Is abortion really wrong?

Nor quote others accurately, apparently.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

flushd,

I'm saying that a fetus prefers that which is beneficial to its nature, and it will resist any change that is not beneficial.

flushd wrote:

echi, you didn't answer my question though. What choices are a fetus capable of making and how do they communicate this?

You interpret things one way, but perhaps that is not what a fetus 'prefers' at all. How do you know with absolute certainty? Because the cells duplicate?

I don't know what choices a fetus makes. Their environment, their reality, is so different from our's. We know that they react to stimuli, in ways that suggest self-interest (preferences). It seems reasonable to think these preferences likely exist before they become detectable.

(I may not have fully answered your question, but it's a start.)

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

real life wrote:
flushd wrote:
Also, I am curious to know if you think a fetus has a soul? A seperate life-force not shared with the mother?

I have not based my argument for the protection of the unborn on when he/she has a soul.

My argument is based on medical evidence that believer and non-believer alike will agree on.

Many atheists and agnostics are pro-life.

Okay, I hear you Real Life. I was actually only asking out of curiosity of your views.

You have actually asked two questions.

The second question: does the unborn have a life that is separate from or not shared with his/her mother?

This is what the abortion debate is all about. I believe that the unborn is a living human being from the moment of conception.

I may be wrong about it, but there is no medical evidence to suggest a starting point for life at any other juncture.

From conception, the unborn is growing, and performing the functions of a living being.

And as I have mentioned often, the DNA offers conclusive proof that the living being present then is not simply 'part of the mother's body.'

---------------------------------------------------------

As for the first question:do I think the unborn has a 'soul'?

I don't know that I could give you a good definition of what a 'soul' is. This is one of the reasons that I do not base my position on this question.

Although I am a Christian, and believe that each person 'has' or 'is' a soul, I do not fully understand what it is.

Just as scientists would have a difficult time explaining what 'consciousness' is, how it comes about, etc.

Many theories abound, but they are being pushed by events like those who come out of coma after years or decades.

I have posted several stories like this, most recently this week an 11 year old boy who emerged from a 'persistent vegetative state'.

0 Replies

echi, are you a vegetarian ?

I ask because I wonder about how you would weigh the interests of animals who are arguably far more developed, concious and self-preserving than a foetus.

Do you see a difference between human life and other life? If so, why?

(I'm not trying to score any points here, just trying to see from your POV.)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

echi, are you a vegetarian ?

I ask because I wonder about how you would weigh the interests of animals who are arguably far more developed, concious and self-preserving than a foetus.

Do you see a difference between human life and other life? If so, why?

(I'm not trying to score any points here, just trying to see from your POV.)

The criteria you delineate for determining worth and who deserves protection are actually the perfect basis for a 'might-makes-right' totalitarian society.

An unconscious person in a coma is every bit as much a human being as you or I.

A mentally retarded person is every bit as much a human being as you or I.

A newborn is every bit as much a human being as you or I.

But you deny this.

In your view, it is the more capable, more intelligent who are deserving of human rights , and therefore they may also bestow or withhold human rights from the weak, the less intelligent and the less capable.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

echi, are you a vegetarian ?

I ask because I wonder about how you would weigh the interests of animals who are arguably far more developed, concious and self-preserving than a foetus.

Do you see a difference between human life and other life? If so, why? . . .

I think the belief in different types of "life" is very similar to the religious belief in "souls"; I don't believe in either.

I don't quite understand the question about animals' interests. (I tried to answer it, but...) What do you mean by, "...how you would weigh the interests..."? Maybe I just can't imagine a scenario.

And yes, I eat vegetarian.

0 Replies

real life, you're drawing a very long bow there.

The pro-choice side is largely left wing, the anti-choice are largely right wing...which side looks more totalitarian to you? Which of us intends to lay down the law about what woman may or may not do?

I think our differences stem from your adherence to the concept of a soul. Being a "human being" holds a special significance for you that it doesn't for me. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I care any less for people than you do, it's our differences about what constitutes "people" that matters....as always.

echi,

that's cool, thankyou for answering, your respect for all life is apparent and gets plenty of respect from me.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

echi,

that's cool, thankyou for answering, your respect for all life is apparent and gets plenty of respect from me.

What? That's it?!!

Come on, man. I can take it!!

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life, you're drawing a very long bow there.

The pro-choice side is largely left wing, the anti-choice are largely right wing...which side looks more totalitarian to you?

The left.

Eorl wrote:

Being a "human being" holds a special significance for you that it doesn't for me.

That's why the left looks more totalitarian to me.

Eorl wrote:

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I care any less for people than you do, it's our differences about what constitutes "people" that matters....as always.

Defining away what constitutes 'people' or 'human beings' is a classic totalitarian tactic.

Eorl wrote:

Which of us intends to lay down the law about what woman may or may not do?

Both the left and the right propose laws for what men and women may or may not do.

Unless you're an anarchist.

Don't demagogue me with this 'lay down the law' garbage, Eorl.

The left (especially in America) are far more restrictive of freedom than the right, and far less willing to protect free societies.

They regard evils such as terrorism as merely 'cultural'.

Well, how dangerous is terrorism if it is just a 'difference of opinion'?

Thus they excuse totalitarian dangers to Western society.

Eorl wrote:

I think our differences stem from your adherence to the concept of a soul.

The concept of a soul has no bearing on my position regarding abortion, nor for many others who are atheists, agnostics or from a wide variety of faith and non-faith perspectives.

You would love to argue this one on religion, so that you don't have to back your view with medical facts or biology.

Have you ANY evidence that the unborn is not a living human being?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

.....Do you see a difference between human life and other life? If so, why?

There are obvious prey animals like deer and elk and hogs, and there are obviously intelligent creatures other than ourselves which should be respected. Gorillas which have been taught deaf signing show IQs in the 100 range and clearly should be thought of as people and not animals.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Eorl wrote:

.....Do you see a difference between human life and other life? If so, why?

There are obvious prey animals like deer and elk and hogs, and there are obviously intelligent creatures other than ourselves which should be respected. Gorillas which have been taught deaf signing show IQs in the 100 range and clearly should be thought of as people and not animals.

gunga,

Are the less intelligent always the more obvious prey?

0 Replies

RL:

Enjoy...

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=88c7d8ab-cd7f-4c01-b9a3-4f3b202b1fd6&f=06/64&fg=email

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

RL:

Enjoy...

http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=88c7d8ab-cd7f-4c01-b9a3-4f3b202b1fd6&f=06/64&fg=email

Fascinating stuff, baddog1.

As the 'window on the womb' widens, and the medical status of the unborn becomes more common knowledge, it is inevitable that people become more pro-life.

Pro-aborts are scared to death of this, and will do everything they can, for instance , to make sure that abortionists are shielded from full disclosure.

Abortion is a medical procedure by any yardstick.

And abortionists should be required to fully disclose pertinent medical information including sonograms, information on heartbeat, stage of development, etc to the mother of the child prior to the abortion.

Can any pro-abortion person give even one reasonable objection to full disclosure requirements?

0 Replies

RL:

It's like I mentioned to flushd a while back; this is purely an emotional subject and no matter the physical evidence presented to pro-aborts - they (by god :wink: ) are not going to back down. You see it's really not about the reality of those photographs of unborn babies shown or even the medical substantiation, it's all about what they want to see, believe and hang their hat on. It's emotional - and political; nothing more, nothing less.

The far-fetched analogies and comparisons are somewhat laughable; however more sad to me than anything else. I often wonder what they truly see when looking at the faces, arms, hands, fingers et al of those tiny humans in the photo's? With all my might - I hope it's more than a clump of cells - I truly do!!! Sad

0 Replies

Is abortion really right or a good thing to do?

0 Replies

Usually no. Rarely, yes.

What's your point Bartikus?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

RL:

It's like I mentioned to flushd a while back; this is purely an emotional subject and no matter the physical evidence presented to pro-aborts - they (by god :wink: ) are not going to back down. You see it's really not about the reality of those photographs of unborn babies shown or even the medical substantiation, it's all about what they want to see, believe and hang their hat on. It's emotional - and political; nothing more, nothing less.

The far-fetched analogies and comparisons are somewhat laughable; however more sad to me than anything else. I often wonder what they truly see when looking at the faces, arms, hands, fingers et al of those tiny humans in the photo's? With all my might - I hope it's more than a clump of cells - I truly do!!!

You are quite correct.

One poster here on A2K tried desparately to tell me that sonograms of the unborn were 'emotional stuff' and that the 'medical professionals' who conduct abortions should not be required to disclose to women the pertinent medical information (such as sonograms) regarding the medical status of the unborn , simply because it was 'emotional stuff.'

Instead they continually fill the void with political sloganeering regarding the 'right to choose' and 'control of the woman's body', which completely ignore the body of the unborn and his/her rights.

If a parent 'chose' to put to death a newborn, everyone (except maybe Eorl) would agree that it was wrong to put a living human being to death. However, if the mother 'chooses' the same a few days earlier, then it's ok?

You are right. There is no reasoning with a pro-abortion person. They continually reject evidence and make their appeal to the emotions.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Usually no. Rarely, yes.

What's your point Bartikus?

My point was to get people to answer the topic's question by posing the question in a different way.

Would the answer to the topics question then be....Usually yes. Rarely, no from your standpoint?

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

RL:

It's like I mentioned to flushd a while back; this is purely an emotional subject and no matter the physical evidence presented to pro-aborts - they (by god :wink: ) are not going to back down. You see it's really not about the reality of those photographs of unborn babies shown or even the medical substantiation, it's all about what they want to see, believe and hang their hat on. It's emotional - and political; nothing more, nothing less.

The far-fetched analogies and comparisons are somewhat laughable; however more sad to me than anything else. I often wonder what they truly see when looking at the faces, arms, hands, fingers et al of those tiny humans in the photo's? With all my might - I hope it's more than a clump of cells - I truly do!!!

Many ask for proof and evidence in regards to the existence of God.

In light of your observations, what good do you think it would do for many if evidence of God were presented to them?

I ask you as well RL!

I believe there is scripture that addresses this.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Usually no. Rarely, yes.

What's your point Bartikus?

My point was to get people to answer the topic's question by posing the question in a different way.

Would the answer to the topics question then be....Usually yes. Rarely, no from your standpoint?

Yes, pretty much. I'm not in favour of abortion at all. I just want it to be freely and legally available to everyone.

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know