[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Approximately during the 5th week.

Not according to your link

[Athens]

Brain functions enough to keep a fetus alive out side of the body at 22-24 weeks. Extreme life support care required to keep the baby alive. Before that the brain isn't developed enough and no life support measures can save the baby.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not according to your link

Thats when it begins, not when it is detectable. The question was when does heart function begin.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Thats when it begins, not when it is detectable. The question was when does heart function begin.

"Week 5:
...
brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form."

That's not function.

"Week 6:
...
heart is pumping blood."

In case anyone is still curious about when "brain function" begins, this seems to be the most thorough analysis of the more answerable question of when pain perception begins, which they find to be between 23-30 weeks. It is a review article published in JAMA, 2005
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/s.../fetalpain.pdf

[Chongo]

Cool, That means you actually read it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

...and you wonder why people distrust pro-life zealots

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I thought it hinged on personhood. It's been repeatedly said that fertilized eggs are not persons. It should apply to fish and turtle eggs as well.

People eat fish and turtles. People don't eat people. Not sane, civilised people anyway.

People make efforts to preserve their eggs in order to preserve their species. If there were lots of them, their eggs would be less valued. This analogy is fragile at best.

I like the hard drive analogy made earlier though its a little cold. If you had an unlimited supply of free hard drives, which would be of more value to you, an empty one thats never been used or one with several years of (your) data on it?

[Waragainstsleep]

I can't resist an atheistic troll version of this. Please suspend your offence detectors.

PC - Abortion should be legal.
PL - Jesus says no.
PC - That means nothing to me.
PL - But Jesus says no.
PC - Even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will. She should be allowed to abort.
PL - But Jesus says no.
PC - That's only your opinion. What about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
PL - Jesus says no.
PC - Looks like a parasite to me, but even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
PL - But Jesus says no.
PC - Here is some evidence showing the benefit of legalised abortion on society as a whole, exhibit A, B, and C.
PL - But Jesus says NO.
PC - Yeah, but what about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
PL - JESUS SAYS NO!

Sorry.

[Waragainstsleep]

People have distilled this issue into a single point: When does personhood begin?
I'm not convinced its quite as simple as this.

Its obviously difficult to define a standard for the beginning of 'worthwhile' life (I know its a horrible term but essentially thats the issue here). We have been looking at the earlier parts of foetal development trying to hash out an answer.
The reason we mourn the loss of a child (often more than an adult) is because of the potential that will never be realised. I imagine this is a big part of it for pro-lifers too?

Lets have some answers to this hypothetical question please:

You have a wife and three children. The older two are 8 and 14, the youngest is a newborn. You are locked up in prison or otherwise prevented from supporting your family emotionally, financially or otherwise. You and your wife are still very much in love.
Your newborns life is put in danger by unforeseeable circumstance. Your wife can save the newborn but she must sacrifice her own life to do so.

If you had to make the choice, would you chose to save your wife, or your newborn child?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not seeing a causal link there. Do you have to carry a sandwich board around with you for a week if you get a safe abortion?

The causality is the negative stigma associated with abortions by pro-life groups. To avoid ridicule and being ostracized, women may attempt abortions in a covert manner valuing anonymity over safety.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you had to make the choice, would you chose to save your wife, or your newborn child?

Since my wife can't become a ward of the state, I'd choose the wife and have the newborn put into foster care until circumstances allow me to take care of the kid; presumably after my wife is in better health.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

People have distilled this issue into a single point: When does personhood begin?
I'm not convinced its quite as simple as this.

You're really working too hard at this

Its obviously difficult to define a standard for the beginning of 'worthwhile' life (I know its a horrible term but essentially thats the issue here).

You blur the proverbial goal-post, then complain that it is too blurry.

We have been looking at the earlier parts of foetal development trying to hash out an answer.
The reason we mourn the loss of a child (often more than an adult) is because of the potential that will never be realised. I imagine this is a big part of it for pro-lifers too?

No, the reason childhood death is more shocking is because it is less common, more avoidable. We don't want anyone we like to die, old or young, but by necessity we become accustomed to older people dying.

Lets have some answers to this hypothetical question please:

You have a wife and three children. The older two are 8 and 14, the youngest is a newborn. You are locked up in prison or otherwise prevented from supporting your family emotionally, financially or otherwise. You and your wife are still very much in love.
Your newborns life is put in danger by unforeseeable circumstance. Your wife can save the newborn but she must sacrifice her own life to do so.

If you had to make the choice, would you chose to save your wife, or your newborn child?

Needlessly complicated and confused. It's not really "your" choice anyway, it's the wife's.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I can't resist an atheistic troll version of this. Please suspend your offence detectors.

PC - Abortion should be legal.
PL - Jesus says no.
PC - That means nothing to me.
PL - But Jesus says no.
PC - Even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will. She should be allowed to abort.
PL - But Jesus says no.
PC - That's only your opinion. What about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
PL - Jesus says no.
PC - Looks like a parasite to me, but even if it is a life, that doesn't mean a woman must assume the burden of caring for it against her will.
PL - But Jesus says no.
PC - Here is some evidence showing the benefit of legalised abortion on society as a whole, exhibit A, B, and C.
PL - But Jesus says NO.
PC - Yeah, but what about rape, incest, and health of the mother?
PL - JESUS SAYS NO!

Sorry.

This is a pretty typical atheist tactic. Regardless of the topic at hand, atheists must proselytize their godless manifesto. When they agree with Christians on a matter, it is obviously because the Christian is employing sound logic and reason and the insults against God or Jesus, while obligatory, will not be directed at that Christian. When the Christian holds a view the atheist disagrees with, it is because they are incapable of logic or reason as a Christian and their god must be invoked as the cause of the view.

This way, the atheist does not have to address the poster or the view, they address the god they don't believe in which is somehow much more reasoned and logical. All this to prove that atheism is not a religion and their views are not shaped by it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a pretty typical atheist tactic. Regardless of the topic at hand, atheists must proselytize their godless manifesto. When they agree with Christians on a matter, it is obviously because the Christian is employing sound logic and reason and the insults against God or Jesus, while obligatory, will not be directed at that Christian. When the Christian holds a view the atheist disagrees with, it is because they are incapable of logic or reason as a Christian and their god must be invoked as the cause of the view.

This way, the atheist does not have to address the poster or the view, they address the god they don't believe in which is somehow much more reasoned and logical. All this to prove that atheism is not a religion and their views are not shaped by it.

I generally don't single anyone out because most of you are born into your religion so as far as I'm concerned, you can't really help it. (I don't know who here if any were converted later in life so I give you all the benefit of the doubt).

You are one of the better equipped christian debaters I have encountered so I give credit where its due but on the other hand it worries me that someone who has actually demonstrated so much reason and logic can still believe so strongly in fairytales and nonsense.

You've addressed two of my posts but I'm not surprised the one you've quoted is the one which I freely admit was trolling. This was my version of what many atheists hear when they listen to an abortion debate just like your original was what many pro-lifers would hear from the same conversation. Reality as usual is somewhere in the middle of the two. Lets not dwell on that post though, I apologised when I posted it and I've admitted it was trolling.

Your point about agreement and logic is interesting. I base my opinions on logic and reasoning so it seemed logical to me to assume that if a christian agreed with me that they were being logical and reasonable about it too but as you point out that is completely wrong. They most likely agree with me because the bible tells them thats what they should think so I should only give credit for that particular logic and reason to the relevant author(s) of the bible passages in question and not to the christians I am talking to or debating with. It seems I have been giving some of you too much credit, thank you for pointing this out. Or rather, I thank whoever wrote the part of the bible that gave you the idea of pointing this out to me.
And I don't invoke gods as a cause of irrationality, merely as indicators of it.

Atheism is NOT a religion. Thats basically the meaning of the word. We aren't organised and we don't have a manifesto. The only reason we would want organisation or a manifesto is to stop the crazy creationists from infiltrating education and trying to pass off their nonsense ideas as scientifically valid. There are certain laws/rights we feel strongly about too but not that many and its nowhere near all of us in agreement.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're really working too hard at this


You blur the proverbial goal-post, then complain that it is too blurry.

Not sure you get my meaning then. This thread became a fairly multi-faceted discussion but has since been reduced to "When does personhood begin?" I didn't set that goalpost and I wasn't complaining about it, merely observing that it appears to have been set.
My point is that for some people its actually more an issue of whether personhood should be held quite as sacred as it tends to be.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, the reason childhood death is more shocking is because it is less common, more avoidable. We don't want anyone we like to die, old or young, but by necessity we become accustomed to older people dying.

It is less common now, in developed countries. But fair enough.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Needlessly complicated and confused. It's not really "your" choice anyway, it's the wife's.

I realise that, I'm just trying to take a poll of the way people assess the value of human life. Its a perfectly valid ethical question and its not that complicated or confused.
Its also hypothetical so I can give the choice to whoever I want. If it helps you to understand, a criminal could be holding wife & newborn at gunpoint and giving me the you the choice by video chat.
The point is that the wife has two kids that she has already invested a great deal of time, effort and resources into raising and who still need her. She is also capable of bearing another newborn if she wants one.

You don't have to answer it if you don't want to. I'm just saying that the whole issue isn't just about when personhood begins.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I generally don't single anyone out because most of you are born into your religion so as far as I'm concerned, you can't really help it. (I don't know who here if any were converted later in life so I give you all the benefit of the doubt).

I was 19 when I became a believer. My father is still a staunch atheist and my mother an agnostic. My brother couldn't be bothered to make any comment or commitment in any way, so I don't know his beliefs.

Though my doctrinal beliefs do support your "you can't really help it" comment.

Originally Posted by Ephesians 1:3-9

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

This is how it goes whenever two people are at odds.

Right and this has little to do with "personhood". In this case it has to do with the circumstances that led to the abortion choice, not the abortion choice itself. Personhood is effective up until compassion for the mother, then the personhood of the fetus becomes less important in the court of public opinion. This is why it is so easy to indict staunch pro-lifers as lacking compassion for women.

Ok nice twist. But... "my chassis, my choice" If the hard drive is actually a person, then what you describe would be carnage. But if the hard drive is actually just a dumb soulless mechanism (even that the soul is the software, transferred intact to the new body?), then what harm has occurred? It is their hardware to risk, and you are free to be as conservative as you want with your own computer. I went through the trouble, and I would personally not want to have an abortion, but I would feel very wrong forcing everyone to use their computer the same way I use mine. Unless it meant a person's life was at risk, of course. So again, it all boils down to the personhood issue.

The harm is in the loss of data, your time and effort in replacing hard drives unnecessarily, and the tole it takes on the chassis making it possible the next hard drive will not boot up when you want it most. The technician will try to mitigate this risk by explaining the value of the data and the importance of the chassis, but if you'd rather not take the time to troubleshoot the issue, chances are 1 in 2 that you'll be back for another hard drive... even after going through weeks of anguish over your choice. It is carnage.

I can understand you wanting to avoid the abortion choice, but once the choice presents itself, why would you personally not want to have one? I hear this a lot and this is one of the reasons why "personhood" is only a part of the equation in the court of public opinion. For most, there is an innate sense that abortion is "wrong" and I can only attribute a part of this to the nagging feeling that the fetus is a person. For them, eliminating the person is unacceptable. The challenge for pro-lifers ironically is in convincing the majority who already believe the fetus is a person, that it is a person worthy of constitutional protections in spite of the personhood of the mother. This is why it is so easy to indict staunch pro-lifers as lacking compassion for women.

As is often reiterated on the topic of welfare, you can't hope to save people from themselves. From a practical standpoint, if your goal is to help them in spite of themselves, the best you can do is offer support for those that choose it, and the rest can go to hell.

Our legal system attempts to save children from all manner of "bad" parents and while caring for the child may be saving the parents from themselves, it is also saving the child first and foremost. I'm not always in favor of these protective-service judgements, but taking measures to kill the child would suffice as "bad" parenting. Saving people from themselves is different than saving children from parents who seek to kill them.

When has that ever happened though? Yes of course, as I said many times both sides of the debate have a habit of falling back on smokescreen topics, which they think would be a short-cut or trump-card (I used to think this too). But it's very rare that either side will recognize the importance of staying on topic, and in fact I've never seen it happen (staying on topic). I'm trying my darnedest to make that happen here, and I don't think I've convinced a single person from either side yet, so I'm a little skeptical that you've ever seen it happen all spontaneous.

You're trying your darnedest to move the discussion to where you feel it belongs, but not unlike the abortion debate; people disagree. I have no problem staying on topic, but if the topic is about two people, addressing only one of them is lame. Because we're usually arguing two-party, partisan politics - you're usually only getting one side of the topic.

What are your A, B, and C anyway?

Alway Be Careful. More later...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

I was 19 when I became a believer. My father is still a staunch atheist and my mother an agnostic. My brother couldn't be bothered to make any comment or commitment in any way, so I don't know his beliefs.

Though my doctrinal beliefs do support your "you can't really help it" comment.

Why would any sane person voluntarily subject themselves to religion. I can understand those indoctrinated into it, they didn't have a choice. But to do it on purpose? Why?

[Chongo]

For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.
Franz Werfel

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Why would any sane person voluntarily subject themselves to religion. I can understand those indoctrinated into it, they didn't have a choice. But to do it on purpose? Why?

A peace which surpasses all understanding.

You'll never understand until you let go of your pride and believe.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Brain functions enough to keep a fetus alive out side of the body at 22-24 weeks. Extreme life support care required to keep the baby alive. Before that the brain isn't developed enough and no life support measures can save the baby.

Having brain function enough to keep someone alive isn't the standard we use to "pull the plug." They have have to not have that function and there be little chance of them regaining that function in the foreseeable future.

Like I said...we've got these standards in place already. No need to invent new ones simply to forward a moral agenda one way or another..

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Week 5:
...
brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form."

That's not function.

"Week 6:
...
heart is pumping blood."

There you go. That would give the mother a month to come up with a plan at the least.

In case anyone is still curious about when "brain function" begins, this seems to be the most thorough analysis of the more answerable question of when pain perception begins, which they find to be between 23-30 weeks. It is a review article published in JAMA, 2005
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/s.../fetalpain.pdf

Lot's of people in comas don't have pain perception. However, they are still alive and can not be killed just to satisfy convenience issues.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

A peace which surpasses all understanding.

You'll never understand until you let go of your pride and believe.

A peace except when it comes to all things besson3c, evidently?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

A peace which surpasses all understanding.

That's unBiblical rubbish. There are no such promises in the NT. Just goes to show you that "believers" believe whatever they want and call it Christianity.

You'll never understand until you let go of your pride and believe.

This never happens in the NT either. People become believers because God makes them believe, thru appearances and miracles and revelations. Paul didn't give up his pride, Jesus appeared to him. Even when someone refused to believe the hearsay of Jesus' resurrection, Jesus then appeared to him to close the deal. There were no consequences to Thomas for refusing to believe.

If God came into your heart and changed you, give God the credit. But here, you are claiming the credit yourself, because you "gave up pride and believed," and try to shame others who don't as prideful. In other words, you have turned the message upside down.

[lpkmckenna]

Time to stir the pot: Jilted boyfriend posts abortion billboard. FARK is having a field day over this one.

Myself, I don't care. Assh0les, men and women, post revenge billboards. It's not against the law. If you can tell people "I broke up will Jill, she aborted our baby," then you can post a billboard with the same message. He's still an assh0le.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Not sure you get my meaning then. This thread became a fairly multi-faceted discussion but has since been reduced to "When does personhood begin?" I didn't set that goalpost and I wasn't complaining about it, merely observing that it appears to have been set.
My point is that for some people its actually more an issue of whether personhood should be held quite as sacred as it tends to be.

"I wasn't complaining about it, but to reiterate here is my complaint about it."

I realise that, I'm just trying to take a poll of the way people assess the value of human life. Its a perfectly valid ethical question and its not that complicated or confused.
Its also hypothetical so I can give the choice to whoever I want. If it helps you to understand, a criminal could be holding wife & newborn at gunpoint and giving me the you the choice by video chat.
The point is that the wife has two kids that she has already invested a great deal of time, effort and resources into raising and who still need her. She is also capable of bearing another newborn if she wants one.

You don't have to answer it if you don't want to. I'm just saying that the whole issue isn't just about when personhood begins.

Without establishing whether/which fetuses or embryos are a person or not, the rest of your equivocations are meaningless. It is all dependent on the personhood question, and in fact once that question is answered the rest falls neatly into place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right and this has little to do with "personhood". In this case it has to do with the circumstances that led to the abortion choice, not the abortion choice itself. Personhood is effective up until compassion for the mother, then the personhood of the fetus becomes less important in the court of public opinion. This is why it is so easy to indict staunch pro-lifers as lacking compassion for women.

No, it's still just what happens when two regular persons are at odds. What happens if a rapist takes two people hostage, and the only way for one hostage to escape is through an action that kills the other hostage (like a human shield scenario)? It's not unreasonable for the court of public opinion to think that carrying a rape pregnancy to term is like being raped all over again (ditto incest). Pragmatically, the only way for the victim to avoid this "second rape" is through abortion.

Although I would hope that the decision to abort even rape and incest pregnancies could be completed before 6 weeks in.

The harm is in the loss of data, your time and effort in replacing hard drives unnecessarily, and the tole it takes on the chassis making it possible the next hard drive will not boot up when you want it most. The technician will try to mitigate this risk by explaining the value of the data and the importance of the chassis, but if you'd rather not take the time to troubleshoot the issue, chances are 1 in 2 that you'll be back for another hard drive... even after going through weeks of anguish over your choice. It is carnage.

I reiterate, it's only carnage if it's about people. If it's about things/pets/body parts, they're disposable if and only if the user wants them to be. Without the implication of personhood, it's objectively less damaging than plastic surgery or smoking (or being a parent, for that matter).

I can understand you wanting to avoid the abortion choice, but once the choice presents itself, why would you personally not want to have one? I hear this a lot and this is one of the reasons why "personhood" is only a part of the equation in the court of public opinion. For most, there is an innate sense that abortion is "wrong" and I can only attribute a part of this to the nagging feeling that the fetus is a person. For them, eliminating the person is unacceptable. The challenge for pro-lifers ironically is in convincing the majority who already believe the fetus is a person, that it is a person worthy of constitutional protections in spite of the personhood of the mother. This is why it is so easy to indict staunch pro-lifers as lacking compassion for women.

Um... how is this not you enthusiastically agreeing with me?

(to answer your question, I don't like doctors)

Our legal system attempts to save children from all manner of "bad" parents and while caring for the child may be saving the parents from themselves, it is also saving the child first and foremost. I'm not always in favor of these protective-service judgements, but taking measures to kill the child would suffice as "bad" parenting. Saving people from themselves is different than saving children from parents who seek to kill them.

Again, this appears to be a vigorous endorsement of my personhood thesis. After all, the legal system doesn't make any attempt to save goldfish, un-pierced organs, life-like dolls, or hard drives from "bad" parents.

You're trying your darnedest to move the discussion to where you feel it belongs, but not unlike the abortion debate; people disagree.

Not exactly. I'm trying my darnedest to move the discussion towards objective truth. Even if people can't agree on the answer, they should at least agree on the question.

I have no problem staying on topic, but if the topic is about two people, addressing only one of them is lame.

I agree. But establishing the proper question is stage 1; talking about the second person will be answering that question, stage 2. I hope someday we can get to stage 2, but we have to finish stage 1 first.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There you go. That would give the mother a month to come up with a plan at the least.

Actually, I am inclined to agree.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Having brain function enough to keep someone alive isn't the standard we use to "pull the plug." They have have to not have that function and there be little chance of them regaining that function in the foreseeable future.

Like I said...we've got these standards in place already. No need to invent new ones simply to forward a moral agenda one way or another..

Well by that definition, since a Fetus brain has every hope to gaining function in the foreseeable future it does mater some what

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not unreasonable for the court of public opinion to think that carrying a rape pregnancy to term is like being raped all over again (ditto incest). Pragmatically, the only way for the victim to avoid this "second rape" is through abortion.

Correct which means part of the debate is the personhood of the woman. These arguments constitute the only good of abortion in the court of public opinion, not because of the personhood of the rapist's offspring, but because of the personhood of the woman. This is the perception and hence, the painful reality of the debate. I maintain that the majority public opinion already accepts fetal personhood, but they justify homicide in these cases to protect the personhood of the woman.

Although I would hope that the decision to abort even rape and incest pregnancies could be completed before 6 weeks in.

Why?

I reiterate, it's only carnage if it's about people. If it's about things/pets/body parts, they're disposable if and only if the user wants them to be. Without the implication of personhood, it's objectively less damaging than plastic surgery or smoking (or being a parent, for that matter).

I reiterate, when the case that leads to the abortion is rape and incest, there are two people worthy of consideration and their rights in these scenarios are starkly at odds. The court of public opinion has justified homicide in these cases.

Um... how is this not you enthusiastically agreeing with me?

In cases not involving rape, incest, and health of the mother; people see one person worthy of protection. In the cases of rape, incest, and health of mother; people see two persons worthy of protection. If your point is that people accept the personhood of the fetus, but lean toward the personhood of the woman in matters of rape and incest, it is enthusiastically agreeing with you.

(to answer your question, I don't like doctors)
Me neither. Can't stand 'em.

Again, this appears to be a vigorous endorsement of my personhood thesis. After all, the legal system doesn't make any attempt to save goldfish, un-pierced organs, life-like dolls, or hard drives from "bad" parents.

The only time the personhood thesis breaks down is in the case of rape and incest. The majority already accepts that the fetus is a person worthy of protections unless protecting the woman must come at the cost of the fetus.

Not exactly. I'm trying my darnedest to move the discussion towards objective truth. Even if people can't agree on the answer, they should at least agree on the question.

They generally do and in fact they already accept the personhood of the fetus. They justify the elimination of this person in preference to the personhood of the woman.

I agree. But establishing the proper question is stage 1; talking about the second person will be answering that question, stage 2. I hope someday we can get to stage 2, but we have to finish stage 1 first.

There is only one stage to consider until there are two. Then there are two. That's the reality.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Since my wife can't become a ward of the state, I'd choose the wife and have the newborn put into foster care until circumstances allow me to take care of the kid; presumably after my wife is in better health.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. You get to choose which one lives and which one dies.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Correct which means part of the debate is the personhood of the woman.

Not really, no one questions the personhood of the woman. What you're confusing is the question of what personhood gives you. This is a complex question too, but one that has been answered already outside the abortion debate, that's what our entire legal system is there for (settling conflicts between people). But my point in this thread, is that you can't even ask how two people's conflicts can be resolved until you address whether the fetus is a person in the first place. If it isn't one, then there's nothing to discuss, and if it is one, then you simply refer to our existing legal guidelines about a person harming another person.

Why?

Why what? Why would I hope to put any restrictions on rape/incest victims, or why 6 weeks, or why are earlier term abortions better than later term?

In cases not involving rape, incest, and health of the mother; people see one person worthy of protection. In the cases of rape, incest, and health of mother; people see two persons worthy of protection.

I think this dichotomy is just because these "exception cases" are understood to be the ones that happen later-term than normal. When a rape victim gets a first-trimester abortion, then they don't need any special exception because that's when most abortions happen anyway. It's this early vs late abortion that causes people to see one person vs two people, and it's just understood that the exceptions only refer to the late term group.

If your point is that people accept the personhood of the fetus, but lean toward the personhood of the woman in matters of rape and incest, it is enthusiastically agreeing with you.

Yes with one caveat. It's not simply rape and incest that makes the fetus a person, it's the subset of rape and incest that would be later term abortions, since the early term scenarios were already accounted for without the special consideration called for by rape and incest.

The only time the personhood thesis breaks down is in the case of rape and incest. The majority already accepts that the fetus is a person worthy of protections unless protecting the woman must come at the cost of the fetus.

Well, the majority accepts that at some time the fetus becomes a person. Most people don't think that time is at conception.

There is only one stage to consider until there are two. Then there are two. That's the reality.

Actually there are 3. 1) What is the question? (personhood) 2) What is the answer? (X weeks) 3) What does that tell us about abortion? (it shouldn't happen after X weeks, except for self-defense).
I don't pretend to know what the right answer for X is, but I do know that it's completely useless to try to move on to other questions without answering it first, because people will just talk past each other due to their different internal assumptions about this question.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That's unBiblical rubbish. There are no such promises in the NT. Just goes to show you that "believers" believe whatever they want and call it Christianity.

Actually, it is. Verbatim.

Philippians 4:4-7
Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Ready to admit you are completely wrong?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This never happens in the NT either. People become believers because God makes them believe, thru appearances and miracles and revelations. Paul didn't give up his pride, Jesus appeared to him. Even when someone refused to believe the hearsay of Jesus' resurrection, Jesus then appeared to him to close the deal. There were no consequences to Thomas for refusing to believe.

If God came into your heart and changed you, give God the credit. But here, you are claiming the credit yourself, because you "gave up pride and believed," and try to shame others who don't as prideful. In other words, you have turned the message upside down.

Oh, but I did.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Originally Posted by Ephesians 1:3-9

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ

Some are made to believe in different ways. Mine was through reading The Word. Some comes from hearing. Some belief comes from seeing.

Actually, it pretty much worked this way for me: I was made to believe, and I let go of my pride at the same moment. It was not sequential. It was concurrent. To God alone is the Glory! I claim ZERO credit for my salvation.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A peace except when it comes to all things besson3c, evidently?

You are also one of God's children Joe. I don't have a tolerance for your behavior, I'll admit that, but God loves you too!

[Athens]

I guess there is one good thing that religious people can take heart in. A baby fetus is as innocent as a person gets so all these abortions are sending these terminated people straight to god and his love.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You are also one of God's children Joe. I don't have a tolerance for your behavior, I'll admit that, but God loves you too!

Does God love my cat? What about Jesus?

[BadKosh]

What about killing babies? Atheists say yes?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Actually, it is. Verbatim.

Philippians 4:4-7
Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Ready to admit you are completely wrong?

Wow, nice rebuttal. (Golf clap.) But your interpretation is completely wrong.

It isn't the "peace of God" that the Christian receives, but the "will guard your hearts and your minds" that they receive.

For instance, had the passage said: ":And the power of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds" it would be clear that it isn't the power of God that the Christian receives, for obvious reasons. The "peace of God" is beyond understanding because it is an attribute of God.

The passage you quote makes this clear, because he is telling them not to be anxious. How can someone who enjoys "peace beyond understanding" be subject to anxiety? They can't.

Nice attempt, but you've confused the cause (the peace of God) with the promise (guarding your heart and mind).

[besson3c]

To those Christians that dislike me (such as Railroader and sometimes Turtle777),

By the powers invested in me by the laws and commandments of God and Jesus as one of God's children, I urge you to take heed and love me as thy neighbor as dictated by the almighty superpower. If you choose to not do so you will have to answer to God and Jesus, so I would suggest loving me to the fullest.

I await your love!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

To those Christians that dislike me (such as Railroader and sometimes Turtle777),

By the powers invested in me by the laws and commandments of God and Jesus as one of God's children, I urge you to take heed and love me as thy neighbor as dictated by the almighty superpower. If you choose to not do so you will have to answer to God and Jesus, so I would suggest loving me to the fullest.

I await your love!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

A peace which surpasses all understanding.

You'll never understand until you let go of your pride and believe.

I translated this as "Ignorance is bliss".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually, I am inclined to agree.

I personally don't agree with that standard, though think that it's the most legally defensible, logically sound and morally neutral one available. In other words, based on my personal morals I don't think it's right, but would support it as being Constitutional (if passed by the states), non-arbitrary as compared to the current psuedo-Constitutional court legislated and invented standard.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Well by that definition, since a Fetus brain has every hope to gaining function in the foreseeable future it does mater some what

True, but NEVER having had any of the life signs in question, it can be argued that the entity in question was never "alive" as per the legal standard used to traditionally determine "death."

[Athens]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What about killing babies? Atheists say yes?

Im against it but at the same time im not for taking the ability away either. I rather just see new rules that make it clear on what is allowed and whats not. Perfectly healthy baby, no medical condition for baby no problems for mother would mean no abortion. But if the baby is defective, or a good chance of serious medical complications from a condition the mother has or if she was a rape victim then im for it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Wow, nice rebuttal. (Golf clap.) But your interpretation is completely wrong.

It isn't the "peace of God" that the Christian receives, but the "will guard your hearts and your minds" that they receive.

For instance, had the passage said: ":And the power of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds" it would be clear that it isn't the power of God that the Christian receives, for obvious reasons. The "peace of God" is beyond understanding because it is an attribute of God.

The passage you quote makes this clear, because he is telling them not to be anxious. How can someone who enjoys "peace beyond understanding" be subject to anxiety? They can't.

Nice attempt, but you've confused the cause (the peace of God) with the promise (guarding your heart and mind).

Except Jesus (who is God btw) gave his peace to us and said this:

Originally Posted by Jesus

John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid."

So, you see, He actually does give you peace. And it surpasses understanding. As a recipient of that peace, I can assure you I do not understand it, but it is glorious.

There is a reason Paul did not say "power". Your argument is invalid.

The promise is peace, and it surpasses all [man's] understanding.

Paul is reminding them that there is no need for worries, use what God has given you, hold onto the promises of God. Forgetful man sometimes needs reassurance and reminder.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

To those Christians that dislike me (such as Railroader and sometimes Turtle777),

By the powers invested in me by the laws and commandments of God and Jesus as one of God's children, I urge you to take heed and love me as thy neighbor as dictated by the almighty superpower. If you choose to not do so you will have to answer to God and Jesus, so I would suggest loving me to the fullest.

I await your love!

Some Christians are progressing further along on their sanctification than others. I'm working on mine. Your passive aggressive behavior is difficult to be tolerant of, I will admit. With love I will tell you that you should mature up and quit acting so immature around here.

[Athens]

It really comes down to these 2 questions

1) Do you personally support it, yes or no
2) Do you believe your personal beliefs for being against it should be imposed on others who are for it.

I don't personally support it. I don't personally think its none of my business to tell some one who does they can't just because I don't believe in it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

It really comes down to these 2 questions

1) Do you personally support it, yes or no
2) Do you believe your personal beliefs for being against it should be imposed on others who are for it.

I don't personally support it. I don't personally think its none of my business to tell some one who does they can't just because I don't believe in it.

No, this is still just a proxy for the personhood question. Because if the fetus is a person, then preventing abortion is akin to preventing murder, slavery or child abuse; there is no question we would "impose our beliefs" on those who would do these crimes if they could. However if the fetus is not a person in this case, then there is no innocent victim to protect and it's "live and let live."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Time to stir the pot: Jilted boyfriend posts abortion billboard. FARK is having a field day over this one.

Myself, I don't care. Assh0les, men and women, post revenge billboards. It's not against the law. If you can tell people "I broke up will Jill, she aborted our baby," then you can post a billboard with the same message. He's still an assh0le.

Billboard pic here.
Jilted ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard - Yahoo! News

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Not really, no one questions the personhood of the woman. What you're confusing is the question of what personhood gives you. This is a complex question too, but one that has been answered already outside the abortion debate, that's what our entire legal system is there for (settling conflicts between people). But my point in this thread, is that you can't even ask how two people's conflicts can be resolved until you address whether the fetus is a person in the first place. If it isn't one, then there's nothing to discuss, and if it is one, then you simply refer to our existing legal guidelines about a person harming another person.

I maintain that most people already believe the fetus is a human, a person and will deny its rights in the cases of rape, incest, and health of mother.

Why what? Why would I hope to put any restrictions on rape/incest victims, or why 6 weeks, or why are earlier term abortions better than later term?

Why 6 weeks?

I think this dichotomy is just because these "exception cases" are understood to be the ones that happen later-term than normal. When a rape victim gets a first-trimester abortion, then they don't need any special exception because that's when most abortions happen anyway. It's this early vs late abortion that causes people to see one person vs two people, and it's just understood that the exceptions only refer to the late term group.

According to a Newsweek poll conducted in 2003, only 11% believe life begins at birth. 46% believe life begins at conception and an additional 12% when the embryo is implanted in a woman's uterus. I maintain that most already believe personhood occurs at conception, but it is a life they are willing to deny in the cases of rape, incest, and health of mother. Justifiable homicide.

Yes with one caveat. It's not simply rape and incest that makes the fetus a person, it's the subset of rape and incest that would be later term abortions, since the early term scenarios were already accounted for without the special consideration called for by rape and incest.

Again, when people are directly asked when life begins, the majority claim conception. When they are asked about their general support or opposition to abortion, it hinges primarily on the circumstances of the pregnancy.

Well, the majority accepts that at some time the fetus becomes a person. Most people don't think that time is at conception.

Do you have some evidence to support this? When do the majority believe the fetus is a person?

Actually there are 3. 1) What is the question? (personhood) 2) What is the answer? (X weeks) 3) What does that tell us about abortion? (it shouldn't happen after X weeks, except for self-defense).
I don't pretend to know what the right answer for X is, but I do know that it's completely useless to try to move on to other questions without answering it first, because people will just talk past each other due to their different internal assumptions about this question.

I disagree. The point of contention seems to relate more to the circumstance of the pregnancy as most already believe life begins at conception.