-->
@YeshuaBought
The church has been against abortion since the Roman Empire.
Christianity is very much against child sacrifice.
Can Christians be prochoice?
Posts
Total:
109
-->
@zedvictor4
@ludofl3x
Abortion baD
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Nuanced argument :)
-->
@ludofl3x
it is bad because it killing
-->
@ludofl3x
Am I inconsistent with my view that both have equal value by saving one and not the other?To be more precise, it's not "one" or "the other". It's "one" or "one thousand." All of the reasoning about why you'd save the three year old is why we'd ALL save the three year old. We get that part, you didn't need to restate it. I'm not trying to find fault in a position with which I agree (save the actual baby), I'm pointing out that your decision is at odds with what your stated beliefs are: all embryos past fertilization are in fact every bit as alive and precious as the three year old. Yet you still saved 999 less lives.
And I gave my reasons why.
I object to the pigeon-holing as a fact that I don't think the 10 or 1000 embryos are as intrinsically valuable as any other life. Yes, I identify and relate more with the child yet I see both groups as deserving of life and protection.Well, okay, but you didn't save the box with 1000 times the intrinsic value of the baby.
So you are saying that human worth is measured by the number of lives rather than that the life in question is human.
Either all human life is intrinsically valuable or some classes of human beings are expendable and not as valuable.
The other thing is that with your scenario a choice had to be made. You would condemn me no matter what choice I made. That is why the hypothetical dilemma is just that. I gave my reasons why I would save the child and if I had chosen the other scenario you would have found fault in it too.
This does not match, you see what I'm saying? There's no conditions on your pro life stance. It doesn't matter if you can't imagine the pain an embryo feels, it's still a baby to you and therefore it should be calculated exactly the same as the three year old, times 1000. You're not pro life only when the embryo has a parent already dedicated to loving it, tons of babies are born into loveless situations that will destroy their lives forever, every single day. Their parents don't care if they're dead. Can we now say "those aren't worth being pro life over" because this seems quite close to your "no one cares about those embryos enough yet" to make the box worth choosing.
Again, what is the difference between all human life being intrinsic and only certain classes or specific numbers being intrinsic? If all human life is intrinsic yet there has to be a decision made, what is wrong with saving one over the other? Does multiplying the number make the number of humans more intrinsically valuable than the one?
I am intentionally choosing to save a life in an undesirable situation when no matter what I do life will be lost.You're intentionally choosing to end the 999 lives, though, as a result. Wouldn't it make sense to minimize the loss? You're not doing that. It seems according to your own position, you're choosing something we'd call immoral: death for 1000 children for the sake of a single crying three year old.
I have the option to only save one or the other. I have given reasons for my choice. Now, would you blame me if I chose the other option? You bet you would. You would blame me no matter which option I chose.
Again, I'm not trying to find fault in your CHOICE.
That is exactly what you are trying to do.
I'm pointing out the fault in your conviction: it's not really there if you're put into a difficult spot and forced to choose on it, you choose the baby not the embryo. Clearly if the embryos weren't embryos and were instead babies, you'd make a different choice: one three year old baby versus four crying newborns. I think you're probably a good person, my guess is you'd make a difficult choice and never forgive yourself, but I think you'd choose the four.
Yes, I would unless the three-year-old was my own. There are always circumstances to weigh.
I would. You'd want to do the MOST good, right? But you chose not to save the most lives, according to your own position (all embryos = individual babies, therefore you save 1000 lives, or 200 lives or 10 instead of 1).
I save one child who is going to feel the excruciating pain over the others who I do not know will but I have been told will not. I save the child that the parents, other family members, and possibly many others have grown to love and have an emotional attachment with as opposed to the others that have not. As I said, it is my bias kicking in along with some reasoning. It is a dilemma and I will have to live with that decision. That does not mean I do not believe all human beings have intrinsic value. I do. If I could save them all I would and at the risk of my own life. That is not the scenario you presented. You made it very clear.
I don't see embryos as human beings whose rights supersede the right to bodily autonomy, it's very simple for me.
So, for you, it is alright for humans who are able to kill other innocent human beings to do so. That is a position you can think about but in practice it does not work. As soon as they turn their killing on you or your family your tune would be different, would it not?
Do I have the bodily right to kill other innocent human beings? Yet you want to give the woman that right.
Those embryos aren't lives, they're embryos.
So, you are saying the embryos are not alive and not beings. What is your evidence for this thinking?
You go contrary to the science of embryology that states that a uniquely new life starts at conception where 23 male and 23 female chromosomes from the two different donors form a new life.
If two human beings mate and conception takes place, what kind of being begins to grow? Is it a human being or some other kind of being?
I'll ask you the same questions I asked the OP creator.
Is the embryo a being?
Is it a human being if both parents are human beings.
Is it living or is it dead?
Does it have a human nature?
Are human beings personal beings by their nature?
If so, when does personhood begin? If you can't say exactly, should you not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt?
And in my experience, there's a lot of hypocrisy from the pro life side, because most of the time they don't give two shits about babies that are born into bad circumstances, they just want them born for some reason. After that, sorry poor folks, you're on your own. Praise his name, I guess.
Not as much hypocrisy as from the pro-choice.
So what you are saying is who gives a carp about whether they are human beings or not. Kill them!
What you are saying is that if you can't support it kill it.
What you are saying is that if it is dependent on another the other has the right to kill it. Would you think the same about a year-old baby who is still dependent on the mother yet she feels she cannot support it? Is it alright to kill it too? And what about grandpa? He is dependent on the granddaughter for his well-being since he can't look after himself. Is it alright to kill him?
What about you? If you are in bad circumstances, is it alright to kill you? That is where you discover that what you believe in theory cannot be lived in real life.
@golfer
I think you are in denial of what the unborn is.
Abortion ONLY concerns a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Mopac
Christianity is very much against child sacrifice.
Christianity is founded on human sacrifice.
-->
@PGA2.0
Human worth is a temporary mind state.
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm pointing out the fault in your conviction: it's not really there if you're put into a difficult spot and forced to choose on it, you choose the baby not the embryo. Clearly if the embryos weren't embryos and were instead babies, you'd make a different choice: one three year old baby versus four crying newborns. I think you're probably a good person, my guess is you'd make a difficult choice and never forgive yourself, but I think you'd choose the four.Yes, I would unless the three-year-old was my own. There are always circumstances to weigh.
This undercuts your entire argument: yes, there are circumstances to weigh. This is a pro-choice argument. Everything else is nonsense in your post: I don't see the embryos as people, as human beings, and neither do you. If you did, you'd be a monster for letting 1000 babies die to save 1. You're not. I'm not. THis is patently different from whatever weird killing scenario you're trying to make equivalent. Pro choce does not = THe Purge. Your last paragraph is talking about people, not embryos.
-->
@PGA2.0
So, you are saying the embryos are not alive and not beings
No, read it again. I'm not saying they aren't alive. I'm saying they're not the same as a baby. So are you, because one baby > 1000 embryos. This is extremely simple, you've already demonstrated it.
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you saying there is no intrinsic value to being a human being? If so, why is there such moral outrage to genocide, devaluing human beings, dehumanization, and discrimination?Human worth is a temporary mind state.
Are you saying that the value of humans shifts so that we can't know whether human beings are intrinsically valuable?
If the idea of human worth is a temporary mindstate what makes human worth valid? Is there any valid reason or should we just terminate those we do not like if we have the power to do so like so many dictators do (Hitler, Kim Jong-un, Xi, Castro, Pol Pot, as so on)?
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm pointing out the fault in your conviction: it's not really there if you're put into a difficult spot and forced to choose on it, you choose the baby not the embryo. Clearly if the embryos weren't embryos and were instead babies, you'd make a different choice: one three year old baby versus four crying newborns. I think you're probably a good person, my guess is you'd make a difficult choice and never forgive yourself, but I think you'd choose the four.Yes, I would unless the three-year-old was my own. There are always circumstances to weigh.This undercuts your entire argument: yes, there are circumstances to weigh. This is a pro-choice argument. Everything else is nonsense in your post: I don't see the embryos as people, as human beings, and neither do you. If you did, you'd be a monster for letting 1000 babies die to save 1. You're not. I'm not. THis is patently different from whatever weird killing scenario you're trying to make equivalent. Pro choce does not = THe Purge. Your last paragraph is talking about people, not embryos.
No, it does not. I am saying I would have a bias to protect my own. That does not in any way mean that I view the human embryos as less than human beings, just less developed than other human beings but just as human. What other kinds of being could they be? Is a human embryo a dog? So, my argument is not a pro-choice argument and I believe you are trying your utmost to influence the thought process by such insinuations. It is nuts to suggest my view is pro-choice and muddy the waters.
The pro-choice argument gives the woman the "right" to kill another human being. Over 1.5 billion unborn killed since 1980 which makes it the greatest and best-kept human genocide in the history of the world to date. And the pro-choice nonchalantly ignores the whole atrocity and steers public opinion to accept such barbary. It sickens me.
Now, as for my decision to SAVE one over the other, I do it based on what I perceive is that the embryo does not feel the pain to the same extent the three-year-old does plus the emotional attachment of the parents and others being far greater. So, it is a decision base on perception and compassion. If you can convince me otherwise regarding the pain levels or the emotional attachment I would choose the other scenario. To date, you have ignored that.
Choosing one or the other does in no way mean I regard the embryos as any less human than the three-year-old. I know what you ignore and deny, the unborn is as much a human being as the three-year-old, just less developed in its structure/formation and awareness. Thus, I reason the three-year-old would feel much more pain and would be more sorely missed because of the three years of emotional attachments made. These things are the bias I have which leads me to save the more developed human being. I can only save one or the other. I'm pretty sure you would demonize me for either choice.
Now, your statement that everything else is nonsense is, in my opinion, a ploy to avoid a discussion on whether the embryos are human beings and personal beings. You just present what you want others to glean from your own biased beliefs while ignoring the most important thing - what is the embryo and what difference does it make?
I don't see the embryos as people, as human beings, and neither do you.
Are human beings by nature personal beings?
What kind of being is the embryo if its parents are human beings? Can you answer that, or do you not see the unborn/embryo as a being? Do I need to refer to science to debate this with you?
No, you are twisting my beliefs to fit your beliefs. It is nonsense and false to say I do not see the embryo as a human being. It is not true to my belief. Why are you telling me what I believe because I only have the choice to save one or the other? I have given you the reasons for my choice. If I had given you the other answer I'm sure you would have had issues with it too, judging from what you have written regarding your take on what the embryo is.
What you have said reveals an uninformed opinion about what human embryos are. To say, "I don't see the embryos as people" goes against logic. Unless there is a genetic deformity all human beings are personal beings by nature. Show me they are not. The difference between an embryo and a three-year-old or a twenty-year-old is the level of development and growth in personality.
When you say, "I don't see the embryos as human beings" does that change the fact that they are beings and they are human? No, and you would be hard-pressed to show they are not from conception. Science supports that from conception a new, unique human being begins to grow and develop.
-->
@PGA2.0
Why are you telling me what I believe because I only have the choice to save one or the other?
Because the answer you've given, save the baby, the only way that answer isn't monstrous is if you don't see the 1000 embryos as 1000 babies.
Now, as for my decision to SAVE one over the other, I do it based on what I perceive is that the embryo does not feel the pain to the same extent the three-year-old does plus the emotional attachment of the parents and others being far greater. So, it is a decision base on perception and compassion. If you can convince me otherwise regarding the pain levels or the emotional attachment I would choose the other scenario.
At what point does the embryo feel enough pain to change your decision? You're basing your decision on compassion for a baby and its parents. Is there ever a compassionate stance for forcing a parent to carry to term the baby who will live in pain for two weeks then die and leave them with a lifetime of grief and guilt? We can all use emotional language, bro. You also say you're basing it on your PERCEPTION of the level of pain a third party, the embryo, feels. How much pain does a six week old embryo feel?
I've said three times now I do not see human embryos the same as I see human babies. They're just not.
Science supports that from conception a new, unique human being begins to grow and develop.
Science support that a new human EMBRYO begins to grow and develop, yes, no disagreement there. Yet here you are, totally comfortable dooming through your inaction 1000 people to save one crying baby.
I would be interested in debating abortion (or some derivative) should anyone be interested. I'm pro-choice. Send me a message if interested.
-->
@ludofl3x
So, you are saying the embryos are not alive and not beingsNo, read it again. I'm not saying they aren't alive. I'm saying they're not the same as a baby. So are you, because one baby > 1000 embryos. This is extremely simple, you've already demonstrated it.
Okay, have it your way then. You are saying they are alive. What does that mean? Are they beings? If so, what KIND of beings are human embryos? Are they human beings or other kinds of beings?
I read what you said. You said, "I don't see the embryos as people, as human beings, and neither do you."
Now you say "they are alive." You are saying they are not the same as the three-year-old in their level of development but they are also not as human in their nature and being. Show me otherwise.
That is important to note. If you come round to the point that the embryo is a human being you have problems and I believe this is why you deny it being a human being. It is ludicrous. IF the level of development (i.e., not the same) in human beings disqualifies the embryo from being a human being then that same logic (or lack of it) of being less developed could disqualify others who are less developed and not the same such as the three-year-old in relation to the twenty-year-old and the twenty-year-old in relation to a yet older beings, and so on. Is that the bases you want to judge whether someone should live or die, by their level of development?
Show the human embryo is not human and show the human embryo is not a being. If you can't do that to some degree of factual evidence then you have a bigger problem than I originally thought. Now, if it is a human being (which you have denied) then it is partly/only the level of development that denies you supporting it the right to live. But, as I argued above, that could apply to any human being who is less developed as giving the more developed the "right" to kill it. And where does it stop?
So, your logic and reasoning are very flawed to date.
Now, if you want to argue that the woman has the right to choose what is done to her own body, that is a different argument and we can analyze that, but first I want you to clarify your beliefs regarding the embryo and its 1) being, 2) humanness. I would say in regards to point 1 you need to clarify what a being is and if the unborn/embryo would qualify.
-->
@PGA2.0
So you are saying then that human embryos = people?
I never claimed a human embryo isn't a human (it's in the name) and that it isn't a "being." It's just not the same as a person. You don't make the distinction, which to me is problematic because thereby you have legitimately killed 1000 people by saving 1 baby, and is at odds with your assertion that the second a sperm successfully fertilizes an egg, it's the exact same thing as a child. If they were, you wouldn't have to make all these other assumptions about how much pain it's capable of feeling, how it doesn't have parents who love it (it does have parents, and will have parents to love it if born), how sad everyone would be and so on and so forth. You would just say "It's better to save 1000 people than 1," and that would be consistent with 1000 embryos = 1000 people. It just strikes me as strange that you'd allow for circumstances for yourself to make the choice to kill 1000 people, but you wouldn't for someone who actually has to carry that child at risk to their own health and future well being.
But, as I argued above, that could apply to any human being who is less developed as giving the more developed the "right" to kill it. And where does it stop?
Once it's born and becomes a baby, not an embryo. Very simple.
-->
@ludofl3x
Why are you telling me what I believe because I only have the choice to save one or the other?Because the answer you've given, save the baby, the only way that answer isn't monstrous is if you don't see the 1000 embryos as 1000 babies.
This is an either/or fallacy or bogus dilemma concerning what I believe about the embryo. The premise is that I see the three-year-old as a human being and not the embryos as human beings, or I would save the 1000 embryos. I gave you a third option and many more so that your either/or is exposed.
Now, as for my decision to SAVE one over the other, I do it based on what I perceive is that the embryo does not feel the pain to the same extent the three-year-old does plus the emotional attachment of the parents and others being far greater. So, it is a decision base on perception and compassion. If you can convince me otherwise regarding the pain levels or the emotional attachment I would choose the other scenario.At what point does the embryo feel enough pain to change your decision? You're basing your decision on compassion for a baby and its parents. Is there ever a compassionate stance for forcing a parent to carry to term the baby who will live in pain for two weeks then die and leave them with a lifetime of grief and guilt? We can all use emotional language, bro. You also say you're basing it on your PERCEPTION of the level of pain a third party, the embryo, feels. How much pain does a six week old embryo feel?
At what point? I still do not know if the embryo feels pain.
How much pain? I do not know how much pain if any, the embryo feels. I know it is not as aware as in later stages of development. Its brain and neurology are still forming. Thus, at the present time, my choice is based on a lack of knowledge of the one as opposed to the other. As I said, if you can convince me otherwise I will change my view on who to save but not my view on whether both are valuable human beings.
Remember, the choice was which one to save, since only ONE or the OTHER could be saved. In the case of pro-choice, the woman is opting not to save but to kill. I do not choose to kill but my choice will result in the death of the one or the others. It is a dilemma on who to save.
The pro-choice issue brings up many moral issues, chiefly whether all human beings have intrinsic value and if they don't what is wrong with one dominate group killing another or devaluing/discriminating against another? It also brings up the moral question of justice if not all human beings are treated equally? It makes justice a farce if humans are not treated equally and the embryos included because of what they are.
I've said three times now I do not see human embryos the same as I see human babies. They're just not.
Fine, you don't see them the same. Now justify they are not the same kind of being or even that they are not a being if you feel that to be the case. You admit they are alive. What does that mean? Does it mean they are beings? If they are beings and they are human embryos then are they not human beings? If so, then what you object to must be the level of development. You see it reasonable to kill some human beings just because they are not as developed as other human beings. Thus, if that is the case (lack of development), then you do not see all human beings deserving of equal treatment or equal justice. Correct?
Science supports that from conception a new, unique human being begins to grow and develop.Science support that a new human EMBRYO begins to grow and develop, yes, no disagreement there. Yet here you are, totally comfortable dooming through your inaction 1000 people to save one crying baby.
Your language is obscure. Please spell it out so I can understand your meaning.
What is a human embryo? Is it a human being or some other kind of being or does it not exist as a uniquely separate entity or being? Define what you mean by being.
***
The one or the other is doomed no matter what I do. That is why it is a dilemma.
Again, I have stated my reasoning. If you can convince me the embryo feels excruciating pain like the three-year-old would and if you can convince me that the emotional lose will be as great and affect as many people then you have won your argument. I will then, given another opportunity to save the one or the others, I will save the others.
-->
@PGA2.0
In the interest of keeping this discussion productive, I'll ignore the part where you seem to think I endorse eugenics or that it's okay to kill people because they're not as developed as me. It's very, very simple: once you're born, you are no longer a human embryo. You are now part of PEOPLE. People all have intrinsic value and rights. I'm not using the term being at all, that's your language. Human Embryo. Person. That's it.What is a human embryo? Is it a human being or some other kind of being or does it not exist as a uniquely separate entity or being? Define what you mean by being.
I'm not trying to convince you that you made the wrong choice. I'm saying it's inconsistent with embryos = people. That's it. Go to your crazy talking points about how this ends up with lawlessness and ignore the facts of the matter all you like, but neither one of us really equates embryos with people. I'd save the baby. You'd save the baby. That's all there is to it.
-->
@ludofl3x
So you are saying then that human embryos = people?
Yes, because human beings are personal beings by NATURE and the embryo is a human being.
Are you willing to argue that human beings are not personal beings because personhood is not built into their nature?
I never claimed a human embryo isn't a human (it's in the name) and that it isn't a "being." It's just not the same as a person.
Actually, this is not what you have said. You said, "I don't see the embryos as people, as human beings, and neither do you."
I take your statement to mean two things, you don't see the embryos as people and you don't see the embryos as human beings.
What is more, you also said, "Those embryos aren't lives, they're embryos."
You are being very inconsistent. If, as you have previously said, embryos are not "lives," then if it is not a life, how is it a being?
Now, what makes it different ("not the same as") from other human beings other than its level of development?
If you want to disqualify human beings from living based on their level of development 1) you are discriminating against some, 2) there is no equal "justice" here, 3) how can there be any objection by you to others more developed than you doing the same with you?
You don't make the distinction, which to me is problematic because thereby you have legitimately killed 1000 people by saving 1 baby, and is at odds with your assertion that the second a sperm successfully fertilizes an egg, it's the exact same thing as a child. If they were, you wouldn't have to make all these other assumptions about how much pain it's capable of feeling, how it doesn't have parents who love it (it does have parents, and will have parents to love it if born), how sad everyone would be and so on and so forth. You would just say "It's better to save 1000 people than 1," and that would be consistent with 1000 embryos = 1000 people. It just strikes me as strange that you'd allow for circumstances for yourself to make the choice to kill 1000 people, but you wouldn't for someone who actually has to carry that child at risk to their own health and future well being.
The difference is that there is a choice to save. I do not choose to kill. It is the outcome that I cannot change that the child or the many embryos will die. The woman and you choose to kill. I do not. Hence, to me, your choice is morally abhorrent and reprehensible.
But, as I argued above, that could apply to any human being who is less developed as giving the more developed the "right" to kill it. And where does it stop?Once it's born and becomes a baby, not an embryo. Very simple.
So, it is okay to kill/murder some human beings because they are less developed, thus, justice is not equally applied by you and where there is no equal justice there is none. Furthermore, you arbitrarily decide it is okay to kill human beings up to a particular stage of development and no further.
Why does birth give human beings "rights," rather than by nature of what they are? What changes one minute before birth as opposed to one minute after birth other than the unborn is now born and on the outside, i.e., its environment? You are willing to kill or have the unborn killed but that changes as soon as it is born. Are you saying that the environment is the difference? If so, then should I not be permitted to kill others because of where they live or because of their environment? Does the environment determine the worth of a human being and if it should live or die?
-->
@ludofl3x
What is a human embryo? Is it a human being or some other kind of being or does it not exist as a uniquely separate entity or being? Define what you mean by being.In the interest of keeping this discussion productive, I'll ignore the part where you seem to think I endorse eugenics or that it's okay to kill people because they're not as developed as me. It's very, very simple: once you're born, you are no longer a human embryo. You are now part of PEOPLE. People all have intrinsic value and rights. I'm not using the term being at all, that's your language. Human Embryo. Person. That's it.
Good! You do not believe it is okay to kill human beings just because they are not as developed as you!!! Since the unborn is a human being and not as developed why are you then endorsing the woman's right to kill it?
Ah, personhood! So you are making personhood contingent on being born and contingent on killing human beings. Now prove that is the case that personhood starts at birth or else your starting point is arbitrary. As I mentioned in my last post, the difference from one minute before to one minute after birth, biologically, is the environment. So, it is okay with you to kill human beings because of where they reside. Correct? If not, why?
I'm not trying to convince you that you made the wrong choice. I'm saying it's inconsistent with embryos = people. That's it. Go to your crazy talking points about how this ends up with lawlessness and ignore the facts of the matter all you like, but neither one of us really equates embryos with people. I'd save the baby. You'd save the baby. That's all there is to it.
Embryos = people. Inconsistent?
Are human beings personal beings by nature? If not by nature, can you give evidence other than by a severe genetic defect, that a human being is not a personal being? Thus, again, I think you are killing the human being because of its level of development at the same time telling me that it is not something you believe is justified to kill it because of its level of development, per the first paragraph.
No, that is not all there is to it. The most important issue in the whole debate on killing the unborn is 1) what is it, 2) what difference does it make or to put it differently, should ALL human beings be treated equally (thus with justice)? Apparently, you say no, they should not all be treated equally under the law (human equality).
-->
@ludofl3x
What is a human embryo? Is it a human being or some other kind of being or does it not exist as a uniquely separate entity or being? Define what you mean by being.In the interest of keeping this discussion productive, I'll ignore the part where you seem to think I endorse eugenics or that it's okay to kill people because they're not as developed as me. It's very, very simple: once you're born, you are no longer a human embryo. You are now part of PEOPLE. People all have intrinsic value and rights. I'm not using the term being at all, that's your language. Human Embryo. Person. That's it.I'm not trying to convince you that you made the wrong choice. I'm saying it's inconsistent with embryos = people. That's it. Go to your crazy talking points about how this ends up with lawlessness and ignore the facts of the matter all you like, but neither one of us really equates embryos with people. I'd save the baby. You'd save the baby. That's all there is to it.
PS. I find the discussion very productive!
-->
@PGA2.0
Little Amir was killed by an Israeli airstrike.
You probably didn't know so you wouldn't have cared.
Read this and you might care for a few fleeting moments.
Tomorrow you will have forgotten.
Temporary mind states.
And normal hypocrisy.
-->
@PGA2.0
Good! You do not believe it is okay to kill human beings just because they are not as developed as you!!! Since the unborn is a human being and not as developed why are you then endorsing the woman's right to kill it?
Straw man. Please show me the statistics where women who choose abortions mark down "because it's not as developed as me, I'm killing it" as their reason for making the choice. This isn't my argument at all. People have rights. This addresses the paragraphs later in your post as I can see, so I'm not quoting those and responding and repeating myself.
As I mentioned in my last post, the difference from one minute before to one minute after birth, biologically, is the environment. So, it is okay with you to kill human beings because of where they reside. Correct? If not, why?
Straw man again. No one says it's okay to kill a person based on where they live (though many Christians have fought wars and killed many based largely on this principle, strange to bring it up!), and that's not the same as choosing an abortion at week 12 or 16 or 20. You have a right to bodily autonomy. No one is having an abortion one minute before birth, either.
Embryos = people. Inconsistent?
Inconsistent with choosing to let 1000 people die versus 1 and not being an immoral monster, as I see it. If the idea is to do the most good and embryos are the exact same thing as people, the only choice is to save the most you can. We've been over this and you've yet to say why that's wrong, you simply say "I chose the baby because it feels more pain I think, and probably has parents who love it."
-->
@zedvictor4
Little Amir was killed by an Israeli airstrike.You probably didn't know so you wouldn't have cared.
If I don't know how can I care? Not only that, evil has a way of hurting the innocent. Evil begets evil and if good does nothing evil grows. What was done to provoke the Israelis to attack? Are you a Palestinian Arab? Are they willing to let bygones be bygones and live in peace? Are they innocent of harming others?
Read this and you might care for a few fleeting moments.
Read what?
Tomorrow you will have forgotten.Temporary mind states.And normal hypocrisy.
Some things have remained with me since I first learned them.
-->
@YeshuaBought
Yes, of course, a Christian can be pro-choice. I'm sure you can find supporting verse in the Bible.
-->
@PGA2.0
Exactly.
Selective data management, results in selective and temporary mind states.
One is a Christian only for the temporary moments when one analyses the relevant data.
One only cares when one temporarily decides to care.
The rest of the time is spent managing the mundane but necessary, day to day existence stuff.
So pro-choice Christian?
It all depends on how the individual analyses the data and what the resultant conclusion is.
-->
@ludofl3x
Good! You do not believe it is okay to kill human beings just because they are not as developed as you!!! Since the unborn is a human being and not as developed why are you then endorsing the woman's right to kill it?Straw man.
Not a strawman. It took a long time to clarify your thinking on the subject and it is still fuzzy but you have somewhat admitted by your arguments and statements that you feel the unborn is a human being, I think. If not I have offered to give scientific evidence that it is indeed so.
Thus, I have argued the unborn are being treated differently from other human beings. Now, why is this so? You have argued that it is not a person. I have argued the opposite and have asked you to qualify whether a human being by nature is a personal being? I have not seen a reasonable reply. You have also neglected to give facts against all human beings being personal beings.
I have asked you to tell me why the unborn are being discriminated against because of their level of development. We grow in our being. A two-year-old is not as developed as a twelve-year-old or a twenty-year-old but based on its environment, its level of development, its level of dependency, or its growth (size) you have singled out the unborn human being as more expendable than these other human beings based on the woman's "right" to choose.
How is it that a woman can decide to kill/murder her innocent unborn human offspring but if she decided to kill her innocent two-year-old, twelve-year-old, or twenty-year-old it is murder? Why two different sets of rules? How is this justice? How are all human beings applied equal justice? A law is made up to exclude some. You either ignore my concerns or make an arbitrary line in the sand of personhood beginning at birth. While society has made this the standard of law is it a just law? What about the natural rights of all human beings (amazingly, this right has been recognized by the UN, except in the case of the unborn. Again, how unjust)? The most basic natural right is the right to life. You or those you support (thus agree with), deny the most helpless and defenceless members of the human society this right. By doing this it sets a president. If one group or one class can be discriminated against and terminated because they are inconvenient or because they are not seen as equally valuable, why can't others? And this has been demonstrated throughout history. People like Hitler decide for a nation that the Jews do not meet his standard of personhood, or that they are sub persons. This can be demonstrated in their literature. Then a campaign is started to influence public opinion and propagate such views on the masses. Those who oppose are smeared and pressured, sometimes with physical force to change their minds. Eventually, the unborn become devalued people or blobs of cells to the masses. Organizations like Planned Parenthood promote and justify such unfairness.
So again, one of four reasons gives the woman the impression that the unborn is not the same or not equal to other human beings and can be disposed of.
1. Size
2. Level of development
3. Environment
4. Degree of dependency
An additional argument is also present, the woman has autonomy over her body. This basically means she gets to kill another human being because of her indifference to it or because she finds it inconvenient for some reason. Very seldom is because if it is not aborted it will kill her and also die. These reasons are witnessed in the statistics of abortion. That last reason would be grounds and the only grounds, IMO, for abortion.
Please show me the statistics where women who choose abortions mark down "because it's not as developed as me, I'm killing it" as their reason for making the choice. This isn't my argument at all. People have rights. This addresses the paragraphs later in your post as I can see, so I'm not quoting those and responding and repeating myself.
Obviously, if they see it as what it is, a human being, and decide to kill it anyway, then one of the six reasons given above come into play. Either they do not think it is a valuable human being until it reaches a particular level of development (usually birth as you have also sited) or some STAGE of development during the pregnancy such as brain function and development), they consider its environment as a justification to kill it because they support it and it feeds off the nutrients they supply, some of them look upon it like a leach or parasite. Once again they ignore its human worth in exchange for their own selfish wants. They place their own wants above the needs of the most vulnerable. They figure that because its environment is their womb they have autonomy over the life of the unborn. But how does that work in our environment, outside the womb? If I sustain my living off the land do I have the right to kill you with my body if you compete for the same food source? Does its level of dependency give her the right to kill it? If so, the newborn is dependent and reliant on the same woman for its life. Why can't she just end its life because it is undesirable too? There is great harm and inconsistency taking place here. Or perhaps she feels that because of its size it does not qualify. Well, the same argument could be made for others smaller than she is if it is based on size. So, there are very few good reasons why abortion is ever justifiable.
As I mentioned in my last post, the difference from one minute before to one minute after birth, biologically, is the environment. So, it is okay with you to kill human beings because of where they reside. Correct? If not, why?Straw man again.
No, it is not.
No one says it's okay to kill a person based on where they live (though many Christians have fought wars and killed many based largely on this principle, strange to bring it up!), and that's not the same as choosing an abortion at week 12 or 16 or 20.
Yes, it is saying just that. You are saying it is okay to kill a person inside a womb as opposed to outside unless you can establish exactly when personhood begins. You have not made that argument. You have ignored it.
A womb is an environment. It is the natural living quarters of the unborn human being just like your natural living quarters are the environment of your house and the surrounding area. Now, you have made a distinction based on environment when you issue personhood outside but not inside the womb. You are also making a distinction based on level of development when you list different stages of growth (12, 16, 20 weeks) as opposed to birth. Thus, all your arguments are inconsistent and when there is an inconsistency there is something dreadfully wrong with your thinking process.
You have a right to bodily autonomy.
I do not have a right with my body or because of it to kill an innocent human being. Why does the woman?
No one is having an abortion one minute before birth, either.
That is precisely what the governor of Virginia proposes, even after birth. How was he ever elected? It is because people can't think logically for themselves, they have been moulded into a particular way of thinking, or don't care about justice in such an important issue. There may be other reasons. Those just come to the surface in my thinking.
Embryos = people. Inconsistent?Inconsistent with choosing to let 1000 people die versus 1 and not being an immoral monster, as I see it.
Well, you must be including yourself in this grouping too then since you would also save the one as opposed to the many.
I explained my reasoning and you misconstrued it to mean that I don't believe all are human beings or equally valuable. When you present such a scenario there is only one option to choose from.
If the idea is to do the most good and embryos are the exact same thing as people, the only choice is to save the most you can. We've been over this and you've yet to say why that's wrong, you simply say "I chose the baby because it feels more pain I think, and probably has parents who love it."
I have said that it is not wrong to save the one or the many. I chose to save the one based on a few considerations. The pain level, the people affected, and my own bias. If I had a bias the other way, would you still raise objections? Can you answer that?????????????????????
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly.Selective data management, results in selective and temporary mind states.One is a Christian only for the temporary moments when one analyses the relevant data.
Christianity is a worldview that affects everything you do and how you look at everything. Yes, our existence on earth is temporary but my mindset is solidified. I think largely in view of the Christian framework and have for around forty years. Yes, I have grown in my degree of commitment and understanding.
One only cares when one temporarily decides to care.The rest of the time is spent managing the mundane but necessary, day to day existence stuff.So pro-choice Christian?
You can think it but it is and you are inconsistent with the Christian teaching.
It all depends on how the individual analyses the data and what the resultant conclusion is.
The data has a factual basis to it that you either interpret correctly or are in error.
-->
@PGA2.0
I'd love to have a formal debate on abortion again. My schedule is very busy, but I would make time for you should you be interested.
-->
@PGA2.0
You have argued that it is not a person. I have argued the opposite and have asked you to qualify whether a human being by nature is a personal being?
You have not seen a reasonable response because this question doesn't make sense to me. Is a human being always a person, my answer is no. Before they're born they are embryos, zygotes, fetuses. Not people. Please clarify what a 'personal being by nature' means.
How is it that a woman can decide to kill/murder her innocent unborn human offspring but if she decided to kill her innocent two-year-old, twelve-year-old, or twenty-year-old it is murder? Why two different sets of rules?
Because an embryo is not offspring. It is an embryo. All the others are people. This is not hard
But how does that work in our environment, outside the womb?.
Your environment is not part of anyone's body anymore and you are a person.
the newborn is dependent and reliant on the same woman for its life. Why can't she just end its life because it is undesirable too?
Because, you guessed it, the newborn is a person.
there are very few good reasons why abortion is ever justifiable.
THis makes it sound like you think there are also circumstances where it IS justifiable. If you think that, say that, but this seems disingenuous as it is.
I do not have a right with my body or because of it to kill an innocent human being. Why does the woman?
Because the woman is making a choice about her OWN body. If you could carry embryos to term, I'd give you that choice to. As it is, you can only end the lives of PEOPLE. Not embryos.
Well, you must be including yourself in this grouping too then since you would also save the one as opposed to the many.
If it isn't clear, I'm not included in that group because I don't think embryos are 1000 people. I think the child is a person. I've already said if you chose the embryos I'd have disagreed, but said "At least you're consistent that the embryos are in fact people, not just cells, as I see them."