Is abortion really wrong?

RexRed wrote:

To use abortion as a contraceptive when sterilization should be the due course is just ethically and morally wrong.

Is there any justification in creating life just to kill and destroy it?

There comes a point that one weighs the morality of if it is better to mandatorily remove the ability to create life than to continue to kill life unnecessarily.

How does that not contradict your other statement, "I really personally do not believe that life begins until a fetus/baby takes it's first breath... "?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

... (a fetus doesn't 'want' anything...it's a clump of cells).

It's a clump of cells that is distinct from its mother clump. It grows and develops. It is subject to benefit and detriment. Why would it not have preferences?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

RexRed wrote:
To use abortion as a contraceptive when sterilization should be the due course is just ethically and morally wrong.

Is there any justification in creating life just to kill and destroy it?

There comes a point that one weighs the morality of if it is better to mandatorily remove the ability to create life than to continue to kill life unnecessarily.

How does that not contradict your other statement, "I really personally do not believe that life begins until a fetus/baby takes it's first breath... "?

Just because I don't believed a fetus has a soul until it takes it first breath that does not mean I do not think it is not alive or has the potential to have a soul.

0 Replies

Wait a minute....Christians think that a "soul" exists, but can't decide at what point this little bit of magic attaches itself to a person?

Does it go "zinnng" when the sperm enters the egg....or does it go "zinnng" when it takes it's first breath?...(of air, I presume...a foetus inhales uterine fluids)

If it's when the sperm enters the egg, is it when the outer wall is breached, or is it when the chromosomes join?

0 Replies

It happens when the magic soul fairy sprinkles her pixie dust and turns pinnochio into a real boy. I thought everyone knew that.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
flushd wrote:
real life wrote:

If she doesn't want to raise the child, adoption (even with it's shortcomings) is a much better option than death, wouldn't you agree?

Ask anyone who was adopted, even if they waited a long time, if they would rather be dead.

...If you aren't born, how can you care one way or the other? We're talking about aborting fetus' not adults...

Huh? The question wasn't asked about those not born - it was clearly about those adopted! :wink:

From the other "abortion" thread:

"Haven't posted in a while and thought I'd jump in here.

As it's been stated on here that a fetus to a human is no different than an egg to a chicken... (Or was it yolk to a chicken? Sorry - don't recall! )

I wonder if those performing the surgeries shown on the link below are doctors, veterinarians, farmers or what?"

http://www.fetal-surgery.com/fs-pics.htm

Get a grip.

RL's question was silly. Of course, if you ask a full ADULT if they would prefer life, the majority will say "Yes, it's not bad being alive".
Though you have heard of depression and suicide right? Some would say "No, I wish I had never been born." and mean it too.

The fact is: a fetus is not an adult. A fetus does think "don't kill me! don't kill me!"
It doesn't think. It isn't an adult. So we can't ask a fetus what it wants (a fetus doesn't 'want' anything...it's a clump of cells).
And we abort fetus'...not adults. You'd think this would be obvious, but some dolts continue to argue as though a fetus had a fully functioning brain.

Now what point were you trying to make with that link? We all know you have some damn 'proof' to exclaim. ...

hi flushd,

Of course a fetus is much more than 'a clump of cells'.

It is only 'a clump of cells' in the same sense that you are 'a clump of cells'.

The unborn has a heart pumping blood (his/her own blood, not his/her mother's blood) through a body that is genetically distinct from the mother.

Your argument that a fetus 'is not an adult' is meaningless.

Is a newborn an adult?

Is a one year old an adult? Can he/ she think 'don't kill me'?

Of course not.

If someone is asleep or unconscious, is it ok to kill them on the basis that they did not appear to 'want to live'?

People don't 'earn' the right to life depending on your judgement of how well they can think or reason, or how eloquently they can articulate their desire to live.

It is wrong to kill the unborn who cannot speak for him/herself for the same reason it would be wrong to kill someone who is bound and gagged, while you are making the excuse 'well, they were unable to tell me whether or not they wished to live'.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Wait a minute....Christians think that a "soul" exists, but can't decide at what point this little bit of magic attaches itself to a person?

Does it go "zinnng" when the sperm enters the egg....or does it go "zinnng" when it takes it's first breath?...(of air, I presume...a foetus inhales uterine fluids)

If it's when the sperm enters the egg, is it when the outer wall is breached, or is it when the chromosomes join?

Before the first breath the soul still exists in the fetus (It is passed from father to offspring), it is just a dead soul as opposed to a living soul.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Wait a minute....Christians think that a "soul" exists, but can't decide at what point this little bit of magic attaches itself to a person?

Does it go "zinnng" when the sperm enters the egg....or does it go "zinnng" when it takes it's first breath?...(of air, I presume...a foetus inhales uterine fluids)

If it's when the sperm enters the egg, is it when the outer wall is breached, or is it when the chromosomes join?

Since you yourself can't seem to decide at exactly what point a human life actually begins (and is thus 'worthy' of protection), how are you any better off than those you are criticizing?

Since nobody is making an argument based on, or even referring to, 'ensoulment' , perhaps your post would be more relevant if you addressed what really is being discussed.

0 Replies

Ge 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

0 Replies

When you breathe your last breath you are a dead soul again...

You body goes back to the dust and your soul goes back to the air.

God made Adam a living soul and Adam passed soul life on...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Ge 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

hi Rex,

OK, I missed your earlier post about the soul, sorry.

This verse refers to one who literally formed from the ground and was NEVER in a womb and didn't experience being conceived in a womb and born as the rest of humanity has.

It does not indicate when one who IS conceived in the womb becomes a living human being, so I don't see the relevance.

It seems to be an apples and oranges kind of comparison.

0 Replies

That's funny real life, how come you didn't respond to my bible verse that dictates the value of a foetus?

You know, this one:

And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide . But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25

0 Replies

RL - You have compared a fetus, for that matter a zygote, or even a few divided cells to now have the cognitive equivilance with a bund adult human being. You expect people to acknowledge this metaphore as being sound?

How about this. A man's head is severed in an accident, and by the miracule of technology, doctors are able to keep the body alive; headless. The heart beats, hair and fingernails cntinue to grow, cells divide. Would it be morally wrong to stop whatever machines were keeping the body alive? Does the body have a will? There is no mind, and the body cannot make any decisions.

Again, with emphasis: "The body can't have an opinion because there is no brian to cognatively compute and articulate thought."

The answer is a big "NO." To those of you who would argue this, you're crazy; certifiable.

A clump of cells with no cognative power can't have an opinion. Even when the brian begins to develop, it does only to manage bodily systems such as a heart. For that matter, we don't develop cognative power until much time out of the womb.

I don't know why this is even important to begin with. Biology or not, choice should be president. Defining when "life" can't help when we don't fight for those who are alive right now.

Making abortion "the human rights" issue is cruel an negligent to those who need the real help. I'm not advocating to just throw money at the issue, but to surrender our rights to fascism is far more worse.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

That's funny real life, how come you didn't respond to my bible verse that dictates the value of a foetus?

You know, this one:

And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide . But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25

How does this indicate that the unborn was not a living human being?

It gives the husband the right to demand whatever value he wishes.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

RL - You have compared a fetus, for that matter a zygote, or even a few divided cells to now have the cognitive equivilance with a bund adult human being. You expect people to acknowledge this metaphore as being sound?

How about this. A man's head is severed in an accident, and by the miracule of technology, doctors are able to keep the body alive; headless. The heart beats, hair and fingernails cntinue to grow, cells divide. Would it be morally wrong to stop whatever machines were keeping the body alive? Does the body have a will? There is no mind, and the body cannot make any decisions.

Again, with emphasis: "The body can't have an opinion because there is no brian to cognatively compute and articulate thought."

The answer is a big "NO." To those of you who would argue this, you're crazy; certifiable.

A clump of cells with no cognative power can't have an opinion. Even when the brian begins to develop, it does only to manage bodily systems such as a heart. For that matter, we don't develop cognative power until much time out of the womb.

I don't know why this is even important to begin with. Biology or not, choice should be president. Defining when "life" can't help when we don't fight for those who are alive right now.

Making abortion "the human rights" issue is cruel an negligent to those who need the real help. I'm not advocating to just throw money at the issue, but to surrender our rights to fascism is far more worse.

I have not made cognitive ability a prerequisite for personhood, or for human rights; you apparently have.

So is a human being only entitled to protection of life if he has cognitive ability?

How much ability?

Who decides how much ability?

Does a newborn have enough cognitive ability?

You mention 'much time out of the womb'.

So when, in your opinion IS a person entitled to have protection of life? (Apparently not even at birth or soon after, if you are to be consistent.)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
That's funny real life, how come you didn't respond to my bible verse that dictates the value of a foetus?

You know, this one:

And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide . But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25

How does this indicate that the unborn was not a living human being?

It gives the husband the right to demand whatever value he wishes.

It certainly doesn't get the status of "a life", for then the penalty would be "a life". It's really one of the most unambigious passages that have anything to do with abortion in the entire bible.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
That's funny real life, how come you didn't respond to my bible verse that dictates the value of a foetus?

You know, this one:

And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide . But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25

How does this indicate that the unborn was not a living human being?

It gives the husband the right to demand whatever value he wishes.

It certainly doesn't get the status of "a life", for then the penalty would be "a life". It's really one of the most unambigious passages that have anything to do with abortion in the entire bible.

Where in the passage does it say that the mother sought or chose to terminate the child's life?

It has nothing to do with abortion, but with accidental death due to careless or reckless behavior of a third party.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
RL - You have compared a fetus, for that matter a zygote, or even a few divided cells to now have the cognitive equivilance with a bund adult human being. You expect people to acknowledge this metaphore as being sound?

How about this. A man's head is severed in an accident, and by the miracule of technology, doctors are able to keep the body alive; headless. The heart beats, hair and fingernails cntinue to grow, cells divide. Would it be morally wrong to stop whatever machines were keeping the body alive? Does the body have a will? There is no mind, and the body cannot make any decisions.

Again, with emphasis: "The body can't have an opinion because there is no brian to cognatively compute and articulate thought."

The answer is a big "NO." To those of you who would argue this, you're crazy; certifiable.

A clump of cells with no cognative power can't have an opinion. Even when the brian begins to develop, it does only to manage bodily systems such as a heart. For that matter, we don't develop cognative power until much time out of the womb.

I don't know why this is even important to begin with. Biology or not, choice should be president. Defining when "life" can't help when we don't fight for those who are alive right now.

Making abortion "the human rights" issue is cruel an negligent to those who need the real help. I'm not advocating to just throw money at the issue, but to surrender our rights to fascism is far more worse.

I have not made cognitive ability a prerequisite for personhood, or for human rights; you apparently have.

So is a human being only entitled to protection of life if he has cognitive ability?

How much ability?

Who decides how much ability?

Does a newborn have enough cognitive ability?

You mention 'much time out of the womb'.

So when, in your opinion IS a person entitled to have protection of life? (Apparently not even at birth or soon after, if you are to be consistent.)

No. You made the statement that you speak for those without voices. The truth is that you thik for those withhout thoughts. You claim to know what it would want.

Who decides? Answer: The mother/couple.

When does a person inherit rights? Answer: When the mother/couple decides that they wish for the person to be born. They inherit the accountablity for that person until they have developed.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
real life wrote:
Eorl wrote:
That's funny real life, how come you didn't respond to my bible verse that dictates the value of a foetus?

You know, this one:

And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide . But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21:22-25

How does this indicate that the unborn was not a living human being?

It gives the husband the right to demand whatever value he wishes.

It certainly doesn't get the status of "a life", for then the penalty would be "a life". It's really one of the most unambigious passages that have anything to do with abortion in the entire bible.

Where in the passage does it say that the mother sought or chose to terminate the child's life?

It doesn't. Do you have one that does, do you?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Ge 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

hi Rex,

OK, I missed your earlier post about the soul, sorry.

This verse refers to one who literally formed from the ground and was NEVER in a womb and didn't experience being conceived in a womb and born as the rest of humanity has.

It does not indicate when one who IS conceived in the womb becomes a living human being, so I don't see the relevance.

It seems to be an apples and oranges kind of comparison.

Where in the Bible does it specifically say that Adam and Eve never came from a womb?

It says God formed them from the dust of the ground. God made Eve from Adams rib, that means they evolved beside each other.

The dust of the ground is mineral and nutrients that are fed to a fetus through an umbilical cord.

That can just as easily be done is a womb though evolution over time.

It also does not say how long it took God to make the body and soul but it indicates on that day that God was finished forming and making their body and soul. Forming and making indicates the passing of time, creating is most often instantaneous from our perspective..

Evolutions is presented in Genesis as a statement of fact.

Why DIDN'T the Bible say God "created" the body and why even use the dust of the ground at all Neo?

God FORMED the body from something present already. That is not creating that is sculpting. That is growth that is incubation. Them God breathed into man.. that is birth... God gave both the male and female to the world.

Then God made man a living soul, it does not say he "created" man a living soul BUT man became a living being (over time).

If he had created man a living soul, ONLY then could one be certain that Adam was the first living being. Animals have breath life too so animals have souls. They just do not have the potential to have "spirit".

Because God made man a living soul it indicates that souls were conceivably "made" prior also.

THEN God "created" man in his own image, The image of God is spirit.
This was the FIRST time spirit had ever been upon humans. The word created is used in association with the spirit.

But it was not used in association with body and soul which indicates, they were created earlier and were materials used to add spirit to later.

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know