When Does Life Begin?

real life wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
real life wrote:
So, abortion (killing the child) is the most compassionate thing you can think of?

Under some circumstances, it may be the best solution for all involved.

Except for the child who is dead.

You don't know that.

Unfortunately, the answer to that question gets into metaphysics -- what happens to a soul that is not allowed to incarnate? I happen to believe that the soul will be given another opportunity to incarnate in a different body. If I were given the choice between being born into unfavorable circumstances in which I would be unwanted, abused, or suffer from some terrible deformity or genetic disease, or being born into circumstances in which I was wanted, loved, and healthy, I would choose the latter.

Of course, you could have a different view of the fate of the soul of an aborted child. If so, we may not be able to resolve this.

Quote:

You oppose capital punishment for convicted violent felons, but you support it for innocent victims.

Do you see a contradiction there?

No. As I stated earlier, the soul of an adult, or even a child, has a considerable investment in his/her current life. The soul of an unborn child in the early stages of pregnancy has comparatively much less invested in that incarnation. It is not a trivial matter to abort that life, by any means, but it is less disruptive to the evolution of the soul than to kill them as an adult. Also, in the case of a felon, I think there may be more value for them to rot in jail and reflect on their circumstances and their actions, with the possibility that they might feel regret and begin to turn their life around. That may not be possible if they are executed (depending on after-life circumstances). I don't believe in punishment for the sake of retribution, but for the sake of teaching a hard lesson to the criminal. The goal is not just for him to suffer, but to change his way of thinking and level of maturity so that he can become a responsible adult, if that is possible. Those that incapable of reform should simply be locked away.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why is it the woman's business to end the life of the unborn even if he/she poses 0% risk and impedes on NONE of her rights?

I kinda disagree with this in that the unborn impedes on her body. It is, in effect, a parasite. It can make her sick to her stomach, gain weight and all sorts of fun things...

Now, I'm not "pro-life" simply because I do not believe in this whole life begins as conception thing. Though, I'm not "pro-choice" completely either as that tends to give irresponsible women (young girls) a get-out-of-jail-free card for life.

This entire issue could be set aside if education were made more available. However, soooo many people insist that it is immoral to teach children sex ed or to allow the use of any birth control. The "abstinence only" approach DOES NOT WORK. I believe the statistics show that it delays sexual experiences by about 18 months on average. Kids are going to have sex and not giving them the tools to be safe makes us just as responsible as they are.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Quote:
Why is it the woman's business to end the life of the unborn even if he/she poses 0% risk and impedes on NONE of her rights?

I kinda disagree with this in that the unborn impedes on her body. It is, in effect, a parasite. It can make her sick to her stomach, gain weight and all sorts of fun things...

So to address the question directly, if the unborn did not 'impede on her body', would you agree that he/she has a right to life that should be protected by law?

Or do you still want the option to kill him/her just because?

0 Replies

I never said I wanted the option to kill anything "just because."

I think in some cases, like it or not, abortion is a viable answer to the situation.

Personally, I think the would-be mother should take more responsibility and NOT get knocked up. And I'm not against forced sterilization if a given woman refused to do so. Of course, that opens a completely new can of worms...

0 Replies

Oh, and I also think that if it is going to be done, it should be done within the first few (VERY few) weeks, preferably via the "morning after pill."

0 Replies

Hokie,

Neither of those is a direct answer to my specific question.

This tends to indicate that the issue which you raised re: the 'woman's body' and the 'woman's rights being impeded' are simply red herrings.

If you are still pro-abortion when the unborn poses 0% risk and compromises NO rights of the woman, then what other conclusion is there?

0 Replies

Call it what you will, but your scenario is an impossibility. So there is no reason for me to give you a direct answer to a situation that cannot possibly come to be.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Call it what you will, but your scenario is an impossibility. .

Not so.

An embryo that was created in the lab and has not been implanted poses 0% risk to any woman and impedes on the rights of no woman.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

So there is no reason for me to give you a direct answer to a situation that cannot possibly come to be.

So what's your answer, now that your red herring is out of the way?

0 Replies

So then why would she want to kill it?

0 Replies

Still can't answer, eh?

0 Replies

I have no qualms with flushing said test tube. Like I said before, I do not believe that "life" begins at conception (or fertilization).

0 Replies

Sorry to change subject a little. We have had a few cases lately of babies being dumped at hospitals or churces. There is much public outrage "how could a mother do such a thing?", etc. I feel like I'm the only one thinking...
"Give her a break. The baby is OK and will be relatively fine. She had the option to abort, but chose not to. Good for her!"
Would the publicly outraged have prefered she had an abortion? I highly doubt it.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Sorry to change subject a little. We have had a few cases lately of babies being dumped at hospitals or churces. There is much public outrage "how could a mother do such a thing?", etc. I feel like I'm the only one thinking...
"Give her a break. The baby is OK and will be relatively fine. She had the option to abort, but chose not to. Good for her!"
Would the publicly outraged have prefered she had an abortion? I highly doubt it.

In Washington state, a mother may leave her baby in the care of others at a hospital or fire station, no questions asked. Still, hardly a month goes by when the news doesn't report someone abandoning a baby elsewhere. I don't get it.

0 Replies

Probably some of that good ol' catholic guilt. :-p

0 Replies

real life wrote:

real life wrote:
You claim that the abortion issue is all about the woman's rights, right? Let's see if that's true.

So , if an unborn child poses NO risk to the woman , and infringes on NONE of her rights, does this unborn child then have a right to life?

Or do you STILL want the option to kill him/her just because?

real life wrote:
No answer for this, eh CI?

None from Eorl, either.

No surprise.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Ofcoarse I have an answer: it's none of your business what the woman decides. Her decision doesn't affect you either way; only your sick mind.

Why is it the woman's business to end the life of the unborn even if he/she poses 0% risk and impedes on NONE of her rights?

I knew you would not be able to address the question in a straightforward manner.

Shouting slogans, hurling childish insults and 'it's none of your business' is the best you can do?

Well, at least you are typical of the pro-abortion crowd. Definitely in the mainstream among your own.

He did answer when he agreed to my answer.

T
K
O

0 Replies

RL - oh and that test tube baby question is still answered by my earlier post. Abortion is defined as the early termination of pregnancy. No pregnancy, no abortion.

As for the cells in the tube, while they are no longer in the cutody of a mother, someone or some organization etc must be the custodian for them. they still fail the criteria otherwise.

T
K
O

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I have no qualms with flushing said test tube. Like I said before, I do not believe that "life" begins at conception (or fertilization).

You seem pretty sure of that.

And it's important that you are sure, because if you are mistaken, then human lives are destroyed.

So then, EXACTLY when DOES life begin?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

. . . So then, EXACTLY when DOES life begin?

Must be when all the genetic components are in place so that, without intervention, a birth occurs.

A shame that is not obvious.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
I have no qualms with flushing said test tube. Like I said before, I do not believe that "life" begins at conception (or fertilization).

You seem pretty sure of that.

And it's important that you are sure, because if you are mistaken, then human lives are destroyed.

So then, EXACTLY when DOES life begin?

I don't pretend to know. I would imagine it is some time AFTER the nervous system has been constructed.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I have no qualms with flushing said test tube. Like I said before, I do not believe that "life" begins at conception (or fertilization).

You seem pretty sure of that.

And it's important that you are sure, because if you are mistaken, then human lives are destroyed.

So then, EXACTLY when DOES life begin?

I don't pretend to know. I would imagine it is some time AFTER the nervous system has been constructed.

If you came upon a body by the side of the road, and you weren't sure if it was alive, would you run over it just to make sure it wasn't?

Or would you proceed as if the person MAY be alive?

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know