Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...

[EGross]

Ah, so you do agree!

As far as defining when the child is a child, as I said, you have those who claim it is before sex, some say right after sex, som if there is any fertilization, and it goes on and on, until you get the Jewis definition, which is when it takes it's first breath outside of the body.

Which is why I said that defining when life actually begins is not useful, because of the range of definitions.

[EGross]

[update]As noted, I have indicated that there is a religious influence in the Abortion and Death debate. But every dogma seems to have a different definition or influence. As I noted, incest is really a religious concern, since God holds it as an abomination. And defining when the body within the womb is alive, that also can be defined by religion, and has been. The "heartbeat rule" recently passed in on state in the USA is one. A few months ago, conception was considered to be from the moment of intent, not the moment an egg was fertlized. And in Judaism, a child that is stillborn or miscarried is not treated as ever having been alive at any point - there is no requirement to sit shiva, since it never had it's own life, according to halachah. (In recent years, a heter has been made, permitting the grieving family to sit shiva, but not because the baby was alive, but because the family may do so to heal, or they may forego it. If it was an person who lived, then there would be a requirement to sit shiva, and then pray 3 times a day for the next 11 months).

That is based on dogma, just as "in case of incest" is also based on religious dogma.

And my point was to show that religion is really at the core of the debate, using incest as an example.

[Gabriel Syme]

How can anyone be pro-abortion?

Science (Human Embryology) has taught us that a new human being is created at the moment of conception. At that moment, a new life with 46 Chromosomes is created, 23 each from mothers egg and fathers sperm.

A life form with 46 Chromosomes is called a human being. The only difference between a newly conceived human being and anyone reading this thread is simply time.

We know this, through science.

Yet - many people deny the humanity of the unborn child, purely because it doesnt immediately look like a child (an analysis worthy of some inbred hick).

This is a great example of how humanity is not inherently moral - even when having the advantage of scientific knowledge to refer to. If there is a tough decision to be made, some (maybe even most) people will always just do what suits them personally - not do the moral thing.

It is a great example of the moral cowardice of humanity, where people will overlook inconvenient facts and instead make up drivel to justify their opinions or behaviour.

Its a good example of how - even though humanity can technically be "good without God", they are not "good without God", because humans can always be relied upon to do the selfish thing, no matter the cost.

[EGross]

But Catholics themselves cite good reasons for when abortion is justified. There is no loonger an "Abortion is wrong in all cases" argument.

Typically it is now "Here are the three reasons and no more!" Now, someone might say "A checkup of my fetus shows it has no brain (anencephaly)". For some, if it is not in the top 3 reasons, then "sorry, you have to go full term and watch it die." And for others, a 4th reason would be added. Then a 5th. Then a 6th.

[Esquilax]

A life form with 46 Chromosomes is called a human being. The only difference between a newly conceived human being and anyone reading this thread is simply time.

No. I mean, not in this case: what you have is a cellular collection of 46 chromosomes. That's not a person. Under your definition, the Sable Antelope is also a human being, and I'm sure you're not implying that. You need to be more precise.

Yet - many people deny the humanity of the unborn child, purely because it doesnt immediately look like a child (an analysis worthy of some inbred hick).

What a lovely misrepresentation of the pro-choice position. I'll be charitable and assume you just haven't read the previous pages of the thread: we deny the humanity of the fetus because it's not human. There's no brain, or organs, or memories, or anything else that would remotely be human. There's no possibility of life outside of the womb. This is our basis. Keep it in mind, and know that I'm sure there are others here capable of explaining it better than I.

This is a great example of how humanity is not inherently moral - even when having the advantage of scientific knowledge to refer to. If there is a tough decision to be made, some (maybe even most) people will always just do what suits them personally - not do the moral thing.

Dishonest moralizing tactic to automatically gear potential readers against the position Gabriel disagrees with... check. At least you're being consistent.

It is a great example of the moral cowardice of humanity, where people will overlook inconvenient facts and instead make up drivel to justify their opinions or behaviour.

...

Oh god, I think the irony here is literally killing me.

Its a good example of how - even though humanity can technically be "good without God", they are not "good without God", because humans can always be relied upon to do the selfish thing, no matter the cost.

Selfish like demanding that women they've never met carry children they don't want that could potentially kill them to term because of your potentially flawed interpretation of a book that those women might not necessarily believe in?

Selfish like using that book as justification for demanding that those children be brought into families that possibly can't support them, relegating them to poverty or an already overburdened foster care system?

Selfish like doing all this from an ivory tower of ignorance and moral superiority, safe in the knowledge that none of this will ever effect you personally and therefore you are justified in deploying strict, flawed interpretations of a patently false teaching?

Selfish like all that? Or some other, new definition of selfish which just means, "disagrees with Gabriel Syme?"

[genkaus]

How can anyone be pro-abortion?

Its easy. You just have to develop a taste for it.

Science (Human Embryology) has taught us that a new human being is created at the moment of conception. At that moment, a new life with 46 Chromosomes is created, 23 each from mothers egg and fathers sperm.

A life form with 46 Chromosomes is called a human being. The only difference between a newly conceived human being and anyone reading this thread is simply time.

We know this, through science.

You should learn the difference between biological or genetically human and an actual human being. The criteria you gave applies to all cells in your body and we do not regard all of them as human. Simply having 46 chromosomes is not sufficient, the fetus must also have developed to a certain level to be regarded as human.

Yet - many people deny the humanity of the unborn child, purely because it doesnt immediately look like a child (an analysis worthy of some inbred hick).

Looks are irrelevant. Even if it has developed enough to look like a child but not to survive outside the womb - not human.

This is a great example of how humanity is not inherently moral - even when having the advantage of scientific knowledge to refer to. If there is a tough decision to be made, some (maybe even most) people will always just do what suits them personally - not do the moral thing.

Most of the time, what suits them personally is the moral thing. Especially in this case.

It is a great example of the moral cowardice of humanity, where people will overlook inconvenient facts and instead make up drivel to justify their opinions or behaviour.

Better than theists who make up drivel cause inconvenience. Just kidding - theists are the only ones making up drivel.

Its a good example of how - even though humanity can technically be "good without God", they are not "good without God", because humans can always be relied upon to do the selfish thing, no matter the cost.

And who told you that the selfish thing isn't the good thing? Your god?

[ideologue08]

@genkaus
Do you support the death penalty for murderers?

[catfish]

[update]As noted, I have indicated that there is a religious influence in the Abortion and Death debate. But every dogma seems to have a different definition or influence. As I noted, incest is really a religious concern, since God holds it as an abomination. And defining when the body within the womb is alive, that also can be defined by religion, and has been. The "heartbeat rule" recently passed in on state in the USA is one. A few months ago, conception was considered to be from the moment of intent, not the moment an egg was fertlized. And in Judaism, a child that is stillborn or miscarried is not treated as ever having been alive at any point - there is no requirement to sit shiva, since it never had it's own life, according to halachah. (In recent years, a heter has been made, permitting the grieving family to sit shiva, but not because the baby was alive, but because the family may do so to heal, or they may forego it. If it was an person who lived, then there would be a requirement to sit shiva, and then pray 3 times a day for the next 11 months).

That is based on dogma, just as "in case of incest" is also based on religious dogma.

And my point was to show that religion is really at the core of the debate, using incest as an example.

LOL, you're funny!

I told you that my reasons are not from religious dogma, re-word your bare assertions please.

[EGross]

Story in the bible:

A man has a mother who cheated on her husband. She was from the tribe of Dan. Her husband divorces her. She returns to her tribe.
The son pitches a tent and they say, "Hey dude! This is only for people whose father is from Dan. So get lost!"
The son goes to Moses to ask for help. Moses, not knowing what to do asks God.
Gods says "Yeah, the tribe of Dan has it right. The kid's screwed"
Moses tells the kid, who says "Oh, yeah, well F*&^ God!"
Whereby the punishment for calling God a bad word is death by stoning.
Problem solved.

Thanks be to God!

In other words, it is difficult to speak of the Bible being about morality when the tribe of Dan never learned about being gracious hosts, God agreed, and the punishment for the expected dismay and vocal outrage is to kill the guy who was wronged in the first place!

---

LOL, you're funny!

I told you that my reasons are not from religious dogma, re-word your bare assertions please.

Nah. I know you are smarter than that. 'nuff said.

[catfish]

You should learn the difference between biological or genetically human and an actual human being. The criteria you gave applies to all cells in your body and we do not regard all of them as human. Simply having 46 chromosomes is not sufficient, the fetus must also have developed to a certain level to be regarded as human.

"Sure, but it wasn't a True Human™" LOL

Can You tell me what species the fetus is?
.