Abortion and Crime Rates [W:115]

iangb · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
Stuff

All of this is based on the assumption that the developing embryo is a human being. The Supreme Court did not make that assumption - in fact, they found that on balance of all the evidence it was an assumption for which there was insufficient proof to make. Given that your legal argument rests on an assumption which the highest court in the land has found to be flawed, the rest of your argument is equally so.

JayDubya said:
"Society."
Aaaaand there's the root of your particular evil - collectivism.
Individual humans have natural rights - who gives a **** about "society?"

Society is composed of individual humans. If you care about humans, caring about society is part of that.

JayDubya · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

iangb said:
All of this is based on the assumption that the developing embryo is a human being.

That's not an assumption, it's a scientific fact.

The Supreme Court did not make that assumption

Well that just goes to show what absolute idiots were on the court at the time given that no assumptions needed to be made whatsoever. Good thing we can theoretically get non-idiots to replace them.

minnie616 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

celticwar17 said:
Awesome... thanks for the reply... if you do not mind, I will make an argument from which I think this may be flawed. Please tell me how, if I am thinking incorrectly. I have 3 points, it would be great if you could demonstrate against all of them.

#1
First off, in the situation it brings up in this verse it appears to address that two men are fighting, and the man from which is not the husband accidentally bumps into the wife and cause a miscarriage. Kind of a manslaughter case. If you accidentally kill someone or something, you are in debt to those you committed the accidental crime to.

I'm afraid it does not suggest a purposeful termination of the pregnancy... otherwise, it would not bring up "that when men fight". please tell me how this is not the case. This argument seems to be more and more solid when I look at multiple interpretations and the literal greek translations.

It does not need to suggest intentional killing.
As you pointed out the Bible said, an eye for an eye.

Yet , " the fruit of the womb" was not considered a life/person before birth.

#2
Your argument is, since this case shows that a fetus in the bible is killed and the man responsible is not punished by death, but instead by will of the fetus' father... then the fetus is not a human because if a human is killed, the guilty party is punished with death. And since the human fetus is not judged equally as a human in this case, then this justifies that abortion should be allowed until after birth. From what we did learn from this passage is that the punishment of terminating a fetus is up to the father of said fetus? right? Isn't that what you should believe? or am I wrong?

A fetus is human , but I was talking about ensoulment.
My religion and the Jewish faith also teaches us that ensoulment happens at birth when the infant takes it first breath...the breath of life.

From the following

It is interesting to note that in the Genesis account of Adam’s creation it is said that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”–not into his body, mouth, or lungs, but the nose–“and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). “Nostrils…living soul” indicates that breath awareness at nosetip makes us conscious–aware of spirit. Three more times in Genesis (6:17; 7:15, 22) we find the expression “breath of life,” and in each instance breath is equated with life itself. In seven further instances in the Bible, the life principle is referred to, not just as the breath, but as the breath in the nostrils (Genesis 7:22; II Samuel 22:16; Job 4:9; 27:3; Psalms 18:15; Isaiah 2:22; Lamentations 4:20). This cannot be without significance. This verse, however, tells us more.
First, we learn that the breath comes directly from God, second, that through it “man became a living soul”–it is the breath that makes the psychic part of our makeup to live, just as it makes the body live. From this it becomes evident that the breath and spirit are the same; that the breath of life is the spirit of life–and ultimately is Divinity Itself. “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (Job 33:4).

- See more at:

http://breathmeditation.org/the-jewish-tradition-of-breath-meditation

#3
Matthew 19:6
"So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Is this not a direct command from God than man cannot separate from which he created. A fetus is a unique genetic living entity and was made whole by the miracle of conception.

That quote refers to marriage, not pregnancy.

iangb · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
That's not an assumption, it's a scientific fact.

That's just your assumption, as mentioned above - and as something you have repeatedly failed to prove.

Well that just goes to show what absolute idiots were on the court at the time given that no assumptions needed to be made whatsoever. Good thing we can theoretically get non-idiots to replace them.

It is quite telling about the strength of your position that it requires quite so many experts to be 'idiots'.

JayDubya · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

iangb said:
That's just your assumption, as mentioned above

No, that's a scientific fact, as mentioned above.

With the exception of those yet to come into existence or those we have yet to encounter, every living organism in our universe belongs to one species or another.

The only assumption being made when referring to the unborn as "human beings" is that when two Homo sapiens have created offspring, those offspring do not in and of themselves represent a speciation event.

Statistically speaking, that is a safe assumption.

iangb · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
No, that's a scientific fact, as mentioned above.

With the exception of those yet to come into existence or those we have yet to encounter, every living organism in our universe belongs to one species or another.

It's an assumption based on your underlying assumptions you have exposed here: namely

1) that an 'organism' has a universally-correct definition which is supported by the scientific method (namely experiment and empirical evidence).
2) that a zygote/embryo meets this definition.

Since 1) is certainly not the case and 2) is often not, your argument is flawed. But then, you know this; I have posted multiple evidences in the past and your response has been denial and dismissal without justification - calling yet more experts 'idiots'. Like I said; telling.

prometeus · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

Bob Blaylock said:
Since when is it a “religious belief” to hold that every human being has a right not to be summarily killed?

Since no rational intelligent person equates a single cell with a human being.

prometeus · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
"Society."

Aaaaand there's the root of your particular evil - collectivism.

Individual humans have natural rights - who gives a **** about "society?"

BS. Nature cares as much about humans as you do, especially once born.

prometeus · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
That's not an assumption, it's a scientific fact.

No it is only your unsupported meaningless assertion. Note once have you ever produced any evidence to support this asinine assertion.

calamity · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
"Society."

Aaaaand there's the root of your particular evil - collectivism.

Individual humans have natural rights - who gives a **** about "society?"

:roll:

calamity · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
Off the charts? His assertion is 100% accurate.

...

In the abstract, it's an interesting argument, if you fall for that sort of thing. In reality, as a matter of pragmatism in dealing with the day to day in the real world, not so much.

TurtleDude · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

Bob Blaylock said:
Since when is it a “religious belief” to hold that every human being has a right not to be summarily killed? This should be seen as among the most obvious and basic of ethical principles; regardless of any religious beliefs that one may or may not have.

And if you're going to advocate and defend indiscriminate mass murder as a means of crime reduction, then would it not make more sense to round up and kill those who have lived long enough to demonstrate that they have more relevant traits than just their ethnic and social background to indicate that they are likely to become criminals? Instead of killing babies who have not yet had the chance to demonstrate anything of their character, why not kill drug abusers, abortion-rights supporters, liberals, and others who have clearly demonstrated traits that indicate a clear lack of respect for human life and human rights? And, of course, those who actually have past histories of criminal activity. This would surely bring about a greater reduction in crime, for a sacrifice of fewer lives. Of course, it would still be wrong, but it's not quite as far across the line as you already had to go to defend slaughtering innocent children.

a lump of cells is not human being

I oppose partial birth abortion or late term abortion except in extreme cases.

TurtleDude · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
Off the charts? His assertion is 100% accurate.

Well great.

Really? Any other populations you want to have legally killed in order to promote your greater good?

Just using some really basic demography statistics, I bet we could figure out where most crime was coming from. But why stop at crime? I mean, the welfare state is an awful thing, so why not lessen its burden some? We could just send out the abortion trucks to collect folks, like in that Phillip Dick novel. Or hell, let's just Logan's Run this bitch and wipe out all the senior citizens, right, cause those deadbeats already had their meaningful period of contributing to society anyway?

It is very easy to employ reductio ad absurdum on this peculiar Freakonomics argument because the premise itself is so absurd. "If we just kill a bunch of folks, crime might go down." Yay?

Even if true, one would have to be malevolent and ruthless in their pursuit of utilitarianism, defining good as what supports 50.00000000000...001% of the population and anything goes with the remainder. The point of a republic form of government is that it is supposed to stop such nonsense.

You could say that about any violent act whatsoever. I assume you still want jails to put folks in for theft and rape and assault and so forth. I think we should put people in there for homicide, too - at least homicide perpetrated in aggression - but clearly you don't agree.

Eh. Abolition of slavery was largely driven by the ethics of those with religious motives, too.

For some, religion drives them to be ethical and responsible people and to despise aggressive violence and cruelty. Whatever your motivations, those impulses of wanting to protect the innocent against aggressive violence and cruelty have inherent value independent of any particular religion.

so who do you arrest

you see if you don't punish real crimes-victims will take the law into their own hands

think about it

JayDubya · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

All perpetrators of aggressive violence, regardless of the age of their victims.

That's who the state is supposed to arrest. If the state won't do that, it has no value.

Zyphlin · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

Moderator's Warning:

Folks, the level of flaming and baiting in this thread needs to lower dramatically. That includes the continual attempts of various posters to flame in am abiguous, but clear, fashion in terms of calling people vile/evil or dumb. Tone down the rhetoric and stick to discussing the topic without the unnecessary bait

RAMOSS · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

celticwar17 said:
Uhm... I just looked that bible verse up... and it seems to say the exact opposite

“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] 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,"

I am not very versed in the bible.... but why was your quote so wrong?
or show me how I'm wrong

If you read the talmud commentary on that passage, the 'injury' is to the woman, not the fetus. There also is a mistranslation on that, because it isn't gives birth prematurely, but 'miscarries' . From Exodus - Chapter 21 (Parshah Mishpatim) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].

Also, you can turn on Rashi's commentary (Rashi was a 11th century Rabbi, so his commentary about it will not reflect modern discourse about Abortion for translation)

The entire discourse is

And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. כב. וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים:
And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a] וכי ינצו אנשים: זה עם זה, ונתכוין להכות את חבירו והכה את האשה:
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14). ונגפו: אין נגיפה אלא לשון דחיפה והכאה, כמו (תהלים צא יב) פן תגוף באבן רגלך, (ירמיה יג טז) ובטרם יתנגפו רגליכם, (ישעיה ח יד) ולאבן נגף:
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan] ולא יהיה אסון: באשה:
he shall surely be punished: to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a] ענוש יענש: לשלם דמי ולדות לבעל שמין אותה, כמה היתה ראויה למכר בשוק להעלות בדמיה בשביל הריונה:
he shall surely be punished: Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta] ענוש יענש: יגבו ממון ממנו, כמו (דברים כב יט) וענשו אותו מאה כסף:
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him: When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that. כאשר ישית עליו וגו': כשיתבנעו הבעל בבית דין להשית עליו עונש על כך:
and he shall give [restitution]: The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses. ונתן: המכה דמי ולדות:
according to the judges: Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta] בפלילים: על פי הדיינים:

celticwar17 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

prometeus said:
Since no rational intelligent person equates a single cell with a human being.

That is wrong... there are many rational people who do, and many who don't.

celticwar17 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

RAMOSS said:
If you read the talmud commentary on that passage, the 'injury' is to the woman, not the fetus. There also is a mistranslation on that, because it isn't gives birth prematurely, but 'miscarries' . From Exodus - Chapter 21 (Parshah Mishpatim) - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

Also, you can turn on Rashi's commentary (Rashi was a 11th century Rabbi, so his commentary about it will not reflect modern discourse about Abortion for translation)

The entire discourse is

You did not see my points
#1
First off, in the situation it brings up in this verse it appears to address that two men are fighting, and the man from which is not the husband accidentally bumps into the wife and cause a miscarriage. Kind of a manslaughter case. If you accidentally kill someone or something, you are in debt to those you committed the accidental crime to.

I'm afraid it does not suggest a purposeful termination of the pregnancy... otherwise, it would not bring up "that when men fight". please tell me how this is not the case. This argument seems to be more and more solid when I look at multiple interpretations and the literal greek translations.

#2
Your argument is, since this case shows that a fetus in the bible is killed and the man responsible is not punished by death, but instead by will of the fetus' father... then the fetus is not a human because if a human is killed, the guilty party is punished with death. And since the human fetus is not judged equally as a human in this case, then this justifies that abortion should be allowed until after birth. From what we did learn from this passage is that the punishment of terminating a fetus is up to the father of said fetus? right? Isn't that what you should believe? or am I wrong?

#3
Matthew 19:6
"So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Is this not a direct command from God than man cannot separate from which he created. A fetus is a unique genetic living entity and was made whole by the miracle of conception.

RAMOSS · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

celticwar17 said:
You did not see my points
#1
First off, in the situation it brings up in this verse it appears to address that two men are fighting, and the man from which is not the husband accidentally bumps into the wife and cause a miscarriage. Kind of a manslaughter case. If you accidentally kill someone or something, you are in debt to those you committed the accidental crime to.

I'm afraid it does not suggest a purposeful termination of the pregnancy... otherwise, it would not bring up "that when men fight". please tell me how this is not the case. This argument seems to be more and more solid when I look at multiple interpretations and the literal greek translations.

#2
Your argument is, since this case shows that a fetus in the bible is killed and the man responsible is not punished by death, but instead by will of the fetus' father... then the fetus is not a human because if a human is killed, the guilty party is punished with death. And since the human fetus is not judged equally as a human in this case, then this justifies that abortion should be allowed until after birth. From what we did learn from this passage is that the punishment of terminating a fetus is up to the father of said fetus? right? Isn't that what you should believe? or am I wrong?

#3
Matthew 19:6
"So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Is this not a direct command from God than man cannot separate from which he created. A fetus is a unique genetic living entity and was made whole by the miracle of conception.

From a Exodus point of view, it is not a 'premature birth', but the termination of a pregnancy.. a miscarriage. It is not given the same kind of penalty as a 'death', but the fetus is instead given a financial quantity. What Matthew says is totally irrelevant , nor does it address the value of a fetus.

You are reading into your presumptions into the ancient texts, rather than reading what the text say about what they felt at that time period.

celticwar17 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

RAMOSS said:
From a Exodus point of view, it is not a 'premature birth', but the termination of a pregnancy.. a miscarriage. It is not given the same kind of penalty as a 'death', but the fetus is instead given a financial quantity. What Matthew says is totally irrelevant , nor does it address the value of a fetus.

You are reading into your presumptions into the ancient texts, rather than reading what the text say about what they felt at that time period.

I don't believe you are giving my points honest consideration...

celticwar17 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

minnie616 said:
It does not need to suggest intentional killing.

Whynot? This case they did suggest was non-intentional killing.
I think I am quite good at this... maybe I should be a Christian apologist

minnie616 said:
As you pointed out the Bible said, an eye for an eye.

Deuteronomy 19
4 Now this is the law pertaining to one who flees there in order to live, if he has accidentally killed another without hating him at the time of the accident. 5 Suppose he goes with someone else to the forest to cut wood and when he raises the ax to cut the tree, the ax head flies loose from the handle and strikes his fellow worker so hard that he dies. The person responsible may then flee to one of these cities to save himself. 6 Otherwise the blood avenger will chase after the killer in the heat of his anger, eventually overtake him, and kill him, though this is not a capital case since he did not hate him at the time of the accident.

This seems to directly contradict your claim.

minnie616 said:
Yet , " the fruit of the womb" was not considered a life/person before birth.

A fetus is human , but I was talking about ensoulment.
My religion and the Jewish faith also teaches us that ensoulment happens at birth when the infant takes it first breath...the breath of life.

From the following

- See more at:

The Jewish Tradition of Breath Meditation
.

I am afraid this seems to only refer to when God first created man... Just like in Genesis an woman was created from a rib, right? That is not how woman are created today... they are created in the womb. Thus, how God directly created us in the beginning was different than how he creates us now.

minnie616 said:
That quote refers to marriage, not pregnancy
.

Whynot? It seems a pretty broad statement... pregnancy and a child IS something that from which both husband and wife become one. A child is the living entity of that union.

joko104 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
That's not an assumption, it's a scientific fact.

No it's not. It's just two words defined however the person using it intends the usage of those two words. There is not definition of a word that is a scientific fact. That's an absurd claim.

iangb · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

Realise I'm not RAMOSS, but my two cents are:

celticwar17 said:
You did not see my points
#1
First off, in the situation it brings up in this verse it appears to address that two men are fighting, and the man from which is not the husband accidentally bumps into the wife and cause a miscarriage. Kind of a manslaughter case. If you accidentally kill someone or something, you are in debt to those you committed the accidental crime to.

I'm afraid it does not suggest a purposeful termination of the pregnancy... otherwise, it would not bring up "that when men fight". please tell me how this is not the case. This argument seems to be more and more solid when I look at multiple interpretations and the literal greek translations.

This is not quite the case, since if harm is accidentally done to the woman then the 'eye for eye, life for life' rule applies, whereas harm accidentally done to the foetus is only compensated by money, which other Exodus verses normally apply to destruction of property, not of human life. This implies that a foetus is seen as property, not as a person.

joko104 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

JayDubya said:
Individual humans have natural rights - who gives a **** about "society?"

You don't. In your statement you should only care about yourself - which seems consistent with your messages.

So stop worrying about the societal issue of abortion. Just about your own "natural rights" and an "individual human."

celticwar17 · Feb 5, 2015

Re: Abortion and Crime Rates

iangb said:
Realise I'm not RAMOSS, but my two cents are:This is not quite the case, since if harm is accidentally done to the woman then the 'eye for eye, life for life' rule applies, whereas harm accidentally done to the foetus is only compensated by money, which other Exodus verses normally apply to destruction of property, not of human life. This implies that a foetus is seen as property, not as a person.

Deuteronomy 19
4 Now this is the law pertaining to one who flees there in order to live, if he has accidentally killed another without hating him at the time of the accident. 5 Suppose he goes with someone else to the forest to cut wood and when he raises the ax to cut the tree, the ax head flies loose from the handle and strikes his fellow worker so hard that he dies. The person responsible may then flee to one of these cities to save himself. 6 Otherwise the blood avenger will chase after the killer in the heat of his anger, eventually overtake him, and kill him, though this is not a capital case since he did not hate him at the time of the accident.

This seems to directly contradict your claim.

Abortion and Crime Rates [W:115]

iangb

Lurker

JayDubya

Struggler

minnie616

iangb

Lurker

JayDubya

Struggler

iangb

Lurker

prometeus

prometeus

prometeus

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

JayDubya

Struggler

Zyphlin

RAMOSS

celticwar17

celticwar17

RAMOSS

celticwar17

celticwar17

joko104

iangb

Lurker

joko104

celticwar17