So, let me get this straight: A woman on an island, who lives among a small tribe decides she doesn't want to raise her baby "because the baby's interests are in conflict with my interests," and because "this baby is warring against my life." She goes to the tribe and tries to find a taker. Nobody wants her baby. Nobody will take care of it. So she goes out into the woods and strangles it, and gives it a dirt nap.

Not murder?

You still don't get it. Another way to look at it is that a fetus must use the mother's body in a freeloading or parasitical way. Some hold the position that this alone is grounds for a mother to terminate pregnancy at any time.

After birth however, it becomes a very different story as it is no longer dependent on the mother's body and to kill it would in fact, be murderous.

+1

You have just said absolutely nothing relevant. It is almost like you didn't read my post, so have reflexively started spouting out tired cliches like a machine gun.

In my example, it is absolutely dependent on the mother. Society does not want it. They will not take it.

I find it boggling and somewhat abhorrent that some of the same people slamming God for his flood are dubbing babies parasites and freeloaders and speaking of them as if they were soldiers whose sole purpose in life is to kill their mothers.

Not just that, either. It is pretty revealing.

If she decides during, and were to end the pregnancy, it's not murder.
If she has decided already, completes her pregnancy and then just strangle him right-away, it's murder.
If the child had been born already and decides she's no longer interested in it and then strangles him, it's murder.

I think he's having a little fun and being somewhat sardonic. I just was pointing out that obvious fact.

Well, obviously a finite time is not comparable to eternity, but that's neither here nor there. As for Jesus, one thing I will say is that he sacrificed more than just his body by dying, but he lived his entire life as a sacrifice. It's something that's overlooked, it's not like he was out doing whatever he wanted until it came time to die, his life was that of a lowly servant of abuse and mockery. He is called "the man of sorrows" for a reason.

My point was that you can speak cynically about virtually anything to make it more absurd. A greater point is that I think that reality in itself IS absurd to begin with, regardless of your philosophy. An infinite God doesn't make logical sense, nor does a universe being created with no real answers as to why. Sooner or later we run into the problem of infinity, or we circle around in, but I still don't accept it as logical, given my understanding.

I understand your objection, you reject the idea of God, and that his character is moral, because hell exists. I appreciate your perspective, I wasn't always a Christian, but I respectfully disagree with you. What I do not disagree with you about is your outrage, but I don't think we share the same perspective on God, and I do think that some of your conclusions are based on your disapproval.

How about I respectfully recap the basic views one more time for simplicity, and because neeeel had asked for me to clear it up as well:

-God is omni-benevolent and holy.
-He created people (as love would dictate) to be with him.
-He gave them free will to choose to love him, anything else would not be real love, but robotic.
-Free will results in sin which he can't unite himself with.
-He sacrificed his son that our sins may be paid for by his perfect (sinless) death, and justice met.
-When people accept Jesus and his sacrifice, they become holy, in the present and active sense, and perfected at death.
-Those who do not accept Christ, cannot be with God, since he cannot be with sin.
-He is grieved that some do not choose him, but he cannot save them unless they are willing, and unless they are holy.

It's possible that you just don't possess the cognitive ability to understand what's being explained to you. I'll try one more time...

In your example, the child is not absolutely dependent on the mother (no matter how many times you insist that it is). It does not matter if society does not want it. The fact remains that it is physically possible for it to survive outside its mother's womb and without the mother entirely. Therefore, it has a right to life and to kill it would be murderous.

The overall premise is that no living organism has an inalienable right to continue life if it must depend on an unwilling organism's body to do so.

It's because we think. Some people are capable of understanding more than one side of a position whether we agree with it or not.

It's amazing, really. Beside the fact that you aren't really saying anything, nor are you replying to my point, but it is this capacity that is being shown, this ability to see the baby inside the mother, apart from society, or rather apart from the mother, but in society, but all the same, not being able to see the baby, at all.

For a second, I can't help but think of Stalin, or Hitler, and how that all could have happened.

But, since you believe it is possible for a one-month old baby to survive in the wild, abandoned by all, I may have to rethink my position. Seriously.

We are talking apples and oranges now, anyway. I am talking about the value of a human life, and the unchallenged potentiality, and how that remains unchanged throughout.

I was happy to see you refer to "an unalienable right to life." Eventually, even an atheist has to go there. I'll just take that as the waving of the white flag.

Edit: Furthermore, I wasn't asking you what legal precedent is in the US, as I already know that if she participated in that act here, it would be considered murder.

I'm fairly certain nobody is saying a baby could survive with nobody feeding him after birth. It's just that after birth, literally almost anybody can feed the baby. The body can survive on it's own so to speak. If the mother would die, someone else could take the responsibility further raising the child.

Whereas in the womb, it is not physically able to stay alive if it weren't for the one person, which would be the mother that carries it. ('the host of which the parasite feeds')

A fetus is not a parasite. If you have to use inexact and exaggerated language in order to justify these beliefs, you really should think about why.

Don't you ever sleep Doggg?

Not tonight. I'm too jacked up on caffeine. I tried three times. Was down at Revel today and drank like 5 coffees and walked the boardwalk for hours on top of it. Then had to drive back, which entailed more caffeine. But at this point, I don't think that's it. I think there is just a tiredness that is past the point of no return, when being tired actually vaults into a kind of manic wakefulness, like when it becomes super-hard to go to sleep because the sun came up, despite the fact that you haven't slept.

If that makes any sense.

Edit: Actually, I should have just done what normal people do, and when I checked out this (yesterday) morning, I should have drove right home, but I got sucked in by all of the memorial weekend promotions and what not.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's capable of surviving. Don't you get it? Stop and think about it before passing over and dismissing the point that is explained to you. I know you can understand it if you try...

A postnatal 1 month old is no longer sponging off its mother's body to survive. Therefore, it has every right to live and it can be said that no one, not the mother, nor anyone else, has the right to kill it. Stop... Process this... Try to understand it... When or if you do...

Now consider a prenatal fetus. Unlike the postnatal 1 month old, it's survival depends solely on the mother's willingness to host it inside her womb and sponge off her body. Therefore, it can be said that it does not have any right to life.

I'm not saying I agree with this, but I understand it. This is another mistake you're making. You assume that just because I'm capable of understanding something that I must therefore agree with it. My purpose is not to argue in favor of this view, but simply to get your pitifully slow witted intellect to understand it. Obviously, I'm failing miserable.

This is more about rights to life than value.

I wasn't talking about legal precedent either as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the conversation. Unfortunately, you don't even seem to understand what the conversation is about.

If you (carefully) read my response to tame_deuces, you will find the answer. You could put this as question 3 to pair with his questions 1 and 2.

My view doesn't accept anything like "inalienable right to continue life" or anything like this.

I wasn't trying to express your view (tbh, I don't even know what it is). I was simply stating some of the key differences that make up a popular viewpoint in how a prenatal fetus differs from a postnatal baby. Mainly, that no being has a right to survive if such survival depends on the sponging off another living being's body. However, once sponging ceases, then it does have a right to life insofar that no one else possesses the right to end its life.

Wasn't meaning to suggest you were trying to express my view, merely saying that I reject that "popular viewpoint".

I'm not saying it is and they're not my words either. I'm saying its way of survival isn't much different from a parasitic lifeform as long as it's in the womb. Meaning it's completely dependent on the host to survive. I'm just explaining how it could be considered as such, I don't care if you agree with it or not. Stop saying it's bull**** when its just a viewpoint that differs from yours. No, I don't agree with it being a parasite. Yes, it's a legit viewpoint. No more reason for me to explain it any more than Lestat already did. +A for effort.

i propose a new rule: anyone who uses these words is banned from talking about abortion: parasite, murder, innocent baby, clump of cells, and so on...

I agree, lets stop talking about abortion

Why?

I'm not usually one to stress definitions and taxonomy, but the word parasite denotes "different species", "non-mutual" symbiosis and some cost to the host. Even if we disregard the requirement for species, we societally depend on offspring as a species.

Parasitical is simply not a good word to describe a pregnancy. Its connotation imply "no benefit", and this simply can't be taken to be true outside strict thought experiments.

I don't accepted the existence of inalienable rights, generally. A society might agree to codify a particular behavioral practice in various documents (ie you have a right to free speech as written down on pieces of paper that people seem to think are important) but this is the extent of it. But even with that, we certainly don't have some codification as a societal norm something like "no living organism has an inalienable right to continue life if it must depend on an unwilling organism's body to do so." That sounds like something made up on the spot specifically to delineate between accepting abortion and rejecting infanticide. While it is true that many people accept abortion and reject infanticide, that this is because of a denial of some obvious inalienable right - which I reject generally and specifically in this case - doesn't seem justified.

When I say there is a difference between the dependency of a fetus and of a baby, I am referring to a physical or perhaps economic difference. I don't think implies anything about different inalienable rights, which I have no idea what those even are.

Exactly. It is using loaded language to try and bolster one's point. Exactly the same with murdering innocent babies to describe abortion.