True, or, false: anything the mind can concieve and believe it can achieve?
Tree Top TT
2012/07/06 01:52:05
|
|
|||||
|
40 votes
|
|
53% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
17% | |||
|
20 votes
|
|
26% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
4% | |||
Top Opinion
-
Wayne TH G 333 2012/07/06 01:59:21
I believe the power of the mind is a vastly untapped resource.
As the saying goes "somethings have to be believed to be seen" and this to me means knowing deep down in your soul that it is truly possible which is not an easy task.
And would that make mushrooms like cattle?
Seriously, there are things simply beyond our ability to achieve. At forty-four, I am never going to become a professional linebacker for an NFL team.
If life begins at conception, then all women were designed to commit murder. After all, up to one third of all fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterine wall.
Now, you wish to shift the moment that life begins from conception to the moment the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall. Since we are randomly deciding when life begins, why not shift the moment to nine months later when the human infant emerges from the womb?
Obviously, a newly fertilized egg is not viable outside of the womb; however, a fetus does become potentially viable some months prior to birth.
You may think that the Biblical manuscripts wholly supports the pro-life movement, but you would be wrong. As it is on many subjects, the bible is ambiguous. Actually, the Bible explicitly teaches that the killing of a fetus prior to birth is very different from the killing of post-birth human beings. Consider the following passage from Exodus in which taking the life of a fetus is punishable by a fine, but the taking of the mother's life is punishable by death.
Exodus 21:22-25
New International Version
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender mu...
Now, you wish to shift the moment that life begins from conception to the moment the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall. Since we are randomly deciding when life begins, why not shift the moment to nine months later when the human infant emerges from the womb?
Obviously, a newly fertilized egg is not viable outside of the womb; however, a fetus does become potentially viable some months prior to birth.
You may think that the Biblical manuscripts wholly supports the pro-life movement, but you would be wrong. As it is on many subjects, the bible is ambiguous. Actually, the Bible explicitly teaches that the killing of a fetus prior to birth is very different from the killing of post-birth human beings. Consider the following passage from Exodus in which taking the life of a fetus is punishable by a fine, but the taking of the mother's life is punishable by death.
Exodus 21:22-25
New International Version
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.
23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Before you attempt to apologize for the bible, bear in mind that the writers of the biblical manuscripts lived in a world in which abortions took place. The first recorded evidence of induced abortion is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE. The practice was common in the world in which Jesus resided. Plato mentions a midwife's ability to induce abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. In light of this, it is strange that none of the Biblical manuscripts address the subject of abortion directly. The silence upon the subject suggests acceptance.
This is why I am pro-choice. Neither science nor religion can agree upon the precise moment that life begins. Therefore, the pregnant woman should be afforded the freedom to decide for herself what is moral.
You are misusing the word conception. It is a biological and medical term with a very precise meaning. Conception occurs with the fusion of the ovum and the sperm. Conception has already taken place when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall. You are free to believe that life begins when the egg attaches to the uterine wall; however, if you do so, then you do not believe that life begins at conception. If you don't like it, take it up with
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary.
con·cep·tion (kn-spshn)
n.
1. The act of forming a general idea or notion.
2. The formation of a viable zygote by the union of a spermatozoon and an ovum; fertilization.
3. See concept.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
While you may dismiss the notion, people’s opinions are often turned into law. I am pleased that you don’t want your position on abortion to become the law of the land.
“However, I did notice that your Medical Dictionary used the words "forming a GENERAL idea or notion". How far could we stretch that, do you suppose?”
I don’t think we could stretch that definition of the word far enough to produce an actual baby. These are two wholly different definitions for the same word. One deals with the abstract realm of thoughts and ideas, while the other deals with the concrete reality of biological reproduction. The two should not be conflated into one.
There is a popular misconception that the Biblical text is unambiguous in its opposition to the practice of abortion. This is not the case. Neither science nor religion has given us a clear definition on when life commences. This is why I am pro-choice. Each individual should have the right to decide for themselves what is ethical regarding abortion.
I am vaguely familiar with the state laws that treat a fetus as a person in circumstances like the one you described. I am not entirely pleased by such legislation. Obviously, it is inconsistent with current laws allowing women to terminate unwanted pregnancies; however, it does allow for one to seek redress for the loss or imperilment of the fetus.
So long as such legislation does not prevent a woman from controlling what transpires within her own body, I do not object to it. I am not happy about the obvious inconsistency in the law, but it is an unhappiness I can accept.