Well, I said I would respond, so here goes. You opened your post with this....
I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about RIGHTS; In particular the RIGHT to be left alone, the RIGHT to ones own thoughts, and the RIGHT to ones own body.
Talk about obfuscation. First, abortion is precisely what we are talking about. The Rights we are talking about pertain directly to whether it is permissible to kill an unborn child. Since even you seem to agree, that killing children is immoral, it is not surprising that you would avoid the central question. In that context your " I am talking about RIGHTS" statement is entirely circular, since it assumes that which is in question ( is the unborn child a person?).
Abortion is a value judgement. It can be moral or immoral. People seldom use their RIGHTS in the optimum way; They fail to seek value--they abuse their bodies. They KILL themselvesprematurely...but this is their RIGHT.
People do indeed kill themselves, but if they kill their two year old they will be prosecuted for murder. Abortion is not a value judgement, it is the killing of a child. I to support PBA but again your assuming the unborn are not entitled to their own PBA aren't you? I found your response to Tim instructive.
Have you ever heard of ridiculous contradictions developing when people toy with words and arguments as if they were simply meaningless impediments to their BELIEF? I have actually seen it happen.
Do you mean like this statement?
Yes, I support the RIGHT to PBA. And do you understand that that is different than favoring, as you put it?
Look up favor, then look up support, then explain to me how that statement gets you off the hook. Truth is, you favor/support the willful killing of an unborn child for any reason, at any time, up to and including, so called partial birth abortions. Couching that in terms of Rights, is just semantical BS.!
Do you wish to start fudging RIGHTS, and make it totally a numbers game--or a dice game of snakes and ladders? Do you wish the losers of these games to assist in their own burial, as reason is murdered and bulldozed over with the garbage of mindlessness? Do the concepts of life and freedom have no inherent value to you?
If this is the case, then how dare you object when they come with machetes to take out your family; Because, don't you know; Without REASON as the supreme tool of value--you are only as innocent as the amount of ammunition you can carry.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the preceding two paragraphs. Totally out of left field. Do you read these tirades of yours before you post them?
So you decide that you can enter a woman's body without permission to operate on a foetus; Or you commandeer her body to prevent her taking any substance that might affect the foetus from developing into a human person.
I have never said anything about forced operations, and as far as preventative measures to insure the safety of the unborn child, again you simply beg the question of the humanity of the unborn. Would you be in favor of restraining a mother from injecting a newborn child with heroin? If you are, then you should be against it five minutes before as well unless you want to be like those who..."toy with words and arguments as if they were simply meaningless impediments to their BELIEF...
Then one day you are told that 25% of all abortions are miscarried. You recognize that much of this is caused by improper habits of eating, drinking, smoking, as well as the stresses of poverty, guilt, fear, etc.
You did try to correct this obvious brain freeze so I'll leave it at that.
You decide (you have already decided it is your "right") to have all pregnant women locked in a pregnant women's compound to protect the RIGHTS to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you belive are the inalienable RIGHTS of all fertilized eggs (as you have said-- from the moment of conception).
See above response about heroin.
This, of course, is not enough; You must also control their sexual behaviour, and have someone from the State present during all occasions of sexual intercourse. You find out that IUD's work by flushing the ovum out of the F Tube preventing it from attaching itself to the uteral lining. You deal with this. As well--You make oral sex a crime once again, and you reassert the penalties of the church for this murder of the human that God is attempting to make.
Do you understand that when you ignore the RIGHT to ones body, you open the door to all these things: to slavery, to torture, to anything? Do you appreciate that when you abandon reason, you embrace mindless power?
Talk about mindless abandonment of reason. How did we get to oral sex? In case you didn't notice, I am not the Catholic Church, I'm not even Catholic, so let's stick to the program OK?
I have not been talking about abortion, Greg. I am talking about RIGHTS.
That's not what I see, you are at least talking about the right to abort, and as I pointed out, so far you have completely ignored the central issue.
I am sure that most mothers value their embryos. But it is their choice, under their circumstances, to make an ethical and pragmatic decision. Do you really think that doctors who agree to assist a women having carried her foetus into the third trimester, are frivolous about the ghastly procedure? Of course, not. These procedures are done to save the life of the woman or to remove a dead or very damaged foetus; In some rare cases for the mental health of a (usually teen-aged) girl in denial and perhaps suicidal. Of course, both sides of this issue invent outrageous lies to make their points, so you will hear from your church or action group-- whatever lies they are pushing. For the lies and biases of the other side, you need to get the material of the other side.
As I have indicated, I think abortion should be allowed in the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy. It is my understanding that there are no good medical reasons, for performing late term, partial birth abortions. .If the baby was dead why would an abortion even be necessary??? It is my understanding that, partial birth abortion is used primarily as a method to cull the physically and mentally handicapped.. Do you also support this as a "RIGHT"? If it's ok five minutes before, why would it not, as some have advocated, be acceptable to kill infants with the same problems?
I am happy that people like yourself raise their voices and make their points. We all need to be reminded that compassion is what puts the human in human beings, and respect for life in any form should be taught from square one. But there can be no respect for life without respecting reason and RIGHTS.
Very high sounding words, but that's all they are to you, just words.
What is the difference between 7 minutes before birth and 7 minutes after? Well, certainly not as much as 7 months before birth, or seven years, or seven centuries. Once the foetus leaves the mother's body, and becomes a distinct and separate human person, we call it BIRTH. We say that a separate individual has come into existence. We call it being BORN. It happened to you; It happened to me. Almost all human eggs, and almost all human sperm, do not get to become human persons--to not get to be BORN. They have life--just as your hair and your skin has life-- and the DNA is human. With modern techniques your skin has the potential to become millions of human beings. The potential: Everything that is not in the present is potential. IS NOT does not equal IS.
Finally we get some substance. So birth it is? That is your line of personhood. So partial birth abortion for any reason, not just extreme cases, should be allowed because the entity that is killed is not a "distinct and separate human person". Therefore sex selection is just as valid a reason as physical or mental disabilities, Correct?
I am surprized that you would insist that a human person begins at conception. This is not what society believes.
No, it is a simple biological fact. What society believes, is quite irrelevant to this. Are you saying we should tailor our beliefs to what society believes in the face of the biological facts?
Although this has sometimes been the position of the church, it was more commonly thought (by those who believed in a soul) that the first trimester was a vegetable soul, and the human soul was only formed when the foetus became animated usually synonymous with quickening. Other Christian beliefs used human appearance (limbs, digits, etc.) As an indication of a soul. Plato believed the embryo and soul were formed in the earth. This was a common belief shared by your psalmist (supposedly David, wasn't it?). How many married and unmarried women did he get pregnant?
Fascinating, how someone who constantly uses the argument against God, that superstition , must relinquish, in the face of scientific facts, would try to turn the same argument on it's head, when it seemed useful to do so.
Greg, your values are far too righteous for the group you profess devotion to. How do you take moral stands before your peers, when the God you follow killed 70,000 people (many of them infants, and many of them pregnant women carrying potential persons)--just to punish David for counting the people in a census...to punish DAVID--who had no more feeling for people than a cat has for a mouse. Oh well, carry on.
Oh, BTW, most of the bible is pro abortion--even leaving aside God's orders to kill foetuses, and so forth. Would you like to share with us what gives you the RIGHT to think for yourself, and to go against the majestic thought of these primitive humans who believed that water was held in the sky by the firmament, and that the windows of heaven were what allowed the rain water to come through??
Well here we are at the end of the post and just how much substance did we find???????
Precious little, Oh there is lot's circular reasoning, question begging, and emotive pleading, but where's the beef Solon. We now know that you favor/support killing of unborn children for any reason at any time, right up to and including the process of giving birth. By trying to defend the indefensible, you have placed yourself into the grave danger of becoming a lightweight. You call me a "liar, and anti-christ" all I can say to that is if the shoe fits, then wear it my friend, wear it.
Have a good day Solon.
Greg |
