the truth about abortion

[Phantasm82]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
or maybe i'll get involved now :evil: at least one post.

distinct genetics do not define a human being. (we could implant a foreign cell with different dna into a woman's uterus and that wouldn't make it life. similarly, we could take haploid chromosomal DNA from the mother and father, inject it into an enucleated skin cell, and implant it in the mother, and it still wouldn't make life.)

there is much more to human-ness than just DNA, unique DNA, or even 50/50 mother father DNA.

i'll post why i don't believe the zygote is a human being a bit later, and surprisingly I will argue it from the fact that a benevolent God exists. I know, the anticipation is killing you.

I'm not trying to define a human being. I'm trying to define what is human, then ask the question: why is what is human not a person? As yet, I haven't been able to make any reasonable argument why this would not be true.

'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

I may need to brush up on my Christianity, but I believe the view is that children automatically go to Heaven. Someone perhaps better acquainted wtih this could tell me. In that view, isn't God doing a lot of "us" (fellow souls, I guess) a favor?

 

[Phantasm82]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

Then I'll ask the question again. At what point between conception and birth can we logically conclude that the *insert name of gestating thing here* is a person?

I simply do not know exactly when, but I believe that the first consciousness is necessary for a human being to exist. Now, when is that? The hell if I know, but definitely after/when the brain forms. But my justification for abortion still works for me regardless of whether the fetus is conscious or not.

edit: And why is it that the only people who bring religion into this argument are those arguing for abortion? No one opposing abortion has used a religious argument to this point, yet it repeatedly gets tossed around.

maybe God is on our side

For real though, the reason why God must be brought into the argument is because He has the most convincing argument.

I could argue that the potential to be a human being does not equal actually existing as a human being by definition. We already know that DNA is not sufficient for a human being, now we show that 50/50 DNA + potential to form a human being is not an actual human being. So at what point does the potential become actual? The potential becomes actual when the fetus realizes "I exist" or has any thought. When can the fetus realize "I exist"? I believe the brain must exist physically before the thought "I exist" can exist mentally. So the fetus, forming a brain, realizes "I exist" or has a first thought, and is now a human being.

But then, you get into notions of duality, that the mind is separate from the body and can exist independently from it (and there is a LOT of philisophical argument for this notion). And clearly this throws a wrench into the whole argument - which is why the argument from God is the strongest in my opinion.

I'm actually interested in the argument that you can make about the potential for a human being not equalling existing as a human being. Certainly, a blastocyst and a 26 week old fetus bear no resemblance to one another. At the same time, the person I am now and the person I will be nine months from now are incontrovertibly (I would think but maybe I'm wrong) one and the same. Sure, in the case of the zygote and the fetus, there are cell divisions, migrations, and organizations that separate them, but isn't it just one state transitioning to the next?

Furthermore "I exist" is something that I doubt a one year old has any inkling about. Existence is a complicated thought -- thinking about what existence really is gives lots of people (including myself) a headache. The youngest babies aren't even *aware* -- i.e. they don't know that "this hand is my hand." While I agree with you that the brain must exist to some degree (to what degree I'm not sure) before thoughts can occur, I don't think that your "I exist" criteria is a good one for determining that a fetus is a human being.

I'm actually interested (no, I'm not being sarcastic or confrontational here) in the arguments about separating the body from the mind, and the origins of the soul -- I would love some references to read up on.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
The AMA definition of death is the cessation of life. Death is defined as sponteneous cessation or absence of cortical activity (brain death).

If death is the cessation of life, and death is the cessation of cortical activity, then life = cortical activity. What is it that you don't understand here?

Still looking for a source? You can just say so, you don't have to keep stalling with these piddly little BS posts. You just defined death in two different ways and tried to combine the two to define life. However, this is pretty obviously yet another failure in logic. Just get back to me when you have an actual source, mkay?

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm

I am no longer interested in wasting time arguing with you. I have much more important things to do. Enjoy living in your ignorance and have a nice day.

I got you in the corner, but you wouldn't give up. I got you down on the ground, but you kept fighting. I was kicking you while you were down, but you kept struggling. You just couldn't give up. You tried to pull a gun and run out the door with this last post, but I can't help but turn the gun on you.

From your link:

Part (1) codifies the existing common law basis for determining death - total failure of the cardiorespiratory system. Part (2) extends the common law to include the new procedures for determination of death based upon irreversible loss of all brain functions. The overwhelming majority of cases will continue to be determined according to part (1). When artificial means of support preclude a determination under part (1), the Act recognizes that death can be determined by the alternative procedures.

So no, death is not defined as cessation of cortical function. It is the total failure of the cardiorespiratory system. Moreover,

Under part (2), the entire brain must cease to function, irreversibly. The "entire brain" includes the brain stem, as well as the neocortex. The concept of "entire brain" distinguishes determination of death under this Act from "neocortical death" or "persistent vegetative state." These are not deemed valid medical or legal bases for determining death.

So, your own link specifically states that your definition is not deemed valid medical or legal basis for determining death.

§ 1. [Determination of Death]. An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

§ 2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application]. This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.

Now I see why you cut and run: you simply can't admit that you're wrong, because then you might have to rethink your position, though I'm not sure you really thought about it in the first place.

Thanks Cyclo you just proved that a Zygote does indeed have no protection under the law as while it is human it is not considered alive.

I believe from fertilization through the first several stages of developement there will be no functional cardiorespiratory system and no functional brain. You can't "murder something under the law that isn't considered "alive"

So good the morning after pill should be available with out a prescription in all pharmacys. Glad we agree .

Now if you want to argue from a non-legal perspective that the zygote deserves the same rights I'm all ears as well as if you want to argue that the definition is wrong.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: OrByte
Ok lets see how your argument, "stands on its own merit"

The above bolded claim is what we call a Circular Justification Fallacy. Basically you cannot argue that if A is true then B therefore it must be A because of B. You are working off the false premise that a zygote is human. You cannot prove that. Science cannot prove that. Your definition of "human" is being stretched here to fit your claims.

You also commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc (faulty causal presumption fallacy) but I don't need to go any further with your "argument."

No, that bolded portion is based on biological fact. 'Human' is a taxonomic term and defines a species. Clearly, the zygote has human DNA. Thus, it belongs to the human species. The question is whether it is alive.

my point is, science cannot be used to fit your agenda. Science is not going to help anyones agenda in this issue.

Filter science out of the issue, then filter morality. Once you do that you are left with human rights. Run the issue through your human rights issue. Then you will see where the real debate should begin.

As yet, I simply can't see a logical point after conception prior to which human and person are not identically equal. Science may yet shed light on this issue, or it may not. I'm speaking solely in terms of ethics here, not morality. None of my arguments has had any personal or religious basis. My human rights filter tells me that every person has the same right to life, the right that must supersede all other rights. Therefore, we arrive back at the original question: at what point does a human become a person?

This is not true. The right to life of anyone else does not supersede any of my constitutionally given rights.

If this was true the government could force anyone of us to have a kidney removed to save someone else.

The right to life of someone invading my home does not supersede my right to self defense.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Phantasm82

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
or maybe i'll get involved now :evil: at least one post.

distinct genetics do not define a human being. (we could implant a foreign cell with different dna into a woman's uterus and that wouldn't make it life. similarly, we could take haploid chromosomal DNA from the mother and father, inject it into an enucleated skin cell, and implant it in the mother, and it still wouldn't make life.)

there is much more to human-ness than just DNA, unique DNA, or even 50/50 mother father DNA.

i'll post why i don't believe the zygote is a human being a bit later, and surprisingly I will argue it from the fact that a benevolent God exists. I know, the anticipation is killing you.

I'm not trying to define a human being. I'm trying to define what is human, then ask the question: why is what is human not a person? As yet, I haven't been able to make any reasonable argument why this would not be true.

'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

I may need to brush up on my Christianity, but I believe the view is that children automatically go to Heaven. Someone perhaps better acquainted wtih this could tell me. In that view, isn't God doing a lot of "us" (fellow souls, I guess) a favor?

Well God's tenet is of course "thou shalt not kill", and in essence the mother is killing these unimplanted "human beings". I don't believe that God would let this ending of life happen on such a massive scale.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Phantasm82

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

Then I'll ask the question again. At what point between conception and birth can we logically conclude that the *insert name of gestating thing here* is a person?

I simply do not know exactly when, but I believe that the first consciousness is necessary for a human being to exist. Now, when is that? The hell if I know, but definitely after/when the brain forms. But my justification for abortion still works for me regardless of whether the fetus is conscious or not.

edit: And why is it that the only people who bring religion into this argument are those arguing for abortion? No one opposing abortion has used a religious argument to this point, yet it repeatedly gets tossed around.

maybe God is on our side

For real though, the reason why God must be brought into the argument is because He has the most convincing argument.

I could argue that the potential to be a human being does not equal actually existing as a human being by definition. We already know that DNA is not sufficient for a human being, now we show that 50/50 DNA + potential to form a human being is not an actual human being. So at what point does the potential become actual? The potential becomes actual when the fetus realizes "I exist" or has any thought. When can the fetus realize "I exist"? I believe the brain must exist physically before the thought "I exist" can exist mentally. So the fetus, forming a brain, realizes "I exist" or has a first thought, and is now a human being.

But then, you get into notions of duality, that the mind is separate from the body and can exist independently from it (and there is a LOT of philisophical argument for this notion). And clearly this throws a wrench into the whole argument - which is why the argument from God is the strongest in my opinion.

I'm actually interested in the argument that you can make about the potential for a human being not equalling existing as a human being. Certainly, a blastocyst and a 26 week old fetus bear no resemblance to one another. At the same time, the person I am now and the person I will be nine months from now are incontrovertibly (I would think but maybe I'm wrong) one and the same. Sure, in the case of the zygote and the fetus, there are cell divisions, migrations, and organizations that separate them, but isn't it just one state transitioning to the next?

It's simply logic. Something that has potential to be A cannot be actually A at the same time. For example, you right now you have the potential to be "the person you will be nine months from now" but, right now, you cannot actually be "the person you will be nine months from now". A simpler example is a piece of firewood. Right now it may have the potential to burn, but it cannot actually be burning at the same time. Actuality and Potentiality are mutually exclusive in other words.

Furthermore "I exist" is something that I doubt a one year old has any inkling about. Existence is a complicated thought -- thinking about what existence really is gives lots of people (including myself) a headache. The youngest babies aren't even *aware* -- i.e. they don't know that "this hand is my hand." While I agree with you that the brain must exist to some degree (to what degree I'm not sure) before thoughts can occur, I don't think that your "I exist" criteria is a good one for determining that a fetus is a human being.

Well, I'm thinking more along the lines of "I think therefore I am" (descartes). The moment the fetus thinks, it knows it exists (whether or not it makes the connection).

I'm actually interested (no, I'm not being sarcastic or confrontational here) in the arguments about separating the body from the mind, and the origins of the soul -- I would love some references to read up on.

Hmm, i don't really know too much about it. But grab a copy of Descartes "Meditations on the First Philosophy" (I think the 6th meditation?) and his "Discourse on Method" Part 5. It's not exactly the most fun thing to read, but it is a little interesting. The body and mind separation idea pretty much began with him. I think Noam Chomsky has written a lot about the issue too if you want a modern read.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Phantasm82

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
or maybe i'll get involved now :evil: at least one post.

distinct genetics do not define a human being. (we could implant a foreign cell with different dna into a woman's uterus and that wouldn't make it life. similarly, we could take haploid chromosomal DNA from the mother and father, inject it into an enucleated skin cell, and implant it in the mother, and it still wouldn't make life.)

there is much more to human-ness than just DNA, unique DNA, or even 50/50 mother father DNA.

i'll post why i don't believe the zygote is a human being a bit later, and surprisingly I will argue it from the fact that a benevolent God exists. I know, the anticipation is killing you.

I'm not trying to define a human being. I'm trying to define what is human, then ask the question: why is what is human not a person? As yet, I haven't been able to make any reasonable argument why this would not be true.

'human' is easily defined. anything 'human' has human DNA.

why is what is human not a person, or in my words, a human being?

because human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient part of the equation. human DNA in any form - genomic DNA, combination of mother and father DNA, etc. - is not sufficient to create to life. we can combine motherly and fatherly haploid DNA in a test tube, stick it in a skin cell, but it doesn't make a human being.

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

I may need to brush up on my Christianity, but I believe the view is that children automatically go to Heaven. Someone perhaps better acquainted wtih this could tell me. In that view, isn't God doing a lot of "us" (fellow souls, I guess) a favor?

Well God's tenet is of course "thou shalt not kill", and in essence the mother is killing these unimplanted "human beings". I don't believe that God would let this ending of life happen on such a massive scale.

quite good arguements from a religious perspective :thumbsup:

 

[VIAN]

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Gand1
go away

why should I go away? People are too scared or afraid of facing reality. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? While millions of babies are being murdered.

Rent Hotel Rowanda. It would have been more important to save those people than those babies.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if it's not viable outside of the womb, I can't really see how it's considered a person.

I mean, if we took a man's semen and dropped it into a petri dish with a woman's egg, would the contents of that petri dish constitute a living, thinking, independant human being?

So you are against partial birth abortions?

Honestly I think planned parenthood is run by crazed racist liberals looking to kill off minority babies that they think cause much of our crime and drain our financial resources. Actually there is data to support this but after looking into this it seemed way to dark to stomache for me.

call me loco no biggie wouldn't be a first time.

Lastly Uberlibs care about how terrorists in gitmo get treated but like to kill children? How's that work in your morality?

 

[EXman]

oops I'm new

 

[Horus]

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: loki8481
if it's not viable outside of the womb, I can't really see how it's considered a person.

I mean, if we took a man's semen and dropped it into a petri dish with a woman's egg, would the contents of that petri dish constitute a living, thinking, independant human being?

So your saying we must be thinking and independent to be human? What about people with mental problems or elderly people who cannot live by themselves need peopel to bathe them, feed them, take care of them (just like a woman does to a baby inside of her) Since they don't think or are independent are you saying we should "abort" them as well?? They are living beings is not like they are dead inside.

"Cognito, Ergo Sum". I think, Therefore, I am. I believe that once a fetus has gotten to the state where there is recognizable brain activity, beyond just normal breathing, heartrate, etc monitoring, then abortion should be illegal.

HOWEVER.

Before that, I believe it should be up to the woman carrying the child whether or not to carry it to term. Her choice, and hers ALONE.

 

[Locut0s]

So what this isn't going to change anyone's mind. It will only further anger those who are anti abortion and do nothing to those who are for it. It's not like those of us who are for abortion don't have any idea what abortion is, we aren't in some fairy la la land thinking they beam the foetus out with a transporter. We just don't believe that a foetus = a human being and that a womens right to control her own reproduction does indeed mater.

 

[Lifted]

Making laws against abortion leaves those with the means ($$$) access to abortions by going to another country, etc., while leaving those without the means with either no option to have one or the option of getting some back-alley abortion. There is clearly a lot more to the abortion debate than "it's gross" or "it's wrong." Socio-economic classes aren't only involved when it comes to getting the abortion either. Many of the right-wing conservative crowd that complain about poor families getting free health care, welfare, etc., are the same ones trying to take away poor peoples rights to plan their family (size).

 

[spc hink]

I don't see the need to bring in religion or God into an abortion debate. I think a fetus has constitutional protection.

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

Wow, the human body is amazing. Sorry but that's the only thought I have after watching that video.

 

[0roo0roo]

i don't know how you can look at this and still believe in god. http://www.asylumeclectica.com/malady/archives/harlequin.htm that is gods work.

gods work is also abortion. look at the stats, 40-80% of conceptions are naturally aborted, most go unnoticed as they happen so soon after conception. it is not disputed, and gives you an idea of the moral worth "god" puts on such things. to design such a wasteful process in the first place, well how are you going to argue against his design?

you want horror? look at those lost to horrible deseases/plagues and natural disasters throughout history. look at what people suffered before science made medicine more than quackery. so really don't play the picture game.


and really, i don't know how you can look at the horrors of the middle east where everyone is trying to shove their morals down other peoples throats and the horror it causes... and just learn to mind your own frickin business.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Paratus
Thanks Cyclo you just proved that a Zygote does indeed have no protection under the law as while it is human it is not considered alive.

I believe from fertilization through the first several stages of developement there will be no functional cardiorespiratory system and no functional brain. You can't "murder something under the law that isn't considered "alive"

So good the morning after pill should be available with out a prescription in all pharmacys. Glad we agree .

Now if you want to argue from a non-legal perspective that the zygote deserves the same rights I'm all ears as well as if you want to argue that the definition is wrong.

That defines death, not life.

Originally posted by: Paratus
This is not true. The right to life of anyone else does not supersede any of my constitutionally given rights.

If this was true the government could force anyone of us to have a kidney removed to save someone else.

The right to life of someone invading my home does not supersede my right to self defense.

I'm not sure where you got that idea from.

It is true, just not in the sense that you're looking at it. My right to life may not be infringed on. It is not an absolute right, but none of your rights may infringe on it unless I am potentially infringing on your right to life (e.g. invading your home). In the same way, I would support a woman's right to an abortion in the case where her life was threatened by continuing the pregnancy (assuming it couldn't just be delivered), as the fetus would be infringing on her right to life.

Originally posted by: totalcommand
It's simply logic. Something that has potential to be A cannot be actually A at the same time. For example, you right now you have the potential to be "the person you will be nine months from now" but, right now, you cannot actually be "the person you will be nine months from now". A simpler example is a piece of firewood. Right now it may have the potential to burn, but it cannot actually be burning at the same time. Actuality and Potentiality are mutually exclusive in other words.

I agree. However, the development of any human (or even any animal) is a continuum, not a discrete set of points. Such demarcations are set up (zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc...) as a matter of convenience for reference, not because these are truly different organisms. At some point, every person you know was or will be a zygote, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, then an infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, middle-aged, elderly, old, very old, and ancient (assuming they live that long ). Thus, I could argue (though I'll admit that I haven't thought this through very carefully) that a zygote is just as much a person as an infant, adult, or anyone else. The discretizations that are set up are fabrications based on stages of physical development, not any real change in the being itself. Think of it in these terms. Everything is comprised of two parts: accidentals (physical nature) and substance (whatever it really is). The substance of a zygote is no different from an adult as far as we can discern (though one might argue that substance changes with time, again I'm not real sure since I'm winging it), though the accidentals are much different.

 

[mordantmonkey]

just goes to show why there should be unfetered access to abortions. That way they can be terminated within the first trimester.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

Well, according to Christianity, bad things, such as people dying, only happen because people have sinned. God removed His "blessing" from life, and now we all die. The Q you need to ask is, "why do people die at all?" I also agree that life does not begin at fertilization, because if you think about it, life can only come from life. So every sperm is life, and so on. But there has to be a point where the fetus is a human person, and that point is way before birth. As stated before, most of us will take anything we can get. Even if human life isn't recognized by the gov. at the point that we would like, stopping abortions at an earlier time is great. Besides, no one really knows. I am of the opinion that we should err on the side of caution and hurt a mother's feeelings and social status, before killing a fetus that may or may not be human.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Well God's tenet is of course "thou shalt not kill", and in essence the mother is killing these unimplanted "human beings". I don't believe that God would let this ending of life happen on such a massive scale.

No. God lets us do whatever. Children, whether fetus or 3 years old, up until they understand right and wrong, all go to heaven according to the Bible.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Horus

Before that, I believe it should be up to the woman carrying the child whether or not to carry it to term. Her choice, and hers ALONE.

This is the question. WHY do you think that?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Horus

Before that, I believe it should be up to the woman carrying the child whether or not to carry it to term. Her choice, and hers ALONE.

This is the question. WHY do you think that?

Her womb? Her body? her choice?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Locut0s
So what this isn't going to change anyone's mind. It will only further anger those who are anti abortion and do nothing to those who are for it. It's not like those of us who are for abortion don't have any idea what abortion is, we aren't in some fairy la la land thinking they beam the foetus out with a transporter. We just don't believe that a foetus = a human being and that a womens right to control her own reproduction does indeed mater.

Don't you understand? I'm not saying that men should have control over women, but reproduction is not only the woman's. Men have something to do with it, believe it or not. This is a bit OT, but then maybe not. Why is it the woman's choice alone as to whether or not a fetus lives? Before conception, the man had a part, after, the man has a legal part, unless he is screwed up, but why not in between? And at some point, a fetus has to equal a human being. We have shown how a fetus 10 minutes before birth and ten minutes after are the same, +/- 20 minutes.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Horus

Before that, I believe it should be up to the woman carrying the child whether or not to carry it to term. Her choice, and hers ALONE.

This is the question. WHY do you think that?

Her womb? Her body? her choice?

You haven't read the whole thread. The fetus is not a part of the woman's body like her head. And also, how do you make it only her choice, without the man's say? Of course the latter depends on the former.

I thought of a new argument. Since we are having all this talk of, "just because something will be something doesn't make it that something now." We have laws against people planning to kill someone. So we are in effect protecting who they will be, not who they are now. How are fetuses different?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: totalcommand

meuge seems to have made my argument before. i can't understand how a benevolent God - the Christian, Jewish, Muslim God - would allow countless "human beings" to die. we all know that less than half of fertilized eggs implant themselves in the uterus, and of the ones that do, about 50 percent spontaneously abort. if each of these fertilized eggs was a human life, more human beings would be dying every day than from abortion itself. and i can't imagine God would have that. it seems more likely that God would create human life at some reasonable point during pregnancy, not at fertilization itself.

Well, according to Christianity, bad things, such as people dying, only happen because people have sinned. God removed His "blessing" from life, and now we all die. The Q you need to ask is, "why do people die at all?" I also agree that life does not begin at fertilization, because if you think about it, life can only come from life. So every sperm is life, and so on. But there has to be a point where the fetus is a human person, and that point is way before birth. As stated before, most of us will take anything we can get. Even if human life isn't recognized by the gov. at the point that we would like, stopping abortions at an earlier time is great. Besides, no one really knows. I am of the opinion that we should err on the side of caution and hurt a mother's feeelings and social status, before killing a fetus that may or may not be human.

Ok, so you agree with me then on this point.

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Well God's tenet is of course "thou shalt not kill", and in essence the mother is killing these unimplanted "human beings". I don't believe that God would let this ending of life happen on such a massive scale.

No. God lets us do whatever. Children, whether fetus or 3 years old, up until they understand right and wrong, all go to heaven according to the Bible.

If you take such a dim view of God, then abortion, if you define it as the killing of innocent life, does not matter at all since these fetuses will go to heaven anyways, and the mother can do whatever she want.