Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Section 8 · Oct 8, 2003, 07:15 pm

Well, it's finally time for an abortion topic. We all know the facts, so I'll start off with my opinion.

I'm a stout supporter of a womens right to choose. As long as a. the embryos go towards stem cell research. b. if the woman is very far along in her pregnancy. Now for all you abortion is killing people, I'll tell you how I view the argument. a. embryos cannot think, and that makes them about as alive as a tree. Anti choice is a basic infringement on a woman basic rights.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 8, 2003, 09:36 pm

I also believe in a Right to Choice (which is not the same as condoning abortion for the sake of having one. That's what contraceptives are for), but your logic bothers me.

a) Trees are quite alive (not to mention great machines in the production of oxygen), and are far more developed than embryos.

b) I think you mean, "If the woman is NOT very far along in her pregnancy," which - and I know you're oversimplifying - doesn't account for cases when the woman's own mortality is threatened.

c - I add my own letters) Stem Cell research is a great benefit, one which many staunch Republicans actually were in favor of, mainly because there are quite a lot of old farts in their ranks who are currently or are soon to be afflicted with the forms of cancer the research is addressing. Of course it's amoral, but the government should not - I repeat, should NOT - be legislating morality. However, it can and should be protecting the lives of its citizens, and this can certainly be placed under that umbrella.

d) Which lead us to the fact that embryos can't. They're not citizens. They're not citizens until they're born. They're not even people until they're born. To hold the belief that they are guaranteed the same rights as real, whole, live people is to hold court to medieval values as to the nature of what we're dealing with - ie; miniature beings. There is no medical evidence that they are to be considered individual beings, but there is plenty of medical evidence to the contrary - that they are essentially parasitic of their host until they're born. Which would make sense. Yes, again, it's amoral, but that's for the woman to decide - for she IS a citizen and thus has rights to her body and whatever parasitic beings are within it.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 8, 2003, 10:47 pm

I suspect that section8 added the letters as an afterthought and did not realize how badly they mangled his point. Rebel OTOH obviously simply hates republicans and will even decide their motives for them if they have the odasity to agree with him. lol

But I also do not believe that government has the right to legislate morality. It is ultimately the womans body that is affected and therefore her choice. Right or wrong is irrelevant

RebelWithanAK · Oct 8, 2003, 11:11 pm

Well, how else would you justify in your mind the fact that many of those Republicans have voting records against abortion rights? Of course, there are equally as many old farts in the Dems, too...

Dislogic · Oct 8, 2003, 11:26 pm

I agree with you guys... Women should have the sole right to do whatever they want to their own bodies... Its as simple as that.

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 01:11 am

Owwwwwwww. Next time I should take more than three minutes to post something serious. Dislogic, you pointed out what I wanted to say perfectly, sorry for those of you reading the post right now.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 9, 2003, 12:24 pm

Heh. There ain't much of a debate here, is there? Someone go get Fallen Angel... =p

fedfem · Oct 9, 2003, 06:06 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@10-09-2003 12:24 PM
Heh. There ain't much of a debate here, is there? Someone go get Fallen Angel... =p

Read my mind.lol

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 07:14 pm

I think even FA would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, although I'm probably wrong.

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 08:57 pm

For all those people who believe that God would never condone abortion. In Leviticus if a man punches a woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage, then the man is not charged withe murder because according to the old testament a unborn baby isn't alive.

Impenitent · Oct 9, 2003, 09:21 pm

if you are not biologically wired to be able to have an abortion, your opinion on the matter is not worth anything...

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 09:51 pm

Why not? My opinion is that the women has the right to choose. It is up to them what coice they choose.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 9, 2003, 10:07 pm

We aren't biologically wired to operate ballistic missiles or play basketball, yet we still do anyway. We aren't biologically wired to do anything but eat, shit, and fuck, and I'm not even sure about fucking. Your point?

xm.bretton · Oct 9, 2003, 10:14 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Section 8@10-09-2003 08:57 PM
For all those people who believe that God would never condone abortion. In Leviticus if a man punches a woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage, then the man is not charged withe murder because according to the old testament a unborn baby isn't alive.

can you quote that for me? I found a quote.

exodus 21:22-25:

And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

Section 8 · Oct 9, 2003, 10:15 pm

Now considering my Hebrew school classes, that quote is incorrect. I saw it on the RATM message board. I'll try to find it on the net, but I don't have a bible with me.

xm.bretton · Oct 9, 2003, 10:18 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Section 8@10-09-2003 10:15 PM
Now considering my Hebrew school classes, that quote is incorrect. I saw it on the RATM message board. I'll try to find it on the net, but I don't have a bible with me.

incorrect?

the word soul translated there was translated from the hebrew word "ne´phesh", which is also translated into "life"

xm.bretton · Oct 9, 2003, 10:25 pm

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/...n/exodus21.html

http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus_21_22.htm

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abort...on/whatexod.htm

some are subjective but have a lot of facts to back points up, directly relating to translation from hebrew words. a quick read.

G. Adams · Oct 10, 2003, 06:55 am

Quote:

Originally posted by xm.bretton@10-09-2003 10:14 PM
can you quote that for me? I found a quote.

exodus 21:22-25:

And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

Should we be taking bible quotes literally when lines like "...according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him" are there?

tnphydeaux · Oct 10, 2003, 11:24 am

When I read such blatant false parsing like the following, I doubt the value of the discussion:

For all those people who believe that God would never condone abortion. In Leviticus if a man punches a woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage, then the man is not charged withe murder because according to the old testament a unborn baby isn't alive.

The scriptures also refer to the unborn as children, and the added notation of 'no harm come to her or the child' is ignored by the specious posting. I guess we have yet another example of someone able to twist the Bible to support the wrongheaded notion of the twister. [My recent favorite has been 'He who is without sin ...']

fedfem · Oct 10, 2003, 01:40 pm

the OT God was more explicit about having his followers dashing infants against rocks. No translation issues in that one.

Oct 8, 2003, 09:36 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I also believe in a Right to Choice (which is not the same as condoning abortion for the sake of having one. That's what contraceptives are for), but your logic bothers me. a) Trees are quite alive (not to mention great machines in the production of oxygen), and are far more developed than embryos. b) I think you mean, "If the woman is NOT very far along in her pregnancy," which - and I know you're oversimplifying - doesn't account for cases when the woman's own mortality is threatened. c - I add my own letters) Stem Cell research is a great benefit, one which many staunch Republicans actually were in favor of, mainly because there are quite a lot of old farts in their ranks who are currently or are soon to be afflicted with the forms of cancer the research is addressing. Of course it's amoral, but the government should not - I repeat, should NOT - be legislating morality. However, it can and should be protecting the lives of its citizens, and this can certainly be placed under that umbrella. d) Which lead us to the fact that embryos can't. They're not citizens. They're not citizens until they're born. They're not even people until they're born. To hold the belief that they are guaranteed the same rights as real, whole, live people is to hold court to medieval values as to the nature of what we're dealing with - ie; miniature beings. There is no medical evidence that they are to be considered individual beings, but there is plenty of medical evidence to the contrary - that they are essentially parasitic of their host until they're born. Which would make sense. Yes, again, it's amoral, but that's for the woman to decide - for she IS a citizen and thus has rights to her body and whatever parasitic beings are within it. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 8, 2003, 10:47 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I suspect that section8 added the letters as an afterthought and did not realize how badly they mangled his point. Rebel OTOH obviously simply hates republicans and will even decide their motives for them if they have the odasity to agree with him. lol But I also do not believe that government has the right to legislate morality. It is ultimately the womans body that is affected and therefore her choice. Right or wrong is irrelevant Logical Fallicies Link

Oct 8, 2003, 11:11 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Well, how else would you justify in your mind the fact that many of those Republicans have voting records against abortion rights? Of course, there are equally as many old farts in the Dems, too... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 8, 2003, 11:26 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Dislogic Molten Ash Location: USA Posts: 115	I agree with you guys... Women should have the sole right to do whatever they want to their own bodies... Its as simple as that. <span style='color:gray'><span style='font-family:Geneva'><span style='font-size:7.5pt;line-height:100%'>Kerry/Edwards 2004: He can't make up his mind, but at least he has one.</span></span></span>

Oct 9, 2003, 12:24 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Heh. There ain't much of a debate here, is there? Someone go get Fallen Angel... =p . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 8, 2003, 07:15 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Well, it's finally time for an abortion topic. We all know the facts, so I'll start off with my opinion. I'm a stout supporter of a womens right to choose. As long as a. the embryos go towards stem cell research. b. if the woman is very far along in her pregnancy. Now for all you abortion is killing people, I'll tell you how I view the argument. a. embryos cannot think, and that makes them about as alive as a tree. Anti choice is a basic infringement on a woman basic rights.

Oct 9, 2003, 01:11 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Owwwwwwww. Next time I should take more than three minutes to post something serious. Dislogic, you pointed out what I wanted to say perfectly, sorry for those of you reading the post right now.

Oct 9, 2003, 07:14 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	I think even FA would allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, although I'm probably wrong.

Oct 9, 2003, 08:57 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	For all those people who believe that God would never condone abortion. In Leviticus if a man punches a woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage, then the man is not charged withe murder because according to the old testament a unborn baby isn't alive.

Oct 9, 2003, 09:21 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	if you are not biologically wired to be able to have an abortion, your opinion on the matter is not worth anything... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Oct 9, 2003, 09:51 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Why not? My opinion is that the women has the right to choose. It is up to them what coice they choose.

Oct 9, 2003, 10:07 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	We aren't biologically wired to operate ballistic missiles or play basketball, yet we still do anyway. We aren't biologically wired to do anything but eat, shit, and fuck, and I'm not even sure about fucking. Your point? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 9, 2003, 10:15 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Now considering my Hebrew school classes, that quote is incorrect. I saw it on the RATM message board. I'll try to find it on the net, but I don't have a bible with me.

Oct 9, 2003, 10:25 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
xm.bretton Molten Ash Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 89	http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/...n/exodus21.html http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus_21_22.htm http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abort...on/whatexod.htm some are subjective but have a lot of facts to back points up, directly relating to translation from hebrew words. a quick read. xm.bretton xhalation.com

Oct 10, 2003, 11:24 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
tnphydeaux Molten Ash Posts: 63	When I read such blatant false parsing like the following, I doubt the value of the discussion: For all those people who believe that God would never condone abortion. In Leviticus if a man punches a woman in the stomach and she has a miscarriage, then the man is not charged withe murder because according to the old testament a unborn baby isn't alive. The scriptures also refer to the unborn as children, and the added notation of 'no harm come to her or the child' is ignored by the specious posting. I guess we have yet another example of someone able to twist the Bible to support the wrongheaded notion of the twister. [My recent favorite has been 'He who is without sin ...']

Oct 10, 2003, 01:40 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	the OT God was more explicit about having his followers dashing infants against rocks. No translation issues in that one.