28-07-2004 00:18									#91
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: The problem is, pro-life dopes equate a fetus with a born-baby. Even the bible says life starts when your born, not conceived. God recognized the official beginning of human life as being at birth. Genesis 2:7, "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul."

Where does that quote say anything about birth?

God's breath is not the same as man's.

And God also says, before you were formed in the womb, I knew you.

So the prochoicers can suck donkeyballs.

Edit:

"The problem is, pro-life dopes equate a fetus with a born-baby."

That's sig worthy, sava.

Think about that again.

	28-07-2004 00:20									#92
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I think you'll find hers read "I wish I had an abortion".

That's a great combination.

Mother and daughter together.

Planned Parenthood should run ads like that.

	28-07-2004 00:27									#93
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It'd be realistic.

	28-07-2004 00:45									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why not use condoms?

I think that China must use Australian bunniees for birth control propoganda...

	28-07-2004 00:58									#95
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Think about that again.

why?

a fetus is not the same as a baby that has been born

BK:
Exodus 21:22-25 says: "When men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her, shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows then you shall give eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life."
(Revised Standard Version)
The King James Version says, "…hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished,…and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life…"

So God says killing a fetus only gets a fine. It doesn't sound like God holds a fetus in high esteem.

God also committed abortions:
Hosea 9:14 Revised Standard Version, To punish Israel for their impiety and idolatry, God Gave them "miscarrying wombs."

And one last thing... you seem to be ignoring the fact that Genisis says a "soul is born" only after God breathed life into his nostrils... breathing isn't something a fetus can do.

	28-07-2004 01:58									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: a fetus is not the same as a baby that has been born

Read it carefully. I know that's what you meant, but that isn't what you are saying there. The prolife dopes?

Does it mean the smart ones say something else?

quote: So God says killing a fetus only gets a fine. It doesn't sound like God holds a fetus in high esteem.

Read again. If a woman miscarries, and no harm comes to either the child, or the woman, the woman is to be compensated with a fine.

If the woman miscarries and harm comes to either the child, or the woman, then lex talionis applies.

quote: Hosea 9:14 Revised Standard Version, To punish Israel for their impiety and idolatry, God Gave them "miscarrying wombs."

So? Where does that affirm abortion, undertaken by men to kill the child in the womb?

Miscarriage is quite different from abortion.

quote: you seem to be ignoring the fact that Genisis says a "soul is born" only after God breathed life into his nostrils... breathing isn't something a fetus can do.

Into his nostrils? I only see that God breathing life into the body is what is said.

Secondly, if the child can give life to himself at birth, why is there any need for God at all? God's breath is not the same as our biological breath.

	28-07-2004 02:04									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Potential human beings are not human beings.

And Che makes a very good point.

I was going to clarify that, but Che's already brought that up.

An unborn child is not a person, because of the potential for viability, but rather, is a person because of what she already possesses at conception.

At conception you have the genetic code required to grow and develop, as a person distinct from either parent, a characteristic not possessed by sperm, and retained by the child throughout their life.

	28-07-2004 02:11									#98
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Read again. If a woman miscarries, and no harm comes to either the child, or the woman, the woman is to be compensated with a fine.

Miscarriage with no harm to the child?!? What kind of crack are you on?

	28-07-2004 02:13									#99
	Suffering from ads?

I think this is turning into another one of those stalemate/mastrubation threads. So I'll just point out my pov and then leave. I'll return tomorrow, though.

If you'd ask me about 4 years ago where I stood, I was all pro-choice.

However, when I started thinking more and more about the ethical benefits, and harms, and as I've heard the arguments from both sides, mostly here on apolyton, I've started to really be undecided on this one.

I fully realize that sometimes, accidents, and crimes happen, that lead to conception. That even though pills, and condoms exist, sometimes, there is a conception. That's why I support measures such as the morning-after pill. ( those two, used together, reduce the risk of pregnancy to minute.) and even if all that fails, I support early abortions( missing the period is warning). I also support early abortions of babies who suffer from incurable deseases that would badly harm their lifestyles ( that are diagnosed, as soon as possible). However, that's it. Other than that, it means that the people/ woman that didn't make an abortion till that time, thought that one can play with human life, and end it at any time they wish, thus devaluing them.

And say what you will, we do punish people who kill fetuses while attacking women, more than just by making them punished for assault. There's a reason for it.

	28-07-2004 02:14									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I think you'll find hers read "I wish I had an abortion".

I wanna wear a shirt that says that

	28-07-2004 02:15									#101
	Got spare money?

quote: Miscarriage with no harm to the child?!? What kind of crack are you on?

No crack. The child can be expelled from the womb, and alive.

From the NIV:

Exodus 21:22

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

	28-07-2004 02:17									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I wanna wear a shirt that says that

It's a woman's issue, Skywalker.

	28-07-2004 02:19									#103
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: And say what you will, we do punish people who kill fetuses while attacking women, more than just by making them punished for assault. There's a reason for it.

And what is that reason?

Should a woman who is pregnant in the first trimester who gets beaten, be treated differently from a woman in the second trimester who gets beaten?

	28-07-2004 02:29									#104
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If the child survives, it's pretty much by definition not "miscarriage".

	28-07-2004 02:32									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sava Spiffor: That is strange. Perhaps it's more a unity thing... I would like to think most pro-choice advocates hold the same position as myself... as they are more a necessary "evil". I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I don't suppose frothing-anti-choicers will.

I would suspect either a few rather radical types making a freelance decision, a couple of pro-life types who've infiltrated a loosely run organization, or some unusually misguided types who really, really want to stir **** up and think this is going to be popular.

That's just a bit far (regardless of personal ideology, I'm talking about the institutional mindset) down the provocative path, when PP has tried to remain pretty low key considering their level of involvement in the abortion issue in the US.

	28-07-2004 02:34									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi And Che makes a very good point. I was going to clarify that, but Che's already brought that up. An unborn child is not a person, because of the potential for viability, but rather, is a person because of what she already possesses at conception. At conception you have the genetic code required to grow and develop, as a person distinct from either parent, a characteristic not possessed by sperm, and retained by the child throughout their life.

And this is all nice but entirely irrelevant from a legal point of view. We already recognize different levels of legal status for minors, for those who are mentally incompetent, and the law is able to do so also for fetuses. The legal status of a human being is not based on genetic code.

	28-07-2004 02:41									#107
	Tired of ads?

quote: If the child survives, it's pretty much by definition not "miscarriage".

Yes, which is why I quoted the NIV, which renders the word to 'gives birth prematurely.'

	28-07-2004 02:45									#108
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: And this is all nice but entirely irrelevant from a legal point of view. We already recognize different levels of legal status for minors, for those who are mentally incompetent, and the law is able to do so also for fetuses. The legal status of a human being is not based on genetic code.

So does this mean that someone who is mentally incompetant, or that minors have no legal status? Hardly. You acknowledge that there are different levels given in the law, so why does this mean that an unborn child ought to have no legal status whatsoever?

In fact, even R. v. Wade says that the state can have the preservation of the unborn child as one of it's duties, so that would seem to say that an unborn child does have certain rights.

All Roe argues is that there is a conflict of rights, and not an absence of them, to which one set of rights takes precedence over the other.

The legal status of whether something qualifies as a human being is not based on birth. So what is it based upon?

	28-07-2004 02:48									#109
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Yes, which is why I quoted the NIV, which renders the word to 'gives birth prematurely.'

Which brings up another good point. There are too many mistranslations and interpretations of the Bible. It can no longer be considered a reliable source. God should release updates in all languages. That is... if God wrote the bible.

	28-07-2004 02:57									#110
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sava Which brings up another good point. There are too many mistranslations and interpretations of the Bible. It can no longer be considered a reliable source. God should release updates in all languages. That is... if God wrote the bible.

He did. It's called The Book of Mormon.

	28-07-2004 03:00									#111
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: There are too many mistranslations and interpretations of the Bible. It can no longer be considered a reliable source. God should release updates in all languages.

So only the originals are pure and uncorruptible, and we should all know Hebrew and Greek when dealing with Scripture.

The reality is that any compilation of the bible will suffer the same problems, even in the Septuagint. They use documents written quite some time in the OT, compared to the NT.

So it is impossible to get a single version with all the books done at the same time.

One advantage of the more modern translation is that they have access to older documents that were not accessible to older compilations such as the Septuagint, so we would expect the later versions to be more accurate than those of previous versions.

I would prefer to have a translation in the vernacular, such that people could become familiar with scripture with greater ease than they would otherwise.

quote: That is... if God wrote the bible.

Through his apostles and prophets.

	28-07-2004 03:03									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: It's called The Book of Mormon.

Verto will be so pleased to have a convert!

	28-07-2004 03:04									#113
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So does this mean that someone who is mentally incompetant, or that minors have no legal status? Hardly. You acknowledge that there are different levels given in the law, so why does this mean that an unborn child ought to have no legal status whatsoever? In fact, even R. v. Wade says that the state can have the preservation of the unborn child as one of it's duties, so that would seem to say that an unborn child does have certain rights.

Precisely. The state is able to assert an independent interest in the rights of the fetus upon viability. End of problem.

quote: All Roe argues is that there is a conflict of rights, and not an absence of them, to which one set of rights takes precedence over the other.

Well, there's no argument that there's a conflict of rights - clearly the woman carrying the fetus has some "right" with respect to medical issues affecting her own body. The question is if/whether/when a competing party with an independent set of rights comes into being.

quote: The legal status of whether something qualifies as a human being is not based on birth. So what is it based upon?

Like most legal issues, it is based on whatever criteria the overall lawmaking bodies (legislators, judiciary, constitution) enact. Indians weren't persons under US law at all until 1879, and only then if they dissociated themselves from their tribes, and only if they happened to be in Nebraska.

	28-07-2004 03:07									#114
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Verto will be so pleased to have a convert!

I'm such a tease.

	28-07-2004 03:18									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: The state is able to assert an independent interest in the rights of the fetus upon viability.

So why should viability be the standard for personhood?

Didn't Roe admit that 'no one knows when life begins?'

quote: Well, there's no argument that there's a conflict of rights - clearly the woman carrying the fetus has some "right" with respect to medical issues affecting her own body.

Actually, that is the argument in the trimester framework of Roe, that there are competing rights involved prior to viability.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Section X.1

"These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes 'compelling.' "

So this admits that the interests begin well before viability. The issue of compelling always involves competing rights, in that there are other rights that take precedence to the interest of the government, as Roe puts it, to 'potentiality of human life.'

	28-07-2004 03:20									#116
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: it is based on whatever criteria the overall lawmaking bodies (legislators, judiciary, constitution) enact. Indians weren't persons under US law at all until 1879, and only then if they dissociated themselves from their tribes, and only if they happened to be in Nebraska.

Correct. So do you not find this distinction equally arbitrary as the framework designated in Roe?

	28-07-2004 03:36									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So why should viability be the standard for personhood?

It isn't. Viability is only the standard for whether the state can assert an independent protective interest in the fetus, contrary to the interest of the woman carrying it.

quote: Actually, that is the argument in the trimester framework of Roe, that there are competing rights involved prior to viability.

Interests don't necessarily give rise to rights, and the terms are not synonomous in law. There is also a difference between a party actually having a particular right or interest, or merely asserting that they do so.

	28-07-2004 03:46									#118
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh, and it NEEDS to be pointed out that the 'interests' in Roe refer to the state's interests in perserving unborn life and the woman's interest in her own body. The unborn's interest doesn't factor into the equation.

	28-07-2004 03:47									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Correct. So do you not find this distinction equally arbitrary as the framework designated in Roe?

No.

The decision to dissociate oneself from a native tribe is a matter of behavior, not of status, therefore it is supremely illogical to use it as a basis to determine one's legal status as a human being. Using it to determine one's legal status (a la declaratory relief) with respect to tribal membership and rights, treaty obligations upon the tribe but not upon individuals, etc. is perfectly sound, but using it to determine whether one is a human being or not is absurd.

The framework created in Roe is limited to the single purpose of determining whether there are separate competing rights such that the state can assert a protective interest independent of the woman carrying the fetus. A "viable" but unborn fetus has no other rights in law - not to child support (not unless born), not to inherit property, or sue (via a guardian at litem), to own or dispose of property, to be enumerated in any census, or anything else.

Prior to Roe, states asserted an independent interest in a fetus in a manner totally inconsist with any other legal rights or statutory framework. Roe did the states and pro-lifers a favor by creating a standard which allowed them to assert an independent protective interest before birth.

	28-07-2004 04:04									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Oh, and it NEEDS to be pointed out that the 'interests' in Roe refer to the state's interests in perserving unborn life and the woman's interest in her own body. The unborn's interest doesn't factor into the equation.

I thought I already made that clear.

I guess I didn't

Thanks Imran.