posted by Hammertime at
3/10/2005 02:39:00 PM
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." -1 Co 15:1-6
Email us at teamhammer2005-AT-hotmail-DOT-com
"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." -James 1:27
Content on this site may have been ruthlessly hijacked from elsewhere. I promise that these thoughts are our own - but they may not have originally been our own! Bloggers will get credit, however.
4 Comments:
I've always found the pro-life side much easier to argue. But that doesn't mean I agree.
None of this gets around the single cell issue or health of the mother. I agree with pro-life crowd up to a point -- I'm certainly to the "right" of current law -- but never promote the extreme positions of the hardcore conservatives.
I think there is a compromise here, somewhere. Until both sides develop the maturity to see the big picture we'll have to live with the status quo -- let the individual figure out the morality for herself.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/10/2005 07:15:00 PM
I remember your single-cell post, and have thought about it. I'm still fuzzy on why you don't like the moment of conception as a "line". After all, a line has to be drawn at some point - it is currently drawn at the baby 100% out of the woman's body (99% it can still be killed). A gestational day is not a true line, as every baby does not develop on exactly the same timeline. Hence, the line between a cell with the potential to be a baby without any outside interference and one without that potential seems logical.
Health of the mother? I thought this article addressed it. What health? Who determines it? What beyond maternal death is worth the death of the baby? What do you propose, if you don't like "the extreme positions of the hardcore conservatives"? On this issue, I am one of them - they do have tangible answers, you must admit.
By
Hammertime, at 3/11/2005 03:40:00 PM
Come now, David, you can do better than that. "I'll guarantee that were I to pour poison into a pond containing the eggs of the "rare" cross-eyed frog, there'd be none of this silly business about single cells..." No one said a fertilized egg wasn't a potential human life. In your example, only the potential is important.
Hammer, I don't know were to draw the line. That's kind of the point. The single, fertilized cell isn't a human being and you know it -- it's just the most convenient place to draw a line.
I'd have to do more research, but I'd personally put the line somewhere in the six to twelve week period.
Like I said, there is real room for compromise here, but as long as people reject the morning after pill and take other hardlined, unreasonable positions we'll never find it.
(Yes, there is movement needed from the left as well, obviously....)
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/13/2005 05:50:00 PM
David, your whole species argument is based on potential life.
Say the Earth was destroyed by I somehow survived with human embryos I could 'grow' to replenish my race. I'd protect them with all my life! The survival of humanity rests on these!
Do you think that proves your point?
But what I only had eggs and sperm. I'd protect those equally strongly, as they still represent the survival of my species! Nothing changed, from the point of view of potential human life, but I assume you don't think those eggs and sperm qualify as humans, right?
If you are arguing that potential human life is all that matters than go ahead and say it. I believe this is the official Catholic position, which is why (among other reasons) they are against birth control. But I don't believe that is what you mean to say. That is why your analogy doesn't hold up.
By
Xactiphyn, at 3/14/2005 03:19:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home