1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseThat seems inaccurate; the verse clearly states that the judges would determine the fine in case of accidental abortion. And the Talmud makes clear that fetuses were never considered persons before birth. My self-autonomy rationale whereby a viable fetus has fundamental rights seems to be more protective of fetuses than OT law.
I don't want to distract into a debate on Exodus 21, but here's my 2 cents on the matter:
This text should be taken in context of the embryological knowledge of its time...
The "fruit of the womb" (a few week old embryo) was possibly not considered human as it didn't resemble as much and a early miscarriage was not significantly different from a ...[text shortened]... death;
Anyways, just a turd marble to balance the views and give the other side of the coin.
Originally posted by no1marauderFair enough, I was just throwing it out for what it's worth...
That seems inaccurate; the verse clearly states that the judges would determine the fine in case of accidental abortion. And the Talmud makes clear that fetuses were never considered persons before birth. My self-autonomy rationale whereby a viable fetus has fundamental rights seems to be protective of fetuses than OT law.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou are incapable of presenting a rational argument and just keep repeating the same assertions over and over again. Moreover, you seem absolutely ignorant of basic texts that set forth the political philosophy this country is based on. Plus you don't even know what your own Holy Scripture says on the matter! I'd say my characterizations of you are mild in light of the irrationality of your "arguments" i.e. screeching about pretend dead babies.
God decides who's stupid. It seems that name calling and personal attacks are your main basis for argument.
Originally posted by no1marauderBlah Blah Blah I think you must of come from an abusive family or something.
You are incapable of presenting a rational argument and just keep repeating the same assertions over and over again. Moreover, you seem absolutely ignorant of basic texts that set forth the political philosophy this country is based on. Plus you don't even know what your own Holy Scripture says on the matter! I'd say my characterizations of you are mild in light of the irrationality of your "arguments" i.e. screeching about pretend dead babies.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI came from a family that knew how to have rational discussions and support their arguments with facts and logic. That was a great good fortune. You apparently came from a family that was spoon fed certain beliefs and accepted them uncritically. I was also fortunate enough to have available for my study and to read the works of the great men who's political philosophy based on individual rights and personal freedom created this country. You probably had the same materials available, but choose not to avail yourself of these wonderful resources. That was your decision, but it is a most unfortunate one when you enter into a debate needing knowledge of history, law and philosophy that you so obviously lack. Thus you have only emotional catch phrases and assertions based on a flawed understanding of your own religion to fall back on. Not very persuasive to say the least.
Blah Blah Blah I think you must of come from an abusive family or something.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd let me guess, this fine family of yours taught you to belittle those who have different views than you at every possible opportunity.
I came from a family that knew how to have rational discussions and support their arguments with facts and logic. That was a great good fortune. You apparently came from a family that was spoon fed certain beliefs and accepted them uncritically. I was also fortunate enough to have available for my study and to read the works of the great men who's polit ...[text shortened]... flawed understanding of your own religion to fall back on. Not very persuasive to say the least.
I’m guessing they probably abused you in this way as well. Like father like son.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloHave you consulted that dictionary yet? Your support of the DCT causes you to continually insert extra assumptions into these debates that are not justified.
[b]each (dis)belief puts you on a different path of "truth". Most theists err on the side of life, most atheists on the side of freedom. That is a fundamental difference and as such, "life" is not necessarily sacred within a atheistic context.
Come on Halitose: you are smarter than this. Have you consulted that dictionary yet? Your support of ...[text shortened]... what are your good reasons? You said "Step up or step down, folks." You need to step up too.[/b]
DCT - Depth Charge Trooper? Kidding...
I don't recall a Divine Command Theory debate and relish the prospect of one.
The existence or non-existence of God carries no moral implications.
Perhaps one of moral accountability and responsibility to a power higher than the state...
Wether or not He exists, we still need to answer the really hard questions for ourselves, like "What ought I to do?"
True, for me the Bible is a moral compass not the be-all-and-end-all of ethics and morality.
I am not going to concede the floor to your misguided notions here.
Very well. I will revoke my statement as it is hardly of any importance to this discussion and just adds to the plethora of prejudice saturating a debate such as this one.
You keep saying "life" is sacred. A plant is a living thing. So is a plant's life sacred?
It was in the context of human life... Plants don't have rights, humans do.
It has to do with moral considerability. Why do you think moral considerability is conferred at conception?
That zygote is a (genetically) unique, developing human being.
Some people bite the skin off the ends of their fingers. How is that practice different from aborting the young fetus?
The skin at the end of your finger, is just a small part of the complete human body. It won't reproduce cells any different from epidermal ones. A young fetus is a whole growing human body contained in itself. Untill the day this fetus/human dies of old age, there will be nothing but oxygen and nutrition added. A fetus is, in totality, a complete human being and will grow into a fully mature adult if given time. Any one of hundreds of millions or billions of the cells in a human’s body can die and we do not say that human has died. When a single fertilized ovum cell dies, however, the entire new human being dies.
Invariably, I think you will have to appeal to the potentiality of the young fetus as being the distinguishing characteristic.
It is not potentially a human, it is a unique human. The only difference it that it is still developing the cognitive abilities that have been arbitrarily (I use the term loosely) assigned for the recognition of its personhood.