John Oliver discusses the ongoing fallout from the overturning of Roe v. Wade as the November elections approach.Connect with Last Week Tonight online... Sub...
Is your belief that life begins at conception religiously founded?
The Bible prescribes an abortion (which would be murdering an innocent bystander, if the fetus was a person) as the punishment for adultery (Numbers 5).
Oddly, before 1980, there was no majority Christian consensus on when life began. When Roe v Wade dropped, the largest evangelical denomination called it, “a distinctly Catholic issue”.
For the vast majority of Christian history it was generally held that life began at the quickening, the first time the mother felt the baby kick. This was considered the moment of ensoulment, literally when the soul entered the body.
Unfortunately, due to the antisemitic influence of Rome hijacking Christianity, that’s a very Greek and neo-platonic view of when life began.
In Hebrew, spirit (ruach) means wind; the invisible force that brings life, the breath of God. Soul (naphesh) just means throat, it is the channel by which we breath in the life of God. So as many ancient and modern Jews believe, as would the early christians, life begins at first breath.
Of course, we’re not bound to ancient views, which is why Roe v Wade determined viability outside the womb would be the standard point of protection, which is makes a lot of sense.
You are free to believe that life begins at conception. This is an issue people have discussed and debated for as long as we’ve been alive.
You can’t believe that your view is explicitly taught by the Bible or is even the view of the majority of Christians for most of history.
The evangelical view of life beginning at conception began in the late 70’s as a political wedge issue that tested incredibly well with audiences so people like Jerry Falwell began beating the drum in order to build political clout.
I’m agnostic. I believe that a fetus has a right to life, same as anyone else. The situation is a bit complicated, sure, but the right to life is pretty basic.
Then viability seems an eminently reasonable threshold. If you’re agnostic, there’s no intrinsic value to a clump of cells. If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own but can’t by virtue of being stuck in place it deserves protection.
Of course, when it’s threatening the life of the mother then even though there’s no malice or intent, it is legally justifiable to treat it as we would anyone else who would threaten a woman’s life.
It has no life to have a right to until it’s born.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
A fetus does not have a right to life, but the mother does.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
This does not really prove any point. Should people with memory issues be killed too? They don’t remember any of their goals/aspirations/experiences, so they aren’t alive according to you. There is evidence that babies in the womb are affected by their experience in the womb.
A fetus does not have a right to life
Why not? You just make that claim without really backing it up.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
People are allowed to give their opinions on a topic. Maybe you argue online for a feeling of superiority but that doesn’t mean everyone does.
Is a person with memory issues entirely dependant for survival upon the use of another person’s body without their consent? If yes, then that person gets to decide to withdraw all care at any time.
Yes. Someone with intense mental issues cannot live without the body of another human serving them. That doesn’t mean you are allowed to intentionally murder them. There are ways for babies to survive outside the womb.
No, a person with memory issues is not dependent on any single person’s body for survival. They are dependent upon any person who offers to put in the work, and that person can quit the job at any time without penalty. Someone else will replace them quite easily.
We don’t put slaves in charge of the care for the mentally handicapped. A woman who wants to be a mother does so voluntarily. But if you force a woman to keep a baby when she doesn’t want to, you are forcing her to labor. You are making her a slave. And lethal force to escape slavery is always self defense.
That’s why the example you gave is bad and irrelevant
The next time some lemmy user says no one is wanting 3rd trimester abortions, Im going to link your comment. Its not going to do anything but waste time, but its going to be funny.
No one who carries a fetus to the third trimester wants an abortion. Almost all third trimester abortions are health emergencies for women who are trying to be mothers.
The idea that anyone would carry a pregnancy to the point your body is undergoing irrevocable changes just because they couldn’t be bothered to get around to it is absurd.
A third trimester abortion is painful, traumatic and difficult compared to a drug-induced first trimester abortion.
Is your belief that life begins at conception religiously founded?
The Bible prescribes an abortion (which would be murdering an innocent bystander, if the fetus was a person) as the punishment for adultery (Numbers 5).
Oddly, before 1980, there was no majority Christian consensus on when life began. When Roe v Wade dropped, the largest evangelical denomination called it, “a distinctly Catholic issue”.
For the vast majority of Christian history it was generally held that life began at the quickening, the first time the mother felt the baby kick. This was considered the moment of ensoulment, literally when the soul entered the body.
Unfortunately, due to the antisemitic influence of Rome hijacking Christianity, that’s a very Greek and neo-platonic view of when life began.
In Hebrew, spirit (ruach) means wind; the invisible force that brings life, the breath of God. Soul (naphesh) just means throat, it is the channel by which we breath in the life of God. So as many ancient and modern Jews believe, as would the early christians, life begins at first breath.
Of course, we’re not bound to ancient views, which is why Roe v Wade determined viability outside the womb would be the standard point of protection, which is makes a lot of sense.
You are free to believe that life begins at conception. This is an issue people have discussed and debated for as long as we’ve been alive.
You can’t believe that your view is explicitly taught by the Bible or is even the view of the majority of Christians for most of history.
The evangelical view of life beginning at conception began in the late 70’s as a political wedge issue that tested incredibly well with audiences so people like Jerry Falwell began beating the drum in order to build political clout.
I’m agnostic. I believe that a fetus has a right to life, same as anyone else. The situation is a bit complicated, sure, but the right to life is pretty basic.
Then viability seems an eminently reasonable threshold. If you’re agnostic, there’s no intrinsic value to a clump of cells. If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own but can’t by virtue of being stuck in place it deserves protection.
Of course, when it’s threatening the life of the mother then even though there’s no malice or intent, it is legally justifiable to treat it as we would anyone else who would threaten a woman’s life.
It has no life to have a right to until it’s born.
Go ahead and tell me about all the experiences you had in your mother’s womb. About the goals and aspirations you had before you came out. Tell me about your experiences, your emotional fortitude, hell, tell me anything at all about the time before you were born, from your perspective.
A fetus does not have a right to life, but the mother does.
Your views are getting real people with all their dreams, aspirations, goals, hopes, etc. killed, just so you can feel a warped sense of false moral superiority for a few minutes on the Internet.
This does not really prove any point. Should people with memory issues be killed too? They don’t remember any of their goals/aspirations/experiences, so they aren’t alive according to you. There is evidence that babies in the womb are affected by their experience in the womb.
Why not? You just make that claim without really backing it up.
People are allowed to give their opinions on a topic. Maybe you argue online for a feeling of superiority but that doesn’t mean everyone does.
Is a person with memory issues entirely dependant for survival upon the use of another person’s body without their consent? If yes, then that person gets to decide to withdraw all care at any time.
Yes. Someone with intense mental issues cannot live without the body of another human serving them. That doesn’t mean you are allowed to intentionally murder them. There are ways for babies to survive outside the womb.
No, a person with memory issues is not dependent on any single person’s body for survival. They are dependent upon any person who offers to put in the work, and that person can quit the job at any time without penalty. Someone else will replace them quite easily.
We don’t put slaves in charge of the care for the mentally handicapped. A woman who wants to be a mother does so voluntarily. But if you force a woman to keep a baby when she doesn’t want to, you are forcing her to labor. You are making her a slave. And lethal force to escape slavery is always self defense.
That’s why the example you gave is bad and irrelevant
The next time some lemmy user says no one is wanting 3rd trimester abortions, Im going to link your comment. Its not going to do anything but waste time, but its going to be funny.
This isn’t the winning strategy you think it is.
I’d explain it, but I don’t have the time or crayons for you.
Oh I know full-well its not a winning strategy.
funny how you tap out when he got you cornered
Nah, they won and you lost. And you’ll keep losing all the way to a jail cell where you and the other fascists belong.
that wasn’t me arguing you know
It’s been you this whole time, and arguing quite poorly.
No one who carries a fetus to the third trimester wants an abortion. Almost all third trimester abortions are health emergencies for women who are trying to be mothers.
The idea that anyone would carry a pregnancy to the point your body is undergoing irrevocable changes just because they couldn’t be bothered to get around to it is absurd.
A third trimester abortion is painful, traumatic and difficult compared to a drug-induced first trimester abortion.
https://lemmy.one/comment/4509649
Should women who are raped be forced to bring a resulting pregnancy to term?