Abortion as art

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are flat out wrong. A fetus wasn't considered a human being at all under Mosaic Law in the Talmud; only after birth was there a human being. Your reading of Exodus 21 is laughable; why does the accidental killing of the pregnant woman rate as worthy of death but not of a fetus? Please explain that.

Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the ...[text shortened]... parcel of the pregnant woman's body."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Rashi?Hmmmmm

Originally posted by mrstabby
Does that involve historical evidence, or is it a case of "you knowing". How reliable is evidence pointing either way to how widespread it was?

Lets just say there is some historical mention of abortions in ancient times but not on a mass scale as it is today. Couple that with a lack of organizations like Planned Parenthood on every corner offering "safe" abortions to any one that might want one and what you should wind up with is a statistically lower percentage of abortions on average. Also consider ancient texts such as the Bible that indicate fertility and children as being a blessing as well as a key ingrediant for ones financial livelyhood.

I guess your question is kinda like saying, prove that an immaterial God exists using material evidence. I may not be able to provide material evidence but I can assure you that neither can you to disprove me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My views on this matter have been stated on these forums many times; as a non-viable fetus cannot exist outside the confines of a woman's body it is her decision as to whether she wants to retain it or not - anything less would virtually destroy the pregnant woman's right to personal autonomy. Once it can so exist, then it has a right to personal autonomy as well.

So how is the dependent unborn infant inside the mother different than the dependent infant that has been delivered? Off the top of my head I would say that the pregnant woman gets her rest at night as where the woman that has given birth gets very little. In light of these facts you might even say that the woman that delivered her baby has far less autonomy than the pregnant woman who has not delivered as of yet. Since the born infant has taken much of the autonomy from the mother because it is totally 100% dependent upon her for his or her survival and because the child has stripped her autonomy to a large degree does this mean she has the right to kill it?

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Are we discussing if A can become B given certain conditions, or whether A is B?

re: [b]Wheat in seed form is still wheat even though it hasn't matured yet.

I do not think that wheat can be used as analogy. We call ending the life of persons "killing" ; wheat is not a person in either form, while a human is (Since conception, or since an active -sapiens, and a genetic analysis will point out that my spleen is also human/homo-sapiens.[/b]

Since you raised several different objections, I will answer them one by one, beginning with the first:

1. A is not B and never will be. A is a and B is b.

2. All throughout the Bible, OT and NT, God, the GREAT analogy maker and LOGICIAN, compares us to the seeds of plants,e.g. John 8:37 to grab one out of the air. HE likes this analogy of comparing humankind to seed. I am on very solid ground doing as He does.

3. The CNS is not what really defines us as humans. What does is the fact that we have a soul and spirit. Ensoulment takes place at conception.

4. Is using an analogy verbal gymnastics? Yes, but when I do it, there is no mere gyration to avoid the truth, but an exercise of it.

5. My point was the embryo is a human being in seed form. A seed of wheat(wheat in embryonic form) will mature into a full grown shaft of wheat, as an embryo will mature into a full grown human being. Tobacco leaves, as spleens, are only a part of the whole, but the seed, the embryo...

Originally posted by whodey
So how is the dependent unborn infant inside the mother different than the dependent infant that has been delivered? Off the top of my head I would say that the pregnant woman gets her rest at night as where the woman that has given birth gets very little. In light of these facts you might even say that the woman that delivered her baby has far less autonom ...[text shortened]... e child has stripped her autonomy to a large degree does this mean she has the right to kill it?

All well and good for the god-awful pro-life lobby to have my honest, heart felt posts removed.

And once I can type normally, I'm gonna give it to you all. Just like it.

Originally posted by rhemalogos
Since you raised several different objections, I will answer them one by one, beginning with the first:

1. A is not B and never will be. A is a and B is b.

2. All throughout the Bible, OT and NT, God, the GREAT analogy maker and LOGICIAN, compares us to the seeds of plants,e.g. John 8:37 to grab one out of the air. HE likes this analogy of compari ...[text shortened]... man being. Tobacco leaves, as spleens, are only a part of the whole, but the seed, the embryo...

1. Either I didn't understand you or you didn't understand me.
A is an embryo, B is a baby. You said that since A can become B, A is B. I disagree.

2. Let's leave the bible aside. Remember: metaphors are not necessarily valid analogies.

3. How we define what we are, who we are? All feeling and thoughts, memories and emotions are the works of our brain - that is, that's what we found out yet. "Soul" is merely a fancy name for the workings of our brain - as far as we know.
Having that in mind (no pun intended), "ensoulment" cannot take place before you have a working Central Nervous System (CNS).

4. Using a metaphor, than claiming it to be a valid analogy is, I guess. We all use verbal gymnastics from time to time, but as you pointed it out first...

5. Ah, gotcha! It's not that hard to make a full grown plant from it leaves. Having said that, cloning a human being from spleen cells is also possible, given the right technology.

But the most problematic point of the plant analogy, is that plants are not persons, making the analogy invalid.

Originally posted by whodey

I guess your question is kinda like saying, prove that an immaterial God exists using material evidence. I may not be able to provide material evidence but I can assure you that neither can you to disprove me.

No one wants to disprove you - please fell free to belive in what ever you want.

Please don't attempt to use said unproved beliefs to make arguments regarding what other people (who do not necessarily belive the same things) should and shouldn't do.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not interested in hypotheticals. In this universe, the question is easily resolved using Natural Law theories regarding the right to personal autonomy.

You should be interested in this hypothetical. It purports to illustrate a flaw in your argument. A profession of disinterest is not a counterargument.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Cuz you say so? Then don't get pregnant but leave other people's personal autonomy alone. The life of an infant human doesn't start until it can exist outside of a person's body.

Does the mother's right to personal autonomy outweigh the right to life of a non-viable fetus merely because you assert that it is?

Or is this a conclusion for which you have an argument?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
You should be interested in this hypothetical. It purports to illustrate a flaw in your argument. A profession of disinterest is not a counterargument.

I have to agree on that point.

Originally posted by Retrovirus
1. Either I didn't understand you or you didn't understand me.
A is an embryo, B is a baby. You said that since A can become B, A is B. I disagree.

2. Let's leave the bible aside. Remember: metaphors are not necessarily valid analogies.

3. How we define what we are, who we are? All feeling and thoughts, memories and emotions are the works of our br ...[text shortened]... point of the plant analogy, is that plants are not persons, making the analogy invalid.

Indeed, by the same same logic--that if A can become B, then A is B--clouds are rain, dinosours are birds, and food is poo.

Welcome to the magical Wonderland of arrant nonsense!

I don't agree, however, that the soul or mind is just the name for the workings of our brain. This conclusion does not follow--although it seem to--from the soul or mind being causally dependent on the brain, an obvious fact. "Workings", by definition, are something that the brain does. But "workings" do not imply felt experience: that is, you can have unconscious workings. But the human soul or mind involves consciousness; hence, it isn't clear that the "workings" of the brain suffice to account for the soul or mind.

Originally posted by Retrovirus
No one wants to disprove you - please fell free to belive in what ever you want.

Please don't attempt to use said unproved beliefs to make arguments regarding what other people (who do not necessarily belive the same things) should and shouldn't do.

And you are welcomed to your beliefs.

Do you really think that abortions were done at the same rate today as in ancient times? Unfortunatly we have no records regarding this one way or the other but I think I presented my reasoning well. Perhaps the other side could give reasons why the abortion rate was the same back then. Who knows, maybe they were secretly performing abortions in the privacy of their homes in mass numbers. Who knew?

Originally posted by whodey
So how is the dependent unborn infant inside the mother different than the dependent infant that has been delivered? Off the top of my head I would say that the pregnant woman gets her rest at night as where the woman that has given birth gets very little. In light of these facts you might even say that the woman that delivered her baby has far less autonom ...[text shortened]... e child has stripped her autonomy to a large degree does this mean she has the right to kill it?

whodey: So how is the dependent unborn infant inside the mother different than the dependent infant that has been delivered?

Because it doesn't, and cannot, have an existence outside her body.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Does the mother's right to personal autonomy outweigh the right to life of a non-viable fetus merely because you assert that it is?

Or is this a conclusion for which you have an argument?

A non-viable fetus has no "right to life". What would be the source of such a right? Certainly Nature has left it totally inside a person's body. Where has it gained the "right" to force a person to sustain it inside that person's body? Do the germs that cause bad breath have a "right to life", also? Or a tapeworm?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
You should be interested in this hypothetical. It purports to illustrate a flaw in your argument. A profession of disinterest is not a counterargument.

Purport all you want. Natural Rights derive from the nature of reality in this universe, not from a hypothetical other universe.