Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

non sequitur

perspective doesn't change truth.

See above

---

Your perspective on the truth is just that, your perspective.

You don't speak for God.

It's the height of hubris to confuse your own understanding of what is right with a universal acknowledgement.

In this case, as the people who will actually suffer the consequences of the decision either way, women's perspective is extremely important.

---

no.

1. Truth is Truth. It is constant and immutable.

2. I never claimed to speak for God. I don't even claim to understand a lot about God. He speaks for Himself very plainly on this issue.

3. Truth does not require universal acknowledgement. If it did, there would be NO truth. You are free to acknowledge whatever you wish. That doesn't make it true. On the flip side, if people universally agreed that the sun rose in the west, it would still be UN-true.

4. See 1. above. Perspective has zero bearing on Truth.

It is your hubris, not mine, that is on display. You have made yourself your god by believing that you have the power to bend, change or adapt truth to your own perspective.

cavscout96 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

non sequitur

perspective doesn't change truth.

See above

---

Your perspective on the truth is just that, your perspective.

You don't speak for God.

It's the height of hubris to confuse your own understanding of what is right with a universal acknowledgement.

In this case, as the people who will actually suffer the consequences of the decision either way, women's perspective is extremely important.

---

no.

1. Truth is Truth. It is constant and immutable.

2. I never claimed to speak for God. I don't even claim to understand a lot about God. He speaks for Himself very plainly on this issue.

3. Truth does not require universal acknowledgement. If it did, there would be NO truth. You are free to acknowledge whatever you wish. That doesn't make it true. On the flip side, if people universally agreed that the sun rose in the west, it would still be UN-true.

4. See 1. above. Perspective has zero bearing on Truth.

It is your hubris, not mine, that is on display. You have made yourself your god by believing that you have the power to bend, change or adapt truth to your own perspective.

---

1. Most likely so, however we are all under the same restrictions from accessing it. We do the best we can with limited tools.

2. Does he? Tell that to the Amalekites.

3. Again, when it comes to things where humanity is not in agreement on, we do the best we can to consider all perspectives. It would be foolish to only consider our own, particularly in matters that do not affect us personally.

I am humbly aware of the limits of my own capacity. I don't even attempt to claim my own understanding as God's or anything universal. At best, I feel I have at times a good idea what it might be, but I humbly accept that can change dramatically when exposed to new data.

Quote:

---

The difference between a baby in the womb and four year old is one of attachment and relationship

---

I strongly disagree. If a 4 year old in China dies tragically, I can acknowledge that tragedy, hope the child gets a funeral, and hope the family has support to deal with the terrible situation. I can do all these even though I have no relationship or attachment to that child at all. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing for me to think and hope.

I do not have the same feelings regarding fertilized eggs, and I don't think you do either. If that 4 year old's mother in China passes a fertilized egg, I am not even going to care. I'm not going to lament their loss, hope for a funeral, and hope for family support.

Both situations might be entirely natural and parts of life, but for you to pretend it's the same situation does nothing but make your opinion blantantly unreasonable and easily discounted.

Whether right or wrong, separation between church and state

Dilettante said:

---

The grieving of a first trimester miscarriage is usually mourning the loss of potential as much or more than the loss of life. Couples who were trying to get pregnant would likely also grieve the loss of a fertilized egg, they just don't usually know that it happened.

---

Sorry, but I feel like this statement doesn't really say anything. All loss and grief is due to loss of potential. That's why people think it's more tragic to lose a child than a great-grandparent. I have personally witnessed funerals for 1st trimester miscarriages. I thought even a staunch pro-choicer would admit that these people are mourning the loss of a child

1. The OP asked right or wrong.

2. No one is asking the church to dictate to the state. The state is made of the people. If the people make it illegal, great. In the end, it doesn't matter. Wrong is still wrong regardless of what the state, or the church, says.

I assumed darg started this thread after a few drinks in his belly and with a grin on his face and chuckle in his heart at the idea of so causally calling into question one of the great questions of our day. And now 6 pages have been spent on said topic. That's funny to me.

There's a lot of things that people consider wrong but are perfectly legal

No disagreement, but that is not what the OP asked.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The difference between a baby in the womb and four year old is one of attachment and relationship

---

I strongly disagree. If a 4 year old in China dies tragically, I can acknowledge that tragedy, hope the child gets a funeral, and hope the family has support to deal with the terrible situation. I can do all these even though I have no relationship or attachment to that child at all. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing for me to think and hope.

I do not have the same feelings regarding fertilized eggs, and I don't think you do either. If that 4 year old's mother in China passes a fertilized egg, I am not even going to care. I'm not going to lament their loss, hope for a funeral, and hope for family support.

Both situations might be entirely natural and parts of life, but for you to pretend it's the same situation does nothing but make your opinion blantantly unreasonable and easily discounted.

---

How many four year olds die in this world that you never hear about or lament? You're talking about your own personal capacity for empathy and predicating it on knowledge (of the life existing), as if that has a bearing on someone else's humanity. Treating those two things differently has no bearing on the underlying truth of whether it's a person or not. Do we not repent of things we have left undone (in addition to what we've done)? Is it not possible to mourn for those we know not (as well as those we do know)? Is it unreasonable to protect them even if we don't know them?

This conversation has about run its course.

I do find it funny that people are spouting, 'Life is an evolutionary continuum that has no beginning and end' but they themselves identify as a distinct individual.

Yeah, if you peer down deep enough, all of life gets deconstructed into simple biological processes. But you can be just as blase about cell death as you can about 'alive sperm and alive eggs simply forming new cell division.' If you zoom in far enough, a gun shot wound just looks like a cascade of cellular processes shutting down. Nothing more.

Those who only look to science will eventually create a psuedo-religion around it trying to answer 'why' when it can only give answers to 'how.'

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

You're saying unless I perfectly protect every single life to the fullest extent that I may not oppose an obvious murder and I may not claim to be pro-life

---

No one is saying this. I am pro-life, but I think the actions of attitudes of myself and every person I have ever met show that no one really believes a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 4 year old child. My personal line is drawn when the pregnancy implants in the uterus. Even then, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life I'm okay with ending the pregnancy. I'm also okay with ending pregnancies of non-viable (meaning never able to live outside the womb) embryos and fetuses at any point, preferable sooner rather than later. I think the plurality of pro-life people would be perfectly fine with my viewpoints on all these things. I think most pro-choice people are fine with harshly restricing abortions for fetuses after 20 something weeks when they could be viable outside the womb. So the real discussion to be had is what to do between implantation and outside-the-womb viability. But no one can have that conversation because both sides are polarized to the point of caricature

---

The difference between a baby in the womb and four year old is one of attachment and relationship. An implanted fetus changes a woman physically which is why they grieve the loss, even if we don't understand it as men. It's much earlier for women but even more so for the child itself! My argument is that your attachment (physical or emotional) does not determine my, or anyone else's, humanity and personhood. Hence the need for protection, at which point prohibiting abortion is a reasonable non-invasive way to do that (unlike checking periods or prosecuting miscarriages).

Outside the womb viability is accelerating with technology. We've come so far since roe that the middle ground is shrinking. I believe it will continue to do so and render this moot. Why establish standards for personhood that will constantly move?

---

What does this mean?

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

You're saying unless I perfectly protect every single life to the fullest extent that I may not oppose an obvious murder and I may not claim to be pro-life

---

No one is saying this. I am pro-life, but I think the actions of attitudes of myself and every person I have ever met show that no one really believes a fertilized egg is the same thing as a 4 year old child. My personal line is drawn when the pregnancy implants in the uterus. Even then, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life I'm okay with ending the pregnancy. I'm also okay with ending pregnancies of non-viable (meaning never able to live outside the womb) embryos and fetuses at any point, preferable sooner rather than later. I think the plurality of pro-life people would be perfectly fine with my viewpoints on all these things. I think most pro-choice people are fine with harshly restricing abortions for fetuses after 20 something weeks when they could be viable outside the womb. So the real discussion to be had is what to do between implantation and outside-the-womb viability. But no one can have that conversation because both sides are polarized to the point of caricature

---

The difference between a baby in the womb and four year old is one of attachment and relationship. An implanted fetus changes a woman physically which is why they grieve the loss, even if we don't understand it as men. It's much earlier for women but even more so for the child itself! My argument is that your attachment (physical or emotional) does not determine my, or anyone else's, humanity and personhood. Hence the need for protection, at which point prohibiting abortion is a reasonable non-invasive way to do that (unlike checking periods or prosecuting miscarriages).

Outside the womb viability is accelerating with technology. We've come so far since roe that the middle ground is shrinking. I believe it will continue to do so and render this moot. Why establish standards for personhood that will constantly move?

---

What does this mean?

---

Typical pregnancy stuff. Hormones, appetite, brain fog, energy levels, not having a period or even noticing they're late before texting, but sometimes they're more permanent beyond just hip size like hair color and other quirks. A woman can feel her body changing in a way that a man never will. Our miscarriage doesn't impact me on the level it did my wife because my body wasn't preparing itself for a life that did not survive. It doesn't mean I don't grieve but there's a physical dimension tied to the loss that I don't have.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

This conversation has about run its course.

I do find it funny that people are spouting, 'Life is an evolutionary continuum that has no beginning and end' but they themselves identify as a distinct individual.

Yeah, if you peer down deep enough, all of life gets deconstructed into simple biological processes. But you can be just as blase about cell death as you can about 'alive sperm and alive eggs simply forming new cell division.' If you zoom in far enough, a gun shot wound just looks like a cascade of cellular processes shutting down. Nothing more.

Those who only look to science will eventually have created a psuedo-religion around it trying to answer 'why' when it can only give answers to 'how.'

---

FIFY

Sure, but I guess since the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, to say that there are major physical changes to a woman in the first trimester is not all that accurate, it would seem to me. At least lasting physical changes.

Quote:

---

This conversation has about run its course.

---

it always goes this way. There's no middle ground to be had.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

This conversation has about run its course.

---

it always goes this way. There's no middle ground to be had.

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

This conversation has about run its course.

---

it always goes this way. There's no middle ground to be had.

---

I think ramblinAg's opinion disproves this. Also mine. There are way more than 2 opinions on this.

Quote:

---

I think ramblinAg's opinion disproves this. Also mine. There are way more than 2 opinions on this.

---

No, Cav hit it on the head - there maybe a reasonable opinion that rambling brings up, but there's a large continent that will accept nothing to complete adherence to their viewpoint.

There is no middle ground. Only "right" and 'wrong", in their eyes.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think ramblinAg's opinion disproves this. Also mine. There are way more than 2 opinions on this.

---

No, Cav hit it on the head - there maybe a reasonable opinion that rambling brings up, but there's a large continent that will accept nothing to complete adherence to their viewpoint.

There is no middle ground. Only "right" and 'wrong", in their eyes.

---

Well yeah, you can't have half a baby or half of a puppy. Solomon knew that. This isn't a household budget where a little is saved and a little is spent rather than all saved or all spent. This is life. How does one compromise on an innocent, voiceless life?

I'm not debating the merits of your case. You've had 6 pages to do that. I was only offering Dilettante the reason why there's no middle ground.

diehard03 said:

---

I'm not debating the merits of your case. You've had 6 pages to do that. I was only offering Dilettante the reason why there's no middle ground.

---

You only framed one of the opinions as reasonable. I was just trying to show that both are reasonable.

The question is not whether either side is reasonable...but would both sides accept a middle ground solution as reasonable.

Unless am I misunderstanding you, I doubt you could concede on any "movement" towards a middle solution.

That's because there. IS. no. middle solution.

This isn't a false dichotomy. There simply isn't a middle ground.

Quote:

---

That's because there. IS. no. middle solution.

This isn't a false dichotomy. There simply isn't a middle ground.

---

Because. You. Choose. To. Hold. That. Position. that's my point.

(note: I don't disagree with you. we just need to be honest in the conversation and stop being surprised when people act in a certain way in response)

Clearly, the green light was give back in 1973...to the tune of 63 million (MILLION) potential Americans having been holocosted/purged/eliminated/removed..murdered since. I wonder how HE feels about this?


http://www.numberofabortions.com

The problem with the abortion is always murder talk is it's really just hyperbole and nonsense for most people. What percent of the population both want abortion to be illegal and want the woman and doctor brought up on murder charges?

How many of you pro-lifers want that? And if you don't why not? Your own rhetoric seems to demand it.

similarly, the far left groups that acts like a baby 6 minutes before birth is somehow more analogous to something with a handful of cells than it is to a baby is just nonsensical. And if you ask the abortion for any reason at any time folks if it's ok to abort because it's female they sit silent. Same if we one day are able to determine that baby will likely be gay.

The extremes speak the loudest, but most people are pro-choice with serious moral qualms especially as you get along in fetal development.

It should be illegal and a criminal offense tantamount to murder, absolutely. If you don't think that, you should oppose double murder charges for the murder of pregnant women.

Everyone agrees with that.

Agrees with what?

That the combination of legal abortions and murder charges for killing fetuses is dumb.

Ah right. Yet, here we are.

Zobel said:

---

It should be illegal and a criminal offense tantamount to murder, absolutely. If you don't think that, you should oppose double murder charges for the murder of pregnant women.

---

Yeah, I never understood that.

Or people who tell me if anyone is against abortion, how can they be fire the death penalty?

I mean, c'mon, the baby has not committed a crime, correct?

Dilettante said:

---

Everyone agrees with that.

---

I know people who do not agree with that. To them, the mother's rights supersede everything.

On this board?

Darg made an argument like that once, but I'm not sure he really believed it and he seems to have changed his stance since then.