Is abortion really wrong?

real life wrote:

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'.

Hi RL.

Again, you are making a comparison between a fetus and a full-grown adult (who is bound and gagged). I fail to see how that is a viable comparison ...since it is built on an assumption that a fetus and adult are equal as persons.
We both know that not all of us agree on that.

My point is that they are not the same. It wasn't an arguement for abortion.

For those who choose to proclaim "Abortion is wrong" it is an arbritrary assignment of 'right or wrong'. It's a moral judgement. No more, no less. Granting a fetus full status as person seems to make that easier.

Badboy,

Yes, it is an emotional issue for me. That doesn't mean I don't use thought. It doesn't mean my emotions dictate my position on this.

Perhaps there is a difference there that is important. I am a woman - this directly affects me. I know I have a voice in this that is equal to others, and I believe in the right to choose. Of course I will defend that.

As much as many people like to pretend that this issue is purely intellectual and can actually be deduced whether it is 'right or wrong', it can't. How can a moral judgement value be logically determined as THE correct one? It can't. And at its core is an emotional decision.

In regards to the photos - I fail to see the relevence of them. That is why I asked why you posted them? They are interesting, and rather sensational. Anything I am missing?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

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?

Hi echi.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant is it does not 'want' anything in the sense of a moral or intellectual decision. A fetus does not process "right or wrong, live or die".

Unless that is proven otherwise, there is no way I can accept a fetus being compared to someone with full personhood.

There is a reason the clump of cells is connected to the mother clump - it does not exist independently. In many ways, it still IS the mother clump. Distinct, yes, but not independent.

0 Replies

Quote:

Badboy,

Yes, it is an emotional issue for me. That doesn't mean I don't use thought. It doesn't mean my emotions dictate my position on this.

Perhaps there is a difference there that is important. I am a woman - this directly affects me. I know I have a voice in this that is equal to others, and I believe in the right to choose. Of course I will defend that.

As much as many people like to pretend that this issue is purely intellectual and can actually be deduced whether it is 'right or wrong', it can't. How can a moral judgement value be logically determined as THE correct one? It can't. And at its core is an emotional decision.

In regards to the photos - I fail to see the relevence of them. That is why I asked why you posted them? They are interesting, and rather sensational. Anything I am missing?

I am sure you use thought - however I am unsure how much your emotions dictate your position on this. IMHO; more than you realize. Defending one's right to choose obviously has no boundaries and I feel that it should.

I am not one who purports this issue to be purely intellectual. In fact - I feel it is mostly emotional as are all moral judgments. However I do feel that logic should be involved on some level. (Such as the photo's in question!) The photo's "logically prove" [by the basic human sense of sight] that the fetus being operated on is no more or less a clump of cells than you and I - which is why I posted them!

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

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.

Chicken or the egg my friend you can't have them both.

0 Replies

Quote:

Chicken or the egg my friend you can't have them both.

Like I said - that's a chicken wing in the photo! :wink: Or egg whites.

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

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

What I meant is it does not 'want' anything in the sense of a moral or intellectual decision. A fetus does not process "right or wrong, live or die".

As I see it, those concepts are formed around wants, or preferences, the earliest of which stem from the unborn's natural impetus to grow and develop. The (outer) concepts adapt to serve the root motivation.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

echi wrote:
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?

Hi echi.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant is it does not 'want' anything in the sense of a moral or intellectual decision. A fetus does not process "right or wrong, live or die".

Unless that is proven otherwise, there is no way I can accept a fetus being compared to someone with full personhood.

Neither does a newborn process right or wrong, live or die.

Neither does a one year old.

Neither does a two year old...........

The ability to make such decisions is not the indicator of whether one is a living human being or whether one is a 'person'.

flushd wrote:

There is a reason the clump of cells is connected to the mother clump - it does not exist independently. In many ways, it still IS the mother clump. Distinct, yes, but not independent.

The newborn is not 'independent' of the care of another in any meaningful sense. If he/she is not cared for constantly, he/she will quickly die.

Same with a one year old. A few days at most and he's dead. He/she is not 'independent' of another's care in any meaningful sense.

The unborn is NOT 'part' of the mother's body. Every part of the mother's body shares her DNA. The unborn has it's own DNA pattern. The unborn has it's own body, it's own heart pumping it's own blood, etc.

0 Replies

None of that explains what you think gives you the right to hold a gun at someones head to make sure they carry a foetus to term.

(I'm not really talking figuratively either, you do support the death penalty for murder remember.)

After the birth, no one individual is FORCED to care for a child as is the case before the birth.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

None of that explains what you think gives you the right to hold a gun at someones head to make sure they carry a foetus to term.

(I'm not really talking figuratively either, you do support the death penalty for murder remember.)

After the birth, no one individual is FORCED to care for a child as is the case before the birth.

Actually, the father can be forced to care for the child by paying child support until the child is no longer a minor (and rightly so, I might add. It is his moral responsibility, just as it is the mother's moral responsibility not to kill it.)

He must do so whether he wanted the child or not, but legally now the mother can kill the child if she doesn't want it.

Were you unaware of this?

0 Replies

Abortion is Murder.

0 Replies

Life is hell. Twisted Evil

duh, duh, duh, another one bites the dust! YEA!!
duh, duh, duh, another one bites the dust! Sing it!!

ANNNNND, another one gone, and another one gone,
Another one bites the dust! YEA!!

Hey, ima abort you too, another one bites the dust.
-insert guitar solo here-

0 Replies

A zygote doens't have a heart until it develops one. It doens't have blood until it develops palettes. It doens't have a brain until it develops either.

The biology/DNA route isn't a route that you're goig to gain any ground on.

It should be a person's choice. I'd hope that a person would choose to keep a child to term and keep it after, but that is just all to ideal.

Abortion is murder?

so, Murder is abortion?

So in war we don't kill, we abort?

Square = rectangle, but if rectangle =! square you can't equate the two. Logic.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

A zygote doens't have a heart until it develops one. It doens't have blood until it develops palettes. It doens't have a brain until it develops either.

The biology/DNA route isn't a route that you're goig to gain any ground on.

The unborn's DNA is distinct from the mother's from the very first moment of conception.

When sperm joins egg, the newly created person's DNA already does NOT match the mother's.

Therefore, he/she is NOT part of the mother's body.

Simple undeniable biology.

The only reason it 'doesn't gain any ground' with some, is that they choose to ignore the obvious.

Diest TKO wrote:

It should be a person's choice. I'd hope that a person would choose to keep a child to term and keep it after, but that is just all to ideal.

The medical community considers the unborn to be a separate patient.

Since the unborn is a person, shouldn't they also have a choice?

0 Replies

Therefore, he/she is NOT part of the mother's body.

So what? It's still not a developed person. The woman still has a right to make the choices for her body.

0 Replies

Diest TKO: "I'd hope that a person would choose to keep a child to term and keep it after ..."

Why?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Therefore, he/she is NOT part of the mother's body.

So what? It's still not a developed person. The woman still has a right to make the choices for her body.

A newborn is not a fully 'developed person' either. Whatever you mean by that .

Neither is a six year old.

How 'developed' must one be to merit protection of life, EB?

At EXACTLY what point does one become a living human being, or in your view 'develop' enough to merit human rights?

An exact point in time or age of development is needed, because it's still open season on all the rest, right?

If you're gonna draw a distinction (write a law) between those who are 'developed' enough to protect and those who are not then it must be spelled out EXACTLY when that is.

If your line is in the wrong place, then some living humans are gonna be killed as a result.

Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the unborn at ANY stage is not a living human being? Pick an age of development ( 0-40 weeks in utero ) and use medical evidence to make your case.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Diest TKO: "I'd hope that a person would choose to keep a child to term and keep it after ..."

Why?

I'm just saying that I'd like for everyone to be enabled to keep their pregnancies to term and keep their children after term. I don't want parentless children in the world. It would be nice. I'm pro-choice because I believe we should choose to keep our children not be forced to do so. Legality doesn't equate to morality.

Real Life - So if a clump of cells has it's own distict DNA, it has a distintion? What about the cells in the placenta that don't belong to the mother or father? Are they protected? Having a seperate DNA structure doesn't validate the removal of someone's ability to choose. Whether it be for the unborn, or themselves.

If you start arguing that anytime one person makes a choice that involves the death of cells that are genetically different than their own, you really create a big stupid hole.

You could claim obtuse things as the tanning salon is trying to abort me! Their murdering my skin cells that are totolly genetically different than thiers!

You could claim murder for everyone who coughs on a train.

Hell, birth is still the leading cause of death.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm just saying that I'd like for everyone to be enabled to keep their pregnancies to term and keep their children after term. I don't want parentless children in the world. It would be nice. I'm pro-choice because I believe we should choose to keep our children not be forced to do so. Legality doesn't equate to morality.

Is it out of concern for the pregnant woman, only, that you'd hope she would choose to give birth to it?

0 Replies

RL said:
The medical community considers the unborn to be a separate patient.
Since the unborn is a person, shouldn't they also have a choice?

Now that is just plain weird and illogical. And how would the unborn voice their 'choice'?

It has not been established that the unborn is a person. It has been established that the unborn is simply that: an unborn, developing fetus.

This stuff about a fetus not being part of a mother's body is incorrect, too.
Yes, a fetus has its own DNA. No ****. It is a creation of mother and father, growing straight from the body of the mother. Sucking her nutrients. Protected in her womb. Part of her.

If the fetus isn't part of the mother's body - and hence, she has no ultimate say over what happens to the fetus - then it wouldn't matter if she drank bottles of liquor. The fetus would be responsible for taking care of itself and saying "nope, I choose not to take booze into my body."

The unborn can not make a choice. It is impossible.

So what I'd like to ask you Real Life is this, it's what I'd really like to know:
Who do you think should be making the choices for the unborn?

That's what it comes down to, as far as I understand it. Who decides what.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
I'm just saying that I'd like for everyone to be enabled to keep their pregnancies to term and keep their children after term. I don't want parentless children in the world. It would be nice. I'm pro-choice because I believe we should choose to keep our children not be forced to do so. Legality doesn't equate to morality.

Is it out of concern for the pregnant woman, only, that you'd hope she would choose to give birth to it?

I guess I don't understand what you're confused about. Can you restate your question. My concern is for all people.

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know