is often the driving motivator for developing a moral code regarding issues such as abortion. Whether we admit to it or not we often equate value, such as an unborn child, in terms of dollar signs.
Originally posted by whodeyfirstly you have to believe in the Soul, I don't. I believe we're a sophisticated electrochemical machine that is self aware, when someone is born or dies they switch on or off and nothing supernatural happens. I believe when a child becomes self aware, i.e. when the brain is sufficiently developed that the child gains basic motor controls and brain function, then the question of Abortion becomes a Moral one. Until then they are just a lump of cells with a lot more in common with those germs than with you or I.
The question really is when does life become human or more specifically when does it have a "soul", so to speak. I don't think germs have the capacity for having a "soul", however, if you did think this way you would probably feel the same about them.
Originally posted by whodeyMuch of the opposition is based in Roman Catholic opposition yes. Most of the arguments against abortion come from the baby having a "soul" from the instant of conception. I don't think the supernatural (soul) should be invoked for political decisions, pro-lifers always do.
So do you find that the opposition against abortion as strictly one of a religious nature and not one of science?
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoSo when does this "awareness" begin for you? At what age? Is it like a magician pulling a rabit out of his hat and at that very moment as the child comes out of the womb they have awareness?
firstly you have to believe in the Soul, I don't. I believe we're a sophisticated electrochemical machine that is self aware, when someone is born or dies they switch on or off and nothing supernatural happens. I believe when a child becomes self aware, i.e. when the brain is sufficiently developed that the child gains basic motor controls and brain function, ...[text shortened]... n they are just a lump of cells with a lot more in common with those germs than with you or I.
Originally posted by whodeyNo awareness develops with the brain, thus at some point the child can be said to be aware, and then I believe it to be immoral to abort, I don't know for certain but its certainly going to be after the 5th month. Most abortions are carried out in the 3rd-4th. Effectively they kill a ball of cellular material with litte if any brain function.
So when does this "awareness" begin for you? At what age? Is it like a magician pulling a rabit out of his hat and at that very moment as the child comes out of the womb they have awareness?
1 edit
A point of interest for me is the instant an infant is born he or she instantaneously seems to increase in value to their respective parents and society at large. Case in point is the agonizing decision as to whether or not to try and save an unborn babies life in the womb if the mothers life is in danger or to abort it in order to save the mothers life. On the one hand, people would begin to think that an unborn child is of less value than the mother because it is less developed and less people are emotionally or finacially dependent upon he or she. After all, how can one become that emotionally attached to a face they have never even seen? However, the instant the child is born the pendulum swings the other way. At this point the parent is more apt to throw their bodies in harms way in order to save the child. For example, they begin to reason that the child has not had a chance to live and experience life as they have so they should surrender their own life in order to save the babies life so that they have the oppurtunity to enjoy a life that they had the chance to live.
I have seen this type of valuation play out in many forms and find it interesting. I don't bring it up to make a moral judgement either way.
Originally posted by MexicoSo you are opposed to partial birth abortions that occur today?
No awareness develops with the brain, thus at some point the child can be said to be aware, and then I believe it to be immoral to abort, I don't know for certain but its certainly going to be after the 5th month. Most abortions are carried out in the 3rd-4th. Effectively they kill a ball of cellular material with litte if any brain function.
Originally posted by whodeyOriginally posted by whodey- at a thread called "a modest proposal"
So when does this happen in your opinion? Is it 5 months in the womb? Is it 8 months in the womb? Does it magically occur when the child is born? Is it when they get beyond their infancy stage etc? At what point is it immoral to takea the life of this blob of organic cells we call a fetus/infant?
So at what point is the unborn a non-intelligent cell mass and when is the transition to an intelligent cell mass? Is it at the magical hour of birth when the doctor says "Abbra-cadabrra"?
Originally posted by me as a response- at a thread called "a modest proposal"
Well, almost nothing in biology jumps straight form 0 to 1.
Suffice to say, before the development of the central nervous system (or CNS), the embryo cannot be intelligent, and its removal should have the same ethical consequences of removing, say, the thyroid (except the fact the embryo is easily replaceable, that is).
(This alone should put at ease all those who fuss about embryonic stem cell research - the entire point of these stem cells is that they come from embryos at the very early stages of development - before the cells differentiate into committed stem cells, and therefore, way before the development of neurons.)
Even with the development of the CNS, the embryo is not immediately intelligent. I'm not into embryology, so I cannot tell at which stage has the neural activity is sufficient for us to call it intelligent.
Again, you could just play it safe and remove the embryo before that.
the relevent thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=87300&page=2