The issue that led to the Right becoming Pro-Life

[DesertBerean]

You keep saying the woman must have the final say. Why? The child comes from the joining of two sets of DNA. Not just hers.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What is your working definition of a human person?

human person" nor a 14 or 20 week embryo/foetus.

I, and other here hold that abortion destroys an actual human being. There are no good reasons for qualifying it as 'potential'.

The old chestnut. If you had to choose and could only choose one which would you save in a fire? A container holding 10 fertilised embryos or a day old baby?

The latter argument you make, that a woman's right to control her body supercedes the right of the fetus to life, is a more respectable and far less problematic line of argument. It is also the one I see advanced lately by those moral philosophers who seriously grapple with moral nature of abortion.

I realise that abortion is an incredibly complex moral/ethical issue. However, I have always been of the view that in this regard prevention is better than cure. That is why I advocate to good sex-ed in schools [along the lines of various European models], easily available and [ideally] free contraception to teens and young people, [condom machines in schools for example],a healthy attitude towards sexuality and the elimination of prudery surrounding the human body, and society working to remove various social issues that includes young women getting pregnant far too early in their lives.

They have a right to live as much as you do.

Nor can it survive AFTER it is born without her supplying all its nutrients.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You keep saying the woman must have the final say. Why? The child comes from the joining of two sets of DNA. Not just hers.

When the first man gets pregnant he can have the final say.

[JimL]

You keep saying the woman must have the final say. Why? The child comes from the joining of two sets of DNA. Not just hers.

I would argue on the one hand, leaving the issue of whether it is a human person or not aside, that the reason is because it's the womans body, so regardless of whose DNA it is, it is up to her if she wants to house a fetus within it.

[DesertBerean]

When the first man gets pregnant he can have the final say.

That's not an answer.

She has in her womb her DNA combined with somebody else's DNA. Perhaps we should study the question of what rights the source of the different DNA has over the fate of that DNA.

You see, in today's world, in the USA any way, the father has no say over it. If the mother wants him to pay for a child, chances are very good he ends up paying for the child whether he wants to or not. Unfortunately if she decides she doesn't want the child, and it happens HE wants the child, it doesn't matter. She gets to decide the fate of the child and he can't stop it, at least until it is born and he can take the matter to court. Wow. What hypocrisy.

Past politics doesn't matter...the morality and ethics of today does. In the past, fathers held the power over the fate of the child. That created many bad situations just as today's anti-father practices does.

[Bill the Cat]

No one is denying that an embryo or foetus is an organism with the potential to become a human being. The matter is whether the mother wants to carry that pregnancy to term. If she does not she has the right to terminate it via a medically safe and legal abortion or by an abortifacient.

And if a woman doesn't want to care for her 3 month old, should she have the right to "terminate it via a medically safe" method?

We are never going agree on this issue so we may as well stop here.

As long as you continue to spew illogical arguments that end up killing unique members of our species who have done nothing wrong except exist, I will continue to expose them.

You consider abortion to be wrong because it destroys a potential human being.

False. I consider it wrong because it destroys a human being. Not a potential one. An actual one.

I consider that a woman has absolute control over determining her own fertility and what happens to her body.

Again, what part of YOUR body gets removed in an abortion?

I might ask if you have ever seen a botched illegal abortion?

No. Nor does that matter. I've never seen someone overdose on heroine either. Both are avoidable by better choices.

Oh look an ad hominem.

Saying a book is biased isn't an ad hominem

Really?

Really.

Not relevant to my question. If a single mother living alone places her baby in a corner for 45 days and never tells anyone about it, what will happen to it? Can an infant survive on its own?

Your observation that my remark was an ad hominem was incorrect. My comment was a supposition. However, you have demonstrated your own weakness when it comes to making unwarranted personal remarks.

The phrase was not coined by the Nazis.

https://www.thoughtco.com/nazis-and-women-1221068

Godwin's Law.

Perhaps you missed the entire New Testament's description of the church?

False. The Church at Jerusalem was the authority until Peter moved to Rome.

That was merely Irenaeus expressing his views towards various other Christians, including the Gnostics, with whose theology he did not agree. He was a bishop but the title carried no authority outside his own community at that period. The term episkipos from which it derives simply meant an overseer. Irenaeas had no authority over Christians across the empire. No one did.

Purely in order to inform you on the issues surrounding a homoousion deity.

I'm not talking about the Trinity. I'm talking about the anti-abortion stance.

The ascription of equal divinity to the Three prevents a subordinationist reading, insofar as subordinationism refers to gradations of divinity in the Godhead. Yet, the ascription of equal divinity does not at this time in Christian history rule out a hierarchical understanding of the Trinitarian relations by which second-century theologians often differentiated the Three.Irenaeus Of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spiritorthodoxydevelopment of their religion over its first three hundred years or so.

Again, this has nothing to do with the anti-abortion stance of the early Church.

You seem [if I understand that comment correctly] to be suggesting that lay Christians were at odds with their various pastors, priests, and vicars on this issue. On what evidence?

The anti-abortion stance of the early Fathers was the orthodox position. That some who called themselves Christians were disagreeing is immaterial. The leadership set doctrine.

protest too much, methinks

Ask yourself why you quote the books you have cited. Are you stressing their credentials?

[Bill the Cat]

[QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;750891]

The old chestnut. If you had to choose and could only choose one which would you save in a fire? A container holding 10 fertilised embryos or a day old baby?

What if that day old baby is Adolph Hitler?

[Bill the Cat]

I would argue on the one hand, leaving the issue of whether it is a human person or not aside, that the reason is because it's the womans body, so regardless of whose DNA it is, it is up to her if she wants to house a fetus within it.

SO, again, if the woman is single, lives on the side of a mountain with her 3 month old, should she be allowed to put the baby out in the cold to die if she no longer wants to house it within her house?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's a location. Being inside a garage doesn't make you part of the garage.

You will be telling me next that ""

Or that the pregnant woman is merely a convenient growing medium for a completely independent embryo.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[QUOTE=Bill the Cat;750916]

What if that day old baby is Adolph Hitler?

Why? What had the day old Adolph Hitler done?

[Bill the Cat]

Why? What had the day old Adolph Hitler done?

Ok, if you were in a burning room with your mother and 15 terminal cancer patients and could only save one or the other, which would you save?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ok, if you were in a burning room with your mother and 15 terminal cancer patients and could only save one or the other, which would you save?

Ah standard deflection tactics.

[Cow Poke]

Ok, if you were in a burning room with your mother and 15 terminal cancer patients and could only save one or the other, which would you save?

B! I choose B!!!!

[Bill the Cat]

Ah standard deflection tactics.

Nope. Just countering to show the absurdity of that canard. Valuing 2 choices at different gradients in no way means the lesser valued item is in and of itself worthless. Now answer if you can. Your mom or the cancer patients...

[Cow Poke]

Nope. Just countering to show the absurdity of that canard. Valuing 2 choices at different gradients in no way means the lesser valued item is in and of itself worthless. Now answer if you can. Your mom or the cancer patients...

Did they make you play "life boat" in High School? The "situational ethics" game?