Post Reply
Page 47 of 51  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 51 Next
Switch to Forum Live View An Abortion Super Center
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 12:30PM #461
arielg
Posts: 9,116

So, I think, in terms of a reasonable modern societal standard, "human life begins at birth" is no more tenable than "human life begins at conception".


 


In terms of my standards ( I don't think much of "societal standards" )"conception" means beginning.   From there, it is all development.


Birth is just life continuing and developing outside the womb.


A lot of people think it is OK to put an end to it.  A lot of people also see nothing wrong with killing and torturing "the enemy".   That is why I don't put too much into "societal standards".  I'll live and die based on mine.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 12:38PM #462
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:00AM, TemplarS wrote:

MM, this is interesting.  I'd be curious to hear from the Fundamentalist/literalist folks- if it really does say this, and mean this, what is their response?


Of course, my response  (which, curiously, is usually used against the conservatives) is that scripture is not an absolute, does not stand on its own, and must always be viewed with an eye towards both the context in which it was written and that in which it is being read.



Also the beliefs of the society that wrote the text needs to be understood. From what I've read most of the societies in that area, and era, believed in life starting upon first breath. The apologists always bring up some quote taken out of context and twisted to mean what they want it to. They do the same for any argument.


The point here being (as in other cases) we know a lot more about things now, from a scientific and perhaps moral perspective. We have fetal heartbeat monitors, we know how and when bodily systems, including brains,  develop; and we now know that children are capable of surviving well before completion of normal term.


So, I think, in terms of a reasonable modern societal standard, "human life begins at birth" is no more tenable than "human life begins at conception".  This is the case put forward by the Roe decision, and so far as I can tell it is also the sense of the American people (where less than 20% think abortion should be legal in all cases, and less than 20 % think it should be illegal in all cases).



My mention of "first breath" was not in any way to set that as the actual begining of "life" but to show that the christians claim their religion tells them life begins at conception is not supported by their religious text. Most PCs would go along with the fetus being developed enough at 26 weeks, or over one pound, to make abortions after that point to be for medical reasons only. Babies can survive a week or two earlier than that, but the complications problems that occur make it very risky.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:26PM #463
arielg
Posts: 9,116

I think there is an individual responsibility and there is a societal one.


Life may begin at conception, but society's involvement should begin at birth.   For society, the imposition of laws and civil rights should begin  at birth.  Before that it is the right and responsibility of the mother based on her moral understanding.


Basically because there is no way to truly enforce civil rights on an unborn individual.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:39PM #464
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,553

Jan 18, 2010 -- 12:23PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jan 18, 2010 -- 8:42AM, LeahOne wrote:

You are correct about that, MM - and I do follow Torah.  I do not, however, think that my religious beliefs should be the basis of US Law because that is not the way our FF designed the system - and because such religious 'affiliation' would pollute the Constitution, and dilute the civil liberties of ALL of us.



I wasn't saying your beliefs should be, but I was commenting on those that believe that book says life begins at conception. There is no support for it in the OT/Torah. From my readings in sociology it was a common belief going back thousands of years that life began on first breath. They saw babies being born and not moving for the first second or so, then it took that first breath, then the baby cried and started moving. It is a recent belief in the christian religion that "life" begins at conception.


Indeed, there is a strong tradition in 'post-Exilic' Judaism (ca 586 BCE) of placing the country's laws *above* those of Torah if there's a conflict - this assumes said laws wouldn't require us to violate the most basic principles of Judaism, like monotheism.



No religious belief should be enacted into law. When that happens, people suffer. The Founding Fathers saw that and did not want that for their new country.




Historically, the belief was that life began at the point of quickening, when you could feel the child move in the womb, not just when the child took it's first breath after birth.


 

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:40PM #465
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,553

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:00AM, TemplarS wrote:


Jan 17, 2010 -- 10:12PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jan 17, 2010 -- 6:28PM, LeahOne wrote:

...I wouldn't venture to say *when* anyone becomes ensouled.....



How many references in the Torah, or the Old Testament, are there to "first breath"? There must be at least a dozen such references to life starting, or ensoulment, upon the first breath, the breath of life, and all that jazz. Gen 2:7 is one such reference that comes to mind. Not one reference about life/ensoulment at conception. That is if one believes in such bible stuff.






MM, this is interesting.  I'd be curious to hear from the Fundamentalist/literalist folks- if it really does say this, and mean this, what is their response?


Of course, my response  (which, curiously, is usually used against the conservatives) is that scripture is not an absolute, does not stand on its own, and must always be viewed with an eye towards both the context in which it was written and that in which it is being read.


The point here being (as in other cases) we know a lot more about things now, from a scientific and perhaps moral perspective. We have fetal heartbeat monitors, we know how and when bodily systems, including brains,  develop; and we now know that children are capable of surviving well before completion of normal term.


So, I think, in terms of a reasonable modern societal standard, "human life begins at birth" is no more tenable than "human life begins at conception".  This is the case put forward by the Roe decision, and so far as I can tell it is also the sense of the American people (where less than 20% think abortion should be legal in all cases, and less than 20 % think it should be illegal in all cases). 


 




The Genesis verse refers only to Adam and the moment that God first created man as a whole.  That same verse then goes on to say that man and animal will go forth and create their own kind, i.e., the process of conception through sex and then birth.  There are many verses where God is referenced to being within us in the womb, including the verse in Psalms that specifically says that He weaved us in our mother's womb. There is also reference that John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit while in the womb and leapt for joy.


"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:42PM #466
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Jan 18, 2010 -- 1:40PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:00AM, TemplarS wrote:


Jan 17, 2010 -- 10:12PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jan 17, 2010 -- 6:28PM, LeahOne wrote:

...I wouldn't venture to say *when* anyone becomes ensouled.....



How many references in the Torah, or the Old Testament, are there to "first breath"? There must be at least a dozen such references to life starting, or ensoulment, upon the first breath, the breath of life, and all that jazz. Gen 2:7 is one such reference that comes to mind. Not one reference about life/ensoulment at conception. That is if one believes in such bible stuff.






MM, this is interesting.  I'd be curious to hear from the Fundamentalist/literalist folks- if it really does say this, and mean this, what is their response?


Of course, my response  (which, curiously, is usually used against the conservatives) is that scripture is not an absolute, does not stand on its own, and must always be viewed with an eye towards both the context in which it was written and that in which it is being read.


The point here being (as in other cases) we know a lot more about things now, from a scientific and perhaps moral perspective. We have fetal heartbeat monitors, we know how and when bodily systems, including brains,  develop; and we now know that children are capable of surviving well before completion of normal term.


So, I think, in terms of a reasonable modern societal standard, "human life begins at birth" is no more tenable than "human life begins at conception".  This is the case put forward by the Roe decision, and so far as I can tell it is also the sense of the American people (where less than 20% think abortion should be legal in all cases, and less than 20 % think it should be illegal in all cases). 


 




The Genesis verse refers only to Adam and the moment that God first created man as a whole.  That same verse then goes on to say that man and animal will go forth and create their own kind, i.e., the process of conception through sex and then birth.  There are many verses where God is referenced to being within us in the womb, including the verse in Psalms that specifically says that He weaved us in our mother's womb. There is also reference that John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit while in the womb and leapt for joy.





 


Which is all fine.  But it is theology and ideology, not science.


Theology is specifically excluded from our government by the First Amendment.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:52PM #467
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Jan 18, 2010 -- 1:39PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Historically, the belief was that life began at the point of quickening, when you could feel the child move in the womb, not just when the child took it's first breath after birth.



That is recent history. Before that they believed life began upon first breath as I already explained.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:52PM #468
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Jan 18, 2010 -- 12:24PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jan 18, 2010 -- 9:41AM, arielg wrote:

The point is that it is about you, not about the car or the fetus.



Still bizarre. It made no sense.





It may be bizarre if you insist in taking it literally.  There is no way to ascertain anything separated from the point of view of the individual who makes the asserting. That is all I am saying.


Most people first have an idea of what it is and then use reasoning to justify it. Sacred old books and such is just ammunition to impose one's views.


The same car or fetus may be a wonderful  thing or a meaningless nothing.  The meaning depends on what values one gives to things.  An individual who perceives the sacredness of life in all it's forms will perceive differently  than one who sees life as a  bunch of happenings with no fundamental  meaning. There is no objectivity in it, no matter how much "scienticfic" facts one may use.


Whether life begins at conception or not is  a matter of opinion and opinions are based on basic beliefs and experiences.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 1:54PM #469
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Jan 18, 2010 -- 1:40PM, Girlchristian wrote:

The Genesis verse refers only to Adam and the moment that God first created man as a whole.  That same verse then goes on to say that man and animal will go forth and create their own kind, i.e., the process of conception through sex and then birth.  There are many verses where God is referenced to being within us in the womb, including the verse in Psalms that specifically says that He weaved us in our mother's womb. There is also reference that John the Baptist received the Holy Spirit while in the womb and leapt for joy.



All taken out of context and applied to the whole. The SOCIETY at the time believed that life began on first breath. There are numerous references to that in the OT/Torah and other writings from the time. If you take the Torah/OT out of the context of the period, you will get a perverted  understanding of it.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 2:00PM #470
mountain_man
Posts: 40,209

Jan 18, 2010 -- 1:52PM, arielg wrote:


Jan 18, 2010 -- 12:24PM, mountain_man wrote:


Still bizarre. It made no sense.





It may be bizarre if you insist in taking it literally. ...


...Whether life begins at conception or not is  a matter of opinion and opinions are based on basic beliefs and experiences.



That's probably where I got confused; the reason for your claims. I've never stated otherwise so I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say. It's a common practice around here to try an argue about something the other person never said or even hinted at, or in other words to prove what the person did not say is wrong.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 47 of 51  •  Prev 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 ... 51 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook