BA
Your questions are easily answered:
Actually you didn't answer one of my questions; I even numbered them to make it easy (past experience ). So, if they're easy to answer, why not answer them BA?
As you seem so happy having a conversation with yourself I see no reason why you shouldn't continue, but hell, it's lunch time so having pointed out your failure to answer any of the questions asked I'll react to some of your post.
I stated that this debate is impossible to reach agreement on as it involves two different paradigms, and you prove this nicely.
You seem to suggest that the Bible prohibits abortion. As previously stated this is false. Please prove the Bible prohibts abortion or stop making this false claim.
You also totally fail to prove why your faith-based beliefs should be forced on other people against their will.
You also obviously feel that YOUR interpretation of what god wants is by definiton correct; remember, some people would condemn others for restricting the freedom of spermatozoa! Like I asked (and you ignored), why are you right and they wrong?
Religious totalitarianism as seen in Iran, as behind the Taliban, and as expressed by some people from comparatively civilised countries, wherein they hold their beliefs worthy of imposition on others, is somehing that cannot be tolerated in secular society.
If you want to live in a state where religous totalitarianism guides the legislature I suggest Iran or the Vatican City. At a streach, Kansas
Otherwise embrace the tolerance with which your beliefs are tolerated. No one will EVER force you to have an abortion! Extend others the same tolerance
Abaddon- who thinks signature lines like BA uses are pompous beyond belief
Emy
Emy, do I really have to define personality for you? Or are you just being argumentative? To make it clear (although I believe it is) I am not using personality as in the phrase 'he has no personality' when applied to a dull or uninteresting person. I am using it to mean an intelligent individual.
Remember, I am defending your right to an opinion, I am cherishing your right to express that opinion, and am merely asking that you do the same.
The whole point is that unless you can prove my opinion is based on false facts, I am as entitled to it as you are to yours. We are each entilted to our own opinion, we have to share facts.
Glad you pointed out that "It's a gift" I wouldn't have recognized it otherwise.
Well, yes, take a joke the wrong way, by all means. You use 'baby' to describe something with less brains than a rabbit, so playing with words is very tempting for everyone involved, eh?
BTW, "moral equivalency" is a term used to indicate that there is no right or wrong. They have become interchangable. Convicted killers are deserving of death, unborn babies deserve a chance to live. Right and wrong is clear and it is not interchangable. Gifted semantics is not needed.
To you, something with less neurons that a sparrow is equivalent to a new born baby, because it has human DNA and might (and I am just talking about the high chnces of early term pregnancies not reaching full term) one day be born.
I think new born babies and late term fetuses are worth far more than something with a nervous system smaller than what you get in your tissue when you blow your nose. I have to put it in such graphic terms to deal with the 'babification' of embryos and blastocysts. I see assigning human equivalancy to early term pregnancies is not supported by the facts, in fact believe it is only supportabe by sentimetalism and supersticion, neither of hich are a goodbasis for deciding what is right or wrong.
If potential is so important, what about the lost potential of babies who are actually born in disadvantaged situatuions?
You're prefectly entitled to be inconsistent, and to hold an pinion that I think is invalid, but why should I adopt your opinion when you've not shown the facts mine are based on are false and when yours is inconsistently applied?
Mary
5go and Sixofnine got there first, but you are right, there is such scripture (Exodus 21:22), but that's NOT an abortion, nor is the Hebrew or Aramaic word for 'abortion' used any where in the Bible (although there is one and abortion was practised in antiquity). The law is about compensating a husband for a fight causing his wife to give birth prematurely or punishing the fighters for killing or injuring a wanted child inutero. It's about property.
Abortion WAS known, and there is NO mention of any protection for UNWANTED 'children' inutero.
If there was a law like "And if a woman of the House of Israel falls pregnant but causes her pregnancy to end you are to take life for life, and if her pregnacy is brought to an end by another at the woman's instigation, then both must die." then you could reasonably laim the Bible prohibited abortion.
It doesn't so no on can.
Paralipomenon
You mention black and white;
If they do not wish to get pregnant, there are a host of methods to avoid getting pregnant.
.. and it ISN'T that black or white. Loads of people using the pill or condoms get pregnant every year. Realise that 97% effective is 3% useless, and that even 99.3% effective is still 0.7% useless and that of a thousand couples using a 99.3% effective contraceptive, seven will get pregnant. I was with a girl where both a condom and the morning after pill failed.
Now, should she change her entire life, leave University, because of a pregnancy so early on there is no personality extinguished when it is terminated? If she wouldn't do it for a rabbit, why should she do it for an 8-week embryo?
But for me contraceptive dilegence is not the point (although people who use abortion as a alternative to contraception are uneducated idiots). The point is that claims of equivalancy of an early term fetus to a adult human or new born are not supported by any secular or scientific argument in any meaningful fashion other than gross genetic inheritance.
