Products of conception.
Jesus also contradicted the Law (see the Sermon on the Mount) for instance arguing any divorce (except for adultery) was bad, telling people to love their enemies, and so on.
Are you God or the Pope or President [1] or Chairman [1] or anything that gives you any authority on this?
[1] Of a religious denomination
I don’t do that. If they do that, that’s their problem.
Something more sciency. Uteroids!
Sounds like something you’d use Preparation H for. And I don’t even want to THINK about how you’d get it there. :eek:
Right. And such diseases exist, that cause a much lessened ability to concieve or carry a child to term (or both). Among other things which cause that effect. If you would like me to concede that there isn’t something along those lines which affects most women, then i’ll happily do so. But my overall point is that if you’re basing your support for fetus or fertilised egg rights on that they have a reasonable chance to become human, then you have to look at the fact that, for some people, there isn’t such a reasonable chance - or that there is a greater chance for some to concieve in the first place.
What is your response to the questions I asked? If a woman has a greater chance to miscarry, should we not count any fertilised egg she’s carrying as having the same rights as one carried by an average woman? On the other side, if a woman is much more fertile than most, should we consider rights even from the moment of sex, not just conception? If it is a matter of “reasonable chance”, are we not, then, bound to change how we consider matters based upon the change in the likelihood of that chance?
Yeah, but what the hell did he know; he was just a rabble-rousing itinerant preacher who couldn’t manage to stay out of the way of the authorities, and wound up getting executed for his troubles.
Paul is DA MAN!!!
Preparation U, actually.
I’ve had a quick read through Galatians, and so far as I can tell Paul doesn’t condemn the Galatians for practicing Mosaic Law; rather, he condemns them for believing that solely through following the law that they would be redeemed; not for following the law, but for reliance on the law to justify them as opposed to faith. He says specifically in fact that (as regards specifically cirumcision) it doesn’t matter one way or the other as far as Jesus in concerned; the point, as I read it, is not that Mosiac law has bee superceded or replaced, but rather, there are more important things per Paul. Which doesn’t remove your problem, because it doesn’t condemn Mosiac law, either - it just says it doesn’t matter whether you follow it so long as you have faith. I really think your reading doesn’t work on this one.
Quoth Curtis LeMay:
This is a good point. Just because many religious conservatives do make arguments like that, doesn’t mean that they all do, nor that all religious conservatives should be held accountable for such.
No, the line should be just drawn at conception.
And therefore that we are liberated from the Law. You can still practice it if you want but it’s utterly irrelevant.
But why, when your measure is based on “reasonable chance” for becoming a human? Logically, if you believe something should be considered to have rights because it has a reasonable chance of being human, then if it does not have that reasonable chance, we should not extend those rights to it. Your statement here contradicts what you’ve already said; your basis for awarding rights isn’t based on the chance of becoming human, because presented with a situation where the chance is altered, you declare that in fact the chance has zero effect.
Let’s note the statement in question;
Clearly this is not actually accurate, since you are now saying that the chance of surviving doesn’t affect whether we should grant them rights or not. Does this mean that you have changed your mind?
It’s worth noting that you’ve again contradicted yourself, since you claimed Paul had condemned following the law in general, and now you’re claiming that actually it doesn’t matter.
Unfortunetly, you still have a problem. Your initial point was that the idea that a fetus was worth, in “an eye for an eye” proportional revenge/reimbursement costs, only a monetary fine, was invalid because this was the old Mosiac law. But if practicing the law is not condemned in and of itself, if it is “utterly irrelevant”, then it doesn’t matter that the matter of dealing with a fetus death through violence is to pay money is a perfectly acceptable response. You’ve claimed here that it is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter, if the response to the violent death of a fetus is simply to pay a fine. Are you sure that’s what you want to claim?
Y’know, if nothing else, ol’ Curtis is getting one hell of an immersion course in how to assemble and present an argument here.
He does better than I would. I never agree with Curtis but I can’t help liking him.
If the fetus will spontenously miscarriage than I suppose it will happen. But we do not consider people more naturally prone to heart attacks less human, do we?
No. I think now Mosaic Law is utterly irrelevant and violates human rights if practiced (ie stoning people for adultery).
*I *don’t. But your analogy doesn’t work; the person more prone to a heart attack is already human; it doesn’t decrease his chance to become human because he already is. However, a fetus of a mother with a higher than average chance to miscarry *does *have their chance to become human decreased.
It’s quite simple. You claimed that you draw the line based upon the “reasonable chance” a fertilised egg has to become human. Now you are saying that even if that chance changes, it makes no difference. There is a contradiction.
Let me ask you straight; do you draw the line based upon the chance a fertilised egg has of becoming human?
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. It cannot both be irrelevant and a violation of human rights. If it violates human rights, it is very much relevant, important, and in general a subject that needs to be looked at. I’d be shocked if you didn’t agree. But Paul says, specifically talking about circumcision but generally about the old law, that it most certainly is irrelevant to Jesus. That, whether the law is followed or not does not matter to Jesus. Given this then would mean that Jesus has no problem with human rights violations, I suspect you have another problem on your hands. Either Paul is incorrect - and following the old law very much matters to Jesus, since he’s against stoning people for adultery (and for other crimes, one would hope)), and against the appropriate recompense for violent abortion being a simple payment, or Paul is correct and Jesus has zero problem with these things.
Is the “now” part an indication of you having changed your mind, or just a general explanation for long past beliefs?
OK, Curtis, let’s explore the idea of personhood beginning at conception a bit further. Suppose a pregnant woman and her obstetrician take a tissue sample from the fetus, to check up on its health (we’ll assume here that the woman has no plans of abortion if the fetus is unhealthy, but just wants to be prepared). A small enough sample is taken that this collection of tissue does not itself harm the fetus. There’s nothing wrong with that, is there?
OK, now assume that the woman is carrying identical twins. Identical twins, as you may know from your biology classes, result from a single conception event, but the zygote splits into two early on, and each of the two separate zygotes goes on to develop into an embryo and fetus. Now let’s suppose that, for whatever reason, the woman carrying identical twins selectively aborts one of the embryos. That embryo is destroyed, but the other one is left unharmed. I assume you would object to that, right?
But here’s the thing: If personhood starts at conception, then this is very similar to the other case. There’s still a conception event, there’s still a quantity of tissue resulting from that conception event that’s removed and ultimately destroyed, and there’s still an embryo resulting from that conception event that survives unharmed.
Alternately, you could say that personhood usually starts with conception, but can also start when a zygote divides. Presumably, then, one twin’s personhood started with conception, and the other twin’s personhood started some time later. But which one was the “original”, and which is the “newcomer”?
Well, to be fair, when I was thirteen, my interests were mainly the latest fashions and teeny-bopper magazines. So I have to give him credit.
However, the Force maybe strong with young Curtis, but he is not a Jedi yet.
NO! GODDAM IT - NO - NO - NO - I would NOT support a ban.:mad:
I don’t care if it’s a wee zygote or a budding angel or the next Albert Einstein, or WTF ever it is, if a female doesn’t want to be pregnant, she should not have to be pregnant. I’ve felt this way for 40 years and my daughter feels the same as I do. It is not the business of the pope, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, or anyone else not involved.
I would like to point out abortions are done on CONSERVATIVES, libertarians, moderates, and all manner of religious fanatics. Yes, Republicans too, and especially the ones who have a lot of money. How many has Rush Limbaugh paid for over the years, do you think? How many has Ann Coulter, that diseased hag, had?
Do you think non-liberal politicians with their big phony family values/ god-fearing blather believe one word of what they bray to their fan club? And do you think the teabaggers who listen to them don’t have abortions?
It’s always been a fight because Republicans, big hypocrites that they are, want to punish and control women. It’s in their nature.
Whoa, dude, why don’t you tell us how you REALLY feel? I’m a bit confused, here.
Dude, quit with the dancing already and just admit that what you really want is your Christian beliefs to be the law of the land.
Because your God is the only God, and your beliefs are the only beliefs with merit.
It’s the subtext of your every convoluted post on the topic and all your threads end up - on the topic.
Yes, you’re a clever fellow and have a comeback for everything, which seems to be all that matters to you, that you have a come back. Not that it has any validity, basis in fact, or actual relevancy in today’s world.
You don’t even make the slightest sense. You and your family benefit from health coverage subsidized by the state, but don’t want that for anyone else. Terribly Christian.
Your lame dancing around is just that - lame. Man up and admit you want a Christian theocracy where the laws of the land are dictated by your God and your book.
And to answer your question - Hell no.
I don’t care what your book or your God says, we’re not going back to a time when a bunch a white, Christian penis’s get to say what’s right for us. Suffer a few hundred years under a system that does not represent your views, then come back and see us, we’ll talk.
Bearing a child has far reaching physical, emotional and financial ramifications, only the woman involved gets to say what’s right for her. Surrendering a child to adoption has far reaching emotional ramifications such that only the woman gets to say what’s right for her. Aborting a child has far reaching emotional and physical ramifications, again, only the woman involved gets to say what’s right for her.