| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Brainfried Sysadmin" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2003 12:41:07 AM |
| Object: |
Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 03:35:57 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:41:07 GMT in alt.atheism, Brainfried Sysadmin
(Brainfried Sysadmin <no@way.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
Depends. Personally I see no problem citing Biblical writ in order to
point out internal contradictions in any given Christian position.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
What makes you think that has anything to do with the abortion issue,
or that the question has any answer in absolute terms?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr DuFunny" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
18 Sep 2003 02:03:17 PM |
|
|
"Brainfried Sysadmin" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.15.05.42.30.928979@way.com...
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
Any rights a fetus has are political rights based on the power to legally
protect it. This political right is a function of the collective motivation
of people who have the ability to do so, vs. the motivation of the segment
of the body politic which chooses not to do so, in a given situation.
--
"Everything's better with DuFunny on it."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff Offermann" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 01:15:22 AM |
|
|
"Brainfried Sysadmin" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.15.05.42.30.928979@way.com...
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
At the point the organism becomes a viable being capable of living
on it's own...usually sometime after its 18th birthday.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Nash" |
|
| Title: aa AQOTM nomination (was Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb) |
15 Sep 2003 01:45:49 AM |
|
|
"Geoff Offermann" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:_Nc9b.452615$uu5.80535@sccrnsc04:
"Brainfried Sysadmin" <no@way.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.15.05.42.30.928979@way.com...
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by
John P. Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various
posters believe without having their posts tainted in response to a
resident troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up
your belief.
<<<begin nominated quote>>>
At the point the organism becomes a viable being capable of living
on it's own...usually sometime after its 18th birthday.
<<<end nominated quote>>>
LOL...any seconds?
--
Michael Nash - aa # 1651
*******************
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)
"The Three Branches of Government: Money, Television, and *****"
--P. J. O'Rourke
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stillsunny" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 11:34:42 AM |
|
|
Brainfried Sysadmin <no@way.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.09.15.05.42.30.928979@way.com>...
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
I don't blame you. It's a subject which seems to lend itself to
ridiculous extremes.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
See, there's the problem right there!
It's in the definition of the terms, and that definitional problem is
driven by the strongly held beliefs of either side. The communication
gap worsens when each individual translates that natural response
through their own personal paradigm -- and the arguments become pretty
damn mean spirited when they become about the paradigm, instead of
what drives the impulse itself.
At their best, (and bearing in mind that neither side is comprised
exclusively of those "bests") both sides' arguments are driven by
empathy, which is a marvelous human emotion, and the foundation of
human morality. The pro-life side feels a normal and natural empathy
for a developing human life. The pro-choice side feels a normal and
natural empathy for a mother for whom a pregancy, for any number of
reasons, is much more disaster than joy. Unfortunately, once the
debate begins, and stances are assumed, there is little evidence by
either side of empathy for *both* living entities.
There is a push, for clearly political reasons, to redefine terms, to
make more palatable that which is instinctively abhorrant. It is not
okay to kill a baby, but redefining it as a fetus -- giving it another
name -- renders it a different matter. The issue gets cloudier when
we delve into matters of sentience, ability to feel pain, et cetera --
because all the rationale for justification on those terms can be
applied to fully adult humans as well, with the last defense against
that a matter of simple legality -- it is immoral to kill a
non-sentient adult human because it's illegal in this society to do
so. Which means we're defining morality by legality, which is itself
a rather frightening thought. The mirror from the other side is the
attempt to apply that instinctive human standard to those stages for
which most of us clearly do *not* have an empathetic response -- two
cells in a petri dish, for example.
*None* of the hard and fast "rules" work, if you take them to their
logical extensions. But we westerners have this tendency to think we
can dismantle a subject until we've reached some definitive benchmark,
some clear, hard and fast line, absolute and immutable, upon which to
base our moral decisions. Unfortunately, life doesn't lend itself to
easy delineations; what was sunlight means food for wheat which
retranslates into cow which becomes protein in a human body which
builds a sperm which mates with an egg which begins the process of
becoming yet another manifestation of this sea of organic matter we're
all swimming in. Just part of the whole cycle, we all are, but we
naturally prefer those manifestations which are most like us.
Personally, I remain uncomfortably pro-choice. I've yet to run across
an argument which would persuade me otherwise, but I hope I always
remain uncomfortable with it. The intentional destruction of a
developing human life is all too often a lesser evil; but I hope it
never becomes easy for us, as a society, to dismiss as inconsequential
that destruction.
Sunny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
16 Sep 2003 06:07:48 AM |
|
|
On 15 Sep 2003 09:34:42 -0700, (stillsunny)
wrote:
<snip>
Personally, I remain uncomfortably pro-choice. I've yet to run across
an argument which would persuade me otherwise, but I hope I always
remain uncomfortable with it. The intentional destruction of a
developing human life is all too often a lesser evil; but I hope it
never becomes easy for us, as a society, to dismiss as inconsequential
that destruction.
Sunny
There is nothing like confronting these dilemmas in real life to
realize that nothing is cut and dried.
When my wife became pregnant she was 40 year old and we knew there was
high probability of problems.
We decided to have every possible test so that we could abort if we
felt that was the lesser of two evils.
When the 11 week ultrasound indicated a possible problem - I wept - I
surprised myself - I didn't realize that I already cared for the
little tadpole.
Nobody aborts an unborn child for fun - its a painful and difficult
decision.
And even though I say (teasingly) "little tadpole" - It broke my heart
to think we might end the life of that small creature.
But I would have done it - I consider it a cruelty to knowingly bring
a deformed and sickening child into the world.
Life is hard enough even without your own body being your enemy.
Luckily there never was anything wrong - just a false alarm.
So I agree completely - it should never be easy.
Mark. (daddy!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stillsunny" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
16 Sep 2003 09:39:53 PM |
|
|
Mark Richardson <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message news:<esqdmv477gp6qddkcqfoni5kef7l0ce7bc@4ax.com>...
On 15 Sep 2003 09:34:42 -0700, (stillsunny)
wrote:
<snip>
Personally, I remain uncomfortably pro-choice. I've yet to run across
an argument which would persuade me otherwise, but I hope I always
remain uncomfortable with it. The intentional destruction of a
developing human life is all too often a lesser evil; but I hope it
never becomes easy for us, as a society, to dismiss as inconsequential
that destruction.
Sunny
There is nothing like confronting these dilemmas in real life to
realize that nothing is cut and dried.
When my wife became pregnant she was 40 year old and we knew there was
high probability of problems.
We decided to have every possible test so that we could abort if we
felt that was the lesser of two evils.
When the 11 week ultrasound indicated a possible problem - I wept - I
surprised myself - I didn't realize that I already cared for the
little tadpole.
Nobody aborts an unborn child for fun - its a painful and difficult
decision.
And even though I say (teasingly) "little tadpole" - It broke my heart
to think we might end the life of that small creature.
But I would have done it - I consider it a cruelty to knowingly bring
a deformed and sickening child into the world.
Life is hard enough even without your own body being your enemy.
Luckily there never was anything wrong - just a false alarm.
So I agree completely - it should never be easy.
Mark. (daddy!)
<blows kiss to wonderful family of tadpoles>
Sunny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard M Braun" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 10:12:53 AM |
|
|
Brainfried Sysadmin wrote:
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
Hi, It has always been my belief that it is the brain that makes us the
individuals that we are. With that criteria defined, I have never tried
to determine the point a fetus becomes a living being. I love children
and I would not want to terminate any pregnancy. But I also believe in
my right to choose. So I will choose to keep any child I bear, *AND* I
will never give up my right to choose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 08:27:11 AM |
|
|
Richard M Braun <rmbraun@charter.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Hi, It has always been my belief that it is the brain that makes us the
individuals that we are. With that criteria defined, I have never tried
to determine the point a fetus becomes a living being.
You'd think with that criteria defined, you'd at least find out when
the brain is formed and functional.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 12:28:52 PM |
|
|
Brainfried Sysadmin wrote:
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
What do you mean by "a living being"? I mean, I know what I
think of with "living", but what is a "being"?
Both sperm and egg are alive. The foetus is alive. But then
so is a tumour. So why is "alive" an important point?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 11:03:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:41:07 GMT, Brainfried Sysadmin <no@way.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
At what point does a fetus become a living being?
About 3.5 billion years ago. Life is an unbroken chain.
You must back up your belief.
Oh. Then over half a century ago. At least I *know* that there was
life back then.
The proper question is "at what time does the fertilized ovum become a
person?" The answer is "when it leaves the womb alive".
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 02:10:15 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:41:07 GMT, Brainfried Sysadmin <no@way.com>
wrote:
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being?
A fetus is a living being - so is a spinach plant.
It never "becomes" living - it may at some time become dead.
You must back up your
belief.
OK.
Both a spinach plant and a human fetus are living beings because they
engage in respiration,growth, excretion etc. They are both composed of
and function through, chemical systems of sugars, fats, proteins, RNA
and DNA.
While a human fetus, a spinach plant and a earthworm are all living
beings that does not mean that they all share the rights and duties
due to persons.
Persons ARE living human beings but not all living beings are persons.
For legal / moral purposes - nominally adult human beings are *fully*
persons.
Children are persons in some respects and not others.
(For example a child cannot be considered responsible for all its
actions - legally they are "partial" persons.)
Even some adults lose certain rights/ privileges due to persons under
certain conditions - convicted criminals for example, do not enjoy
freedom of movement - some even lose their right to life.
Not so long ago in the USA, many black africans were not legally
persons - they were someone elses property.
So "we" - collectively decide who has person hood and who doesn't - it
is not a question of empirical fact but rather a collective choice/
agreement.
A fetus is *living* *human* tissue - but so is a drop of my blood.
So is my mother.
If I destroy the life of a drop of my blood is it the moral equivalent
of killing my mother?
Obviously (I hope!) not.
Think about WHY NOT and then apply the exact same reasoning to the
life of a fetus.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
15 Sep 2003 06:49:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:41:07 GMT, Brainfried Sysadmin <no@way.com>
wrote:
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
You first.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Regarding: The baby smiles from within the womb |
18 Sep 2003 02:27:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 05:41:07 GMT, Brainfried Sysadmin <no@way.com>
wrote:
I'm shocked at some of the comments given in the thread started by John P.
Boatwright.
I wonder if your shock for the comments included my own.
Rather than quoting some of the posts, I'd rather see what various posters
believe without having their posts tainted in response to a resident
troll.
From what I've seen, Boaty has taken to hit 'n' runs these days, so
he's unlikely to "taint" the original thread any further.
I'm an atheist, so any quoting of the Bible or anything religious is
strictly off limits.
Fine.
At what point does a fetus become a living being? You must back up your
belief.
Define living being. Until you do that, the question has no meaning.
Is it wrong to eat or otherwise destroy an acorn? (leaving out, for a
moment, the issue of taste)
Is it wrong to chop down a healthy, fully-formed and mature oak tree?
A foetus is a *potential* human, not a human. If your above question
is referring to the point at which it changes states from potential
human to human, one definition (there are several; some moral, some
legal) would be when the foetus leaves the womb and is able to
breath/live unaided.
With advances in modern medicine and healthcare, unviable births can
now produce viable life, so needs to be taken into consideration...
but unless a foetus is developed enough to survive removal from the
womb it can't really be classed as anything other than a *potential*
human being.
To claim otherwise is both emotive and dishonest.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
"There are bits of banana peel floating up Belfast Lough that know
more about Irish politics than our JTEM." -- Chesney Christ
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
