Post Reply
Page 6 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20 Next
4 years ago  ::  May 05, 2010 - 11:31PM #51
Upperlimits
Posts: 3,032

The WT link does not say how long  it takes for the  egg to be fertilized, one hour  5? Has scientist isolated the number of minutes, hours  to conception?


This is just hearsay, but I once heard a report that those little swimmers could do the job in as little as 8 minutes.


***********************************


I would say that murderers commit murder after they decide to kill another person – sadly most of those on the pro-choice side do not believe zygotes embryos or fetuses can be said to be “persons” yet. Thus to accuse them of murder is a bit over the top for me


Theo, I have to disagree with you on this one, brother. The only reason - and I stress, the ONLY REASON - they are able to say it is not a "person" is simply because that is the way that our court system has ruled on the definition of specific legal terms. If they had ruled differently - for whatever reason you can possibly devise - then these people would have no semantic argument to hide behind. Whether, or not, you call it a "person", the kid is still dead.

According to 2nd Corinthians 3:2, there are five gospels in the world. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Epistle of ones own life.  Most people will probably never read the first four.

God desires that our lives would bear spiritual fruit - not religious nuts.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 07, 2010 - 2:25PM #52
Newtonian
Posts: 12,187

Sulla Felix - If you have moved here from the discuss Jehovah's Witnesses section:


You posted to my post:


Me:


Ed - First of all, we received new light, a meal at the proper time, in our April 2009 Watchtower showing that an unborn child might be resurrected.


 You:


 


How sweet.  Was there any explanation given for this claim?  And was the problematic Jw position on resurrection addressed?   I refer, of course, to the fact that Jws insist only persons and not bodies are resurrected -- an embryo can't really be called a person, since the only identity they have is their bodies.


Yes, of course a Scriptural explanation was given.  See the Scriptures I posted also. 


You have our beliefs wrong - why is that?  We believe a human embryo is a soul, and we believe it is the soul that is resurrected from death back to life.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 07, 2010 - 3:45PM #53
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Okay ... and all your imaginary playmates and their bloodlines and their so on and such like should impact my life and my daughters' lives exactly how, since we don't believe in your myths?


We have secular law for a reason.  A person is a human being who is born and breathing; law deals with persons, not imaginary playmates and their souls and their in-your-face-God attitudes.


Abortion is legal because the person involved ... the female pregnant person ... is the only person in the situation, and therefore the only human with any legal standing.


 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 08, 2010 - 10:48PM #54
Bei1052
Posts: 986

May 7, 2010 -- 3:45PM, Tolerant Sis wrote:

We have secular law for a reason.  A person is a human being who is born and breathing; law deals with persons, not imaginary playmates and their souls and their in-your-face-God attitudes.



Corporations think your assertion is false. So do laws dealing with, say, intellectual property rights.


Abortion is legal because the person involved ... the female pregnant person ... is the only person in the situation, and therefore the only human with any legal standing.



The fact that you don't see what's comical with the above argument is, in itself, comical.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 09, 2010 - 1:55PM #55
Upperlimits
Posts: 3,032

Abortion is legal because the person involved ... the female pregnant person ... is the only person in the situation, and therefore the only human with any legal standing.


Naturally, you and I are at odds in our conclusions as to what this actually means, but this is precisely what I was saying in post 51. The embryo simply isn't "a person" with any "legal standing".


Isn't it interesting how easy it is to wipe away our conscience with the stroke of a pen?

According to 2nd Corinthians 3:2, there are five gospels in the world. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Epistle of ones own life.  Most people will probably never read the first four.

God desires that our lives would bear spiritual fruit - not religious nuts.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 10, 2010 - 8:38AM #56
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550

May 9, 2010 -- 1:55PM, Upperlimits wrote:

TS << Abortion is legal because the person involved ... the female pregnant person ... is the only person in the situation, and therefore the only human with any legal standing. >>

UL ---- Naturally, you and I are at odds in our conclusions as to what this actually means, but this is precisely what I was saying in post 51. The embryo simply isn't "a person" with any "legal standing".


Question on the table then.
---When, if ever, were any embryo/fetus simply ever considered to be "'a person' with any 'legal standing" whatsoever? 
When exactly? --Please cite just when exactly within history,  [either in Ancient Times, the Dark Ages, Mediaeval Times, the Dawn of the Industrial Age, or the beginnning of recent Modern Times] has any society ever deemed any z/e/f as "'a person' with any 'legal standing'" ever.  Just name one.


UL <<< Isn't it interesting how easy it is to wipe away our conscience with the stroke of a pen?


It has nothing to do with what you said it post #51 nor "with the stroke of a pen" either.

May 5, 2010 -- 11:31PM, Upperlimits wrote:

The WT link does not say how long  it takes for the  egg to be fertilized, one hour  5? Has scientist isolated the number of minutes, hours  to conception?


UL <<< This is just hearsay, but I once heard a report that those little swimmers could do the job in as little as 8 minutes.


Got a source to your "heresay"???

UL <<< Theo, I have to disagree with you on this one, brother. The only reason - and I stress, the ONLY REASON - they are able to say it is not a "person" is simply because that is the way that our court system has ruled on the definition of specific legal terms. If they had ruled differently - for whatever reason you can possibly devise - then these people would have no semantic argument to hide behind. Whether, or not, you call it a "person", the kid is still dead.


Have you ever read the Roe decision?
It has nothing to do with "our court system" at all because the "system" in and of itself is not what's in question here now is it?  No, it's not because it's the "case" itself that you have a problem with yes?  If it were the "system" itself, then you have an awfully big, big challenge on your hands to change said "system" so good luck.
Have you ever read the U.S. Constitution? ---Show us where it states that gestating entities are equal to citizens who are born?
But do you not know the history of humankind? 
You do realize don't you, that throughout history [that means way, way, way before "our court system" in 1973 decided the Roe case "with the stroke of a pen"] that abortion has always been in humankind's family picture since The Dawn Of Time?
That being the case [pun intended] can you cite for us any society throughout humankind's history where gestating z/e/fs were ever considered to be a "person" of equal standing to already born persons?

Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath for any logical or illogical reply to my questions that "you can possibly devise."

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 12, 2010 - 1:50AM #57
Upperlimits
Posts: 3,032

Question on the table then.
---When, if ever, were any embryo/fetus simply ever considered to be "'a person' with any 'legal standing" whatsoever?


Your rant just proved my point. Take a minute and think it through.


Q) Why do you, personally, have any kind of "legal standing" whatsoever?


A) The stroke of a pen.


There is absolutely nothing else on the face of this planet that gives you "legal standing" other than the stroke of the legislators pen. We have decided in our society that that we want things to run a certain way, so we write it down and then that's the way it is done. It's really no different from the illusions of the value of paper money. The paper itself is really quite worthless. It is only what it represents that has any value (the word of the government.) If the government fails, or decides that your money is now going to be worth "X" amount instead of it's current value - guess what? Our rights are given to us by the stroke of a pen - and they can be taken away just as easily. The constitution is NOT ingrained into human nature. If you think it is; then you are incredibly naive.


We have "legal standing" - in writing - because we have taken the time (as a society)  to write it down and give it as a gift to ourselves. We could - in theory anyways - grant that same privilege to a kumquat tree growing in the corner of the room. If you think I am wrong in this, then remember Nazi Germany, where with the stroke of the legislators pen, millions of people suddenly ceased being even human.


As I said earlier, IF (and yes, I'm aware it's an historical fact that they ruled the way that they did):: IF they had ruled differently (besides the endless, relentless hounding of appeals that they would probably still be receiving from people who disagreed with their decision) the country would have an entirely different outlook on the matter.


(I really don't understand what people DON'T GET about a hypothetical being put forward in a preface to an argument. If things had been different, then it stands to reason that they would be different.  It's a statement of the obvious. Like - DUH)



Got a source to your "heresay"???


Science class in junior high. That's about it. No idea where the teacher got his info.  Remember: I did say it was hearsay. As I recall, we were discussing sex-ed at the time. Maybe he was trying to scare us into leaving well enough alone!


Please cite just when exactly within history,  [either in Ancient Times, the Dark Ages, Mediaeval Times, the Dawn of the Industrial Age, or the beginnning of recent Modern Times] has any society ever deemed any z/e/f as "'a person' with any 'legal standing'" ever.  Just name one.


OK . The Mosaic Law of the Biblical Jews recognised the value of the unborn and demanded compensation in the event of injury to an unborn child.


New Living Translation (NLT) Exodus - Chapter 21: 22,23


"Now suppose two people are fighting, and in the process, they hurt a pregnant woman so her child is born prematurely. If no further harm results, then the person responsible must pay damages in the amount the woman's husband demands and the judges approve. But if any harm results, then the offender must be punished according to the injury. If the result is death, the offender must be executed.


Execution!! And that's just in the case of accidental death... Just imagine how a meeting of the Sanhedrin would have judged matters if you deliberately took matters upon yourself to explicitly go in and remove an unborn child - knowing full well that the end of that child would be to die.


BTW, whether or not you respect the Bible, or believe its message is quite irrelevant. You asked for an historical example; and this is the way it was, in that society, at that time.


BTW, I believe that if you check some history books, you'll find that the Romans had a similar law as well; but it was typically applied only in protection of their own citizens. I'll let you do your own research on that one.

According to 2nd Corinthians 3:2, there are five gospels in the world. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the Epistle of ones own life.  Most people will probably never read the first four.

God desires that our lives would bear spiritual fruit - not religious nuts.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 13, 2010 - 10:18PM #58
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Abortion is ancient Rome was impermissable without the father's consent, as otherwise it was deemed as robbing him of his lineage. And the ancient Babylonians also had laws against abortion. But ugh... I pointed this out months ago, yet it went ignored. So I just left it alone.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 21, 2010 - 12:31AM #59
bb-15
Posts: 242

May 4, 2010 -- 3:46PM, Phronesis wrote:


On the locked thread, Yavanna asked:

older, where in your Bible does it specify abortion is murder?


Exodus 21:22—25.


While Christians are not under the Old Covenant, we can still see from what is therein written how Jehovah views matters.  Note this:


And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.


Although the passage does not specifically state the death of the baby is what is here being addressed, the context strongly indicates that this is the case. In fact, since it does not specifically state it, then it would in all likelihood apply to either mother or child.




Imo one should be very careful about Bible translations. We should not just accept either the translation or interpretation of the Jehovah's Witnesses at face value but should look at it in comparison with different translations and other interpretations.


* Exodus 21:22-25 (New International Version)


  22 "If men who  are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the  offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the  court allows. 23 But if  there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth,  hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


* Exodus 21:22-25 (Young's Literal Translation)


 22`And when men  strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman,  and her children have come  out, and there is no mischief, he is  certainly fined, as the husband of  the woman doth lay upon him,  and he hath given through the judges; 23and if there is mischief,  then thou hast given life for  life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,  foot for  foot, 25burning  for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


* Exodus 21:22-25 (The New Revised Standard Version - Anglicized Edition)


When people who  are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage,  and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what  the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then  you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for  tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for  wound, stripe for stripe.


Now, what happens in this passage to the fetus is important here; the words used in these different translations are "gives birth prematurely","her children have come out" and "there is a miscarriage". In the time of the Old Testament when there was no modern medical care, a premature birth would almost certainly be fatal.



- So, a possible interpretation of the Jehovah's Witness translation,"but no fatal  accident occurs," is that it tries to downplay the possibility that the premature birth would lead to death. But the other translations are much more vague; "there is no serious injury",  "there is no mischief" and "yet no further harm follows".


* One possible interpretation is that the pregnancy has been terminated (there is a miscarriage with no chance for the unborn child to survive) and that this only results in a fine. The Oxford Companion to the Bible has such an interpretation (on page 4).


The Hebrew text at v. 22 literally reads "and there is no harm," implying that contrary to current sensibilities, the miscarriage itself was not considered serious injury.



* Again, one interpretation of this passage is that while the termination of a pregnancy (with no chance of survival for the unborn child) due to violence is a sinful act, this violence causing a miscarriage does not = murder but only warrants a fine.


BB ;-)


 


Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 21, 2010 - 10:35AM #60
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,207

May 13, 2010 -- 10:18PM, Bei1052 wrote:

Abortion is ancient Rome was impermissable without the father's consent, as otherwise it was deemed as robbing him of his lineage. And the ancient Babylonians also had laws against abortion. But ugh... I pointed this out months ago, yet it went ignored. So I just left it alone.




Couldn't the ancients kill you whenever they wanted?  Abortion is illegal but stoning the kid for talking smack to the parents is perfectly fine?

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 20  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook