Abortion derail from the Active Shooter thread

[Cow Poke]

Come now, Jedidiah. You mean like the fraudulent, deceptively edited undercover videos....

Wow, you're doing JimL level stuff.

[Tassman]

"Personhood" is not a biological term, so your attempt to separate the biological fact that an embryo is still a unique member of our species is positively worthless. An individual "human life" absolutely does begin at conception, and any biology textbook will confirm that.



Exactly. Because concepts like "person-hood" are not biological terms. The only debate in science is when PREGNANCY begins. Most agree that it is when the sperm and egg nuclei comingle, but others disagree and say implantation begins pregnancy. But there simply isn't any serious debate on when an individual human begins to exist.

89-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation. The insensate bundle of cells during the first trimester of pregnancy cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a human being. A potential human being certainly but an actual human being it isn't.

[Tassman]

It was a joke. Oy Vey!

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

Jesus was Jewish was he not?

[Cow Poke]

A joke yes.

Yes, a joke.

[Cow Poke]

Jesus was Jewish was he not?

I don't know if you ever noticed, but Jesus didn't exactly get along with the Jewish leaders or their rules, regs and customs.

[Tassman]

Yes, a joke.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

Jesus was Jewish was he not?

[Cow Poke]

Jesus was Jewish was he not?

Asked and answered.

[Tassman]

Asked and answered.

So you're arguing that Jesus did NOThttp://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

Where did he specifically reject the Jewish belief regarding the unborn?

[Cow Poke]

So you're arguing that Jesus did NOT support the Jewish view...

I'm refusing to play your "let's twist Jesus into whatever it is I want Him to do / say to support my goofy claim" game.

Jesus most CLEARLY was not a traditional rabbi by any means.

Where did he specifically reject the Jewish belief regarding the unborn?

Where did He specifically reject my claim that you're a jackass?

[Tassman]

I'm refusing to play your "let's twist Jesus into whatever it is I want Him to do / say to support my goofy claim" game.

Jesus most CLEARLY was not a traditional rabbi by any means.



Where did He specifically reject my claim that you're a jackass?

So Jesus neverhttp://www.myjewishlearning.com/arti...in-jewish-law/

Personally, I think the Jews got it right. But, of course, you can interpret scripture to support the view held by Catholics and Evangelicals if you wish...provided you don't try to foist it on the rest of the population or incite lunatics to murder health-care providers in the name of your interpretation of scripture.

[Cow Poke]

So Jesus never specifically refuted the traditional view...

[Jichard]

And it is only Christians who object to murdering babies isn't it?

This is language likely to incite terrorism.

Just as is language that misrepresents Planned Parenthood as harvesting babies for parts, as opposed to allowing parents to consent to tissue donation for their aborted fetus.

Unless one abuses the legal definition of "murder".

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.as...#ixzz3ttJBCLEd

"murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

[...]

Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law [emphasis added].

[Jichard]

Strange! I always thought "murdering babies" was against the law in most civilised countries, regardless of religion. I think you are referring to embryos, or fetuses. It's your sort of careless and emotionally charged language (e.g. "slaughtering millions of babies in the womb"), that inspires the less stable to go out and commit this sort of murderous behaviour against abortion clinics in the first place.

I wonder when they're going to actually follow through on their logic, and accuse women, abortion doctors, etc. of murder (or at least as being accesories to murder). And I'm pretty sure that if I thought someone was in daner of being unjustly murdered, I'd take quite a number of steps to prevent said murder. I might call the police or physically try to prevent the murder (if, for example,, a loved one were to be the potential murder victim). I wonder what steps some pro-choice people would be willing to take, if those pro-choice people really thought abortion was murder.

[Jichard]

Birth is merely a change in location and a change in method of nutrient gathering.

No, it's a change that relevant to one's legal and moral rights, since one transitions from a point where one in within someone else's body (and thus subject to the rights that person has pertaining to what goes on within their body) as opposed to being outside of someone else's body (and thus not subject to the rights that person has pertaining what happens within their body). A similar distinction would apply if someone's organs were hooked up by tubes to my body, as opposed to that person not being detached from my organs. I have certain rights regarding whether or not the tubes remain attached to my body, regardless of whether removing the tubes kills the person attached to me (and regardless of whether or not I initially chose to have that person hooked up to me). That's one of the points of Thomson's violonist thought experiment.

I suspect you've seen pro-choice people make this point before. So I don't know why you're acting as if all that's at stake is a matter of "merely a change in location and a change in method of nutrient gathering". I don't see how someone informed on the contemporary abortion debate could claim that, given the points made by many pro-choice people since at least about the 1970s or 1980s.

[Jichard]

Medical dictionaries and encyclopedias used to include "child" and "infant" in their definitions of the embryo and fetus, except for Dorland's.
I remember , before we lost a Medical Center account, going there to "check" my crew's progress cleaning the place, but really to go around to the doctors' office and read their books for my aborion debating hobby.

I found definitions in Tabers, Stedmans, Mosby's and AMA -American Medial Association encyclopedia.

But newer editions for some reason starting leaving out "child" and "infant" in their definitions of preborn humans.

Since you care what dictionaries have to say, you might find this of interest:

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.as...#ixzz3ttJBCLEd

"murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.

[...]

Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law [emphasis added].