by Yizuman 40 Replies latest social current
As discribed of what 12 week old baby can do, are you saying it's ok to kill this baby at this developmental stage?
Many newborn animals are far more developed than newborn humans (certainly more than a 12-week embryo), and it's considered acceptable to kill them. Even plants move and respond to certain stimuli. What are your criteria for which organisms can be killed, and what are your reasons?
Nice straw man Yiz. Lead your post with a photo of a fetus of an age far in excess of the typical abortion to wrogly characterise abortion.
Please find me details of any campaigns to extend abortions to healthy 33 week-old babies to make it clear you are not distorting facts to push forward your agenda. I don't think there are any.
As for the 12 week photos... please let me know the total fetal weight and the fetal length at this age, and what the weight of the fetal brain is at this stage. Please also provide me a list of the sizes of various small mammal brains by way of comparison.
I know all this of course. I know perfectly well if the 12 week-old fetus didn't LOOK like a 2.5", 1/2 oz human being, then peoples' attitudes would be different unless they were religiously based.
How popular would cats be if they had scales instead of fur?
BUT, even if a 12 week fetus does look like a perfect tiny human, even if it moves, a pet rat has far more brain material. There is nothing that makes us 'human' present in a 12 week fetus, unless you want to argue that DNA is the definition of our humanity, rather than our self-awareness.
Now if you believe that humaness is some magical non-material element, nothing I can say will change your mind, as you will believe that this is present in unborns.
The fact that this is in no way backed up by the Bible (the word for 'soul' is literally 'breather'), and that abortion although know, was not legislated against in the Mosaic Law is an interesting observation on how belief diverges from it's original nature
But you're entilted to your beliefs.
It is such a pity you don't extend the same respect to others.
Funkyderek wrote: Many newborn animals are far more developed than newborn humans (certainly more than a 12-week embryo)
Are you saying that animals are far more superior than humans? Or are you implying that humans are animals?
Yiz
the word for 'soul' is literally 'breather'
Let's see if you are right....
Hebrew for Soul:nephesh {neh'-fesh}
1) soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
b) living being
c) living being (with life in the blood)
d) the man himself, self, person or individual
e) seat of the appetites
f) seat of emotions and passions
g) activity of mind
1) dubious
h) activity of the will
1) dubious
i) activity of the character
1) dubious
Greek word for Soul:psuche {psoo-khay'}
1) breath
a) the breath of life
1) the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing
a) of animals
b) of men
b) life
c) that in which there is life
1) a living being, a living soul
2) the soul
a) the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
b) the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
c) the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)
Awaiting comments
Yiz
Amazing, unbelievable.....
Well, I'm awaiting comments too Yiz.
I've kinda given up on you commenting on falsly charcterising the effectiveness of condoms in the control of HIV by using a survey based on latex gloves.
Will you make me wait for your comment on whether a 33 week-old fetus is a fair representation of a normal abortion?
Or regarding the impossibility of assuging equal value to say a 12 week-old fetus and and new born due to the massive chasm of neurological development seperating them UNLESS one believes in invisable magic bits?
Or the fact there is no law against abortion in the Mosaci Law, even though it was known of.
But, unlike you, I will give you coments as I have no reason to evade your questions.
Here's an interesting analysis of the word nephesh;
http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app13.html
It will be seen that the word "soul", in its theological sense, does not cover all the ground, or properly represent the Hebrew word "nephesh". The English word "soul" is from the Latin solus = alone or sole, because the maintenance of man as a living organism, and all that affects his health and well-being, is the one sole or main thing in common with every living thing which the L ORD God has made.
Golly gosh, seems no doubt there the word refers to a living organism, not some invisable spook.
The correct Latin word for the theological term "soul" (or nephesh) is anima; and this is from the Greek anemos = air or breath, because it is this which keeps the whole in life and in being. [The usage of the corresponding New Testament word psuche will be presented in a later Appendix.]
The first occurrence of nephesh is in Genesis 1: 20 , "the moving creature that hath life (nephesh)". 1
So, a breathing, living organism... golly, this Bible stuff isn't that hard is it?
But why ask? Your own list of definitions for nephesh says;
a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man
NONE of the meanings of nephesh include a seperate soul. You're not stupid, and realise this, and give me definitions for psyche in an attempt to bolster the belief in a seperate soul being part of a continuous tradition from Moses when of course it isn't.
Where does this leave us?
It leaves us with you saying abortion is murder because you say abortion is murder.You want us to worship and obey your opinion.
Your own Holy Book doesn't agree with you.
Science finds it impossible to draw equivalence between the murder of a even a new born and the abortion of a first trimester fetus.
You want people to follow you. What a stunning example!
Are you saying that animals are far more superior than humans? Or are you implying that humans are animals?
Humans clearly are animals. You don't need much knowledge of biology to realise that. So I'm not implying it at all, I'm stating it directly. I'm certainly not saying that other animals are superior to humans. I was asking a very simple, straightforward question which was very pertinent to the debate. I'll try and explain what I meant in more detail.
Given that your argument against abortion seems to be based on the level of development of the foetus or embryo, do you also oppose killing nonhuman animals that are more developed in every measurable way? If not, why not?
Yiz..Yiz...Yiz. Not another "no abortions allowed under any circumstances" thread!
Yes it is a wonderful picture but to say the baby is smiling is "US" adding an emotion "happy" to a person when we have no idea what they are feeling - sort of like saying a dog or other animal is smiling and therefore happy. Humans tend to attribute personal characteristics to others - called projection.
I just spent a couple of weeks with my new grandson. And believe me I stared at him a lot. The only time I saw him make anything similar to an expression like that was when he was relieving himself. Yes they do that in there. Could he feel happy at relieving himself? I suppose so.
But the act of making a smile is a learned behavior. A baby learns it by watching and mimicing the faces of the people around them. The more they smile at the baby the more likely he will eventually copy the face and of course when the face they are looking at repeats it the baby will do it again. - learned behavior. Most parents are quite familiar with this. Too bad most researchers aren't parents so spend too much time with pictures and then attribute characteristcs they can only make assumptions about and they don't spend enough time with the newborn.
If they behavior was present before birth (like thumbsucking) they it should naturally be there after birth. This smile is not present after birth - at least not immediately.
Oh and as for the assumption it might be gas. Gas requires the swallowing of air. There isn't any air in there for the baby to swallow to make the gas.
Just my opinion though
Abortions are carried out before this stage of development.
MOST abortions are...until quite recently a woman could abort until the baby was born.
FUNK,
My standard, don't have an abortion unless the life of the mother is in jeapardy.
