Federal Judge: Late-term abortion ban unconstitutional

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by -=d=-
It makes me cringe to hear (read) there are people gullible enough to believe in, and use the phrase "A man shouldn't tell a woman what to do with her body" when the topic is abortion.

It's the sign of a weak mind, imsho.

By the way, go fuck yourself.
Ya rude bastard.
A strong mind would point out the faults in my logic instead of insulting me.

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by ajwps
It makes me cringe to hear (read) there are people gullible enough to believe in, and use the phrase "A Muslim man should have his wife beheaded when she refuses to let him escort her outside of her home"

The difference between this and the given argument is that only one includes a third party. Moving on...


What gets me is the idea of justification. At what point does life start? At what point is it murder? You see, nobody knows. The best thing is to avoid it altogether. What happens when you try to answer those questions is justification, that in its extreme, will change the whole definition of murder. First, you can abort during the first trimester. Then during the second. Then, it's ok to abort as long as the baby isn't born. Then, suddenly, why not just get rid of the baby even after birth, so long as you haven't taken it home. I mean, what's the difference between a newborn baby, and the baby that is a week from delivery? You see what I mean? Now, granted, I personally don't think we'll ever see the day when killing newborns is legal. However, how can a person possibly take it upon his or herself to personally define murder? Maybe we should start killing off the old people in rest homes who are confined to their beds. I mean, some unborn babies are more active than a lot of them!

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Shazbot
The difference between this and the given argument is that only one includes a third party. Moving on...


What gets me is the idea of justification. At what point does life start? At what point is it murder? You see, nobody knows. The best thing is to avoid it altogether. What happens when you try to answer those questions is justification, that in its extreme, will change the whole definition of murder. First, you can abort during the first trimester. Then during the second. Then, it's ok to abort as long as the baby isn't born. Then, suddenly, why not just get rid of the baby even after birth, so long as you haven't taken it home. I mean, what's the difference between a newborn baby, and the baby that is a week from delivery? You see what I mean? Now, granted, I personally don't think we'll ever see the day when killing newborns is legal. However, how can a person possibly take it upon his or herself to personally define murder? Maybe we should start killing off the old people in rest homes who are confined to their beds. I mean, some unborn babies are more active than a lot of them!

-Douglas

Are you saying that activity in the womb is the defining point of life? Have you seen the activity in a deer or elephant's womb before the animal is born?

These mammals all have gestating foetus' which have beating hearts, limbs that move, intestinal activity, brain electrical activity and even move to sounds coming from the outside world.

Does this mean that any attempt to abort (murder) these mammal unborn means that you are taking a life? What differentiates human life in the womb from our fellow mammals in utero life?

Questions:

Where did human beings get the idea of human life being of more import than those other mammal inhabitants of this planet?

Who is wise enough to decide something other than that which is spelled out clearly in the widely published book source that life begins only after each man and woman has been formed from the dust of the earth, and then only after that formed human takes the breath of life in it's nostrils does it become a human life (or soul)?

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by ajwps
Are you saying that activity in the womb is the defining point of life? Have you seen the activity in a deer or elephant's womb before the animal is born?

These mammals all have gestating foetus' which have beating hearts, limbs that move, intestinal activity, brain electrical activity and even move to sounds coming from the outside world.

Does this mean that any attempt to abort (murder) these mammal unborn means that you are taking a life? What differentiates human life in the womb from our fellow mammals in utero life?

Questions:

Where did human beings get the idea of human life being of more import than those other mammal inhabitants of this planet?

Who is wise enough to decide something other than that which is spelled out clearly in the widely published book source that life begins only after each man and woman has been formed from the dust of the earth, and then only after that formed human takes the breath of life in it's nostrils does it become a human life (or soul)?

Hate to say it, but you're confusing me. What does an elephant fetus have to do with anything? Further, I never even mentioned that activity in the womb is the "defining point in life." Although, I would go so far as to say that if the fetus is acting and reacting it is most definitely "alive."

As for your questions...

1) In my own belief system, this stems from the fact that although everything on earth (including the earth) is a creation of God, mankind is a higher creation, being formed after the very image of God. Men and women were given the ability to know good and evil, make choices, and reason - traits that are unique to us. This places us on a pedestal above the rest of the animals and such. This, however, does not justify us in doing as we wish to those very animals. Man was also given dominion over the earth - aka, responsibility to take care of it. Now, if one's belief system does not accept this, then I guess it boils down to the idea of taking the life of one's own kind, which itself is pretty disgusting.

2) When the bible mentions the "breath of life," in relation to the creation of man, I understand it to mean the entering of the spirit into the body. Hence, as the scripture says, "the Lord God...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7).

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Shazbot
Hate to say it, but you're confusing me. What does an elephant fetus have to do with anything? Further, I never even mentioned that activity in the womb is the "defining point in life." Although, I would go so far as to say that if the fetus is acting and reacting it is most definitely "alive."

The defining point of LIFE is not the question but the definition of LIFE itself is the question. If you assume that there is a different form of life in humans and animals, then you have to state that difference.


"As for your questions..."

1) In my own belief system, this stems from the fact that although everything on earth (including the earth) is a creation of God, mankind is a higher creation, being formed after the very image of God. Men and women were given the ability to know good and evil, make choices, and reason - traits that are unique to us. This places us on a pedestal above the rest of the animals and such. This, however, does not justify us in doing as we wish to those very animals. Man was also given dominion over the earth - aka, responsibility to take care of it. Now, if one's belief system does not accept this, then I guess it boils down to the idea of taking the life of one's own kind, which itself is pretty disgusting.

If it is only your opinion that mankind is a higher form of life because men and women have the ability to know between good and evil, choice and reason then how is that you feel that certain animals do not have the very same attributes? So you are saying the bible tells you that mankind is superior to all other life forms. If man has dominion over all that he sees including the animal, then is it okay to eat of the flesh of the animal that G-d gave man dominion over?


2) When the bible mentions the "breath of life," in relation to the creation of man, I understand it to mean the entering of the spirit into the body. Hence, as the scripture says, "the Lord God...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7).

Super observation. Then if a woman chooses to abort the unborn growing original dust created by G-d, then that abortion is not taking the 'breath-of-life' that doesn't come until the baby is born and takes it's first birth where life begins according to Gen 2:7...

Do you still believe abortion is murdering something not yet with the breath of life?

By the way, the name Adam is the Hebrew word for MAN.....

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Shazbot
The difference between this and the given argument is that only one includes a third party. Moving on...


What gets me is the idea of justification. At what point does life start? At what point is it murder? You see, nobody knows. The best thing is to avoid it altogether. What happens when you try to answer those questions is justification, that in its extreme, will change the whole definition of murder. First, you can abort during the first trimester. Then during the second. Then, it's ok to abort as long as the baby isn't born. Then, suddenly, why not just get rid of the baby even after birth, so long as you haven't taken it home. I mean, what's the difference between a newborn baby, and the baby that is a week from delivery? You see what I mean? Now, granted, I personally don't think we'll ever see the day when killing newborns is legal. However, how can a person possibly take it upon his or herself to personally define murder? Maybe we should start killing off the old people in rest homes who are confined to their beds. I mean, some unborn babies are more active than a lot of them!

-Douglas

Interesting comments, Douglas.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Shazbot
Hate to say it, but you're confusing me. What does an elephant fetus have to do with anything?

I was thinking the same...

 

[dilloduck]

Shouldn't a man have some say over what he has helped to create?--Why is this right strictly reserved for the woman? Sometimes the abortion issue seems to be a control issue to me and is obsfucated by arguing over when "life" begins.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Shouldn't a man have some say over what he has helped to create?--Why is this right strictly reserved for the woman? Sometimes the abortion issue seems to be a control issue to me and is obsfucated by arguing over when "life" begins.

IMO, while the man def. has a right to a role in the child's life, I'm not sure that he should have the same rights prior to birth. For example, in the case of a woman with health problems related to her pregnancy or a woman who was raped. Ultimately, it is her body not his/ours.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by nycflasher
IMO, while the man def. has a right to a role in the child's life, I'm not sure that he should have the same rights prior to birth. For example, in the case of a woman with health problems related to her pregnancy or a woman who was raped. Ultimately, it is her body not his/ours.

Ya, I kind of agree. I think the man does have say, but ultimately the woman should have the final say because she is the one who will be carrying if for 9 months and then giving birth to it, not the man.

If the man wants a kid bad enough, he can adopt, lol

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by ajwps
The defining point of LIFE is not the question but the definition of LIFE itself is the question. If you assume that there is a different form of life in humans and animals, then you have to state that difference.

Ok, I will state the difference. We are God's children. My dog is God's creation.

Originally posted by ajwps
If it is only your opinion that mankind is a higher form of life because men and women have the ability to know between good and evil, choice and reason then how is that you feel that certain animals do not have the very same attributes? So you are saying the bible tells you that mankind is superior to all other life forms. If man has dominion over all that he sees including the animal, then is it okay to eat of the flesh of the animal that G-d gave man dominion over?

I think mankind is a higher form of life, and the fact that we can know good from evil, make choices, and reason are results therefrom. As far as eating animals, I believe that all God created was for the benefit and use of man. One reason animals exist on the earth is to provide mankind with what we need, be it food, clothing, or whatever. The idea to keep forward, though, is moderation in all things. I don't think it's good for me to take my gun and just go kill as many animals as I can under the pretense that I will eat it all.

Originally posted by ajwps
Super observation. Then if a woman chooses to abort the unborn growing original dust created by G-d, then that abortion is not taking the 'breath-of-life' that doesn't come until the baby is born and takes it's first birth where life begins according to Gen 2:7...

When I said what I said about the spirit, I implied that the phrase "breath of life" was symbolic. Symbolic in that it doesn't refer to someone taking a breath of oxygen, but receiving their spirit into their body. Nobody knows when exactly the spirit enters into the fetus, and therefore, nobody knows exactly when life begins. However, as I said before, if the unborn baby is already acting and reacting within the mother's womb, that is a good sign that it is, indeed, alive.

Originally posted by ajwps
Do you still believe abortion is murdering something not yet with the breath of life?

Again, the breath of life refers to the spirit, not oxygen - if there is no spirit, there is no life. If there is no life, there is no murder (my thoughts, at least).

Originally posted by ajwps
By the way, the name Adam is the Hebrew word for MAN.....

And your point being...?

-Douglas

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Ya, I kind of agree. I think the man does have say, but ultimately the woman should have the final say because she is the one who will be carrying if for 9 months and then giving birth to it, not the man.

If the man wants a kid bad enough, he can adopt, lol

OK here's where this argument loses me--nature,God, whatever has made it so the woman carries the child in it's development. Does a woman feel as if she should be rewarded for this by having the right to abort it ? It is ALSO part of the father. What if I want my own child to live but the women claims it's in me now--too bad? Is pregnancy merely an incovenience?

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by dilloduck
OK here's where this argument loses me--nature,God, whatever has made it so the woman carries the child in it's development. Does a woman feel as if she should be rewarded for this by having the right to abort it ? It is ALSO part of the father. What if I want my own child to live but the women claims it's in me now--too bad? Is pregnancy merely an incovenience?

What is your point? We are not talking about ownership rights but whether or not abortion is or isn't killing human life.

Ownership of unborn children is in the province of who has 2/3 rights as long as it is in their possession.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Ultimately, it is her body not his/ours. [/B]

Of course, it is the baby's body that is ultimately destroyed. and since babies can't protest their abortion, and can't march on Washington D.C. with signs saying "Keep your laws off my body," then someone has got to speak for them. Thus, the pro-life movement.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by ajwps
What is your point? We are not talking about ownership rights but whether or not abortion is or isn't killing human life.

Ownership of unborn children is in the province of who has 2/3 rights as long as it is in their possession.

In addition to above post, women claim MY body--My right. They are talking about ownership!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Of course, it is the baby's body that is ultimately destroyed. and since babies can't protest their abortion, and can't march on Washington D.C. with signs saying "Keep your laws off my body," then someone has got to speak for them. Thus, the pro-life movement.

Not to mention I have been this route before with the Bible and the definition of when life begins with ajwps in HIS former life, and he lost.

Aborting after conception is clearly murder, and one would be wise to remember:

Matthew 13:
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Of course, it is the baby's body that is ultimately destroyed. and since babies can't protest their abortion, and can't march on Washington D.C. with signs saying "Keep your laws off my body," then someone has got to speak for them. Thus, the pro-life movement.

Fair enough. I see reasons for both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, I don't see a unanimous decision being reached anytime soon. Agree?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Not to mention I have been this route before with the Bible and the definition of when life begins with ajwps in HIS former life, and he lost.

Aborting after conception is clearly murder, and one would be wise to remember:

IMO, bringing religion into it complicates things because we are all of different or no religion. But then again, it is a religious issue for those who are religious.

Is it possible to discuss abortion sans religion?

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Fair enough. I see reasons for both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, I don't see a unanimous decision being reached anytime soon. Agree?

Agree. My opinion is that I'm going to err on the side of preserving life.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by nycflasher
IMO, bringing religion into it complicates things because we are all of different or no religion. But then again, it is a religious issue for those who are religious.

Is it possible to discuss abortion sans religion?

When the Bible, which is proven divine by prophecy, says when life begins, the question is not:
"Can we discuss it regardless of Biblical view?",
but
"How is it even POSSIBLE to discuss it without Biblical view?"