|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Feb 5, 2018 15:46:03 GMT
Stipulating that a fetus is a person (for the purpose of this argument), we have to go into the murky territory of what the law finds legal, in killing people.
Capital punishment is all right, killing other people in times of war is ok. Meaning those things are legal.
Laws like that just blur the argument that abortion should be illegal, because it is killing people.
If someone doesn't believe in abortion, all well and good. Don't have one, recommend others not have one. But the argument that abortion kills a person, therefore abortion should be illegal, is full of holes.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 5, 2018 15:57:26 GMT
per¦son. [ˈpəːs(ə)n] NOUN .1.a human being regarded as an individual.
A fertilized ovum is not regarded as an individual, or a 'person' (a 'child'), for some time by medicine, since it cannot survive separately from the mother - a distinction that ancient science, such as it was, would be unable to formulate. The time that such survival is likely is usually the time at which most abortions cease to be legal. Let alone the fact that a person is a being that, typically, has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness. I see none of these in a cluster of cells. I hope that helps.
But FilmF, you asked Cody for a Bible based case against abortion. (And we both saw the futility of asking him much of anything.) And that's all I advertised in my subject heading. Indeed, but the OP here was certainly bible based; mine was simply one way of answering it. (Sorry, it wasn't meant as a reflection on you; looking back I can see I might have sounded too sarcastic!)
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 5, 2018 16:00:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 5, 2018 16:04:01 GMT
As I have noted elsewhere, the act of wilfully creating evil in the first place, then creating an imperfect (i.e. just "very good") world and inhabitants, before finally blaming and punishing them for their faults, seems perverse to me.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 5, 2018 16:23:28 GMT
Yes, I think most would agree that this is the obviously intended meaning and interpretation. But...what’s your point? Because correct or not, this is hardly substantive when it comes to what our laws should be. My point? Hmm... My OP was really in response to a challenge (another thread) made to an anti-abortion rights Christian to make a Bible based case against abortion. That Christian seems either too lazy or too ignorant to do it, so I thought, "What the hell, I'll take a a shot." And the "personhood status" of the fetus is a value judgment (in spite of CoolJGS' mindless lol); everyone's values will be influenced by different sources and experiences. So, on the question of abortion (specifically, perhaps uniquely) it's not enough to just say to pro-life Christians, "We don't make our laws based on the Bible."
Gotcha!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 5, 2018 16:28:10 GMT
Yes, I think most would agree that this is the obviously intended meaning and interpretation. But...what’s your point? Because correct or not, this is hardly substantive when it comes to what our laws should be. My point? Hmm... My OP was really in response to a challenge (another thread) made to an anti-abortion rights Christian to make a Bible based case against abortion. That Christian seems either too lazy or too ignorant to do it, so I thought, "What the hell, I'll take a a shot." And the "personhood status" of the fetus is a value judgment (in spite of CoolJGS' mindless lol); everyone's values will be influenced by different sources and experiences. So, on the question of abortion (specifically, perhaps uniquely) it's not enough to just say to pro-life Christians, "We don't make our laws based on the Bible."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 16:50:21 GMT
The idea that the Psalm from the OP doesn't correlate to personhood ignores the much more clear biblical corroboration found in Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
If the scriptures are to serve as a basis for the argument at hand, it is clear what they have to say about personhood, thus, abortion.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 5, 2018 17:09:19 GMT
You need better than "imply" to make something illegal.
😎
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 5, 2018 17:14:54 GMT
It's irrelevant to atheist what the Bible says in the first place. There's no point is wasting time regarding that since they are only here to make fun of or ignore altogether Biblical interpretation even when it is obvious....unless you are doing t for fun too.
An abortion debate doesn't have the luxury of being obvious to those kind of people and religion isn't needed to debate it anyway.
Of course the Bible doesn't address abortion just like it doesn't address cloning, nuclear bombs, chimichangas, or mood rings. It would have never dawned on anyone back then that people would decide that a fetus was anything other than a human fetus and that they would want to suck that puppy out and toss it away anyway.
The implications of a host of things are made clear by their context, but context to the theophobiac does not matter and in fact does not exist to them.
They make up notions of personhood while ignoring the very obvious and scientific reality that a fetus has never been categorized as anything other than a human.
It's pretty easy to just get them on the science of it so they can just flat out say they have no issues with killing a prekid since it cures so many of the world's problems and clearly makes women stronger...
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 5, 2018 17:15:28 GMT
Does the Bible say that every person has a right to life?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 5, 2018 17:49:44 GMT
Does the Bible say that every person has a right to life? Of course not. However, it does state who has the authority to make those kind of weighty decisions. Surprisingly, neither abortion clinic nor scared girl with a coat hanger are on the list.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 5, 2018 17:53:51 GMT
Does the Bible say that every person has a right to life? Of course not. However, it does state who has the authority to make those kind of weighty decisions. Can you prove it? EDIT: Didn't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 5, 2018 18:11:06 GMT
Stipulating that a fetus is a person (for the purpose of this argument), we have to go into the murky territory of what the law finds legal, in killing people. Capital punishment is all right, killing other people in times of war is ok. Meaning those things are legal. Laws like that just blur the argument that abortion should be illegal, because it is killing people. If someone doesn't believe in abortion, all well and good. Don't have one, recommend others not have one. But the argument that abortion kills a person, therefore abortion should be illegal, is full of holes. If you stipulate that the fetus is a person, it goes without saying that the fetus is certainly an innocent person. Examples of legal killing all involve those who are not innocent (murderers, enemy soldiers, civilians who attack us). So, arguing that abortion kills a person (so stipulated), therefore abortion should be illegal is NOT full of holes.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 5, 2018 18:49:09 GMT
I'm not really getting what you think is so detrimental in The Bible saying that we are created sinful.... not that unborn babies are somehow already sinning.. there's no whorehouse casinos in there... just that we are created.. from the moment that we are conceived.. "sinful", i.e. imperfect and flawed... and going to die because we are inherently flawed as such. - I don't know where all that is coming from since there's nothing in my OP that criticizes the idea of original sin. Of course I can criticize it, and I did a few months ago. Are you having flashbacks?
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Feb 5, 2018 18:58:31 GMT
Stipulating that a fetus is a person (for the purpose of this argument), we have to go into the murky territory of what the law finds legal, in killing people. Capital punishment is all right, killing other people in times of war is ok. Meaning those things are legal. Laws like that just blur the argument that abortion should be illegal, because it is killing people. If someone doesn't believe in abortion, all well and good. Don't have one, recommend others not have one. But the argument that abortion kills a person, therefore abortion should be illegal, is full of holes. If you stipulate that the fetus is a person, it goes without saying that the fetus is certainly an innocent person. Examples of legal killing all involve those who are not innocent (murderers, enemy soldiers, civilians who attack us). So, arguing that abortion kills a person (so stipulated), therefore abortion should be illegal is NOT full of holes.
That just sounds like you are saying that the non-innocent (as per your designations) are not people.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 5, 2018 19:16:20 GMT
If you stipulate that the fetus is a person, it goes without saying that the fetus is certainly an innocent person. Examples of legal killing all involve those who are not innocent (murderers, enemy soldiers, civilians who attack us). So, arguing that abortion kills a person (so stipulated), therefore abortion should be illegal is NOT full of holes.
That just sounds like you are saying that the non-innocent (as per your designations) are not people. Not at all. Those people are simply not innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 5, 2018 19:38:31 GMT
I'm not really getting what you think is so detrimental in The Bible saying that we are created sinful.... not that unborn babies are somehow already sinning.. there's no whorehouse casinos in there... just that we are created.. from the moment that we are conceived.. "sinful", i.e. imperfect and flawed... and going to die because we are inherently flawed as such. - I don't know where all that is coming from since there's nothing in my OP that criticizes the idea of original sin. Of course I can criticize it, and I did a few months ago. Are you having flashbacks?
Maybe... Of course you can criticize the concept of original sin... Never said you couldn't.... or even claimed that's what you were doing in your OP. It's when you are using the concept of original sin in the context of an abortion argument to put it into the context of a legal argument that seems kinda silly.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 5, 2018 19:46:24 GMT
It's irrelevant to atheist what the Bible says in the first place. There's no point is wasting time regarding that since they are only here to make fun of or ignore altogether Biblical interpretation even when it is obvious....unless you are doing t for fun too. An abortion debate doesn't have the luxury of being obvious to those kind of people and religion isn't needed to debate it anyway. Of course the Bible doesn't address abortion just like it doesn't address cloning, nuclear bombs, chimichangas, or mood rings. It would have never dawned on anyone back then that people would decide that a fetus was anything other than a human fetus and that they would want to suck that puppy out and toss it away anyway. The implications of a host of things are made clear by their context, but context to the theophobiac does not matter and in fact does not exist to them. They make up notions of personhood while ignoring the very obvious and scientific reality that a fetus has never been categorized as anything other than a human. It's pretty easy to just get them on the science of it so they can just flat out say they have no issues with killing a prekid since it cures so many of the world's problems and clearly makes women stronger... I'm just clarifying one thing: Personhood has always been purely a philosophical issue. It's not a scientific issue. Science doesn't bother with that idea. Saying that something is human (or "a human") is not the same thing as the philosophical issue of what constitutes personhood. The personhood issue is basically a matter of what criteria someone considers necessary and sufficient to feel that an entity is due at least some moral and legal consideration, and beyond that, just how much moral and legal consideration, based on just how well the criteria in question are met. That's not a topic under science's purview.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 4:24:26 GMT
As I have noted elsewhere, the act of wilfully creating evil in the first place, then creating an imperfect (i.e. just "very good") world and inhabitants, before finally blaming and punishing them for their faults, seems perverse to me. I was trying to explain this to Winter last night!
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 6, 2018 4:36:01 GMT
That just sounds like you are saying that the non-innocent (as per your designations) are not people. Not at all. Those people are simply not innocent people. I question those designations, especially the concept of 'innocent' people. Specifically enemy soldiers who are caught in the mire of having to obey orders, so they are committing actions under duress. As I am also against capital punishment I also question legal killing, generally. Another category mentioned is criminals or terrorists who attack people and the dilemma that police face when attending these scenarios in progress. Most civilised police forces ONLY kill the perpetrator if there is no other alternative when it will prevent further death or injury to either themselves or the public in the perceived threat.
|
|