| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
02 May 2004 06:36:40 PM |
| Object: |
Is a fetus innocent life? |
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
(Judeo) Christian Standard:
According to Paul in Romans 3 "all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God". Despite numerous apologetics which try to explain that
Paul does not really mean what he says, the doctrine of original sin has
been adopted by many of the thousands of variant sects of xianity on
the basis of this and other statements in the new and old testament. By
this standard we all bear some sin, usually presumed to be inherited
through Adam's fall, which would imply that a fetus or even a zygote
carries the stain of sin (and death) with it. Furthermore, even if one
does not accept the doctrine of original sin, many Xians believe that
one must accept jesus during one's life in order to be saved from
damnation. It is quite clear that a fetus cannot accept or profess
faith in jesus due to its own cognitive inability, which suggests that
it better be guilty of something, for how could a just god punish it
otherwise? Finally, irrespective of these other standards, it could be
argued, for example, that the fetus may be guilty of offenses including
stealing food from the mother, not keeping the sabbath, not honoring or
obeying its parents, sexually violating its own mother (uncovering her
nakedness) and, in the extreme, causing serious injury or death to the
mother. BTW, I'm not suggesting that I believe any of this theological
piffle, but it should cast doubt on the idea that a fetus can be easily
judged innocent, by Judeo Xian religious standards.
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
Ethical Standard:
According to a number of ethical standards the fetus could be seen to be
physically imposing its will upon the mother by force. The fetus
attempts to assert its own rights above and beyond those of the mother.
A fetus has no regard for the utility or the consequences of pregnancy
and the impact that it has upon the mother as well as the society. The
fetus does not appear to follow principles such as the Golden Rule or
the Categorical Imperative. It recognizes no duty, nor does it have
concern about the happiness or survival of others. If it has an opinion
at all, it appears to believe that others owe it food and other forms of
free support.
Therefore, on none of these accounts can we state unequivocally that the
fetus is an "innocent" life. However, I'd be happy to entertain (and be
entertained by) any serious arguments for why a fetus should be
considered innocent despite the above statements. This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote. But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then I encourage them to do so.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 03:11:06 PM |
|
|
On 14 May 2004 12:08:44 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40a3d2b4.434092740@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 13 May 2004 11:36:17 -0700, (david) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote....
Exactly. Where's its brain? Its consciousness? All the things that go
to make it human?
How does a brain make one human?...
By the way, by 30 days after conception the 3 primary parts of the
brain are present ...
Why do you ask "how does a brain make one human" and then turn about
and cite that the brain is present? (ignoring that consciousness has
not started.)
Christopher was the one who seemed to say that having a brain is what
makes us human beings - I was simply showing him when that was - a
point before most abortions take place -
Maybe he should have stated it as a functioning brain. Not to mention
that you ran off with 'brain' while ignoring 'consciousness' which is
what makes one a living human being.
How does consciousness make one human?
Consciousness make one a being: m-w.com:
Really, so tree aren't beings. Christopher was arguing that
consciousness makes one a human? He never mentioned being? Are you
arguing for him now? Or are you changing the subject because you're
wrong.
No. It is because Pro-Lifers wiggle back and forth between human
(adjective) and human (noun, meaning human being.)
Main Entry: being
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something
conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the
totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
Of these definitions, 1a and 1b define my left nut as a 'being'.
Since my left nut is not a 'human being' they are not the definitions
for 'being' as in 'human being.'
What?
You don't read the definition correctly. This is the problem with
trying to base your pro-choice position off M-W definitions. Your nut
is not a being - it is part of a being - you - you exist and your nut
is part of you - it is not a being unto itself.
If you took the first definitions then the unborn are beings because
they exist, correct?
Correct. Just as my left nut exists.
If they exist and are beings,
Ok, my left nut is a being.
what type of being
are they? Are they cat beings, dog beings, or human beings?
Well, it is a human nut, genetically, so it is every much a human
being by the same definition you use to claim that a fetus is a human
being.
A being, in the meaning of a human being, is a conscious existence.
You're just making stuff up now - no where did it say that. You're
just distorting meanings to try to convince yourself.
Ummm.... You forgot to delete definition 1c where it says
being: conscious existence.
When I fall asleep am I not human? Are people in comas not human?
You are an air breathing creature even when holding your breath.
Death is defined as the permanent cessation of respiration. One must
start breathing before one can stop.
But if I'm not conscious then how am I a being - because I thought I
had to be conscious to be a being?
Really - do you have the MW definition for death - is it "permanent
cessation of respiration" - it's actually a permanent cessation of
all vital functions -
Since we were talking about human beings, I am using the accepted
definition of death for human beings.
You are a conscious being even when unconscious. Death is the
permanent cessation of consciousness. One must first be conscious
before one can stop.
Conscious even when you are not conscious - I like that - that's a
keeper.
You would. It is your phrase. It is not what I said.
So is the unborn dead or are they alive? If they are dead,
how do they come alive? I didn't know entities could die and then
come back to life.
Biological life is not life as in "the life of a human being."
Unborn means "not brought into life." Thus the fetus is not alive in
the meaning of a living human being. (Just as my left nut is not
alice in the meaning of a living human being.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 03:21:18 PM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40a523bf.520386340@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 14 May 2004 12:08:44 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message
news:<40a3d2b4.434092740@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 13 May 2004 11:36:17 -0700, (david) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote....
Exactly. Where's its brain? Its consciousness? All the things that
go
to make it human?
How does a brain make one human?...
By the way, by 30 days after conception the 3 primary parts of the
brain are present ...
Why do you ask "how does a brain make one human" and then turn about
and cite that the brain is present? (ignoring that consciousness has
not started.)
Christopher was the one who seemed to say that having a brain is what
makes us human beings - I was simply showing him when that was - a
point before most abortions take place -
Maybe he should have stated it as a functioning brain. Not to mention
that you ran off with 'brain' while ignoring 'consciousness' which is
what makes one a living human being.
State the proof that backs up your statement please.
With references
How does consciousness make one human?
Consciousness make one a being: m-w.com:
Really, so tree aren't beings. Christopher was arguing that
consciousness makes one a human? He never mentioned being? Are you
arguing for him now? Or are you changing the subject because you're
wrong.
No. It is because Pro-Lifers wiggle back and forth between human
(adjective) and human (noun, meaning human being.)
A fetus is a human being
A complete human being, with a functioning brain, heart, organs...
Main Entry: being
1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something
conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the
totality of existing things c : conscious existence : LIFE
Of these definitions, 1a and 1b define my left nut as a 'being'.
Since my left nut is not a 'human being' they are not the definitions
for 'being' as in 'human being.'
What?
You don't read the definition correctly. This is the problem with
trying to base your pro-choice position off M-W definitions. Your nut
is not a being - it is part of a being - you - you exist and your nut
is part of you - it is not a being unto itself.
If you took the first definitions then the unborn are beings because
they exist, correct?
Correct. Just as my left nut exists.
that would be a human organ, not a human being.
You need to take some biology
If they exist and are beings,
Ok, my left nut is a being.
It is an organ, made up of cells
what type of being
are they? Are they cat beings, dog beings, or human beings?
Well, it is a human nut, genetically, so it is every much a human
being by the same definition you use to claim that a fetus is a human
being.
A being, in the meaning of a human being, is a conscious existence.
You're just making stuff up now - no where did it say that. You're
just distorting meanings to try to convince yourself.
Ummm.... You forgot to delete definition 1c where it says
being: conscious existence.
When I fall asleep am I not human? Are people in comas not human?
You are an air breathing creature even when holding your breath.
Death is defined as the permanent cessation of respiration. One must
start breathing before one can stop.
But if I'm not conscious then how am I a being - because I thought I
had to be conscious to be a being?
Really - do you have the MW definition for death - is it "permanent
cessation of respiration" - it's actually a permanent cessation of
all vital functions -
Since we were talking about human beings, I am using the accepted
definition of death for human beings.
You are a conscious being even when unconscious. Death is the
permanent cessation of consciousness. One must first be conscious
before one can stop.
Conscious even when you are not conscious - I like that - that's a
keeper.
You would. It is your phrase. It is not what I said.
So is the unborn dead or are they alive? If they are dead,
how do they come alive? I didn't know entities could die and then
come back to life.
Biological life is not life as in "the life of a human being."
You need to take biology
Unborn means "not brought into life." Thus the fetus is not alive in
the meaning of a living human being. (Just as my left nut is not
alice in the meaning of a living human being.)
Your equating a fetus to a human male testicle is rediculous...but with your
mind set...I can see you actually believing it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
14 May 2004 11:39:28 AM |
|
|
david <gringo98@aol.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<qscp90dhe51rb2js3b7rm9rh5hstnmh3bv@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 08 May 2004 01:39:43 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
No, it means that a few cells are no more human than a few bricks are a
building.
Exactly. Where's its brain? Its consciousness? All the things that go
to make it human?
How does a brain make one human?
Look at how heartless and inhuman anti-abortion fanatics are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
04 May 2004 11:12:09 PM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
When Do Human Beings Begin?
"Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts
by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D
It seems that Ms. Irving doesn't even have a degree in science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Introduction
The question as to when a human being begins is strictly a scientific
question,
Completely false. There is no scientific definition of "human being".
It is wholly a legal and social matter.
The
question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.
"Human being" and "Human person" are synonymous.
Current discussions on abortion, human embryo research (including
cloning, stem cell research, and the formation of mixed-species
chimeras), and the use of abortifacients involve specific claims as to
when the life of every human being begins. If the "science" used to
ground these various discussions is incorrect, then any conclusions
will be rendered groundless and invalid. The purpose of this article
is to focus primarily on a sampling of the "scientific" myths, and on
the objective scientific facts that ought to ground these discussions.
Since life exists in an unbroken chain, it is the choice of a marker
to identify that "start" of an individual's life that determines when
is the start of a human being's life. Sine that does not depend upon
anything scientific, the question is not a scientific question.
[...]
A. Basic human embryological facts
To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between
That statement is not scientific. It is an OPINION.
the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a
simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm)
Assuming the conclusion. The writer assumes that a sperm is not a
human being in an attempt to prove that conception is the start of a
human being.
[...]
That is, upon
fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed
This "proof" is nothing but propaganda. There are no scientific
facts. The whole thing is unmitigated crap.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 09:56:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:56:41 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<Zpjlc.13147$Ut1.402002@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aff33e2f55623fb9897b9@news.individual.net...
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception and that you must be saved to avoid going
to hell.
No exceptions.
If you *actually* believe this life is merely a short
prelude to the one to come and if you *actually* believe
that one form of magic will enable you to live it in bliss
and another, slightly different form will cast you into
eternal fire, then anyone pushing the wrong magic is the
worst imaginable kind of criminal, far worse than a mere
murderer.
Since the majority of newly fertilized eggs don't make it to the embryo
stage they go to hell.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 11:36:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:56:41 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aff33e2f55623fb9897b9@news.individual.net...
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception
In fact it started life 3.8 Billion years before conception.
An unbroken chain of life begetting life.
Mind blowing.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 037 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 01:32:42 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:9oib90pgtikc72dj49lm9am1ksuttcf5fh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:56:41 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aff33e2f55623fb9897b9@news.individual.net...
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level
of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders
upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception.
Oops, I thought I fixed that. I should have said that a soul is injected at
the moment of conception.
In fact it started life 3.8 Billion years before conception.
An unbroken chain of life begetting life.
Mind blowing.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 037 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
| User: "jeff nalle" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 06:39:05 PM |
|
|
I am a Manatee abortion doctor. I only perform the service on
Manatees. Do you think this is wrong? I cant have them sign any
forms/disclosures; I feel this may be wrong.
Help me here.
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message news:<efwlc.28233$Xj6.476306@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:9oib90pgtikc72dj49lm9am1ksuttcf5fh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:56:41 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1aff33e2f55623fb9897b9@news.individual.net...
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level
of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders
upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception.
Oops, I thought I fixed that. I should have said that a soul is injected at
the moment of conception.
In fact it started life 3.8 Billion years before conception.
An unbroken chain of life begetting life.
Mind blowing.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 037 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 08:44:20 PM |
|
|
In article <2080c594.0405031539.61cac38e@posting.google.com>,
shveli@yahoo.com says...
I am a Manatee abortion doctor. I only perform the service on
Manatees. Do you think this is wrong? I cant have them sign any
forms/disclosures; I feel this may be wrong.
Help me here.
Can't you get a flipper print instead of a signature :)?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
04 May 2004 05:21:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:56:41 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception and that you must be saved to avoid going
to hell.
No exceptions.
Since the majority of newly fertilized eggs don't make it to the embryo
stage they go to hell.
Nope, sorry, mikey you juvenile. Nobody knows for sure, but the Catholic faith professes
a belief that almighty God takes care for the unbaptized unborns. You know the word - you
used it enough.
You blew it again.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
04 May 2004 07:36:06 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vn5g90l992if73djshndsvplbv86rponhq@4ax.com...
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
============================
If someone walked around talking like this today he'd be caught in a large
butterfly net and hauled off to the local Mental Hospital for observation
and medication.
From Jabriol's Racist Posts:
Original Message -----
From: "JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> (A racist Jehovah's Witness - Camden
NJ)
I guess it was God's fault that your son has a ***** black child as
well.
===============================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
05 May 2004 05:22:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:36:06 -0500, "Flower Power" <noCHAUVINISTS@womans.com> wrote:
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
============================
If someone walked around talking like this today he'd be caught in a large
butterfly net and hauled off to the local Mental Hospital for observation
and medication.
Well, there's a good billion + doing just that.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
05 May 2004 10:12:38 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a6qi9054vth30mresrv20ld3vpq00dijqt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:36:06 -0500, "Flower Power"
<noCHAUVINISTS@womans.com> wrote:
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
============================
If someone walked around talking like this today he'd be caught in a
large
butterfly net and hauled off to the local Mental Hospital for observation
and medication.
Well, there's a good billion + doing just that.
Not that many people know about you Earl and when they say "eat me" it's not
the same thing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
05 May 2004 06:56:34 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:a6qi9054vth30mresrv20ld3vpq00dijqt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:36:06 -0500, "Flower Power"
<noCHAUVINISTS@womans.com> wrote:
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
============================
If someone walked around talking like this today he'd be caught in a
large
butterfly net and hauled off to the local Mental Hospital for observation
and medication.
Well, there's a good billion + doing just that.
Which explains a lot of things.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
06 May 2004 05:11:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:56:34 +0100, "Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Well, there's a good billion + doing just that.
Which explains a lot of things.
Yes, there is a good billion + good people.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
05 May 2004 02:43:25 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vn5g90l992if73djshndsvplbv86rponhq@4ax.com...
On Mon, 03 May 2004 03:56:41 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception and that you must be saved to avoid
going
to hell.
No exceptions.
Since the majority of newly fertilized eggs don't make it to the embryo
stage they go to hell.
Nope, sorry, mikey you juvenile. Nobody knows for sure, but the Catholic
faith professes
a belief that almighty God takes care for the unbaptized unborns. You
know the word - you
used it enough.
You blew it again.
Earl's ability to comprehend the written word slides a little lower.
He uses "professes a belief" but does not seem to realize that I said the
same thing.
He does not seem to really understand that these are beliefs structures and
have the same validity as the man who "professes a belief" that his brain is
controlled by the computers at the local university.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
05 May 2004 05:24:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 May 2004 07:43:25 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote:
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception and that you must be saved to avoid
going
to hell.
No exceptions.
Since the majority of newly fertilized eggs don't make it to the embryo
stage they go to hell.
Nope, sorry, mikey you juvenile. Nobody knows for sure, but the Catholic
faith professes
a belief that almighty God takes care for the unbaptized unborns. You
know the word - you
used it enough.
You blew it again.
Earl's ability to comprehend the written word slides a little lower.
He uses "professes a belief" but does not seem to realize that I said the
same thing.
No, I don't think so mikey. You said they go to hell. You blew it again.
He does not seem to really understand that these are beliefs structures and
have the same validity as the man who "professes a belief" that his brain is
controlled by the computers at the local university.
You profess a belief that they go to hell, and I profess a belief they don't. You lose,
mikey.
duke
*****
John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his
blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my
flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I
will raise him up at the last day.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
05 May 2004 10:15:23 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:09qi90h38pknvsdgnh4e5naq0jljrpr7gv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 05 May 2004 07:43:25 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
There are many fundamentalist sects that believe absolutely that life
starts at the moment of conception and that you must be saved to avoid
going
to hell.
No exceptions.
Since the majority of newly fertilized eggs don't make it to the
embryo
stage they go to hell.
Nope, sorry, mikey you juvenile. Nobody knows for sure, but the
Catholic
faith professes
a belief that almighty God takes care for the unbaptized unborns. You
know the word - you
used it enough.
You blew it again.
Earl's ability to comprehend the written word slides a little lower.
He uses "professes a belief" but does not seem to realize that I said the
same thing.
No, I don't think so mikey. You said they go to hell. You blew it again.
He does not seem to really understand that these are beliefs structures
and
have the same validity as the man who "professes a belief" that his brain
is
controlled by the computers at the local university.
You profess a belief that they go to hell, and I profess a belief they
don't. You lose,
mikey.
Again Earl shows his inability to comprehend common English.
What I said Earl, is that, many fundamental sects believe that.
I'm an atheist and don't believe in your gods, your heaven or your hell.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 11:30:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 May 2004 17:36:40 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
So are walnuts.
<snip>
This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote.
Exactly.
"Red herring".
But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then ...
they are loonies.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
"My name is Mark I am a recovering Skeptic
(AKA Muddy Boggs, AKA Donald R. Alford AKA ...)
debater. It is 037 days since I last tried to argue
with him."
You too can quit! Take the pledge!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 09:54:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 May 2004 17:36:40 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
One problem with this analogy (and there are many), is that the
mother performed at least one action which has a primary evolutionary
purpose of inviting the "trespasser" in.
Another problem with the analogy is that the same argument could be
made for children after they are born.
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 11:02:12 PM |
|
|
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rbbb901i03h2fselbvtgrsj4qtbqq9hbg5@4ax.com...
Another problem with the analogy is that the same argument could be
made for children after they are born.
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
================================
If she felt like that she could put the children up for adoption, in foster
care, or allow a relative to take them. Some desperate and mentally women
even murder their toddlers and older children. Once born the child is an
individual in it's own right is protected by law as it should be.
--
The Purple Flower....
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 11:57:14 PM |
|
|
In article <hvednW32qdLVWQjdRVn-vg@heartoftn.net>,
says...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rbbb901i03h2fselbvtgrsj4qtbqq9hbg5@4ax.com...
Another problem with the analogy is that the same argument could be
made for children after they are born.
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
================================
If she felt like that she could put the children up for adoption, in foster
care, or allow a relative to take them. Some desperate and mentally women
even murder their toddlers and older children. Once born the child is an
individual in it's own right is protected by law as it should be.
Yes, there are very clear distinctions between killing a child after
birth, versus having an abortion in a very early stage of pregnancy. It
would be far better for a mother who didn't want kids or couldn't handle
the responsibility to have an abortion, so that she doesn't later resort
to killing or abusing young children who might be several years old. As
I frequently point out, 90% of all abortions in the US take place in the
first trimester and 99% take place before the 20th week. The reason for
this is that it is far easier and safer to conduct abortions as soon as
possible and all medical doctors will encourage patients who want to
abort to have the procedure sooner, rather than later.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 11:47:23 PM |
|
|
In article <rbbb901i03h2fselbvtgrsj4qtbqq9hbg5@4ax.com>,
whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com says...
On Sun, 2 May 2004 17:36:40 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
One problem with this analogy (and there are many), is that the
mother performed at least one action which has a primary evolutionary
purpose of inviting the "trespasser" in.
That may be, in the same way that a householder may leave a window
unlocked. But we still don't say that the householder must live with
the consequences of the intruder being in there. Your claim that the
mother "invited" the trespasser is only accurate if she actually wanted
to get pregnant. If contraception failed, or something on that order,
then she didn't invite anyone. Plus, even if she had, the example I
like to use is that one might invite a guest to dinner, but still not
expect the guest to barricade himself in the dining room and demand that
he be given 9 months free lodging. Certainly we wouldn't expect the law
to side with the dinner guest.
Another problem with the analogy is that the same argument could be
made for children after they are born.
But there are plenty of differences. For one thing, abortion is not the
only solution to the problem once the child has been born. If the
mother doesn't want the kid then she can give it up for adoption or hand
it over to relatives, child protective services, etc. In the case of
embryos there's really no way to do this short of abortion.
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
I believe that courts would allow a mother to give her child over to
foster care. Where's the problem?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 10:52:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 2 May 2004 22:47:23 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <rbbb901i03h2fselbvtgrsj4qtbqq9hbg5@4ax.com>,
whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com says...
On Sun, 2 May 2004 17:36:40 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
One problem with this analogy (and there are many), is that the
mother performed at least one action which has a primary evolutionary
purpose of inviting the "trespasser" in.
That may be, in the same way that a householder may leave a window
unlocked. But we still don't say that the householder must live with
the consequences of the intruder being in there.
Not the same.
The innate purpose of leaving a window unlocked is not to allow
robbers into the home.
Your claim that the
mother "invited" the trespasser is only accurate if she actually wanted
to get pregnant. If contraception failed, or something on that order,
then she didn't invite anyone. Plus, even if she had, the example I
like to use is that one might invite a guest to dinner, but still not
expect the guest to barricade himself in the dining room and demand that
he be given 9 months free lodging. Certainly we wouldn't expect the law
to side with the dinner guest.
Another problem with the analogy is that the same argument could be
made for children after they are born.
But there are plenty of differences. For one thing, abortion is not the
only solution to the problem once the child has been born. If the
mother doesn't want the kid then she can give it up for adoption or hand
it over to relatives, child protective services, etc. In the case of
embryos there's really no way to do this short of abortion.
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
I believe that courts would allow a mother to give her child over to
foster care. Where's the problem?
But they do not allow her to speed up the process by killing them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 10:43:43 PM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
One problem with this analogy (and there are many), is that the
mother performed at least one action which has a primary evolutionary
purpose of inviting the "trespasser" in.
Pro-lie propaganda. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary
purpose". And claiming that the "purpose" of sex in humans is to
make children is, at best, uninformed and at worst nothing more
that religious fanaticism.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
02 May 2004 11:52:13 PM |
|
|
In article <c74f5e$2c9$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
says...
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
One problem with this analogy (and there are many), is that the
mother performed at least one action which has a primary evolutionary
purpose of inviting the "trespasser" in.
Pro-lie propaganda. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary
purpose". And claiming that the "purpose" of sex in humans is to
make children is, at best, uninformed and at worst nothing more
that religious fanaticism.
Perhaps a more diplomatic way of putting it is to note that sex may have
many purposes, only one of which is procreation. We cannot assume that
any time sex occurs, or even when a pregnancy results, that the intent
of either party was to accomplish procreation. People drive cars and
they occasionally have car wrecks. But we cannot assume, given a car
wreck, that it was an intentional act. It may well have been an
accident in the case of the pregnancy or the car wreck.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 09:54:00 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2004 21:54:32 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<rbbb901i03h2fselbvtgrsj4qtbqq9hbg5@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2004 17:36:40 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
One problem with this analogy (and there are many), is that the
mother performed at least one action which has a primary evolutionary
purpose of inviting the "trespasser" in.
Irrelevant. Driving a car is not an invitation to an accident and
eating is not an invitation to food poisoning.
Another problem with the analogy is that the same argument could be
made for children after they are born.
No it can not. Existing individuals have rights and protection under
the law.
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
Yes. But she also has a responsibility to care for them under the
law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 12:43:19 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:74nc90djd1qh1spo56hed96h9bj4nft5nf@4ax.com...
Yes. But she also has a responsibility to care for them under the
law.
===========================
And many a young mother who was forced or coerced into having the unwanted
child doesn't take care of them as anyone who reads the papers knows.
They're neglected, abused and sometimes even killed by the mother or a
boyfriend. It's in the papers and on TV all the time. Why force these
unwanted, unloved children to be born into such misery and so often poverty
to add to their woes? They just repeat the cycle with not one
"anti-choicer" around to offer any kind of help, either physical or
financial.
--
The Pink Flower....
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived."
-= Isaac Asimov =-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 12:22:38 PM |
|
|
In article <74nc90djd1qh1spo56hed96h9bj4nft5nf@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now says...
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
Yes. But she also has a responsibility to care for them under the
law.
Most importantly, there are alternatives to killing which can be used
with children who are born. But there aren't viable alternatives with a
zygote or a very early embryo. Once the child is born then the rights
of the child and the rights of the mother can be far more easily
disentangled.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
03 May 2004 10:48:09 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2004 10:54:00 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On 2 May 2004 21:54:32 -0500, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<rbbb901i03h2fselbvtgrsj4qtbqq9hbg5@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2004 17:36:40 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
One problem with this analogy (and there are many), is that the
mother performed at least one action which has a primary evolutionary
purpose of inviting the "trespasser" in.
Irrelevant. Driving a car is not an invitation to an accident and
eating is not an invitation to food poisoning.
The innate purpose of driving a car is not to have an accident.
Another problem with the analogy is that the same argument could be
made for children after they are born.
No it can not. Existing individuals have rights and protection under
the law.
Can she also claim that her children of toddler age are trespassing
in her home? What court would support that claim?
Yes. But she also has a responsibility to care for them under the
law.
And the goal of many who oppose abortion is to extend those laws to
cover humans in the earliest stages of their life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
