Is Abortion Murder?

[Ransom]

post-it said:

Since it is not always predictable who will die, every woman can make a self-defense argument to abort, which you just agreed would be OK.

By this logic, since I cannot predict whether or not any given person I meet is a murderous psychopath, it is only self-defense if I shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:
post-it said:

Since it is not always predictable who will die, every woman can make a self-defense argument to abort, which you just agreed would be OK.

By this logic, since I cannot predict whether or not any given person I meet is a murderous psychopath, it is only self-defense if I shoot first and ask questions later.

Good point Ransom, and I don't use the self defense argument since before this argument could be made, a fetus would have to be proven to be a person first.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
Good point Ransom, and I don't use the self defense argument since before this argument could be made, a fetus would have to be proven to be a person first.

Post-it:

Since you won't respond to any of my multiple refutations of your logic, maybe we can start it more simply.

Why, according to you, is a fetus not a person? How can you prove this either medically or logically?

Is this, the fetus not being a person, the only reason you feel that abortion is not murder or is there something else?

When, according to you, is a fetus a person? At what point does a fetus turn into a person?

In Christ,
jason

 

[post-it]

If the law ever granted "human life" status to a fetus, did you know that your fetus could buy and sell homes and business'? The mother or father could sign as guardian. Your landlord could be a fetus of 3 weeks of age.

Good luck getting your security deposit back.

Bill's fetus could be the major stock holder of Mircosoft.

A fetus could fire you from your job.

A fetus could be sued in a court of law; Lose the case, and owe $1,000,000 or more in judgements before it ever took it's first breath.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by post-it:
If the law ever granted "human life" status to a fetus, did you know that your fetus could buy and sell homes and business'? The mother or father could sign as guardian. Your landlord could be a fetus of 3 weeks of age.

Good luck getting your security deposit back.

Bill's fetus could be the major stock holder of Mircosoft.

A fetus could fire you from your job.

A fetus could be sued in a court of law; Lose the case, and owe $1,000,000 or more in judgements before it ever took it's first breath.

Questionable on two counts:

1. In some states, if a person commits a crime that affects a wanted fetus, that person is charged as having affected a person. So the law already grants that status.

2. I believe all those transactions require knowledgeable consent. Someone (such as a parent) can enter a transaction on behalf of a child but until that child is of legal age, he cannot enter it for himself.

 

[FearNot]

Post it, I would like to read your reply to my comments on page 6. I want you to tell me why God would not concider a fertalized egg a life, after all He created life. I want to know why when God sees through time and can know a person, can know a soul, why He would not love a person even before they are conceived. I would like to read what you say on whether or not God has the ability to love you before your parents were even married.

God exsists outside of time. He can see all, know all. Do you doubt this?

I would like to hear your explanation of the mention of hypocracy of our government compairing children to animals on page 6. Baby animals are more important to this government than human lives.

Post it, I pray that you aren't truely as uncareing as you sound. Surely you are not. I would hope that you at the least have compassion for these unborn lives. Would you reccomend a women consider adoption over abortion?

Please pray about this and then reply.

God bless

 

[FearNot]

Post it, I would like to read your reply to my comments on page 6. I want you to tell me why God would not concider a fertalized egg a life, after all He created life. I want to know why when God sees through time and can know a person, can know a soul, why He would not love a person even before they are conceived. I would like to read what you say on whether or not God has the ability to love you before your parents were even married.

God exsists outside of time. He can see all, know all. Do you doubt this?

I would like to hear your explanation of the mention of hypocracy of our government compairing children to animals on page 6. Baby animals are more important to this government than human lives.

Post it, I pray that you aren't truely as uncareing as you sound. Surely you are not. I would hope that you at the least have compassion for these unborn lives. Would you reccomend a women consider adoption over abortion?

Please pray about this and then reply.

God bless

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
If the law ever granted "human life" status to a fetus, did you know that your fetus could buy and sell homes and business'? The mother or father could sign as guardian. Your landlord could be a fetus of 3 weeks of age.

Good luck getting your security deposit back.

Bill's fetus could be the major stock holder of Mircosoft.

A fetus could fire you from your job.

A fetus could be sued in a court of law; Lose the case, and owe $1,000,000 or more in judgements before it ever took it's first breath.

Absurd logic, once again.

Instead of saying 'fetus' what if I said '9 month old'? Exact same thing going on but the baby is now out of the womb.

Almost a good try...next.

In Christ,
jason

PS. This does not answer any of the questions I asked you. It appears you are avoiding my questions and refutations. I wonder why this is? Hmm......

[EDITED TO ADD]
BTW. Your "argument" here is a logical fallacy. That of slippery slope. Of course, I am sure you were aware of that. I am simply pointing this out for the other members of the board.

[ August 22, 2002, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

Good point Ransom, and I don't use the self defense argument since before this argument could be made, a fetus would have to be proven to be a person first.

Well, then, what is it?

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

If the law ever granted "human life" status to a fetus, did you know that your fetus could buy and sell homes and business'?

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, shall we?

In the meantime, answer the question: since you don't believe the fetus is a person, what is it?

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by jasonW*:

Since you won't respond to any of my multiple refutations of your logic, maybe we can start it more simply.
In Christ,
jason[/QB]

Sorry Jason, but as of today, I must adopt a new way of posting on the board. It seems that a moderator thinks I have been very hostile in my posts and I agree that I go to far with my smart cracks, I will do as the moderators have asked. The reason I have been sarcastic etc is because someone starts attacking me personally and I react.

So my new policy is to address those personal attacks first in a civil manner before addressing any refutes or arguments from the offending party.

This should help keep my blood pressure in check too. The moderator spoke with some wise wisdom here.

So here are your personal attacks which we need to address first.

Post-it, you are lazy, very lazy, in your thought process about this.

post-it, .. When one rejects abortion as murder, there are only two reasons:
1. Intellectual laziness (not thinking it through, rather mindlessly going with the masses)
2. Spiritual Depravitiy (not knowing right from wrong and living a worldly life).

There can be some combination of the two, but those are the only two reasons by which one can accept abortion as acceptable.

After posting many, many posts on this subject over many months you claim I'm lazy and haven't given this any real thought.

You also say I'm not a Christian, implying that I am damned to hell for not believing as you do.

Please provide proof of each accusation or apologize so I can address your real arguments.

[ August 22, 2002, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:

In the meantime, answer the question: since you don't believe the fetus is a person, what is it?

It is a body part of a woman.

 

[Ransom]

post-it said:

It is a body part of a woman.

A male fetus is a female body part?

But leaving aside the obvious absurdity of your position, please explain: what is the woman's justification for removing it? Is it malfunctioning?

[ August 22, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
So here are your personal attacks which we need to address first.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Post-it, you are lazy, very lazy, in your thought process about this.

post-it, .. When one rejects abortion as murder, there are only two reasons:
1. Intellectual laziness (not thinking it through, rather mindlessly going with the masses)
2. Spiritual Depravitiy (not knowing right from wrong and living a worldly life).

There can be some combination of the two, but those are the only two reasons by which one can accept abortion as acceptable.

After posting many, many posts on this subject over many months you claim I'm lazy and haven't given this any real thought.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and I stand by that. Every example you have given to support your position is full of holes. The logic is either flawed or weak. You need to think your position over more thouroughly before you start saying things. I have given clear and consise refutations as to how your logic is wrong. Address those to prove you are not employing lazy logic.

You also say I'm not a Christian, implying that I am damned to hell for not believing as you do.

Please provide proof of each accusation or apologize so I can address your real arguments.

This is incorrect. I never said you were not a christian. I said a possible reason someone would endorse abortion is because of spiritual depravity (ie. Living in the world). A christian can be spiritually depraved (think, back sliding). So, in yet another correction, I never said you were not a christian...nor did I ever say you were spiritually depraved. What I simply said was there were two possible reasons one could accept abortion. I showed the first, and only you and God will know the second.

In Christ,
jason

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by FearNot:
[QB]Post it, I would like to read your reply to my comments on page 6. I want you to tell me why God would not concider a fertalized egg a life, after all He created life.

Under your argument, it would extend to an unfertilized egg also. God made that too, it could be developed into a person given the right fluids. Without blood from the mother it will not develop, without sperm from a man it will not develop. Is withholding either grounds for murder?

I want to know why when God sees through time and can know a person, can know a soul, why He would not love a person even before they are conceived.

Goes to justify my last argument above. Would God send a spirit into a fetus knowing it would be aborted? Why? He knew it would happen. He knows which women will choose to give birth and who won't.

I would like to hear your explanation of the mention of hypocracy of our government compairing children to animals on page 6. Baby animals are more important to this government than human lives.

Off topic.

Post it, I pray that you aren't truely as uncareing as you sound. Surely you are not. I would hope that you at the least have compassion for these unborn lives. Would you reccomend a women consider adoption over abortion?
God bless

Some people say I am too caring sometimes. I have more compassion for women who have to make this decision. I have more compassion for a mother who's husband would not allow her to abort because he is a deacon at the church, but she can't give up the baby for adoption due to her looking like an uncaring, cold woman and of course what would the church think? What if she is 40 years old and doesn't feel she can do another 18 years minimum of hard time? No, there is no easy cut and dry situations many times. These "real" people who have identity, a life, loving relationships, responsibilities, others who depend on them, these are who I have compassion for, not a piece of tissue that may someday be developed into a person.

In answer to your last question, yes, I would much rather a woman consider adoption, but I can also understand why that would not be an option for many caring women, who don't want to face a life of having a child where they can't be part of their life. The pain would be too much. The guilt would be too much.

[ August 22, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:
But leaving aside the obvious absurdity of your position,

If you don't want to bring this up as an argument with valid reasons, please leave out comments like this. Audiatur et altera pars

please explain: what is the woman's justification for removing it? Is it malfunctioning?

Should it be against the law for you to remove a body part for any reason?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by post-it:
Should it be against the law for you to remove a body part for any reason?

This is, of course, assuming that the child/fetus is only a body part of the mother and not a seperated entity entirely. This assumption is something that you have failed to show to any degree. If you must keep using this argument, please provide some validation for it.

I would like to direct your attention to the rather simple, yet unaddressed questions posed several entries earlier. Answers to these questions would give all of us a good base by which we can move forward.

In Christ,
jason

 

[Ransom]

I said:

But leaving aside the obvious absurdity of your position,

post-it said:

If you don't want to bring this up as an argument with valid reasons, please leave out comments like this.

It was quite valid in itself. Your position is absurd, for the reason I gave: you are saying that half of all females who are pregnant have male body parts.

Not to mention that every pregnant female has, amongst other things, two brains, two circulatory systems, two noses, and two sets of reproductive organs which, in half the cases, are a penis and testicles.

The other reason your "argument" is absurd is a simple biological fact: a woman's body parts all have the same genes - blood, hair, skin, muscle, you name it. A fetus, on the other hand, does not have the same genes. Therefore, a fetus is not a body part, but a genetically distinct entity.

So if it is not a person, and since it is not a body part, what is it?

 

[post-it]

Pator Larry, which version of the passage do you wish to use for the basis of examination. I suggest King James. It seems closest to your side of the argument and I would rather default out to the side of caution rather than not.

King James: Exodus Chapter 21

22 And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.
23 But if mischief happen, then thou shalt give life for life,

I think the first thing we must do is to agree to what possible meanings the word “mischief” would have in this passage.

Would you give your understanding of the possibilities so we can examine each one if used in context?

 

[post-it]

Originally posted by Ransom:

Your position is absurd, for the reason I gave:

Thanks for clearing that up, the way you wrote your post is seemed there might be other reasons that are understood that would cause my argument to be absurd. You now say that it is just for the reason you posed. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

you are saying that half of all females who are pregnant have male body parts.

Not to mention that every pregnant female has, amongst other things, two brains, two circulatory systems, two noses, and two sets of reproductive organs which, in half the cases, are a penis and testicles.

Apperantly a woman can grow these thing in her body, so yes you are correct.

The other reason your "argument" is absurd is a simple biological fact: a woman's body parts all have the same genes - blood, hair, skin, muscle, you name it. A fetus, on the other hand, does not have the same genes. Therefore, a fetus is not a body part, but a genetically distinct entity.

So you are now saying if a woman has a transplanted liver, that isn't a part of her body since it doesn't have the same genes and tissue as her?