# What does being "pro life" mean to you?



## Joab (Jun 10, 2009)

I think most The vast majority are opposed to murder, although what constitutes "murder" varies. Do you believe being pro life means being opposed to abortion, opposed to war, helping out some kid in a third world country from starving to death and/or helping his village with health concerns that would help keep them alive, or a combination of the three? When we hear the words "pro life" these days it seems to equate in many minds being opposed to abortion. I think being pro life should mean more than that, it should be being for the sanctity of all life, in this context human life primarily, and should really include all the above and even more. Of course being "pro life" certainly could include animal life, insect life, you name it life. What does being "pro life" mean to you? I think few people are really "pro death?"


----------



## seasoned (Jun 10, 2009)

Treat everybody the way you would want to be treated, if given the choice. This covers womb to tomb.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 10, 2009)

I know that when I was in the womb I wanted to be treated with respect and dignity.


----------



## harlan (Jun 10, 2009)

It's a co-opted word, much like the word 'gay', and simply using it in a discussion effectively limits the discussion, and raises all kinds of red herrings.

I'm all for extending the right to continue breathing to all sentient beings already engaged in the act. The hard part is negotiating space, and cultural 'carrying capacity' for differing views and lifeways. Few people decry the 'roadkill' animals that die each year as a result of human stupidity, so I don't see the sense in getting upset about what is essentially human roadkill.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 10, 2009)

"Pro-life" means nothing outside the context of the abortion debate.  It is a label that one side has chosen to cast themselves in the best possible light.  "Pro-choice", too, is a label that the opposing side has adopted for marketing purposes but does not apply beyond the scope of the abortion debate (i.e., You're pro-choice? Really?  May I choose to smoke?)

Outside the debate, it's meaningless.  NOBODY is anti-life, which isn't to say that they won't kill when they feel it is necessary, such as defending their loved ones or engaging in war to defend their ideals.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 10, 2009)

First of all, I assume this is in the context of abortion.

I am pro life. Personally, I think that the default choice should be to carry children full term and then either raise them yourself or register them for adoption. This is what being 'pro life' means to me.

I am also pro choice, because in the end, it's not -my- choice to make. Who am I to tell someone else what she has to do with her body? I may or may not agree, but it doesn't matter what -I- think because it is not -my- choice to make.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> I am also pro choice, because in the end, it's not -my- choice to make. Who am I to tell someone else what she has to do with her body? I may or may not agree, but it doesn't matter what -I- think because it is not -my- choice to make.



Devil's advocate here.  If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence.  I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 10, 2009)

You'd think the term would be self-explanatory wouldn't you? 

Doesn't it stand to reason that if one is "pro-life" that they are most likely "anti-death"? 

If that's the case, then one cannot claim to be "pro-life" if they advocate "death" in any way, especially if they are involved in committing some act that directly or even indirectly causes a "death." 

That would mean eating no meats, killing no animals... just for starters. LOL 

I know it's a tad extreme, but I really get tired of people committing murder and exhibiting other undersirable behavior under the banner of "pro-life"


----------



## harlan (Jun 10, 2009)

Well, to continue with the analogy: if that bystander has a part of their body in that woman...I don't have a problem with her killing it/him.

A woman's body containing an inseminated egg can't be compared to two people standing next to each other at a bus stop.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Devil's advocate here. If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence. I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?


 
As a female, perhaps I have an extended understanding of the word 'rape'. A violation of one's body and personal space. An unwanted fetus is just that...a violation of one's person. The whole abortion debate isn't about 'saving life'. It's about control over women through the misuse of law - to 'punish' women in the guise of emotional appeals of 'protecting' the innocent.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 10, 2009)

That is a valid remark of course. Imo the difference is that people (kids, adults, elderly) are able to exist independently of oneanother.
A fetus however is not. It is a parasite to the female body during the pregnancy.

Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is a very far reaching decision, and I think it should never be taken lightly. I think it is usually the worst possible decision, and if done at all it should be done in the first trimester, and if at all possible as soon as the pregnancy is known, before there is anything resembling a brain.

I wholeheartedly agree that 3d trimester abortions are equivalent to a killing. But I also acknowledge that later term abortions are virtually always caused by medical reasons. I don't think anyone waits until their 3d term before realizing 'well, on second thought...'

The late term abortions that is done for 'frivolous' reasons is so low that it would be groslly unfair to denounce abortions as evil, because early term there are no brainwaves yet, and later term there are good medical reasons (danger to the woman) in the majority of the cases.
That said, every abortion is a tragedy, but because of the reasons I mentioned, I think it should be the woman's decision.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 10, 2009)

Too many people claim pro life.... but then say... but I am pro death penalty....

pro life to me is all or nothing... any in between is hypocritical..
now you can believe life start from inception and not from birth and believe that justified homicide as in the death penalty is okay... but thats not pro life.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 10, 2009)

harlan said:


> As a female, perhaps I have an extended understanding of the word 'rape'. A violation of one's body and personal space. An unwanted fetus is just that...a violation of one's person.



As for why the husband should have no casting vote: rape happens in marriage as well. Men should not be able to force women to have their baby.



harlan said:


> The whole abortion debate isn't about 'saving life'. It's about control over women through the misuse of law - to 'punish' women in the guise of emotional appeals of 'protecting' the innocent.



I think It was George Carlin who once said _'When people defend the right to live, they mean their right to tell you how to live your life'_

Of course a one-liner is rarely an accurate representation of an argument. It is no different in this case, but it has some merit, and imo it highlights the main pillar of the argument both ways.


----------



## harlan (Jun 10, 2009)

Darn right.

For the record, I had a late 2nd trimester abortion. It died inside...and it had to be done. I'll never forget, or forgive, the people lined up between me and the hospital. Sanctimonious, aggressive, sign pushing *&@#...

It was my right.  Nevermind the 'free pass', that it was a medical emergency. Those people pushing their views on me, and every other poor woman finding herself there that day, for whatever personal reasons brought them so low.

I could have used a hug and cup of coffee. Instead, I got bigoted anger.

It's every woman's right.


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2009)

IMHO, I don't think that people should run out and abort a kid for the sake of it.  However, depending on the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort, then I see nothing wrong with it, and IMO, that is the mothers choice and nobody should concern themselves with it.  For example...if a female was the victim of a rape and bacame pregnant, and did not want to give birth to this child, then she should have the right to an abortion.  Now, some will say that there is no need to kill the child and she could simply put it up for adoption.  Sure, thats an option, but as I said, given the nature of the birth to begin with, perhaps her right to not want to give birth to a child that was the product of a rape, should be respected.


----------



## geezer (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Devil's advocate here.  If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, *it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence.  I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?*



Their_ right_ to kill a bystander? Not if it affects me too, Bill. I mean, am I going to be deafened by the sound of the gunshot or get splattered with blood? And who's going to clean up the mess. I don't want my tax dollars wasted on that!


But seriously, It's pretty hard to find a middle ground on the abortion issue. Either you believe that human life begins at conception and is sacred and inviolable from that moment on, or you don't. And, even if most of us can agree that abortion is undesirable, we can't seem to come together to implement common sense programs to help provide women on both sides of the issue with alternatives to abortion. I mean programs to provide all pregnant women with paid prenatal care, paid maternity leave, cover the medical costs of childbirth, and to assist with childcare. And all day pre-school in all states. That's if they keep the child, and offer extended counseling if they don't. It would cost a lot, but _it might reduce the actual numbers of abortions_. Or you can just outlaw abortion and drive distraught young women to go to criminal "back alley" abortionists.

Ironically, many of those on the conservative, "pro-life" side favor outlawing abortion and oppose costly programs since they don't want to spend tax dollars on what they see as "creeping socialism"... even if it might reduce the number of abortions. And, of course they have a point too. Any such programs carry a price tag and the potential for abuse. Remember "octomom"?

So folks, where's the common ground?


----------



## JDenver (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Devil's advocate here.  If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence.  I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?



I've always wanted to ask this, and I ask it with great sincerity.

How do you feel about masturbation?  What I mean is, and I'm genuine in hoping to hear your point of view, what makes the fetus, which for weeks resembles a glob of cells and then a fishy little thing, what makes that much different than your sperm?  If I masturbate, aren't I killing sperm?  I guess one could say that the marriage of sperm to egg is a big difference, but physically I'm not sure I understand so I hope to learn something.

thanks.

Oh, and I came across something interesting in ancient Chinese philosophy which outlined how life = breath.  That would suggest that life only begins upon birth, I think!  I'd be curious to hear anyone's insight on that.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 10, 2009)

I would like to say that I see a HUGE disconnect in ideology for this one.  Why is it that Conservatives who are typically AGAINST government control and the government's ability to tell us what to do or how to run our lives - Also against any kind of government intervention in their own business or privacy for that matter - are so outspoken against abortion.  They seem to want to impose MORE control over what people can and can't do in this arena and interfere with individual rights.  If someone on the more conservative side could offer me their reasoning, I would be very interested to hear.

Personally, if I were to label myself, it would be "pro-choice."  It is the woman's perogative what she does with her body.  Although I would caveat that there are times and situations where abortion is appropriate and where it is not.  Abortion is not an "irresponsibility insurance policy."  If the abortion is simply the result of irresponsibility or a form of birth control...I'm not behind that.  If it is being done for medical reasons, for well reasoned personal reasons, or because the mother simply realizes that she does not have the means to raise the child, I am for it.  It is better to have an abortion than a child who may either spend its life in the adoption system or not be cared for by its parents.

I recently had a family encounter with this, which strengthened my opinion...We lost our baby when my wife was 12 weeks pregnant, i.e. a "natural" abortion or miscarriage.  But in this situation, my wife needed to have what amounts to an abortion to remove the dead fetus.  It would have been a medical risk if she did not have it removed.  I am concerned that in the presence of such legislation that is "anti-abortion," situations like this would be much more of a problem than they need to be.  And I agree, like Harlan, it was a hard enough time without being harrassed by anti-abortion nut jobs picketing and spewing anger and hatred.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 10, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> I would like to say that I see a HUGE disconnect in ideology for this one. Why is it that Conservatives who are typically AGAINST government control and the government's ability to tell us what to do or how to run our lives - Also against any kind of government intervention in their own business or privacy for that matter - are so outspoken against abortion. They seem to want to impose MORE control over what people can and can't do in this arena and interfere with individual rights. If someone on the more conservative side could offer me their reasoning, I would be very interested to hear.


 
I see the disconnect too, and there's a corresponding disconnect on the part of liberals who think the government shouldn't interfere with our lives but should be there to provide resources if we screw up on our own.

The only consistent pattern I've been able to find is this: 

"Conservatives" tend to favor to a policy of Prevention, where laws are enacted that forbid certain acts or behaviors, and those who circumvent those laws are left to deal with the consequences themselves. 

"Liberals" tend to favor a policy of Alleviation, where the government does not enforce behavioral controls but requires that all citizens participate financially in mitigating the consequences of other peoples actions. 

Kinda makes sense from that perspective. To me, at least.  Everybody wants some form of government interference, it's just a question of when and how.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 10, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> I would like to say that I see a HUGE disconnect in ideology for this one. Why is it that Conservatives who are typically AGAINST government control and the government's ability to tell us what to do or how to run our lives - Also against any kind of government intervention in their own business or privacy for that matter - are so outspoken against abortion. They seem to want to impose MORE control over what people can and can't do in this arena and interfere with individual rights. If someone on the more conservative side could offer me their reasoning, I would be very interested to hear.


 
I am aware of the religious background, obviously, and the belief some hold that abortion is murder....I'm wondering if there is any reasoning beyond that?  This amounts to LARGE ethical gray area, so it is essentially imposing your ethical views upon others.

I personally look at this in a different light from murder or robbery, but I know that others don't.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2009)

Pro-life means anti-elective abortion. Period. Rape/incest doesn't apply, nor does danger to the life of the mother, gee, if it endangers the life of the mother, that would make it a child, wouldn't it?


----------



## harlan (Jun 10, 2009)

As far as rights go, I'm partial to XIV. The part where it says something about no law shall be enacted that abridges a citizens rights...deprives them of liberty.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

The attack on abortion, to my understanding is two pronged: 1. The frontal attack is based on establishing 'rights' for a fetus and then abridging a woman's rights to liberty. 2. The rear action is the deprivation of all social services, including health care and education.

Keep them stupid, poor and pregnant. Sounds like the good old days. 

Not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

harlan said:


> A woman's body containing an inseminated egg can't be compared to two people standing next to each other at a bus stop.



Certainly it can be compared - I just compared it.  Human life is human life.  The only difference is that one has drawn breath and the other has not - yet.

So the comparison is completely valid.  The question remains unanswered.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> I wholeheartedly agree that 3d trimester abortions are equivalent to a killing.



Intentional abortion of any human fetus is equivalent to killing.  Killing is a precise and clinical term.  If I step on an ant, I have killed it.  The question is whether or not such killing is a) legally acceptable and b) morally acceptable.  I don't attempt to answer either question here - but killing a human is killing a human.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

geezer said:


> Their_ right_ to kill a bystander? Not if it affects me too, Bill. I mean, am I going to be deafened by the sound of the gunshot or get splattered with blood? And who's going to clean up the mess. I don't want my tax dollars wasted on that!



Read my question again.  I said nothing about rights.  I played Devil's Advocate and suggested that if a person is "OK" with a woman getting an abortion on the grounds that it is none of their business, then they should be "OK" with one stranger killing another in front of them - it is likewise a killing and likewise none of their business.  I simply extended a commonly-used statement about abortion ("I don't care for it, but it is not my body or my business") and applied the same logic to another type of killing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

JDenver said:


> How do you feel about masturbation?  What I mean is, and I'm genuine in hoping to hear your point of view, what makes the fetus, which for weeks resembles a glob of cells and then a fishy little thing, what makes that much different than your sperm?



Neither a human egg nor a human sperm will become a human being without contact with each other.  Once an egg has been fertilized by a sperm, it is a new human life, which will either become a human child or it will die.  It will not become anything other than human.

That is the difference.  Flour and eggs make cake, but they aren't cake by themselves.

As to my thoughts on masturbation, I'm in favor of it.


----------



## harlan (Jun 10, 2009)

What is the difference between a human life and an animal life? I mean, at the fertilized egg stage, there can't be much of a difference?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> if a person is "OK" with a woman getting an abortion on the grounds that it is none of their business, then they should be "OK" with one stranger killing another in front of them - it is likewise a killing and likewise none of their business.


 
They are both "killings," but they are not both, necessarily, _murder_.

"Murder" is not simply the intentional killing of human life, but  the intentional killing of an innocent _person_-thus excluding self-defense and warfare, as well as, perhaps, _euthanasia_.

Abortion is the intentional termination of pregnancy-the intentional killing of a  fetus.  

This brings us to the ontological question whereby the enire issue hangs: is a fetus a _person_? 

"Personhood," of course, is a consequence of the brain. The brain doesn't fully develop in a fetus until after the first trimester, therefore, _at least as far as the first trimester in this regard,_ the fetus *is not* a person, and abortion *is not* "murder."


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 10, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Treat everybody the way you would want to be treated, if given the choice. This covers womb to tomb.


 
I would have to agree with you seasoned


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

harlan said:


> What is the difference between a human life and an animal life? I mean, at the fertilized egg stage, there can't be much of a difference?



One is human life and the other is animal life.  To me that is the fundamental difference.


----------



## JDenver (Jun 10, 2009)

I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---

breath = life

In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air.  It's an interesting idea.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---
> 
> breath = life
> 
> In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air. It's an interesting idea.


 
It's completely parallels Biblical and Talmudic teachings.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> They are both "killings," but they are not both, necessarily, _murder_.



I agree.  I chose the term 'killing' advisedly.



> "Murder" is not simply the intentional killing of human life, but  the intentional killing of an innocent _person_-thus excluding self-defense and warfare, as well as, perhaps, _euthanasia_.


Basic agreement.



> Abortion is the intentional termination of pregnancy-the intentional killing of a  fetus.


Yes.  Although I will note your use of the term fetus.  While accurate, it would also be accurate to say 'human' in front of 'fetus'.  The former does not convey humanity - animals have fetuses too.



> This brings us to the ontological question whereby the enire issue hangs: is a fetus a _person_?


I agree that this is the important question.



> "Personhood," of course, is a consequence of the brain. The brain doesn't fully develop in a fetus until after the first trimester, therefore, _at least as far as the first trimester in this regard,_ the fetus *is not* a person, and abortion *is not* "murder."


I did not say abortion was murder.  I said it was the killing of a human being.

As to when 'personhood' applies, I disagree.  Some human beings do not have (due to unfortunate circumstances, such as prenatal conditions and accidents later in life) a brain capable of rational thought, decision making, higher functions, or even consciousness.  Such people are not deprived of personhood by law or moral in our society - killing them would indeed be analogous to murder under any example where it would be murder to kill you or me.

By the same token, we continue to discover that some animals are capable of and indeed make use of mental processes which were formerly thought to be reserved to humanity - tools, planning, and the like.  If personhood is a function of mental capability, we'd have to grant personhood to some animals as well as human, depending on where we draw the bar - and that bar keeps moving back, apparently.

Therefore, personhood is not strictly a function of brain function or trimester.

My religion teaches that personhood is bestowed by a Creator, not a process.  I'm willing to go with that.  A human fetus is a person.  Ending that life is killing a person.  Murder?  I'm not ready to make that statement.


----------



## harlan (Jun 10, 2009)

So, the basic, fundamental reason against killing a human fetus comes down to religious views?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---
> 
> breath = life
> 
> In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air.  It's an interesting idea.



A fetus breathes as well.  Breathing is the process of exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide by a biological mechanism.  The difference is that a fetus uses the placenta to perform this function until it is born.

Lungs are incidental - fish use gills, they 'breathe'.  A human fetus breathes too.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A fetus breathes as well. Breathing is the process of exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide by a biological mechanism. The difference is that a fetus uses the placenta to perform this function until it is born.
> 
> Lungs are incidental - fish use gills, they 'breathe'. A human fetus breathes too.


 

The words used for "breath," and "human" in Hebrew are related-both imply _breathing *air*_. The same could be said for Biblical (koine) Greek....I don't know abobut the Chinese.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

harlan said:


> So, the basic, fundamental reason against killing a human fetus comes down to religious views?



For some.  For others, it is a moral sense that may or may not conform to any particular religion.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 10, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I'm also still curious, since we're on an MA forum, what folks think of the Chinese philosophy that---
> 
> breath = life
> 
> In that case life begins at birth, since it's the first engagement to breathing of air. It's an interesting idea.


 
I'm not sure that I would take "birth morality" advice from a culture who systematically abandons and kills female children based solely on their gender.  And that is AFTER birth.  

Government's fault or not...I would rather them abort the child still in utero than birth the child and take it to a mountain in the country and leave it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The words used for "breath," and "human" in Hebrew are related-both imply _breathing *air*_. The same could be said for Biblical (koine) Greek....I don't know abobut the Chinese.



The US Navy has performed successful experiments on divers using oxygenated liquids that they 'breathe' using their lungs, but it is not air.  Are they then dead?


----------



## seasoned (Jun 10, 2009)

JDenver said:


> I know that when I was in the womb I wanted to be treated with respect and dignity.


I will assume you were because here you are on the greatest web site around giving your 2 cents.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Devil's advocate here.  If it isn't your business if a woman chooses to kill her unborn child (not to mince words, but 'killing' is appropriate in this context, even if emotionally jarring), then by that logic, it should be OK with you if one bystander kills another in your presence.  I mean, you're against it, but it isn't your business - right?


In self defense situations, sure.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

Marginal said:


> In self defense situations, sure.



So by that argument, you would be OK with killing an unborn fetus if it involved self defense (not your business) but not OK with killing an unborn fetus if self defense was not involved?


----------



## harlan (Jun 10, 2009)

Ignore the bystander.

Ignore the one day old fertilized egg.

What about a female's right to make decisions about what she does with her body? Is everyone okay with the idea that being pregnant strips a woman of her rights?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

harlan said:


> What about a female's right to make decisions about what she does with her body? Is everyone okay with the idea that being pregnant strips a woman of her rights?



We place restrictions on what people do with their bodies all the time; most are uncontroversial.  In most locations, laws prohibit putting certain drugs into our bodies.  Prostitution is illegal in many places.  Suicide is illegal, even though seldom prosecuted.  There are many things we cannot do with our own bodies as members of society.

Why would this be any different?  In the above restrictions, the lives that are at risk are presumably aware of the risks.  In cases of abortion, the life that is lost was not consulted.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> My religion teaches that personhood is bestowed by a Creator, not a process. I'm willing to go with that. A human fetus is a person. Ending that life is killing a person. Murder? I'm not ready to make that statement.


 
Religious prohibitions against abortion are rather flexible.The Catholic Church has hardly been consistent in its teaching in this regard; in fact, for the Church, the equation of all abortions with murder is relatively new.

The Roman Catholic Church first adopted the beliefs of Aristotle, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas that_ ensoulment_ occurs several weeks after conception. Pope Innocent III, who ruled at the turn of the 13th Century, made that belief part of Church doctrine, _allowing_ abortion until fetal "animation"-when the mother could feel the fetus moving and kicking, generally between 12 and 22 weeks of development (though the fetus actually starts to move at around 6 weeks). It was not until 1869 that the Church prohibited abortion at any time and for any reason.

Thomas Aquinas (13th century) preached that the souls of humans were planted, by God, at day 90 for girls and day 40 for boys. Therefore Catholics had believed that, as long as abortion was carried out before the soul was present in the fetus, it was not morally wrong.

Without getting into all the complications of the Old Testament and the Talmudic law therein, I&#8217;ll just say that the Jewish viewpoint has largely been fairly equivalent to the old Roman Catholic viepoint-that is, that abortion was not murder-in fact, in practical terms, a baby isn&#8217;t &#8220;alive&#8221; under jewish law until it&#8217;s been alive for the 13th day after being born&#8230;&#8230;

Under Islam, abortion is only _punishable_ when done without the father&#8217;s consent; it also holds that abortion is permissible until between 40 and 120 days after conception.

The only ancient religions that appear to have specific penalties for abortion are Buddhism, and Hinduism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Religious prohibitions against abortion are rather flexible.The Catholic Church has hardly been consistent in its teaching in this regard; in fact, for the Church, the equation of all abortions with murder is relatively new.



I'm sure you're right, but not sure how it is relevant.  Are you suggesting that I should not abide by the rules of my faith because they changed them?  Or that no one should cite religious values for being anti-abortion because not all religions agree with them?

Laws may change, but the current Canonical law is what applies to me.  It so happens that I am willing to go along with the current prohibition on abortion as well the reasoning given by the Church for it.  If Canon law were to change, I'd consider it at that time.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sure you're right, but not sure how it is relevant. Are you suggesting that I should not abide by the rules of my faith because they changed them? Or that no one should cite religious values for being anti-abortion because not all religions agree with them?
> 
> Laws may change, but the current Canonical law is what applies to me. It so happens that I am willing to go along with the current prohibition on abortion as well the reasoning given by the Church for it. If Canon law were to change, I'd consider it at that time.


 

nah, I don't care if your religion tells you abortion is wrong becuase _Xenu says so._ 

I'm just saying it hasn't always been that way-not even close.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jun 10, 2009)

> The words used for "breath," and "human" in Hebrew are related-both imply _breathing *air*_. The same could be said for Biblical (koine) Greek....I don't know abobut the Chinese


 
Breathe would translate like:Bi xi ( &#40763;&#24687;)  (nose breathing)
 there is also Embryo breathing called Tai xi(&#32974; &#24687;   but it does not mean the same thing as this thread and is a Qigong exercise.


----------



## astrobiologist (Jun 10, 2009)

When I hear the term "pro-life" I obviously think of the abortion debate.

To me "pro-life" means a staunch refusal to accept death.  I mean no offense to those who consider themselves pro-life advocates.  Cells die.  Organisms die.  A human fetus in the first trimester cannot survive outside the womb, nor does it have the nervous ability to "feel" pain.  To me, the death of the cells of the fetus is obviously not like the death of some skin cells, but is also not like the death of a newborn child.  I think if a woman chooses to abort the fetus early in the pregnancy then that is her choice and it will not harm humanity for such to happen.  What will harm humanity is if another child is brought into this world without the parent's having the ability to provide for them or make rational decisions which include thoughts of the child.

I kind of stress the first trimester for pregnancy, because, though I am a "pro-choice" advocate, I am against late term abortions.  The second trimester I'm "iffy" on, but I don't like the idea of a woman carrying a fetus for 7 or 8 months before making a decision.  At that point the nervous system has been developed to a point that just feels wrong to destroy (that's right!  I said it.  And I meant it.  It "feels" wrong.  I'm not saying it is or is not.  It just feels wrong to me.)  Being pro-choice, I support a woman's choice to abort.  I hope she, and hopefully the father,too, will have taken the time to think through the decision, as well.

Here's a personal story for you.

My son will be 8 years old next month.  I've spoken to him once since he was born.  He was adopted three days after his birth.

When I was 17 years old my ex-girlfriend broke the news to me that she was pregnant.  She was 16 at the time.  I was a young drug-addict who had been kicked out of high school and whose only source of income at that time was dealing (don't worry things changed a lot after that.  Feel free to ask me about it sometime.)  We spent that first month taking a lot of long drives and walks to talk about our choices.  Abortion was always an option for us (and I'm very glad it was).  We looked at a few important things: we had contraception available in our society but had not used it, my ex felt she was strong enough to carry the fetus to term and was scared but very brave at the same time, and we knew that if we worked together to keep each other sane we could consider adoption.  I'm proud of the decision we made, but, like I said, I am so very glad that abortion was still one of the options.  It sounded bleak, but that child deserved better than what we had to offer him at that time.  

(BTW, his name is Mitchell, he has some awesome parents who seem to love him very much, and I've seen him around a few times and he always looks very happy.  He was a munchkin in the Wizard of Oz musical at the old high school last year, so cute.)

People often try to draw a line for where life begins for a fetus.  It is very hard to draw such a line.  This is because life is always occuring for that fetus.  Even before conception.  The parents are alive and their cells are alive, this includes their gametes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I'm just saying it hasn't always been that way-not even close.



And I'm still asking why that matters.  If it doesn't matter, what is the point of bringing it up?


----------



## Omar B (Jun 10, 2009)

I'm in the pro-choice camp, my rational is that rights do not pertain to a _potential_, only to an _actual_ being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Ok, I've said my bit.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And I'm still asking why that matters. If it doesn't matter, what is the point of bringing it up?


 
Inasmuch as "pro-life" in re abortion is a modern concept, including to the Catholic church and other religious organizations, protestations from _others_ notwithstanding, it's relevant. The point being that the Catholic Church taught that abortion was okay, and not a mortal sin, right up until 140 years ago....ditto just about everyone else.


----------



## blindsage (Jun 10, 2009)

I'm about as pro women's rights as one gets, but it's always struck me as odd that the only way people seem to have to defend a woman's right to choose is by de-humanizing the life in the womb.  If you say it's human people seem to say it's not okay, if you say it's not people seem to find abortion acceptable.   I have never been able to say the life in a womb is not human and none of the rationale's for it have ever been convincing to me.  

I'm for the option of abortion in the contexts of medical concerns, incest or rape because of the significant other factors involved, but for just about any other reason I can only see it as birth control, and not really acceptable to me.   And a D&C is not an abortion, it is a medical necessity to remove already dead tissue.  

Now, in terms of an encroachment on a woman's rights, this is only the case if you believe the life growing in the womb is not human or not alive.  If you say it is a human life, then it has rights as well.  There are people that use this issue as a continuing method to subjegate and control women, I am not one of those people.   But I cannot in good conscience (my good conscience) condone abortion in a general sense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

Omar B said:


> I'm in the pro-choice camp, my rational is that rights do not pertain to a _potential_, only to an _actual_ being.



A fetus is a being.  It is a new life, unique, and human.



> A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.



That's a statement, not an argument.  In any case, in some cases, a child apparently does have rights before it is born.

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

One cannot 'murder' a being that has no rights.  Conversely if one can 'murder' an unborn child (in many states according to the link above), then the unborn child, ipso facto, has rights.



> The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).



This is, I presume, your opinion.  Fair enough.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Inasmuch as "pro-life" in re abortion is a modern concept, including to the Catholic church and other religious organizations, protestations from _others_ notwithstanding, it's relevant. The point being that the Catholic Church taught that abortion was okay, and not a mortal sin, right up until 140 years ago....ditto just about everyone else.



You appear to be attempting to undermine any claim to religious belief as a valid reason to choose to be pro-life by showing that religion wasn't always that way.  I'm not sure how to respond - if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt on the ground when he hopped, I guess.  Yes, it wasn't always that way.  It is now.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You appear to be attempting to undermine any claim to religious belief as a valid reason to choose to be pro-life by showing that religion wasn't always that way. I'm not sure how to respond - if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his butt on the ground when he hopped, I guess. Yes, it wasn't always that way. It is now.


 

Actually, I'm attempting to show how something as variable as "_belief_" simply cannot, and should not have the force of *law*. If, for more than 1400 years, the Catholic Church had no injunction against abortion whatsoever, why should its current viewpoint have any impact at all upon a legal question?

Granted, the law is also variable-at one time, duels were permitted in a variety of places-and more's the pity.


----------



## Carol (Jun 10, 2009)

astrobiologist said:


> When I was 17 years old my ex-girlfriend broke the news to me that she was pregnant.  She was 16 at the time.  I was a young drug-addict who had been kicked out of high school and whose only source of income at that time was dealing (don't worry things changed a lot after that.  Feel free to ask me about it sometime.)



Hearty congratulations to you for the way you stopped making mistakes, got an education, and turned your life around. :asian:


----------



## Omar B (Jun 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A fetus is a being.  It is a new life, unique, and human.



That's dependent on when you believe life begins Bill.  Personally as I said I see a fetus as simply a potential so I'm totally fine with a woman's right to choose.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 10, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm about as pro women's rights as one gets, but it's always struck me as odd that the only way people seem to have to defend a woman's right to choose is by de-humanizing the life in the womb.  If you say it's human people seem to say it's not okay, if you say it's not people seem to find abortion acceptable.   I have never been able to say the life in a womb is not human and none of the rationale's for it have ever been convincing to me.


If it comes down the the mother's life or the fetus, it's not that hard of a choice to everyone involved. They aren't weighted the same. One has years of experience and knowledge. The other one's blank and can only be weighed on potential.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 10, 2009)

I respect Bill Mattocks' absolute right to practice his religion as he sees fit, and I respect his viewpoint.

Here's the catch:  _MY_ religion defines human life at birth, not at conception.

So does Bill's religion "win"?  Does my religion "win"?  Or should we respect each other's religious beliefs?

That's why I think it has to be left to the individual.

I don't think any sane person's first choice of family planning is abortion. I wish that those opposed to abortion would support birth control education and availability; adoption; day care and other options (and of course, many do).  That would certainly decrease the demand for abortion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Actually, I'm attempting to show how something as variable as "_belief_" simply cannot, and should not have the force of *law*. If, for more than 1400 years, the Catholic Church had no injunction against abortion whatsoever, why should its current viewpoint have any impact at all upon a legal question?
> 
> Granted, the law is also variable-at one time, duels were permitted in a variety of places-and more's the pity.



I agree, it should have no force of law, and no impact upon a legal question.  It has an impact upon Canon Law, to which I bind myself as a willing Catholic, and to my opinion, which I hold regardless of what the zeitgeist regarding abortion happens to be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 10, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> I respect Bill Mattocks' absolute right to practice his religion as he sees fit, and I respect his viewpoint.
> 
> Here's the catch:  _MY_ religion defines human life at birth, not at conception.
> 
> So does Bill's religion "win"?  Does my religion "win"?  Or should we respect each other's religious beliefs?



In a representative republic such as ours, voters win, or the legislative branch wins, or the judiciary wins (if it is indeed a constitutional question).  Our respective religions inform our opinions, and many of us vote based on our opinions.



> That's why I think it has to be left to the individual.



And that is why I think it should be left to the voters.



> I don't think any sane person's first choice of family planning is abortion.



I beg to differ.  Seen it.



> I wish that those opposed to abortion would support birth control education and availability; adoption; day care and other options (and of course, many do).  That would certainly decrease the demand for abortion.



I agree, and I do.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 10, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Without getting into all the complications of the Old Testament and the Talmudic law therein, I&#8217;ll just say that the Jewish viewpoint has largely been fairly equivalent to the old Roman Catholic viepoint-that is, that abortion was not murder-in fact, in practical terms, a baby isn&#8217;t &#8220;alive&#8221; under jewish law until it&#8217;s been alive for the 13th day after being born&#8230;&#8230;


 
Judaism: It is alive as it takes the first breath of air. It is not formally mourned until after the 30th day.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Judaism: It is alive as it takes the first breath of air. It is not formally mourned until after the 30th day.


 
Under British law a foetus cannot be murdered or injured. It does not become a human being until the umbilical cord has been cut and it can breathe independant of the mother. This mirrors Jewish law.

I have heard many gun law arguments where people say that if there's laws to restrict guns people will have them anyway, the same is true of abortion. In an ideal world how lovely it would be if there was never a need for an abortion, a healthy wanted baby every time but that is never going to happen. If there are no safe legal abortions where the law can regulate as our laws do in the UK, the back street abortions will reappear with a shocking cost to life. do it yourself abortions?
Anyone here seen the film Vera Drake?
Whats needed is education, education and more education. Teach children about sex, love and contraception.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 11, 2009)

Seems like I agree with the Brits on this one.  It's potential.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Seems like I agree with the Brits on this one. It's potential.


 

Abortion in this country isn't a political issue, abortions have been legal here for many years up to 22 weeks with two doctors signing. Exceptionally later abortions may be performed for medical reasons. There are people who are anti abortion here but they aren't as vocal or as violent as in America. It doesn't come up at elections nor do voters ask about it. Like the death penalty which was abolished here also years ago it simply doesn't come up in public debates, it's a private thing.


----------



## Joab (Jun 11, 2009)

Well, you never know how a thread will develop once you begin it. I was hoping for a less narrow discussion regarding being "pro life" than merely focusing on abortion. I think the issue gets complicated. For instance, if your "pro life" you would by logical extension be against war because it involves killing people. Than again, in World War II more Jews, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and really anybody the Nazi's didn't like would have been killed if we hadn't gone to war against Nazi Germany. Is freedom more valuable than life in some cases? The USA would have not come to be without a violent revolution against Great Britain. And what about animal life, insect life, does being pro life include those groups as well? Should we kill animals so we can eat meat?

While I am pro life, and seek peaceful solutions to problems, I think there are times when war is necessary as horrible as it is. I certainly think lethal force is necessary at times when no other alternatives exist when protecting yourself or loved ones or neighbors from violent, lethal aggression. And what about the quality of life? If someone is suffering from pain, should he be allowed to terminate his life when no cure seems possible? Should doctors be allowed to perform euthanasia if it's the patients' desire?

I think being pro life means far more than merely being against abortion, although that is how the debate seems to be framed these days.


----------



## harlan (Jun 11, 2009)

As was noted early on in the thread, simply using the term was bound to limit the discussion.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Judaism: It is alive as it takes the first breath of air. It is not formally mourned until after the 30th day.


 

Thanks-I knew that, don't know where that "13th day" thing came from....


----------



## rocksham (Jun 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> I think most The vast majority are opposed to murder, although what constitutes "murder" varies. Do you believe being pro life means being opposed to abortion, opposed to war, helping out some kid in a third world country from starving to death and/or helping his village with health concerns that would help keep them alive, or a combination of the three? When we hear the words "pro life" these days it seems to equate in many minds being opposed to abortion. I think being pro life should mean more than that, it should be being for the sanctity of all life, in this context human life primarily, and should really include all the above and even more. Of course being "pro life" certainly could include animal life, insect life, you name it life. What does being "pro life" mean to you? I think few people are really "pro death?"



abortion is not in the bible, so the context of religion used by the right is invalid in pushing their agenda by calling pro-life.


----------



## rocksham (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree.  I chose the term 'killing' advisedly.
> 
> Basic agreement.
> 
> ...



1) The word "abortion" is not in the Bible, at all
2) It has not been proven by science where life begins in huamn form in a zygotes developemnt
3) Religion is not a valid measurement in the definition of the "Pro Life" thing as it's a political term.


----------



## rocksham (Jun 11, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I'm about as pro women's rights as one gets, but it's always struck me as odd that the only way people seem to have to defend a woman's right to choose is by de-humanizing the life in the womb.  If you say it's human people seem to say it's not okay, if you say it's not people seem to find abortion acceptable.   I have never been able to say the life in a womb is not human and none of the rationale's for it have ever been convincing to me.
> 
> I'm for the option of abortion in the contexts of medical concerns, incest or rape because of the significant other factors involved, but for just about any other reason I can only see it as birth control, and not really acceptable to me.   And a D&C is not an abortion, it is a medical necessity to remove already dead tissue.
> 
> Now, in terms of an encroachment on a woman's rights, this is only the case if you believe the life growing in the womb is not human or not alive.  If you say it is a human life, then it has rights as well.  There are people that use this issue as a continuing method to subjegate and control women, I am not one of those people.   But I cannot in good conscience (my good conscience) condone abortion in a general sense.



My personal peeve witha bortion in general is the blatant hypocricy on BOTH sides of the argument:

Pro Lifers want to hide behind religion to make their point, and if that offends too bad

Pro Choicers often dont want to explore the need for indivdiual responsibility, as in if you don't want kids, then keep your legs shut to at least take preventitive measures.

End rant.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

rocksham said:


> 1) The word "abortion" is not in the Bible, at all



It is the Catholic Church which forbids it, not the Bible.  As a practicing Catholic, I go along with my Church.



> 2) It has not been proven by science where life begins in huamn form in a zygotes developemnt



Nonsense.  A fertilized human egg will not become anything but a human baby, assuming it is carried to term.



> 3) Religion is not a valid measurement in the definition of the "Pro Life" thing as it's a political term.



You can say that, but it does not make it so.  I say religion *is *a valid measurement, so there.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

rocksham said:


> Pro Lifers want to hide behind religion to make their point, and if that offends too bad



I'm not hiding behind anything.  I'm willing to go against my Church's laws on some things, but I engage my brain and make up my own mind before I do that.  In the case of abortion, I agree with my Church.  I'm not hiding behind anything - I've been very clear about it.

As to _'if it offends too bad,'_ I don't know how my anti-abortion opinion offends anyone.  But I'll agree - if my opinion about abortion offends you, then yes, it sucks to be you.  I'd be a coward and a punk if I changed my opinions to avoid giving offense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

rocksham said:


> abortion is not in the bible, so the context of religion used by the right is invalid in pushing their agenda by calling pro-life.



There are many biblical references used by anti-abortion Christians, and I'm sure you're aware of it.  In any case, they're unlikely to abandon their opinions because you say they're 'invalid'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> Well, you never know how a thread will develop once you begin it. I was hoping for a less narrow discussion regarding being "pro life" than merely focusing on abortion.



The term has a very specific meaning in common parlance.  Pointing out that the words themselves are generic and could apply to any life and any circumstances doesn't change anything - people in the USA (especially) hear 'pro life' or 'pro choice' and they know what you are referring to - and it's not your stance on capital punishment.



> I think being pro life means far more than merely being against abortion, although that is how the debate seems to be framed these days.



That happens sometimes.  Being a wobbly once meant something other than you felt dizzy and might fall down.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I have heard many gun law arguments where people say that if there's laws to restrict guns people will have them anyway, the same is true of abortion.



Yes, abortion was once illegal in the USA, and some women went out of the country to have abortions or had them performed by unlicensed providers or by doctors who refused to obey the law clandestinely.

I have never believed in the argument that laws should be changed just because some people ignore them.

We have laws against DUI, but DUI is a huge problem anyway.  So by your logic, I guess we should just give up and make driving drunk legal.



> In an ideal world how lovely it would be if there was never a need for an abortion, a healthy wanted baby every time but that is never going to happen.



Define 'need'.  If it is a medical necessity for the health of the mother, then I'd agree.  Otherwise, I question if there is a 'need' for the abortion.



> If there are no safe legal abortions where the law can regulate as our laws do in the UK, the back street abortions will reappear with a shocking cost to life. do it yourself abortions?



People break the law at their own risk.  You suggest we should make things easier for lawbreakers?



> Anyone here seen the film Vera Drake?



No, sorry.



> Whats needed is education, education and more education. Teach children about sex, love and contraception.



And give them abortions on demand when they (gasp) refuse to listen to advice.  Sorry, I disagree.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nonsense.  A fertilized human egg will not become anything but a human baby, assuming it is carried to term.



Yeah, and you crap out everything you eat, doesn't mean the food is crap, just has the potential to be.  Just like an embryo.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 11, 2009)

A couple of thoughts:

I'm an advocate of birth control, but even the best form of birth control, sterilization, has a failure rate of maybe half a percent within the first year of use.  Other forms of birth control have much higher failure rate.  So "educate, educate, educate" is a great idea, but not the whole picture.

Another thing to consider is that, according to the NIH, 15-20% of pregnancies are miscarried--probably more, because that's only among the women who actually KNOW they're pregnant. So, in fact, a zygote does not always turn into a human person, not by a long shot.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Yeah, and you crap out everything you eat, doesn't mean the food is crap, just has the potential to be.  Just like an embryo.



A fertilized human egg is a *new, unique, human life*.  It will become a human baby if brought to term and delivered.  So yes, it is a potential _baby_.  But it already a new, unique, human, life.

We are all potential fertilizer.  But right now, we are living, unique, human beings.  And so is a child in its mother's womb.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Phoenix44 said:


> Another thing to consider is that, according to the NIH, 15-20% of pregnancies are miscarried--probably more, because that's only among the women who actually KNOW they're pregnant. So, in fact, a zygote does not always turn into a human person, not by a long shot.



I believe the rate of spontaneous miscarriages are higher, as you do.

A zygote does not always survive to be delivered as a baby, true, and if you check, you will find I have not said otherwise.  I said that if carried to term, it will be a human baby.

However, it will also not become _any other type_ of baby.  It won't become a baboon, or a chimpanzee, or a cockroach.  It is a *new, unique, human*, life.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We are all potential fertilizer. But right now, we are living, unique, human beings. And so is a child in its mother's womb.


 
If it's in the womb, it's a _fetus_, not a child. If it's not a child, it's not a human _being_, it's a _human *becoming*_.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

elder999 said:


> If it's in the womb, it's a _fetus_, not a child. If it's not a child, it's not a human _being_, it's a _human *becoming*_.



The problem, as I see it, is that there are a number of people who are in favor of abortion, but who do not want to cross the line into being in favor of killing a human.  So they employ terms of art to describe the unborn child as anything other than human, to deny it _'personhood'_.  It is a zygote, it is a parasite, it is not a child, not a human being, certainly not a member of the human race - if it were, we'd have to face the fact that we're killing it for the crime of being unwanted (in some cases).

No matter what terms of art one employs - a fertilized egg in a mother's womb is *a new life* - it is neither its mother nor its father.  *It is unique* - that combination of genes has never before existed.  *It is human* - it is not a baboon, a chimpanzee, nor a cockroach.  This is self-evident and cannot be denied.  If you favor abortion, you favor the killing on demand of a new, unique, human life.  Call it whatever _'feel good'_ words you wish, the facts are very clear.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A fertilized human egg is a *new, unique, human life*.  It will become a human baby if brought to term and delivered.  So yes, it is a potential _baby_.  But it already a new, unique, human, life.
> We are all potential fertilizer.  But right now, we are living, unique, human beings.  And so is a child in its mother's womb.



That's our sticking point Bill.  When we think life beings.  I see the embryo as simply a potential not an actual.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Omar B said:


> That's our sticking point Bill.  When we think life beings.  I see the embryo as simply a potential not an actual.



I agree that we have a sticking point, but I ask you:

*Is it alive?*  I say living cells are alive, not dead.
*Is it new and unique?*  It isn't the mother or father.
*Is it human?*  By definition, a human embryo is human - what else could it be?  An embryonic frog is still a frog, though it does not yet hop.  No one raises great clouds of dust over the 'frogness' of a tadpole - because there is no point to it - a tadpole is a frog, from the DNA up.  Just because it has not yet shed its tail, it will not become a cow or a sheep.  And a human embryo is a human.

So in my book, it is a live human being.

Now, I have been careful not to assign a moral value to abortion - other than my own opinion about being against it.  I have not said abortion is morally wrong or right, nor have I used emotional buzzwords like murder - I just use the neutral and accurate term 'killing'.

If I were pro choice, I'd admit very simply that I am in favor of the killing of unborn humans on demand.  That's an end to it.

Instead, people engage in these interesting bags of words to shy away from being that straightforward - even you, who are often so very blunt.

I think there is a reason for that, and I think the reason is that you do not, in the recesses of your conscience, want to admit that what you advocate allowing the killing of is human.  If you do, you fear you will have to grant it the rights of human beings, and then your pro choice stance would be anathema to you.

It's an amazing set of twists and turns - just to avoid calling a spade a spade.  The question is not really over the humanity of an unborn child.  The question is over why it is so difficult for pro choice people to call an unborn child what it really is.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill - I realize that you have not used the buzzwords like murder, but you are attempting to attach an emotional aspect to all of those who are not "pro-life." In that you are implying that they are all in support of murder. Either way, it is still a matter of phrasing. I would certainly not say that I am in support of "killing unborn humans on demand" although I realize that is your opinion of the matter.

I personally am in favor of a mother's right to choose, based on her rational decision of what is best for herself and her unborn child. I do believe that a fetus, zygote, whatever is a potentially unborn child. But I also do not try to "dehumanize" or "over humanize" the status of the child. Just as you suggest that we all dehumanize by applying less personal words to the fetus, I would submit that the majority of the pro-life movement attempts to "over humanize" the child, by swinging the emotions in their own favor. It is in fact an emotional argument and that is how people debate. This is a highly personal issue for most people for some reason.

Personally, I view it from what I believe to be a logical, rational point of view. As a fetus, the child is a potential human and not a frog. It is a unique new life. And it does not have the ability to make its own decision. It is not yet a conscious organism. At early stages, it is a loose organization of cells, nothing more (though they are human cells in the process of being organized into a viable human being). Through development, it becomes a human, but at early stages, it is still in development. Based on the fact that it is not conscious, it cannot make decisions, it depends on the mother to make ALL decisions regarding its life - or death. The mother can feed it alcohol, drugs, diseases, etc and it has no choice...that is the same effect as killing it. If she rationally decides that it is best to abort the child, I support that. I do like the UK's policy of having two doctors sign off though and I only support early term abortions for good reasons, not as birth control. Personal opinions though. I take no direction from a religion.

There are plenty of children living in poverty, with disease, with abusive parents, in an unloving home, the product of parents who never wanted them who wish they had never been born. They are a drain on the society in terms of welfare, they will most likely grow up to be a drain on the society in the form of criminals or more welfare - of not fault of their own, just born to the wrong person. 

Now take away EVERY woman's option to abort and imagine how many MORE of those unloved, unsupported, miserable children there would be. I would rather prevent the suffering of a child in advance than worry about taking the life of a collection of cells.

Plus, it really pisses me off to see children running around with parents who don't love them and don't care for them, when I lost a child that I would have loved and cared for. I would rather they had never gotten pregnant or made the responsible decision and aborted the child. Especially when many of them are clinging to their refusal to abort based on religious beliefs and not a rational determination of whether they could realistically support the child.

This IS NOT a black and white issue.  There is a lot more to it than "Human," "Unique," and "Alive."  Especially at that point in development.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> I would submit that the majority of the pro-life movement attempts to "over humanize" the child, by swinging the emotions in their own favor. It is in fact an emotional argument and that is how people debate. This is a highly personal issue for most people for some reason.



I agree.  But my terms are very simple and not emotional at all.  It is alive, it is unique, it is human.  No one thus far has attempted to deny that.  Yet, when I say it is a living, unique, human, they have a problem with it and want to use other terms.



> Personally, I view it from what I believe to be a logical, rational point of view. As a fetus, the child is a potential human and not a frog. It is a unique new life. And it does not have the ability to make its own decision. It is not yet a conscious organism.



As I have previously stated, many adult humans either never had or have lost those capabilities, but we do not deny them personhood.  Killing a person in a coma would still be considered a crime.

So I have to say that IMHO, having consciousness or rational thought is not required for a person to be a person.



> At early stages, it is a loose organization of cells, nothing more (though they are human cells in the process of being organized into a viable human being).



Correct.



> Through development, it becomes a human, but at early stages, it is still in development.



That is an assertion cloaked as a statement of fact.  In reality, those cells are human, as you have said.  It does not 'become' human, it 'is' human.  It 'becomes' a child, just as a child becomes an adult, but human it is.

If it were not human, what else would it be?  Everything is something.  Frog, bird, rock.  It is a clump of cells - what kind of cells?  Human cells.  Is any clump of human cells a human?  No, only new unique cells that will normally become children.  So an embryo is human.



> Based on the fact that it is not conscious, it cannot make decisions, it depends on the mother to make ALL decisions regarding its life - or death. The mother can feed it alcohol, drugs, diseases, etc and it has no choice...that is the same effect as killing it. If she rationally decides that it is best to abort the child, I support that. I do like the UK's policy of having two doctors sign off though and I only support early term abortions for good reasons, not as birth control. Personal opinions though. I take no direction from a religion.



I appreciate your opinion, and support your right to it, but I disagree with it, and still assert you're going to great lengths to avoid calling a spade a spade.



> There are plenty of children living in poverty, with disease, with abusive parents, in an unloving home, the product of parents who never wanted them who wish they had never been born. They are a drain on the society in terms of welfare, they will most likely grow up to be a drain on the society in the form of criminals or more welfare - of not fault of their own, just born to the wrong person.



I can not find a reply to this statement that is not incendiary.  It's kind of scary if that's your rationale for abortion.



> This IS NOT a black and white issue.  There is a lot more to it than "Human," "Unique," and "Alive."  Especially at that point in development.



I agree that it is not black and white, nor is it simple. I don't propose that I have the answers to the problem of abortion - only an opinion, like you.  I confess to some conflicting thoughts regarding certain types of abortion, like I suppose many people do, whether pro or con abortion.

But my terms are simple and accurate.  Being pro abortion means being in favor of killing an unborn human under whatever circumstances one feels abortion is acceptable.  It is not an unborn thing, it is not a clump of cells along the lines of a booger or an unused egg or some semen, it is just what I described - *new, unique, human life*.  What else could it be?

I'm sorry that it squicks people, and I'm sorry that many who are pro abortion don't want to think about it in those terms, but it really is what it is.  Using lots of artful phrases to de-humanize an unborn child does not make it less human.  It is and remains a human, and if we believe that killing it is OK, then fine - but it remains what it is.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that we have a sticking point, but I ask you:
> *Is it alive?*  I say living cells are alive, not dead.
> *Is it new and unique?*  It isn't the mother or father.
> *Is it human?*  By definition, a human embryo is human - what else could it be?  An embryonic frog is still a frog, though it does not yet hop.  No one raises great clouds of dust over the 'frogness' of a tadpole - because there is no point to it - a tadpole is a frog, from the DNA up.  Just because it has not yet shed its tail, it will not become a cow or a sheep.  And a human embryo is a human.
> ...



Sure, but The concept entity is (implicitly) the start of mans conceptual development and the building-block of his entire conceptual structure.  It is by perceiving entities that man perceives the universe.  An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence, till it's reached that point I don't think of it as much.  So until it's separate from it's mother I don't see it as a being.

I don't have the catholic beliefs you do but I do have an uncle who's a priest so I know where you are coming from.  Though I can't agree with you.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As I have previously stated, many adult humans either never had or have lost those capabilities, but we do not deny them personhood. Killing a person in a coma would still be considered a crime.


 
That is not true, there is such a thing as a medical proxy when you cannot make a decision for yourself.  When the "plug is pulled" it is killing, but it is no more murder than abortion is.  There are many patients who have no hope of coming out of a coma.  We don't deny them personhood...and you can define personhood however you want, apply whatever label, but it is still a decision of rationality, not emotion.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> If it were not human, what else would it be? Everything is something. Frog, bird, rock. It is a clump of cells - what kind of cells? Human cells. Is any clump of human cells a human? No, only new unique cells that will normally become children. So an embryo is human.


 
This what I don't get....no one has ever denied that it is human cells.  I know that the allusions to other animals are for illustration, but it isn't necessary, we know that it is human.  It isn't a matter of whether it is human or not.  I think that is that basis of the primary argument between pro-life and pro-choice.  (notice, a HUGE connotation difference in using the term "pro-choice" vs. "pro-abortion," and generally the "pro-life" camp likes to attach the whole pro-abortion lable to villify that side)  Pro-life people are arguing that you can't kill a human and pro-choice argues that the mother should have a choice in the matter.  To be perfectly honest, we're arguing two completely different things.  That is why the debate will NEVER be solved.

I don't support murder.  I don't like the idea of killing babies - or embryos or fetuses for that matter.  I don't like the idea, but I support a mother's right to choose - _when the decision is made rationally with fore-thought._



Bill Mattocks said:


> I appreciate your opinion, and support your right to it, but I disagree with it, and still assert you're going to great lengths to avoid calling a spade a spade.


 
And I greatly appreciate that.  But I also feel that you go to great length to villify pro-choice people.  The argument that these terms are used to de-humanize a baby - to me - isn't valid.  Who cares what you call it.  You can call it anything you want, that isn't the point that I'm arguing.  If you want to use the term "baby-killer" that is fine, because it doesn't describe me.  The "spade a spade" thing....is just not relevant to me.  I only believe that the mother has a choice, no more.

I could go so far as to say that pro-life people are in favor of "Stripping away the rights of innocent mothers, who don't have the means to support a child."  That they are "forcing these poor innocent children to destroy their lives as the result of a single mistake."  etc etc etc....it comes from both sides.  Pro-choice "dehumanizes" and pro-life "takes away rights."  That part of the argument again, is irrelevant to me.  In this debate, I'm concerned about whether the mother has a choice as to what happens with her body and her unborn child (just as she will be making the choices for that child from conception up until the kid can make its own decisions, which can be years).  You're concerned about whether the fetus has a right to life or not.  Two different arguments.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I can not find a reply to this statement that is not incendiary. It's kind of scary if that's your rationale for abortion.


 
That isn't my rationale - it is the same as the "frog argument," just an illustration to demonstrate a point.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that it is not black and white, nor is it simple. I don't propose that I have the answers to the problem of abortion - only an opinion, like you. I confess to some conflicting thoughts regarding certain types of abortion, like I suppose many people do, whether pro or con abortion.


 
I have a great deal of respect for that - I only wish that as many other people has this much clarity of thought and self-actualization to their own opinions.



Bill Mattocks said:


> But my terms are simple and accurate. Being pro abortion means being in favor of killing an unborn human under whatever circumstances one feels abortion is acceptable. It is not an unborn thing, it is not a clump of cells along the lines of a booger or an unused egg or some semen, it is just what I described - *new, unique, human life*. What else could it be?


 
Again, a great deal of respect.  Define terms, stick to them.  Most people on both camps have done the same.  My theory is simply that everyone is arguing oranges to apples....different arguments.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm sorry that it squicks people, and I'm sorry that many who are pro abortion don't want to think about it in those terms, but it really is what it is. Using lots of artful phrases to de-humanize an unborn child does not make it less human. It is and remains a human, and if we believe that killing it is OK, then fine - but it remains what it is.


 
Again, that's fine if you want to think of it as killing or murder or whatever.  I'm not trying to dehumanize anything.  I'm fully aware of the consequences of abortion.  A lost life.  I have personal experience withit.  That experience doesn't change my opinion though.  Again, the basis of many people's argument is the emotional connotation of words.  Which is a debating tactic - not a strong one, but a tactic nonetheless.  Definition and connotation is everything!


----------



## Live True (Jun 11, 2009)

In response to the original OP, I think "pro life" SHOULD be refer to more than just abortion, as to be otherwise often implies hypocrisy.

I have not been able to read all the posts (most, though) so my apologies if I am broaching a topic that has already been mentioned.  

In most of my personal discussions with others as well as the random readings on the topic, it seems that a majority of folks who are pro-life in regards to abortion also support the death penalty. This has always seemed to be hypocritical/disingenuous to me.  

The argument is basically that a child's life has value before it is born into the world, but afterwards that same life has less value?  I get that crimes, etc. have been commmitted, but I don't buy the argument that this person's life then has less value.  It may be necessary to end that life because of the threat it provides to others, because thier acts were so atrocious, and/or because they are truly damaged with no possible rehabilation.  That does not mean thier life is not valuable; it simply means the value of thier life does not equate to thier threat/cost/etc.  In other words, you are taking a life and no amount of pretty phrasing and rationalization takes that fact away. I still, given that knowledge, do beleive that it is a necessary act in rare cases.

I believe life is fundamentally sacred, but I also believe that you cannot make rules across the board to fit all situations. Even believing in the sacredness of life, sometimes that life must be taken. It is an ugly but true fact.  Each case, whether it be consideration of abortion, a sudden self-defense situation, consideration of the death penalty, or euthanasia (there, hit all the hot buttons) is a consideration of whether or not you take a life.  

For the record, I am pro-choice, mainly because I think this should be a personal decision that both parents decide...I think Astrobiologist's story is a fine example of what SHOULD happen.

Ultimately, I don't think those choices should be strictly mandated by law. I think it should be either a matter of personal choice or a very broadly defined law that allows case by case review.  I like the compromise that Tez notes with the 22 weeks and 2 doctor sign off, and the clauses for late term in specific situations.  We should not make something a law because it makes life less complicated and our choices easier.  I don't belive the social contract was meant to support conscience by law, parenting by law, or any similar legal mandate that removes our personal responsibilities...but I'm digressing.

Pro-life SHOULD refer to more than abortion, or you are being hypocritical and dishonest.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, abortion was once illegal in the USA, and some women went out of the country to have abortions or had them performed by unlicensed providers or by doctors who refused to obey the law clandestinely.
> 
> I have never believed in the argument that laws should be changed just because some people ignore them.


Studies have shown that the rates don't change much if abortions are made illegal. Deaths and injuries from complications just increase.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Sure, but The concept entity is (implicitly) the start of mans conceptual development and the building-block of his entire conceptual structure.  It is by perceiving entities that man perceives the universe.  An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence, till it's reached that point I don't think of it as much.  So until it's separate from it's mother I don't see it as a being.
> 
> I don't have the catholic beliefs you do but I do have an uncle who's a priest so I know where you are coming from.  Though I can't agree with you.



A baby is hardly self-sufficient; on the contrary, it is dependent upon its parent(s) for nearly everything.  It could not survive on its own, and I doubt many first-grade students could either.  So I'm not sure your definition of 'entity' as being 'self-sufficient' really stands up here.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 11, 2009)

Oh I think it does.  It becomes a separate and unique entity (separate and unique from the rest of the world around it) when it draws it's own breath.  Whether it needs help to survive is neither here nor there, as mammals that's just how it is, we are raised till we are self sufficient.  The first stage is a child&#8217;s awareness of objects, of things&#8212;which represents the (implicit) concept &#8220;_entity_.&#8221; The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of specific, particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest of his perceptual field&#8212;which represents the (implicit) concept &#8220;_identity_.&#8221;  Before there is a concept of entity and identity I just don't accept it as having rights.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Oh I think it does.  It becomes a separate and unique entity (separate and unique from the rest of the world around it) when it draws it's own breath.  Whether it needs help to survive is neither here nor there, as mammals that's just how it is, we are raised till we are self sufficient.  The first stage is a childs awareness of objects, of thingswhich represents the (implicit) concept _entity_. The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of specific, particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest of his perceptual fieldwhich represents the (implicit) concept _identity_.  Before there is a concept of entity and identity I just don't accept it as having rights.



If you could take a step back from this right now, you might see this as somewhat contrived.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 11, 2009)

You may think it's contrived but that's how I feel, it's not "entity" till it leaves the mother.  When it draws it's own breath and can define itself as separate from that around it, that's when life begins.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 11, 2009)

Live True has really hit the central point of my opinion - this is not an issue that should have a sweeping law covering all situations, all situations.  There are simply too many ifs and exceptions.  Choice and responsibility is a better road in this case so that the mother and parents have the latitude to act in the best interest of themselves and their unborn child.

Simply making the blanket law that "No abortions shall be allowed" seems to complicate things more.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 11, 2009)

Omar B said:


> You may think it's contrived but that's how I feel, it's not "entity" till it leaves the mother.  When it draws it's own breath and can define itself as separate from that around it, that's when life begins.



I understand your position clearly - the part I think is a tad contrived is the dancing tapestry of words you have been using to define what is and is not a human being.  As you've redrafted your definition repeatedly, and I've deconstructed and denuded it each time, you fall back and come up with a new set of words instead of defending your statements.

Ultimately, we come to this - and even here, you can't quite get your head around the difference between your opinion and the facts.  Your opinion is that life begins when the baby draws its first breath.  That is not what you said, however.  You stated it as fact.  Unfortunately, you can't defend that statement, QED.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 11, 2009)

You can't defend yours either Bill, I say life begins when the child draws breath, you believe that it begins when the sperm hits the egg.  No matter how many times you state that you believe that it won't change how I think about when life begins.  We have differing ways of looking at things and that's the crux of the issue that's been dogging this country on the same issue.


----------



## blindsage (Jun 11, 2009)

Marginal said:


> If it comes down the the mother's life or the fetus, it's not that hard of a choice to everyone involved. They aren't weighted the same. One has years of experience and knowledge. The other one's blank and can only be weighed on potential.


I have no problem with acknowledging that, if you read the rest of my post it clearly says that.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 13, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The problem, _*as I see it*_...


 
That pretty much says it.


----------



## nwalker (Jun 14, 2009)

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you;  Jeremiah 1:5A

I have a question for Mr. Omar B.

but first I would like to say you are correct, no matter the argument at the end of the day what I say or what he says or she says will not change your mind or anyone elses...

The topic is what does "pro life" mean to me and to me that means that one is against abortion.  

Sure the words "pro life" together means as someone stated "anti death" but in the world of PC it has become used as a lable to mean against abortion.  

Now to my questions...
Just too fully understand what you are saying please, if you would like, further share with us your views.


What constitutes having a concept of entity and identity?
How do you define concept of entity and identity?
What is it about being able to take a breath that gives a baby this concept?
If it is the ability to breath on your own, once a person stops being able to do that does that person lose this concept and thus can be killed?


----------



## Omar B (Jun 14, 2009)

An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence&#8212;as against a quality, an action, a relationship, etc., which are simply aspects of an entity that we separate out by specialized focus.  An entity is a _thing_.
An entity, in the primary sense, is a solid thing with a definite boundary&#8212;as against a fluid, such as air.  In the literal sense, air is not an entity.  There are contexts, such as when the wind moves as one mass, when you can call it that, by analogy, but in the primary sense, fluids are not entities.
An entity is perceptual in scale, in size.  In other words it is a &#8220;this&#8221; which you can point to and grasp by human perception.  In an extended sense you can call molecules&#8212;or the universe as a whole&#8212;&#8220;entities,&#8221; because they are self-sufficient things.  But in the primary sense when we say that entities are what is given in sense perception, we mean solid things which we can directly perceive.
  The development of human cognition starts with the ability to perceive _things_, _i.e._, _entities_.  Of man&#8217;s five cognitive senses, only two provide him with a direct awareness of entities: sight and touch.  The other three senses&#8212;hearing, taste and smell&#8212;give him an awareness of some of an entity&#8217;s attributes (or of the consequences produced by an entity): they tell him that something makes sounds, or something tastes sweet, or something smells fresh; but in order to perceive this something, he needs sight and/or touch.

The concept &#8220;entity&#8221; is (implicitly) the start of man&#8217;s conceptual development and the building-block of his entire conceptual structure.  It is by perceiving entities that man perceives the universe.

Breath is apart of my definition because I believe a thing becomes a separate entity when it leaves it's mother, thus differentiated from another and is a complete whole onto itself.  So no, the inability to breath on your own after say an accident does not take away the concept of identity from an individual, because identity has already been established.  The person is a specific existent, separate and apart from it's mother's womb.

 The concept &#8220;existent&#8221; undergoes three stages of development in man&#8217;s mind. The first stage is a child&#8217;s awareness of objects, of things&#8212;which represents the concept &#8220;_entity_.&#8221; The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of specific, particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest of his perceptual field&#8212;which represents the concept &#8220;_identity_.&#8221;


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 14, 2009)

nwalker said:


> Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; Jeremiah 1:5A


 
Metaphor. G-d talking about Israel. Nithing to do with when human life begins.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Metaphor. G-d talking about Israel. Nithing to do with when human life begins.


 
More to the point, the verse in question speaks of _*before* you were formed in the womb...._, which wouldn't be a fetus at all, but an idea: the proverbial "glimmer in the father's eye."
 


Joab said:


> . I think being pro life should mean more than that, it should be being for the sanctity of all life, in this context human life primarily, and should really include all the above and even more. Of course being "pro life" certainly could include animal life, insect life, you name it life. What does being "pro life" mean to you? I think few people are really "pro death?"


 
Lets see. "Pro-life" typically means "anti-abortion." Well, Im anti-abortion. I must be "pro-life," right?

Well, Im* also* "pro-choice." I believe in a womans right to choose.

Whats that you say? I cant be both? Well, sure I can. Im anti-abortion: Ill never have one, and Ill never be party to one. I brought up my kids to never have one or be party to one. If I were a doctor, I wouldnt perform one. When my daughter becomes a doctor, Im pretty sure she wont perform one-shes gonna be a shrink, anyway, so its just not that likely. I guess thats about as "pro-life" as I can be.

I dont really like that phrase, though, "pro-life." Not just for the reasons Ive outlined above, but for a variety of others. If we focus on the OPs original question:



> *
> What does being "pro life" mean to you?
> *


 
Well, thats a completely different kettle of fish.

The way I was raised, all of life is sacred-that doesnt mean _sacrosanct,_-as in (without the benefit of the MWOELTM) "_regarded as sacred *and* inviolable,_ -but merely, "_sacred_" as in, "worthy of veneration and respect, highly valued and important."

What that means, then, is that when my father took me *hunting*, I was taught to respect the animals I killed, to talk to them, and let them know that I would _try_ to use their energy in ways that they would find pleasing. To literally ask which animal was ready to die for that, and to take it. What it means, from where I sit, is that if, rather than having ever taken life to nourish yourself-if you have no experience in raising livestock or hunting, killing an animal and preparing it-_transitioning it_ from living thing to "food"-by killing, gutting, skinning and dressing it, and have always gotten your daily meat from the grocery store, pre killed, gutted, skinned, cut to order and redressed in _plastic_-then you are *not* "pro-life." You live at a distance, removed from the very _death_ that *always* supports every form of life, especially humans. Nothing walks upon the planet that does not live at the benefit of something elses _death_-how then can we *not* be "pro-death?" 

Of course, Im not at all saying that _everyone_ should live the way I do, nor do I think that everyone could. Mores the pity. I recognize the benefits of our modern food supply, as well as some of its pitfalls, and also recognize how convenient and necessary it is. But if your meat has always come hairless and wrapped in plastic, then an essential aspect of life is lost to you-at least, thats my opinion.

What it also means-"life being sacred"- is an implied "quality of life." Thats supported by Christian and Jewish scripture, BTW:




> If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, _`Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'_"*Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 *
> Then I looked again at all the acts of oppression which were being done under the sun. And behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. _But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun_." *Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 *




These are in addition to the lament of Job-all wisdom that offers an implicit idea of a _quality_ of life being inherent to what we call "human life." 

To my mind, if you cant recognize that some humans are truly "better off dead.," or_ "not having lived," _ you cannot call yourself "pro-life." If you do recognize this, while you can certainly be (as I am) anti-abortion, you cannot, in good conscience, say that it shouldnt be available.

Once, as an EMT, I came upon a car accident. It was basically just a fender bender, with minor injuries and damage......except to the poor dog that started it, a basset hound that bayed pitifully, dragging its smashed rear legs and pelvis, and trailing entrails-for that is what its organs had become- along the road as it tried to move itself. No one was doing anything about it, and, in the end, I knelt down, offered the dog what comfort I could until it was still, and put a bullet in its head. 

One of the most "pro-life" things I think Ive ever done.


----------



## nwalker (Jun 14, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Metaphor. G-d talking about Israel. Nithing to do with when human life begins.



Where do you draw the conclusion that God was speaking to Israel and not to a human?  

Thanks for your answer Mr Omar B, but i fail to see where you have showed that a baby in a mothers womb is not a separate life from the mother only because it depends on the mother, while I agree that the baby is limited in what it can perceive what do you have to show that the child in the womb does not perceive anything?

This is one of those discussions that at the end of the day we will all have to agree to disagree.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 14, 2009)

nwalker said:


> Where do you draw the conclusion that God was speaking to Israel and not to a human?


 
Let's see. Years of studying Torah. The way all other writings from Jeremiah is written. Maybe because I'm an Orthodox Jew, and this is text from my Bible.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 14, 2009)

nwalker said:


> Where do you draw the conclusion that God was speaking to Israel and not to a human?
> Thanks for your answer Mr Omar B, but i fail to see where you have showed that a baby in a mothers womb is not a separate life from the mother only because it depends on the mother, while I agree that the baby is limited in what it can perceive what do you have to show that the child in the womb does not perceive anything?
> This is one of those discussions that at the end of the day we will all have to agree to disagree.



Disagree with what?  You've provided no thoughts on the subject, no proofs, nothing but a couple questions.  I would agree to disagree if I knew what I was agreeing to disagree with.


----------



## nwalker (Jun 15, 2009)

Omar B said:


> Disagree with what?  You've provided no thoughts on the subject, no proofs, nothing but a couple questions.  I would agree to disagree if I knew what I was agreeing to disagree with.



The question is "What does being "pro life" mean to you"... I feel it means that any form of abortion at any stage is wrong, I do not have to provide proofs of anything as this is what it means to me.


----------



## nwalker (Jun 15, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Let's see. Years of studying Torah. The way all other writings from Jeremiah is written. Maybe because I'm an Orthodox Jew, and this is text from my Bible.



It appears that God is speaking directly to Jeremiah and calling him to service, I only asked the question, not to be sarcastic and confrontational but to understand how you understand this text?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 15, 2009)

nwalker said:


> It appears that God is speaking directly to Jeremiah and calling him to service, I only asked the question, not to be sarcastic and confrontational but to understand how you understand this text?


 
The answer isn't a saracastic one at all, he's simply telling you how we know what it means.

so how does everyone stand on this sad case?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8099210.stm


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2009)

nwalker said:


> It appears that God is speaking directly to Jeremiah and calling him to service, I only asked the question, not to be sarcastic and confrontational but to understand how you understand this text?


 
We covered a great deal of this ground in an earlier thread, however....



> But now hear, _O Jacob my servant,* Israel* whom I have chosen_! 2Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you in the womb and will help you: Do not fear, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen. 3For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring. 4They shall spring up like a green tamarisk, like willows by flowing streams. 5This one will say, "I am the Lord's," another will be called by the name of Jacob, yet another will write on the hand, "The Lord's," and adopt the name of Israel *Isaiah 44:1-5*


 
Isaiah 44 is from Deutero-Isaiah, written by an anonymous prophet in Babylonian exile between 546 and 538 BC. This was a period of termendous suffering and sadness for Israel, and this particular book is often called a "book of consolation." Israel's unfaithful relationship with God has led to her exile, and now the prophet is reminding Israel of her special relationship with God, and of God's promise to restore her. This passage in particular is a prophetic utterance: the words of God are spoken by the prophet, _to Israel_-also called, affectionately (here and in parts of Deuteronomy), _Jeshurun_, or "dependable one," and, patrinomically, _Jacob, _for the father of the 12 tribes_._

As such, the words "formed you in the womb" are clearly metaphorical, and meant to show the relationship between God and Israel as likened to that of a mother who has born children.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jun 15, 2009)

Elder, for a goyim you grasp it well. OTOH, I have a sharp knife, we could fix you up. :lfao:


----------



## nwalker (Jun 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The answer isn't a saracastic one at all, he's simply telling you how we know what it means.
> 
> I am sorry Tez but if you read my post I did not mention to elder that he was saracastic, I mentioned that "*I* asked the question not to be sarcastic or confrontational so that Mr Elder would not take an offence to my questioning his belief......


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 15, 2009)

nwalker said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > The answer isn't a saracastic one at all, he's simply telling you how we know what it means.
> ...


----------



## nwalker (Jun 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> nwalker said:
> 
> 
> > You directed the post at Canuck not Elder and it implied sarcasm.
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 15, 2009)

nwalker said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > *Ok MoM! *
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Warning though don't mix up Elder with anyone..he's one of a kind :yoda:
> 
> 
> Now I'm going to go and hide for saying that Elder is MTs own Yoda... he's as wise but taller, much taller!


 
_Better looking I am, as well-mistaken me for an unknown species, you have.._..:lol:

_"Wise," I am not. Know a lot of **** about nothing, do I. _:lol:


----------



## nwalker (Jun 15, 2009)

Well I am not much of the sarcastic type so it is a strech for me!  

Sorry elder for the mix!

Just to clear things us I was quoting Jeremiah 1 and not Isaiah, and in my txt it does appear that the Lord is speaking directly to Jeremiah.  Is it metaphor, maybe, that is the thing when it comes to these disscusions any one can make the Bible say whatever they want and if it doesn't then they translate it so it will.  

Concerning when is life a life, i like Gen 25:22, there are countless other places too but this one just comes to mind.

I do not believe that someone having or performing an abortion will send them to Hell... a Christian that believes that needs to evaluate their what they believe.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 15, 2009)

nwalker said:


> Well I am not much of the sarcastic type so it is a strech for me!
> 
> Sorry elder for the mix!
> 
> Just to clear things us I was quoting Jeremiah 1 and not Isaiah, and in my txt it does appear that the Lord is speaking directly to Jeremiah. Is it metaphor, maybe, that is the thing when it comes to these disscusions any one can make the Bible say whatever they want and if it doesn't then they translate it so it will.


 
Oops. My bad. Same thing kind of applies, though:



> Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5&#8220;*Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.&#8221;* 6Then I said, &#8220;Ah, Lord God! Truly I do not know how to speak, for I am only a boy.&#8221; 7But the Lord said to me, &#8220;Do not say, &#8216;I am only a boy&#8217;; for you shall go to all to whom I send you, and you shall speak whatever I command you, 8Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord.&#8221; 9Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth; and the Lord said to me, &#8220;Now I have put my words in your mouth. 10See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.&#8221; *Jeremiah 1:1-10 *


 
This is, in fact, God speaking to Jeremiah, and an important moment, the calling of a prophet. As such, it is really one supernatural being (the prophet) relating the story of his speaking with *the* SUpernatural Being, and typically not only done in hyperbolous metaphor, but a conversation that clearly doesn't apply to anyone else to boot.

In any case, of course God "knew him before he formed him in the womb," isn't speaking at all of the physical being, but the spiritual being that would become Jeremiah.





nwalker said:


> Concerning when is life a life, i like Gen 25:22, there are countless other places too but this one just comes to mind.


 


> *19* These are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham was the father of Isaac, *20* and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean. *21* Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his prayer, and his wife Rebekah conceived. *22* The children struggled together within her; and she said, "If it is to be this way, why do I live?" *F77* So she went to inquire of the Lord. *23* And the Lord said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger." *24* When her time to give birth was at hand, there were twins in her womb.*Genesis 25:19-24*


 
The "struggle within" is an actual physical phenomena that occurs with mutlitple births-twins *do* struggle in utero, on occasion. In any case, this is clearly used as a metaphor for the struggle between the two nations that would be Esau and Jacob.

Again,Biblically and within Jewish law, the start of life is when the baby draws breath. *Period*.


----------

