29 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI guess abortion is decided to be killing an infant as soon as we decide that the unborn is or has become an infant. Or we can hold to the view that the unborn is merely a parasitic entity that spends all its time sucking the life out of its mother host until she deems it time to end its feeding frenzy based on her right to do so. That is until the unborn magically appears from the womb and is then cronwed the protected infant human baby!!!!!! But I think thats only common sense.😛
So when do we decide abortion is killing an an infant.
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, I haven't figured that one out. I do think, however, the RCC should get off its collective ash and allow birth control by direct means, like the pill, etc., so we can avoid the whole issue for the most part. If the sperm never meets the egg, there will be no abortion. Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absolute numbers would go way down if the RCC changes its rules.
It sounds like you've already decided.
I assume fundamentalists believe an infant is formed if the sperm touches the egg, even before the egg starts dividing, which is nuts in my perfectly unhumble opinion.
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by sonhouseObviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absolute numbers would go way down if the RCC changes its rules.
No, I haven't figured that one out. I do think, however, the RCC should get off its collective ash and allow birth control by direct means, like the pill, etc., so we can avoid the whole issue for the most part. If the sperm never meets the egg, there will be no abortion. Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absol ...[text shortened]... s the egg, even before the egg starts dividing, which is nuts in my perfectly unhumble opinion.
And why exactly is that necessarily a good thing?
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.
No, I haven't figured that one out. I do think, however, the RCC should get off its collective ash and allow birth control by direct means, like the pill, etc., so we can avoid the whole issue for the most part. If the sperm never meets the egg, there will be no abortion. Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absol ...[text shortened]... s the egg, even before the egg starts dividing, which is nuts in my perfectly unhumble opinion.
29 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOr so you believe, which is not the same thing as reality. It happens to be YOUR reality but it often turns out reality is not what you believe.
Well, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.
For instance, do you believe Dophins have souls? Bonobo's? If not, then is abortion a non issue for those species, even though they may have human or near human intelligence? If, in your view, they don't have souls, then what would be the big deal of aborting a fetus 10 minutes before it would have been naturally born? Is it the presence of the 'soul' that makes abortion a big deal for fundies?
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.'
Well, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.
Really? Where does it say that?
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerBecause, in case you hadn't noticed, the planet is way overpopulated with humans at the moment.
[b] Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absolute numbers would go way down if the RCC changes its rules.
And why exactly is that necessarily a good thing?[/b]
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI never knew that the bible said life begins at birth. Why is it always the religious fundamentalists who insist that it begins at conception, then?
Well, your unhumble opinion is closer to the truth than the accused fundamentalists find themselves. The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.' Biological life begins at conception, but human life (i.e., soul life) begins at birth with the creation of the soul by God.
29 Dec 06
Originally posted by sonhouseI think the question is more like " why do we decide that because an infant is encased in 1 inch or so of muscle and tissue and is a bit younger that it has less rights to life than an infant who is a few feet outside" It has a brain , legs , feet etc . Is it because it can't survive on it's own? (because a baby can't) Is it because it can't think or is underdeveloped? (babies aren't either)
So when do we decide abortion is killing an an infant.
This is a difficult question and I sympathise with mothers who feel they have to abort.. There are two sides to this.
The most interesting thing I've seen on this is when a woman protested by holding up large pictures of babies who had been legally aborted (chopped up limbs and all). She was arrested (in the UK I think) on the grounds the pictures were offensive and obscene. Her argument was that if the pictures were obsene how could the practice not be?. She felt that society should be able to stomach the reality of the abortion laws. If it can't then why pass them.It's the same argument that says you should only eat meat if you can handle a visit to an abatoir or vote for war if you know what it actually entails on the ground.