abortion

[concerro]

Is it right that a woman can terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent even if her life is not endangered by the pregnancy but if the father does not want the child and the woman wants to keep it he cant do anything

[AlAyeti]

I just went and looked in the mirror. Same DNA as the moment of my conception all still in place. Yup, I've always been me. And by the way, I could never have not been unless someone killed me before I lhad the opportunity and the right to have looked in the mirror.

I am not forcing any choice on anyone. I would like the truth to be presented that is all. That a human has no rights before they are born is horror personified.

If a mother gives birth all alone in a deseert, and dies, the baby will survive how long?

That was a poor example for viability on your part. It also proved that a woman shouldn't have the exclusive right over the life of her child if someone other than her can raise her daughter or son. I know this is an odd concept, but say, the father.

You do know that a baby is distinct from its parents don't you? It is an individual that others have taken the rights away from. You in fact prove that position.

Look in the mirror.

[Dark Haibane]

embryo and foetus are potential life, a living child or baby is 'alive'

Why? What is the difference beyond size and development? In both instances the maturing human equally has the potential to mature into an adult.

the difference is viability.

~viability
The very definition of viability means that it is a living being (French, from vie, life, from Old French, from Latin vta.). A child outside and inside the womb both have the same viability. The difference is not wether or not it has the potential for life, but that they are at different stages of development.

a foetus is not a child despite your attempts to define it as such

How so?
Do they not both match the standard for life?
Are they different organisms?

A foetus is not a child until after birth...see here

"A child (plural: children) is a young human." So you are arguing that the fertilized cells are not human, it's an "abnormal" growth? No, it is a child. It displays all the signs of life; "Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism," and is made up of entirely human DNA. It is inherently living and human.
~Defining Life
~Definitions of life from the Web

That is very admirable of you. I'm sure you would not want anyone to prevent you from following what you believe. Why do you seek to prevent the rights of others to choose?

Why does a soldier give their life? To prevent the destruction of life, the people back home, those whom they love. I do not speak alone in saying that life is worth dying to protect; ask any mother, father, soldier, anyone in love, I'm sure the majority will agree with me. You yourself admit that to die in order to protect life is admirable.
Do anyone of use have the right to choose wether another dies because the latter is an inconvenience to the former? I am not trying to prevent a "right," I am trying give voice to those who's voice cannot be heard.

You are being presumptuous as to 'my position'. I don't 'presume' to make cloices (often very difficult and heart wrenching) for others. This is something you would choose to do.

(mudslinging, "poisoning the well.") If you see logical error don't flame them for it, just show them the problem and they will need to fix it in order for their statements to hold water.

[bernee51]

embryo and foetus are potential life, a living child or baby is 'alive'

Why? What is the difference beyond size and development? In both instances the maturing human equally has the potential to mature into an adult.

Only after it is born.

A child outside and inside the womb both have the same viability. The difference is not wether or not it has the potential for life, but that they are at different stages of development.

A six week embryo has rthe same viability as a neonate? Tell that to a paediatrician.

Do they not both match the standard for life?
Are they different organisms?

Now that is going to depend on the definition of 'life' is it not? And as you would know "Since life is such a ubiquitous and fundamental concept, the definitions of it are legion. —John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

Why does a soldier give their life? To prevent the destruction of life, the people back home, those whom they love.

In your final (difficult to read) paragraph you mention logical errors. I guess "straw man" come under that descriptor.

[Curious]

embryo and foetus are potential life, a living child or baby is 'alive'

Why? What is the difference beyond size and development? In both instances the maturing human equally has the potential to mature into an adult.

Only after it is born.

Why not "only after it is 5 years old, or 6 or 7"?
Is life worthy of respect only if it can reach maturity?
What makes adults a special case?
All those willing to die to help maintain the lifestyle of another please raise their right hand.

[bernee51]

[
Only after it is born.

Why not "only after it is 5 years old, or 6 or 7"?

No after it is born. According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

[Curious]

[
Only after it is born.

Why not "only after it is 5 years old, or 6 or 7"?

No after it is born. According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

Oh well, that settles it then doesn't it! I find it a little strange here that I find myself in the predicament of having to explain to an atheist that everything in the bible isn't necessarily true. If you look at the evidence it is clear that this is not the case at all. A child before the first breath is no less alive than after the first breath. It is respiration and not breathing that is significant regarding life. An unborn child respires just as a born child does, the only difference is the mechanism by which the gases are exchanged with the external environment.

[Dark Haibane]

[
Only after it is born.

Why not "only after it is 5 years old, or 6 or 7"?

No after it is born. According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

I disagree with Curious on this point. You are taking the text out of context.
Adam was never a child, life being symbolically or even physically breath into him does not mean that life begins with the first breath. It should not set the precedent for the beginning of the life of a child because his first breath was not taken as he exited the womb, which he was never in. On the contrary, it should show the beginning of all human as life. The life of all men, women, and children began with that breath, not literally but symbolically.
Breath supplies the lungs with oxygen, and through them and the heart the rest of the bodies is fed with nutrients. While a child is inside the mother, they are supplied by the umbilical or the wall of the uterus by the mothers heart and lungs. You might be able to say tha the mother passes on the first breath of Adom to the child while it is in the womb. Thus I say, life begins at conception.

[bernee51]

I find it a little strange here that I find myself in the predicament of having to explain to an atheist that everything in the bible isn't necessarily true.

Ain't life curious.

An unborn child respires just as a born child does, the only difference is the mechanism by which the gases are exchanged with the external environment.

What you say is true - a foetus does exchange gases via the umbilical cord and placenta. This is because they don't have lungs and if not for thsi mechanism they woul dnot survive. There whole coronary/pulmonary circulation is different prior to birth, with the hole in the atrium closing after birth. Sometimes this doesn't happen which requires immediate surgery. Else the new born child will die.

[bernee51]

I disagree with Curious on this point. You are taking the text out of context.

Thanks for that. It does show that doctrine depends just as much (if not more so) on hermeneutics as it does on scripture. The whole Adam/Eve story is a metaphor.

The life of all men, women, and children began with that breath, not literally but symbolically.

Butt we are not talking in symbology are we? We are talking literal breath.

While a child is inside the mother, they are supplied by the umbilical or the wall of the uterus by the mothers heart and lungs.

Actually it is the uterine circulation that provides the oxygen and other nutrients to the foetus. The placenta acts as a go-between. The mother's blood and foetal blood do not mix.

You might be able to say tha the mother passes on the first breath of Adom to the child while it is in the womb.

You might say that but you would be wrong. (IMHO, of course)

Thus I say, life begins at conception.

A hydatiform mole begins at conception. It is clearly not life.

[Curious]

[
Only after it is born.

Why not "only after it is 5 years old, or 6 or 7"?

No after it is born. According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

I disagree with Curious on this point. You are taking the text out of context.
Adam was never a child, life being symbolically or even physically breath into him does not mean that life begins with the first breath. It should not set the precedent for the beginning of the life of a child because his first breath was not taken as he exited the womb, which he was never in. On the contrary, it should show the beginning of all human as life. The life of all men, women, and children began with that breath, not literally but symbolically.
Breath supplies the lungs with oxygen, and through them and the heart the rest of the bodies is fed with nutrients. While a child is inside the mother, they are supplied by the umbilical or the wall of the uterus by the mothers heart and lungs. You might be able to say tha the mother passes on the first breath of Adom to the child while it is in the womb. Thus I say, life begins at conception.

It was not I, but bernee51 who said that life begins at the first breath after birth. You will see that I make the distinction between breath and respiration in another point. You are quite right though when you say that it is symbolic rather than literal.