I am an abortion consequentialist, and if you're smart, you are too

No that was the beginning of Rome... You must have forgot Rome was Christian before it fell...

 

Heh, religious revisionism in action..

Sparta also practiced eugenics, as any fan of 300 will know It was eventually conquered by early, pre-Christian Rome.

Slavery had been commonplace in both systems and in many others of the time. You ever hear about the great Roman emancipation after the conversion to Catholicism? .... Neither have I

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

... Christianity was as much a tool of social control as any other. It served Rome's purposes well as a uniting force, and one which would encourage the common rabble to obey their government.

 

So the Roman Empire survived as Christian till the 14th century fall of Byzantium... Kept slaves too...
Revisionism..? Not me...

 

Basically. This was because the empire became Christian under Constantine. Holy crap, if it weren't for him most of us probably wouldn't know much about Christianity.

 

Doesn't abortion take away the unborn child's choice? They are human and they are living aren't they? They might be small and growing but they are no less human than you are. But you condone this actions…killing them. How is that right?

You are the one is sadly is wrong.

 

Something which doesn't even have the innate ability to make a choice can't make a choice. Do trees make choices? Fences? What about human bones? Hair? Fingernails? Does your heart choose to beat? Does your stomach choose to digest your food? This isn't a case of a fetus at one time having the ability to choose and then losing it due to injury or illness as would be the case for someone already born. It never had it, ever. We don't give a fetus a "choice" because a fetus can't make decisions. The mother, however, can. A fetus is not even aware of it's own existence.

Once you're born, you're here. You are a person with a social security number and the full protection of the law. Prior to that(and as I've said before, I'm completely willing to compromise on a cut-off date for elective abortions(Those abortions not necessary for the mother's health or the presence of birth defects). No, that does not mean I am "unsure" about abortion. It means I want to compromise so that we all get something we want. I want women to have access to abortions if they desire one. You don't. An obvious compromise that would still allow access but cut down on the amount of abortion procedures performed would be to agree on a cut-off date.

 

Junkieturtle said,

For you to compare a living human being to tree or fence is idiotic. Like it or not…the unborn is human and alive. It is not some inanimate object. Let me ask you this…..

Can a newborn hold its head up?
Can a newborn answer a question?
Can a newborn make a decision?
Can a newborn talk?
Can a newborn take care of itself in any way?
What can a newborn do one minute after its born…that it could do in the womb?
Does a newborn know its parents?
Can a newborn tell the doctor it does not want to be circumcised?
What can a newborn do?
Can the newborn make a decision of any kind?

Would it be acceptable for the law to give the mother the right to kill her newborn who can't do anything different than it did while in the womb?

So one second before birth it was not a person. LMAO

Cut off date? LMAO Its the woman's body remember skippy. What about her rights? Where did those rights go?

This is not and should not be about us. This is all about the unborn….that you don't seem to recognize.

And God forbid when is your cut off date? When does the woman stop owning her own body. LMAO

 

Trees are alive too. But my point wasn't to compare a fetus directly to a tree, but rather to compare the ability to make choices. Neither one of those things are able to make choices, even simple ones, choices that you and I as developed adults would not even consider to be a "choice".

And again, the cut-off is birth. After you're born, the laws governing you change. You are no longer a fetus inside your mother, you're a person outside of it with a SS number and rights. There's an extremely obvious distinction between a fetus and a newborn baby, so when you try to take arguments made regarding a fetus and extend them after birth, you're purposefully ignoring that distinction and basically being dishonest.

That argument is really no different than if I were trying to argue that dead people should be able to go to the movies because they were able to and allowed to by law while they were alive.

 

I can't believe that you, as an experienced mother and grandmother (at least according to your posts), would say the newborn is the same as the fetus. I must point out yet again that a fetus is physically dependent (dependent physically upon ONE person only for its very life), while the newborn is socially dependent (dependent upon anyone is society to care for it). A newborn is sustaining its own life, while the fetus's life is sustained by a host. It seems your tactic is once again to minimize the difference between newborn and fetus in order to make the fetus more emotionally appealing. Just as minimizing the cost of pregnancy/childbirth to the woman makes it easier to require that she endure it.

 

Yes, it would be acceptable.

I agree, its stupid to say a human fetus becomes a person immediately after birth, just as its stupid to say there is something inherently valuable about human life generally.

Only at around 26-28 days after birth does a child have self-awareness and self-consciousness etc. I for one, due to the risk of possibly killing a self-aware being after birth, am opposed to infanticide, as a general rule, for that reason. Most philosophers with this position have the same reasoning. But as I say, its a general rule, not set in stone - like any right or law we create.

 

The reality is though, despite churchmouse's dubious, often highly offensive and downright indecent tactics, there is little to no difference between a fetus and a new-born baby around the time of birth.