(October 11, 2014 at 11:36 am)C4RM5 Wrote: Alright I got my RE textbook so here are some points.

A foetus has the right to life because it is a potential human being.

I foetus is not just a part of a woman's body like a leg or arm it is a separate person with a right to life.

Abortion contradicts the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take it states " I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception.

It doesn't say that. Please cite a credible sorce for your assertion.

Quote:People should take responsibility for their actions, when a woman has sex she may get pregnant and bring a foetus into existence, she therefore has a duty to take care of it.

No, she doesn't - you have provided no justification other than your error above.

Quote:There are laws against euthanasia so why can't there be laws against abortions.

There can be, and there are. Just not everywhere.

Quote:if there are mental or social problems or disability surrounding the conception the parents and child should be treated with compassion, it is not compassion to take an innocent life.

You still haven't provided a justification for a fertilized egg being a human being.

Quote:Some women/couples cannot have children, it is better to have a child adopted rather than killed.

Better for whom? Women are not brood mares.

Quote:Hopefully this makes you happy.

No, it doesn't.

---

(October 11, 2014 at 11:41 am)fr0d0 Wrote: His position that a fertilised egg is a human is quite solidly grounded. That is the consensus amongst scientists too. Is the beginning of the human life cycle quite apart from the rest of the process inside and outside of the mother's womb. So it's not only rational, but publicly accepted by medical professionals.

It is not a person.

Quote:On the other hand, esq has argued vociferously that God would be acting immorally in talking the lives of babies. It's an amusing double standard. And serves to show the weakness with which he regards his own argument.

If murder is the illegal taking of life, then most abortions aren't murder in the eyes of the the law. The morality of the act can always be considered, no matter what the legal position, and that's mostly a decision owned by the patents, being the only ones in a position to know.

It is not a person, so it is not even manslaughter.

The book I got this fact from about the Hippocratic oath was called " GSCE Religious Studies- An Introduction to Christian Ethics" by Juliana Gilbride.

---

Chas you are really hard to please first you ask for reasons for my point, when I give them to you, you literally just said no to all of them.

(October 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: The book I got this fact from about the Hippocratic oath was called " GSCE Religious Studies- An Introduction to Christian Ethics" by Juliana Gilbride.

---

Chas you are really hard to please first you ask for reasons for my point, when I give them to you, you literally just said no to all of them.

It's not a fact, she is mistaken.

(October 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: The book I got this fact from about the Hippocratic oath was called " GSCE Religious Studies- An Introduction to Christian Ethics" by Juliana Gilbride.

How on earth do you consider a religious studies textbook to be a relevant source as it pertains to modern medicine?

Do you quote Shakespeare to justify your opinions on nuclear physics as well?

Okay I did try to find the quote myself but it didn't come up

---

(October 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 11, 2014 at 12:06 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: The book I got this fact from about the Hippocratic oath was called " GSCE Religious Studies- An Introduction to Christian Ethics" by Juliana Gilbride.

How on earth do you consider a religious studies textbook to be a relevant source as it pertains to modern medicine?

Do you quote Shakespeare to justify your opinions on nuclear physics as well?

I was just asked for reasons for my beliefs not factual information concerning the growth of a foetus.

(October 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: Okay I did try to find the quote myself but it didn't come up

---

(October 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote: How on earth do you consider a religious studies textbook to be a relevant source as it pertains to modern medicine?

Do you quote Shakespeare to justify your opinions on nuclear physics as well?

I was just asked for reasons for my beliefs not factual information concerning the growth of a foetus.

Hippocratic Oath (Modern version)

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

Sorry just looked up the quote, the quote is factual but it actually comes from the Oath of Geneva.

Here is a link. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/ra...eneva.html

This error really worries me because I have to learn this for exams next year.

(October 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: I was just asked for reasons for my beliefs not factual information concerning the growth of a foetus.

Then the extremely relevant question that you need to answer is this: why aren't your beliefs affected in any way by pertinent factual information?

What factual information?

(October 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm)C4RM5 Wrote: Sorry just looked up the quote, the quote is factual but it actually comes from the Oath of Geneva.

Here is a link. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/ra...eneva.html

This error really worries me because I have to learn this for exams next year.

It is actually The Declaration of Geneva, and that version is out of date.

The Declaration of Geneva, as currently published by the WMA reads:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

Wikipedia Wrote:Changes from original

The original oath read "My colleagues will be my brothers," later changed to "sisters and brothers." Age, disability, gender, and sexual orientation have been added as factors that must not interfere with a doctor's duty to a patient; some rephrasing of existing elements has occurred. Secrets are to remain confidential "even after the patient has died." The violation of "human rights and civil liberties" replaces "the laws of humanity" as a forbidden use of medical knowledge. The original declaration stated that a doctor would respect human life "from the time of conception," and the 1994 revision stated "from its beginning." which was removed altogether in the editorial revisions in the English version but is still found in other language versions that have not followed the editorial changes such as the German Handbuch der ärztlichen Ethik.[7] "The health" in general of a patient is now the doctor's first consideration compared to the "health and life" as stated in the original declaration. This was apparently changed to free the medical profession from extending life at all cost.