ABORTION.......

Momma Angel wrote:

I am assuming you consider me to be one of those Christian zealots? If I am incorrect, oops!

You most assuredly are not incorrect! You are definitely "one of those Christian zealots."

Quote:

So, let me try to answer your question to the best of my ability. You may not like it, but it's my answer.

I believe that according to man's laws, a person has the right to decide what is best for them. Those decisions are between the person and God. However, I do not always believe that is what is right according to God's laws.

Well...since there may not even be a GOD....and even if there is a GOD....you may not have the faintest idea of what the GOD's laws are (if in fact the GOD has any laws)...

...so just what in the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

And I just don't understand the logic of since it is a innocent soul anyway and it is going to go to heaven because of that, so what's the foul? To me, that's lot slaughtering all the boy children under the age of 2 because they are innocent and will go to heaven. Now, I realize you feel there is a difference between a "fetus" and a "child", but I don't agree with that so, I guess to you it's murder if it's slaughtering the male children but not the fetuses?

This is a particularly mangled sentence...so I will reply to what I think you wanted to write rather than the mishmash that actually got written.

RELIGIONS have lots of idiotic aspects. All of them.

Some have gods that require throwing virgins into volcanos in order to increase the tribe's fertility....or its agricultural prospects.

Some require other kinds of human sacrifice.

Some gods actually require people to torture and kill the son of the god in order to appease it.

If your religion is correct, MA....one of the things that have to be considered is:

Your god will condemn to Hell and torture for all of eternity anyone who dies unrepentent after having offended it....or, alternately, your god will deny entry into Heaven and eternal life to any who dies unrepentent after having offended it. (No major difference here!)

What are the implications of ending a life while still in complete innocence...given the pitifully petty and barbaric scenario just outlined above?

I won't spell it out.

I will just repeat that if the embryo or fetus is, as you are supposing, a living human being complete with a soul that will either attain eternal life in Heaven or be denied that eternal life either through Hell or extinction...

...and if abortion gains the soul a free pass into Heaven...

...where is the foul?

0 Replies

Asked another way: Have you done that supposed eternal soul an injustice...or a favor?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

A fetus becomes a child when it is born.

Let's not get into semantics over the definition of 'fetus'. When exactly does a fetus/child cease being on the level of a cancerous tumour and becomes a human being in your opinion? Surely you're not suggesting that the fetus is on the level of a cancerous tumour two seconds before he/she is born?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you prepared to argue that a fertilized egg is a chicken???

Yes, it would make sense to me to consider a fertilized egg as the earliest stage of a chicken, but since it's not the degree of development that counts from a Christian point of view, I suggest we save this argument for another time.

Derevon wrote:

From a Christian point of view it's not really the degree of development the fetus/child has undergone that is relevant, but rather whether the fetus/child has a soul or not. Killing a fetus/child with a soul would of course be murder, and therefore totally unacceptable. Even if nothing is known for sure about when a soul comes into being, one simply cannot guess that it's in the third week, or fourth week or whatever. To be sure, one must assume that there is a soul involved from the earliest moment of the conception.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Really?

And why is that?

How about assuming that there is no soul?

Or that the soul only comes into being when the fetus is born into the world as a child.

Or even better...how about ending after "we really do not know."

Obviously, as a Christian one does not assume there is no soul. If you don't believe in the existence of the soul, you would hardly qualify as Christian. As for assuming that the child to be has a soul from the earliest moment of the conception, it is only logical if one wants to be sure. Anything else would be Russian roulette.

Derevon wrote:

Also, the mother has no right to kill the child in her womb, because the child isn't her creation, but God's.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Well...there might not be a God. But let's suppose there is a God....why must we suppose that the God does not want the fetus (or baby, if you insist) to die while still totally innocent? Maybe the God is lonely in Heaven...and the only visitors he gets are innocent babies (and fetuses) that die.

The same argument could be made for newborn babies. That doesn't mean it's right to kill them if they're unwanted. Murder is murder. Murder is sin.

Derevon wrote:

She may be its host, but it certainly doesn't mean that she is entitled to killing it at her whim.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Why not?

If there is a God...the God has no problems about taking small children into Heaven in very unusual ways. Many got to Heaven because someone dropped an atomic bomb on them. Many got there by having their pajamas catch fire...or by being in a car crash.

Some got there because the god of the Bible slaughtered them when Pharaoh refused to do his bidding.

In any case...if the soul of the fetus ends up in Heaven for all of eternity...what is the damage?

As a Christian one does of course believe that life on Earth is for a purpose. An aborted fetus/child will be bereft of the possibility to obtain the merits that can be had in this life.

As for the argument that a woman has the right to do whatever she wish with her body, it's definitely not so from a Christian point of view. A Christian belongs to God and don't even have the right to kill himself/herself, let alone somebody else. In my opinion, if a woman consents to having sex, she has made her choice already. She has accepted that there is the possibility of a child being conceived, and therefore she cannot simply decide later that she doesn't want the baby.

0 Replies

You do this just for fun, don't you? I am not as "intelligent" as you are. I don't think the way you think, and I gotta tell, I am so glad of it.

I may think in mangled sentences but you obviously get more enjoyment out of your rantings than I do out of trying to explain what I believe and feel and getting slammed for it at every turn.

I thought you started a thread on dirty language or something. Why don't you find someone there to try to bait and goad?

I keep trying and trying with you. I keep thinking maybe we can at least be civil. You are having none of it. So, see ya!

0 Replies

Quote:

Since apparently the net result of an abortion is to have an innocent soul get a free pass into Heaven to spend all the rest of eternity in complete bliss with your god...

...where is the foul?

Following the same reasoning . . .
Provided the folks are "saved"/going to go to heaven:
If someone is elderly, not feeling so hot, it would surely be merciful to send them on to heaven, right? So killing them must not be a "foul".
If someone is physically or mentally challenged, their soul's circumstances would surely be better in heaven. Killing them therefore is "no foul".
If someone is poverty-stricken, . . .

Pretty dangerous rationalization, if you ask me.

0 Replies

Frank, I think Devron's last post did a good job of answering your question from a Christian point of view. You don't have to agree with him, but you got your answer.

Devron, I heard you out. However, I have a question for you. I understand how by having those beliefs (as you described), those who were practising them would be pro-life. You have a right to choose that.
What I don't know is where in the belief system does it advocate being the judge of those who disagree? Some Christians, I don't know if you are one or not, work hard to impose pro-choice on those who disagree. Where are these people getting the idea that they may judge as God? I honestly want to understand.

0 Replies

Lab Rat,
Just try and state one rationalization that is not dangerous! Laughing

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
A fetus becomes a child when it is born.

Let's not get into semantics over the definition of 'fetus'. When exactly does a fetus/child cease being on the level of a cancerous tumour and becomes a human being in your opinion? Surely you're not suggesting that the fetus is on the level of a cancerous tumour two seconds before he/she is born?

A fetus is a fetus. A child is a child. Try to understand the distinction.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Are you prepared to argue that a fertilized egg is a chicken???

Yes, it would make sense to me to consider a fertilized egg as the earliest stage of a chicken, but since it's not the degree of development that counts from a Christian point of view, I suggest we save this argument for another time.

Yeah...if I were asserting that an egg is a chicken...I'd want to save it for another time also.

This is pathetic.

Quote:

Derevon wrote:
From a Christian point of view it's not really the degree of development the fetus/child has undergone that is relevant, but rather whether the fetus/child has a soul or not. Killing a fetus/child with a soul would of course be murder, and therefore totally unacceptable. Even if nothing is known for sure about when a soul comes into being, one simply cannot guess that it's in the third week, or fourth week or whatever. To be sure, one must assume that there is a soul involved from the earliest moment of the conception.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Really?

And why is that?

How about assuming that there is no soul?

Or that the soul only comes into being when the fetus is born into the world as a child.

Or even better...how about ending after "we really do not know."

Obviously, as a Christian one does not assume there is no soul. If you don't believe in the existence of the soul, you would hardly qualify as Christian. As for assuming that the child to be has a soul from the earliest moment of the conception, it is only logical if one wants to be sure. Anything else would be Russian roulette.

So you are assuming it has a soul.

What are you assuming happens to the soul if the fetus is aborted?

Quote:

Derevon wrote:
Also, the mother has no right to kill the child in her womb, because the child isn't her creation, but God's.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Well...there might not be a God. But let's suppose there is a God....why must we suppose that the God does not want the fetus (or baby, if you insist) to die while still totally innocent? Maybe the God is lonely in Heaven...and the only visitors he gets are innocent babies (and fetuses) that die.

The same argument could be made for newborn babies. That doesn't mean it's right to kill them if they're unwanted. Murder is murder. Murder is sin.

But abortion is not murder. Murder is the illegal taking of a life.

Quote:

Derevon wrote:
She may be its host, but it certainly doesn't mean that she is entitled to killing it at her whim.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Why not?

If there is a God...the God has no problems about taking small children into Heaven in very unusual ways. Many got to Heaven because someone dropped an atomic bomb on them. Many got there by having their pajamas catch fire...or by being in a car crash.

Some got there because the god of the Bible slaughtered them when Pharaoh refused to do his bidding.

In any case...if the soul of the fetus ends up in Heaven for all of eternity...what is the damage?

As a Christian one does of course believe that life on Earth is for a purpose. An aborted fetus/child will be bereft of the possibility to obtain the merits that can be had in this life.

Gimme a break. According to you Christians...the soul of an aborted fetus goes immediately to Heaven.

The only thing other than that...is to earn Hell.

Quote:

As for the argument that a woman has the right to do whatever she wish with her body, it's definitely not so from a Christian point of view. A Christian belongs to God and don't even have the right to kill himself/herself, let alone somebody else. In my opinion, if a woman consents to having sex, she has made her choice already. She has accepted that there is the possibility of a child being conceived, and therefore she cannot simply decide later that she doesn't want the baby.

Well that is all fine and dandy for you Christians...but I don't want you people imposing your silly beliefs and gods on the rest of us.

Okay?

0 Replies

And you wrote:

Quote:

In my opinion, if a woman consents to having sex, she has made her choice already. She has accepted that there is the possibility of a child being conceived, and therefore she cannot simply decide later that she doesn't want the baby.

And what if she didn't make that choice?

Do things change?

If not...why make that argument?

0 Replies

Have you heard about chimeras? If you believe that a human life is created from the very point of conception, then you end up with a very difficult question on your hands when it comes to chimeras.

A chimera is an organism with a mosaic of different genomes. The genes within one set of skin cells, may not be the same as that of another set of skin cells on the same body. The genes within one set of liver cells may not be the same as that of another set within the same liver.

The most common example of a chimera given are people with two eye colours.

Chimeras are formed from the fusion of two independently fertilised oocytes (eggs).

The most blatant example of chimeras are those with two eye colours, but other chimeras may not be that obvious. Currently, there is some evidence to suggest that the prevalence of chimerism is greater than originally thought.

Now, if human life begins from conception, does that mean two lives become one? Does that mean a chimera is really two people in one body, two souls in one body and does that mean to kill a chimera is to kill two people?

Obviously, human life cannot begin from the point of conception. Logically, that makes no sense and it brings up spiritual and philosophical problems.

True human life is when the zygote becomes a fetus of approximately 3 weeks, when brain and heart development begins. The most important part are the brain and development of nerves. Before that, the fetus is nothing more than a mass of living cells with no sentience and no possibility of true human life.

0 Replies

There is the scientific viewpoint of life at conception and then there is the "religious" viewpoint.

I believe that since a human life is God's creation, it is just that, a human life from the second of its conception.

0 Replies

So what do you think happens when two zygotes fuse?

Two people become one? Their souls become one? They have two souls? That one person is now two people? Did one of them die to make the other? Did both of them die to make the new being?

0 Replies

I'd be the first to admit, "I ain't got a clue to that one."

All I can say is that I believe life is God-given and man should not take away that life.

It's just another one of those things that I guess we will have to wait to find out when we do get the answers. Laughing

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

A fetus is a fetus. A child is a child. Try to understand the distinction.

You avoided answering the question. So what you're saying is that all fetuses, i.e. not born, are on the level of warts and cancerous tumours? And the minute they come out, they are fully fledged human beings with all human rights?

Frank Apisa wrote:

What are you assuming happens to the soul if the fetus is aborted?

I don't know.

Derevon wrote:

As for the argument that a woman has the right to do whatever she wish with her body, it's definitely not so from a Christian point of view. A Christian belongs to God and don't even have the right to kill himself/herself, let alone somebody else. In my opinion, if a woman consents to having sex, she has made her choice already. She has accepted that there is the possibility of a child being conceived, and therefore she cannot simply decide later that she doesn't want the baby.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Well that is all fine and dandy for you Christians...but I don't want you people imposing your silly beliefs and gods on the rest of us.

You asked for input from Christians, and you had it. No need to get irritated. All I've been saying is that abortion is wrong from a Christian point of view. From an atheist/agnostic/scientific point of view it might perhaps be acceptable, but that discussion is for another thread outside the Spirituality/Religion forum I suppose.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And what if she didn't make that choice?

Do things change?

If not...why make that argument?

In my opinion, she must give birth to the baby regardless, but may choose to place the child for adoption if she is unable to support it.

0 Replies

Derevon,

Very, very well put. Clear, concise and to the point. Man, I wish I could articulate like that!

0 Replies

Abortion is not right for me. I am against it in that respect. However, I have not been raped and am pregnant with my rapists child. I have not been put in a situation where my husband refuses to allow me birth control and I become pregnant again. I am not pregnant and unable to care for myself let alone another human being. I do not know what it is liek to be pregnant and not know what to do.

So my answer to abortion is let the women decide. What another does with her body is between her and God, not me, her, the state and God. Legalize abortion and reduce the number of back ally procedures. Women have been doing it since the beginning with herbs, hangers and other ridiculously unsafe methods and they will continue to do so. Educate teens on contraceptive methods so that they can prevent pregnancy rather than terminate it.

On that note, I believe that a baby is officially a human when it can survive without the mother. My spiritual side keeps nagging me and telling me that a baby is a baby at conception but if it can't live without a "host" then is it really life? A parasite is life and it must have a host to survive. So is a parasite not a living thing?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I'd be the first to admit, "I ain't got a clue to that one."

All I can say is that I believe life is God-given and man should not take away that life.

It's just another one of those things that I guess we will have to wait to find out when we do get the answers.

And what about those aborted at the blastocyst stage? At that point of time, you can harvest stem cells. These are the cells that go up to make every cell in your body.

If abortion were death, then surely we wouldn't be able to use those stem cells to grow another human being, but we can.

This is part of the concept of cloning. If you split those stem cells into one empty blastocyst and another blastocyst and ensure that there are enough stem cells to ensure good growth, you end up with twins.

From that one "life" you have made two.

Likewise, abort the blastocyst and then keep the stem cells growing indefinitely. Theoretically, you can use them to grow new organs or at least, the cells for those orgrans. Yet, you can take some of those newly grown stem cells and put them back into an empty blastocyst.

Put it in a woman, let the birth continue as it has always done and theoretically, it's as if the "baby" was never aborted in the first place.

Now, let me explain to you why I say, theoretically.

You see stem cells are immortal. They can divide and grow indefinitely. In that way, stem cells are cancerous. It is desirable, if you want to keep them as stem cells, to grow them as a single layer on a plate filled with nutrients. The moment they realise there's no more room to grow in a single layer, they start to turn into different cells. So to keep them a single layer, every now and then, you have to remove them from the plate and put half on one plate and another half on another. In other words, space them out. That is called passaging.

A passage number is given to each stem cells. The higher the passage number, the more times these cells have been separated from one plate into two plates. The higher the passage number, the less capable the cells are of being reincorporated into a blastocyst.

That is why I said theoretically, because if you grow them long enough, it becomes impossible for you to undo what you have done before (that is, the abortion).

Human life, is not as clear cut as anti-abortionists think. Not even life is as clear cut as the laymen thinks, because viruses are neither live nor dead and in some situations can bring dead cells back to life.

That is why we must talk about sentience, not life, and sentience does not start at the point of conception and it doesn't start until the nerves and the brain have started to form.

0 Replies

Bella,

You bring up some very good points. I ca only imagine how difficult it would be to be in any of those positions. I still believe though that abortion is wrong. There are always options other than the killing of another. I do believe that the decision is between the mother and God, as He is the ultimate authority.

Yet, I am not sure about the legalizing it. To me, that is tantamount to saying it is right. It's such a hard issue. I feel you can agree to or be sympathetic with points for both sides.

But, in my viewpoint, God's laws always take precedent. Society today is becoming so tolerant to so many things it used to be intolerant of. God has not changed His laws, man changes God's laws to bend to man's will.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

That is why we must talk about sentience, not life, and sentience does not start at the point of conception and it doesn't start until the nerves and the brain have started to form.

Week 5
The baby is about 1/3 of an inch. The brain is growing. Facial features are visible, including a mouth and tongue. The eyes have a retina and lens. The major muscle system is developed, and the unborn child practices moving. The part of the nervous system that deals with equilibrium and spatial relations also begins to develop. That means that whenever the mother moves, the baby can feel the change in spatial orientation and will try to change her position accordingly in order to re-stabilize herself. She can also respond to tactile stimulation as her coordination improves.

Week 10
Nearly all of the organs of the fetus are formed. They will continue to grow and develop until delivery. Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and he is able to feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

Week 12
Remember that the baby can now experience many sensations and is now able to begin communicating with you. She has immense potential waiting to be stimulated and developed.

Week 14
In the second trimester the head is developing more actively than the rest of the body: the eyes, mouth, nose, and ears are almost completely formed, creating a well-defined face. The fetus has an adult's taste buds and may be able to savor

Week 19
At the fifth month, something extraordinary occurs: she can actually begin to hear! The child can hear and recognize her mother's voice

Just so we can be clear, when is it ok to abort? At week 5 the baby has a primitive brain. At 10 weeks, it's fully formed.

0 Replies

Wolf,

I really appreciate the way you explain things. Wow. That's a lot to digest. And stem cells? Ooooh. Now that's a topic I just don't even want to get into.

There are just so many questions I don't think there are any real answers to. Not yet anyway.

You obviously are very knowledgeable in science. Not one of my best subjects.

0 Replies

ABORTION.......

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know