Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
So....you Think Women Carry A "1year Old Infant" Inside Them?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael W. Pearson on June 16, 2002 04:16:36 UTC

You make a false assumption...that you,
a man, perhaps a priest, have
dominion over what's inside a woman's body
when it has not even achieved brain wiring
to be aware it exists.
Do you think other creatures with a brain
the size of a peanut should have full independent
legal rights which should be regulated by your
church even though the woman doesn't believe what you believe? This indeed is an old issue and
the United States was founded in part to
bring some boundaries between the your over-reaching arms and American women.

Alan wrote:
There is a false asumption here. "Some woman" is assumed to be more real and relevant than "some unborn infant".

Alan continued:
The being "inside her" is demonstrably NOT a part of the woman's body. It is not legitimate to kill a 1 yr old infant, regardless of its dependence on the mother.

REsponse:
We agree at one years old the baby is not to be killed. What we disagree on apparently is where the baby is located at one year.

Alan wrote:
Dependence, or even a parasitic relationship,

Response:
A baby is not a parasite. A foetus is not a parasite. I don't know where you get the "parasitic" thing.

Alan wrote:
does not alter the biological facts of a situation

Response: that phrase does not make sense. I think you have fooled yourself. If you are saying
"dependence" of a 1 year old is the same as "dependence" of a 3 month old, you should prove it. You already proved that you recognize it is not particularly obvious, or you would not have tried to finesse this "same as" thru..

Alan:
"where there are two creatures present, e.g. when a woman is with child: 1. woman, 2. child."

Precisely the question at hand. Is the three month old foetus a child? You say it is. And as proof, you say again that it is. There are many consequential issues in life that require more proof than this.

Alan:
"People who deliberately trigger so-called out-of-body-experiences have written how to do this"

Although interesting, your anecdotes about soul do not comprise a convincing definition of soul. I am sure I'm not being stubborn. I'm looking for a level of evidence comparable to that which would be needed in any other situation.

YOu write some interesting ideas. Some of them are not complete enough to stand as justification for law or even for shaming anyone out of what they do. It's just not there. If you think it is, please say so in the concisest manner possible. A lot of logic gets lost in a little wandering to example, and examples are not proof
though they may illustrate a proof.

Mike

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins