Abortion: Genocide in the Womb

Veritas

New Member
Which makes it all the more repugnant.

yes, the woman's right over the right of the unborn.

I don't need a human law to define right vs wrong.
Apparently you don't need the bible to define right vs wrong either - as it makes it clear that life begins at the first breath. Not sure why Christians always seem to ignore relevant scripture when formulating their 'values'. :unsure:
 

BMS

Well-known member
Apparently you don't need the bible to define right vs wrong either - as it makes it clear that life begins at the first breath. Not sure why Christians always seem to ignore relevant scripture when formulating their 'values'. :unsure:
which scripture do you think you are sure about?
Well God formed man and then breathed life in him, so yes, but that was already man formed not in the womb. John 20, Jesus breathed on His disciples and said receive the Holy Spirit, so no not the beggining of life
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Apparently you don't need the bible to define right vs wrong either - as it makes it clear that life begins at the first breath. Not sure why Christians always seem to ignore relevant scripture when formulating their 'values'. :unsure:
What makes you think that the bible teaches life begins at first breath?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Apologies if someone has already pointed this out; must admit I did not read the entire thread.
...
"Is the unborn a human being, or not? If the unborn are not human beings, no justification for abortion is necessary; however, if the unborn are human beings, no justification is adequate. I am going to argue that the unborn are human beings, and as such they are entitled to the same right to life shared by all other human beings.
I think this is reasonable. The issue very much depends on what counts as a human being.

My argument is as follows:
(1) It is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being
(2) Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being
(3) Therefore, abortion is wrong

If the premises are true, the conclusion logically follows. Anyone who will deny the conclusion, then, must deny the veracity of at least one of the premises.
Wait. He just told us he is "going to argue that the unborn are human being", and yet the argument he presents is merely assuming that that is the case!

He is not arguing his case, he is just assuming he is right.

He has just done a classic bait-and-switch, where he claims to be proving one thing, but actually proves something else!

Most people agree with the first premise. It is a universally accepted moral premise. Those who argue for abortion rights usually take exception with the second premise, namely that the unborn are human beings. It is claimed that no one knows when life begins, but this is not true. The disciplines of science and philosophy are decisive on this matter. The unborn are human beings from the moment of conception."
And now he has pulled another. Remember, he said he was "going to argue that the unborn are human being", but now he is merely going to show that they are alive. Of course they are alive. Every cell in your body is alive, but we do not accord them the rights of a full human being.

The issue is whether that embryo is a human being. As he knows full well, given he claimed he was "going to argue that the unborn are human being".

To read the rest of the article, go to the link noted above.
Is there any point? Does it get any better?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
What makes you think that the bible teaches life begins at first breath?
To the Israelites, spirit and breath were pretty much synonymous. Like actually the same word, ruach. To them, when you were breathing, you had that spirit inside you. Adam came to life when he had breath - a spirit - put inside him.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Several times in the Bible the expression "giving up the ghost" is used when someone dies. In Hebrew, it actually says dying breath. For the Biblical author, breathing was what defined life; when the breath was gone, life was gone.

Genesis 25:8-9 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah
Genesis 35:29 And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered unto his people, being old and full of days: and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him
Genesis 49:33 And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people

The Holy spirit that hovers above the waters right at the start of Genesis? That is the breath of God. So no wonder Adam comes alive when God breathes on him! But the breath is also the spirit, and at that moment Adam also receives a spirit.

A couple more illustrative verses:

Job 33:4 The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
Ezekiel 37:5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life.

I have a feeling they considered animals with lungs to be quite different in nature to those without because those with lungs breath, so presumably have some kind of spirit (see Genesis 7 for example).

It is not explicit, but I think there are enough verses to make it clear that to them, life started when you first breathed, and ended when you last breathed, and that your spirit was there only during that time.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
This is fundamentally wrong. Science can answer the question of when human life comes into existence, but the question of when that life becomes a "being" is very much a societal / ethical one. The answer can be informed by science, but it is fundamentally NOT scientific.

A human being is one to which society (which itself is made up of human beings) grants rights it is willing to protect and enforce. The right to life, the right to marry, the right to speak without fear of government censorship, etc.

Only within the last century (and some say only since the 50s) have some Americans begun to assert that the unborn have a right to life. Prior to that, abortion was seen as an unfortunate-but-necessary evil. Biology certainly hasn't changed in that time, but the sense of which kinds of human life deserve which rights certainly has.

And that's my problem with the quoted text above. Science doesn't determine which people have what rights; human societies do. To misunderstand this to base the author's article on a crumbled foundation.
Just a tiny bit of common sense( which isn’t so common anymore) and there would not be any abortions. What next societies decide that those over 60 don’t deserve to live ? The crumbled foundation is men playing God deciding who should live and who should be murdered in their mothers womb.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Just a tiny bit of common sense( which isn’t so common anymore) and there would not be any abortions.
Agreed.
But society needs measures to help those without common sense.
What next societies decide that those over 60 don’t deserve to live ?
Slippery slope fallacy.
The crumbled foundation is men playing God deciding who should live and who should be murdered in their mothers womb.
The pregnant woman decides that, not men.
Men - and women, actually - only grant the right.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Apologies if someone has already pointed this out; must admit I did not read the entire thread.

I think this is reasonable. The issue very much depends on what counts as a human being.
I posted a small snippet of what was in his article as a teaser. You can address just that or read the article.


Wait. He just told us he is "going to argue that the unborn are human being", and yet the argument he presents is merely assuming that that is the case!

He is not arguing his case, he is just assuming he is right.

He has just done a classic bait-and-switch, where he claims to be proving one thing, but actually proves something else!
Did you read the section on "The Scientific and Philosophic Evidence"?
And now he has pulled another. Remember, he said he was "going to argue that the unborn are human being", but now he is merely going to show that they are alive. Of course they are alive. Every cell in your body is alive, but we do not accord them the rights of a full human being.
Are you conflating human being with human person? Read this section, "The Scientific and Philosophic Evidence".
The issue is whether that embryo is a human being. As he knows full well, given he claimed he was "going to argue that the unborn are human being".
He doesn't believe there is a difference between a human being and person. Neither I. But he makes arguments for both.
Is there any point? Does it get any better?
Yes and yes.
Even though he is a Christian, he does not bring the Bible into this discussion. as far as I can remember.

These are the subjects he addresses:

Statistics
The Real Issue
The Scientific and Philosophic Evidence
Human Being vs. Human Person-
This is the part you are looking for.
Conclusion
Objections and Responses
Footnotes-
He has 87 footnotes
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Agreed.
But society needs measures to help those without common sense.

Slippery slope fallacy.

The pregnant woman decides that, not men.
Men - and women, actually - only grant the right.
Your logic is flawed. You literally said pregnant women get to decide who gets murdered and who lives.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
To the Israelites, spirit and breath were pretty much synonymous. Like actually the same word, ruach. To them, when you were breathing, you had that spirit inside you. Adam came to life when he had breath - a spirit - put inside him.

Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Several times in the Bible the expression "giving up the ghost" is used when someone dies. In Hebrew, it actually says dying breath. For the Biblical author, breathing was what defined life; when the breath was gone, life was gone.

Genesis 25:8-9 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah
Genesis 35:29 And Isaac gave up the ghost, and died, and was gathered unto his people, being old and full of days: and his sons Esau and Jacob buried him
Genesis 49:33 And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people

The Holy spirit that hovers above the waters right at the start of Genesis? That is the breath of God. So no wonder Adam comes alive when God breathes on him! But the breath is also the spirit, and at that moment Adam also receives a spirit.

A couple more illustrative verses:

Job 33:4 The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
Ezekiel 37:5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life.

I have a feeling they considered animals with lungs to be quite different in nature to those without because those with lungs breath, so presumably have some kind of spirit (see Genesis 7 for example).

It is not explicit, but I think there are enough verses to make it clear that to them, life started when you first breathed, and ended when you last breathed, and that your spirit was there only during that time.
Perhaps. You make a good case, surprisingly. I didn't know that you knew so much of the Bible. :)
What do you think of this passage:

I have nothing from the bible to counter what you have written at the moment. But then neither does an evolutionist have any qualms with why should one care if God ordered the destruction of those in the womb?
Despite that, I would advocate for those in the womb from my perspective of being a former labor and delivery nurse and for the same reasons that Dulle gives in his article.

Please read the section on Human person vs Human being.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I posted a small snippet of what was in his article as a teaser. You can address just that or read the article.
I addressed that. I am going to assume that what you quoted was the highlight. If not, why pick it?

Did you read the section on "The Scientific and Philosophic Evidence"?

Are you conflating human being with human person? Read this section, "The Scientific and Philosophic Evidence".
I was responding to the OP, not the article. I addressed the bits quoted in the OP, which was essentially two bait-and-switch exercises.

You chose to quote those bit. Do you stand by them? Or will you consider the logic is flawed?

He doesn't believe there is a difference between a human being and person. Neither I. But he makes arguments for both.
He made an argument was for whether it is alive, not whether it is a person/human being.

Having originally said he was going to make an argument for it being a person/human being.

ETA: Just gone back and looked at the web page. I am not seeing anything that argues for personhood - an individual who should be according the rights of a normal person. He cites a bunch of textbooks, but says:

Consider the following testimonies from geneticists and biologists before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee (April 23-24, 1981) on the question of when life begins:
...
The conclusion of the Senate subcommittee was that "physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being-a being that is alive and is a member of the human species.

That is not personhood. A cell on your arm is alive, and is human, but we do not give it the rights of a person, it is not a person/human being. He told us he is "going to argue that the unborn are human being" but instead he argued that it is human and alive. And that is not the same.
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Well-known member
I addressed that. I am going to assume that what you quoted was the highlight. If not, why pick it?
Just to get people interested in reading the article.
I was responding to the OP, not the article. I addressed the bits quoted in the OP, which was essentially two bait-and-switch exercises.

You chose to quote those bit. Do you stand by them? Or will you consider the logic is flawed?


He made an argument was for whether it is alive, not whether it is a person/human being.

Having originally said he was going to make an argument for it being a person/human being.

ETA: Just gone back and looked at the web page. I am not seeing anything that argues for personhood - an individual who should be according the rights of a normal person. He cites a bunch of textbooks, but says:

Consider the following testimonies from geneticists and biologists before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee (April 23-24, 1981) on the question of when life begins:
...
The conclusion of the Senate subcommittee was that "physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being-a being that is alive and is a member of the human species.

That is not personhood. A cell on your arm is alive, and is human, but we do not give it the rights of a person, it is not a person/human being. He told us he is "going to argue that the unborn are human being" but instead he argued that it is human and alive. And that is not the same.
Did you read this section under Human Being vs Human Person?

This brings me to my third observation about this argument. All of the supposed differences are functional or psychological in nature. A human person is someone who exhibits and/or exercises those functions, whereas a human being does not.
It's interesting to note that the advocates of personhood theory each have different lists of criteria that demarcate a human person from a human being. Some, such as Peter Singer, consider rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness to be the sine qua non of personhood. Singer writes in Practical Ethics, "The fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings."

Jan Narveson says persons are those with an immediate capacity to "make conscious, deliberate choices."36 They are "individuals with complex personal consciousness", sentient, "able to think in the subjective sense," have "genuine experiences," an awareness of himself as an individual, an articulate grasp of his surroundings, be aware of their own history as a thinking subject, possess values and "thoughts, plans, hopes, and interests."37

Philosopher Mary Ann Warren suggests a person is one who possesses consciousness, self-awareness, rationality, self-motivated activity, and an ability to communicate by whatever means on many possible topics. Joseph Fletcher asserts that a person is one who possesses self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the past and future, the ability to relate to others, the ability to communicate, and curiosity. Ronald Bailey says that the criteria for death (brain death) might be a clue as to the criteria for valuable life.38 Steven Pinker, professor of psychology at Harvard, suggests that we need a clear boundary to confer personhood on a human being and grant it a right to life. . . . [T]he right to life must come . . . from morally significant traits that we humans happen to possess. One such trait is having a sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people. Other traits include an ability to reflect on ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die.

In response, we might ask these individuals, Where did you get your list from? Given the fact that they have different lists doesn't bode well for the objectivity of their criteria. The fact of the matter is that the lists are quite subjective. Given the arbitrary and subjective nature of the lists, why can't we invent our own list of personhood criteria? How about we say a person is one who has white skin? If they object to our list, we can ask them on what grounds their list is justified but our list is disallowed.

The philosophical question pro-abortionists and pro-lifers disagree on is what gives humans their value. There are only two possible answers. Either (1) human value is derived from some intrinsic, unchangeable quality that is rooted in human essence/nature, or (2) human value is derived from our participation in some extrinsic, degreed quality. Put another way, humans either possess valuable in light of their shared humanity, or they acquire value when they can exemplify some additional requirement. The former view is called essentialism, and the latter is called functionalism.

What constitutes personhood? Is personhood to be defined in functionalist, or essentialist terms? Is personhood a degreed property, or something that inheres within the essence of a human? Essentialists argue that "being a person is not a result of acquired accidental attributes; rather, it is being a certain type of individual, an individual with a rational nature."39 All things that exist have being. But being is subdivided into two categories: personal and impersonal. Rocks are impersonal; humans are personal. Given what we know about the law of identity (anything that exist will remain itself so long as it exists), it is false to assert that humans can start off as impersonal beings, and then acquire personhood at some later point in time. While our properties may change, our essence remains the same. If humans are personal beings at any point in their existence, then they are personal beings throughout their entire existence, including in the womb.

and much more after this...

Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?
 
Last edited:
Top