When Does Life Begin?

Fault does not imply guilt. There can be subjective opinions of the same
pregnancy based on how it came about; some are even considered "an accident." Both are "guilty?"

0 Replies

I believe I use the term fault because of the statement made by Ellen Goodman who seems to want to blame the government for the reason these women have to go through their pregnancies. Eorl's earlier response appears to be along the same idea.
I agree, the issue of abortion is not one sided. There are many sides, many things involved in the decision to not want a pregnancy.

As long as the unborn are considered as less than human then it would seem sanctity of human life is nonexistant. If we can sanction killing by saying anyone is less than human what is to prevent anyone from being killed? Look at the inhumanity of slavery early in this country. Blacks were not considered human, but relatives of apes. Look at the genecide of women through abortion in India because they are viewed as having lesser human value than a man. If we make an exception for anyone then what is to stop us from making exceptions for others?... I would hope it would be the belief in the sanctity of human life.

0 Replies

aurorell wrote: As long as the unborn are considered as less than human then it would seem sanctity of human life is nonexistent.

Why do you people continue to insist "the unborn are considered less than human?" Your logic needs to be fine-tuned.

Your over-emphasis on the unborn vs all the now living that are living with starvation, no medical care, infanticide, and slaughter (such as Sudan) leaves much to be desired.

0 Replies

Ciceron
Not quite sure what you're trying to say.
I'm trying to stay on topic by limiting discussion to the beginning of life (unborn).
So here's a question: Can anyone truthfully say they believe in the sanctity of human life if they exclude even one person or stage of a person's growth for whatever reason? If you believe in the sanctity of human life then doesn't that mean ALL of human life?

I'm not an adamant antiabortionist. I used to be. But when I look at the bible it appears to me that the bottom line is simply love. Jesus says, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Look at Jesus. The bible says that Jesus was the only person who was perfect and therefore the only one justified in all that he did. Consider if he had called upon God to avenge him of the wrong doers in this world. Who would be left standing? He didn't call on God to avenge his righteousness even when they hung him on the cross to die. Why not? When you look at a crucifix what do you see? Do you see a man willing to give up his "righteousness- rightness" out of love, mercy and forgiveness for all, even his enemies. (The bible says Jesus is our example.) I believe that the issue of abortion must be tempered by compassion, kindness and forgiveness. As Eorl said, It's not all black and white. Enough of bashing others over the head and feeling justified in doing it because of our rightness-righteousness regarding abortion.
Now let me ask you this: Because I believe that kindness, mercy and forgiveness be shown for those who have abortions does that mean that I must completely abandon my belief in the sanctity of human life or encouraging others to?
(I voted antiabortion yesterday.)

0 Replies

aurorell wrote: I'm trying to stay on topic by limiting discussion to the beginning of life (unborn).
So here's a question: Can anyone truthfully say they believe in the sanctity of human life if they exclude even one person or stage of a person's growth for whatever reason? If you believe in the sanctity of human life then doesn't that mean ALL of human life?

Where I problems with your definition for "sanctitiy of life," is your concentration on the unborn fetus that should be the choice of the pregnant woman, father, or the circumstances that resulted in that pregnancy such as rape or incest. In other words; none of our business.

In the mean time, we have all of those living humans who are ignored by your insistence on imposing your personal religious belief on complete strangers concering all fetus' you argue based on "sanctitiy of life.'

It just doesn't jive.

0 Replies

auroreII wrote:

Eorl
You say:
Nope. Like I keep tellin' ya. The words don't matter. So I don't need to prove to you that a "foetus" is not a "human being" besides the ease with which I can do so.
I'd like to hear you prove so.

I did so already by posting a definition for human being, a very common everyday definition. Foetus does not fit the criteria.

Your turn. Show me a common definition of Human Being to prove a zygote on day one is a complete human being.

Some supportive evidence that an egg is a chicken, and a seed is a tree would probably help you make your point.

It's all still just words. I'd rather argue about the morality than about the definitions. All you are doing by insisting a zygote is a human being is trying to simplify the problem to "killing people is wrong" (or as "real life" prefers "killing innocent people is wrong, killing guilty people is fine"). You want to pretend that it really is that simple. It isn't.

0 Replies

auroreII wrote:

. Anti-abortionists may seem as though they're taking a hard line, but shouldn't choice making begin before a pregnancy. Churches for years have been trying to get people to make wise choices in that respect.

I agree. The important words here (now in bold) are critical.

If you change it so that it reads:

auroreII wrote:

. Anti-abortionists may seem as though they're taking a hard line, but mustn't choice making begin before a pregnancy. Churches for years have been forcing to get people to make wise choices in that respect.

Now, it looks extremely hardline. And this is exactly what anti-abortionists are advocating. The soft spin is a lie.

0 Replies

For real life.....still waiting...it's your turn....

I wrote:

Quote:

Your definition would be pre-configured to support your argument. That's the way you assess everything....by deciding on the outcome you want beforehand.

Well then, let's hear it........?
What's your independant definition of "Human being"?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

For real life.....still waiting...it's your turn....

I wrote:

Quote:
Your definition would be pre-configured to support your argument. That's the way you assess everything....by deciding on the outcome you want beforehand.

Well then, let's hear it........?
What's your independant definition of "Human being"?

I don't have an 'independent' definition of a 'human being'.

That's the difference between you and I.

I don't make up new definitions as I go along.

You took the 'definition' from the wikipedia article, twisted it, and insisted that it proved that one must be capable of building a fire, producing literature and music before one is considered a 'human being'.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

[Show me a common definition of Human Being to prove a zygote on day one is a complete human being.

Quote:

After fertilization, the egg and sperm and nuclei fuse, and a new diploid human zygote results (2n) - the first cell of the new animal..

Quote:

How does a one-celled zygote - the product of fertilization - become a multicellular organisms with tissues, organs, and other specialized cells and structures? [Besides Lots and Lots of mitosis!]?

Most animals, including humans, go through 6 stages of embryonic development: Successful development at each stage depends on successful completion of the stage before!

from http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch39repronotes.html

How can a human 'go thru' these stages , if it is not human?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
You took the 'definition' from the wikipedia article, twisted it, and insisted that it proved that one must be capable of building a fire, producing literature and music before one is considered a 'human being'.

I twisted nothing. Here it is a third time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being

0 Replies

real life wrote:

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch39repronotes.html

How can a human 'go thru' these stages , if it is not human?

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/n100/2k4ch39repronotes.html

It is human. You can even call it a human being if you want. It's certainly alive. However, the fact remains that these stages need to be gone through, after which it is generally accepted as being a complete human being. The point is, the process is a gradual one.

Look at the picture for day 15-21. It has a neural tube. It says these will become brain and spinal column IN THE FUTURE.

At this stage, it has no heart, no brain, no spine, no legs, no eyes, no feelings, no emotions. It DOES have a tail, a neural groove, somites, and pharyngeal arches. It is like the plan of a house....and later, more like the foundations. The raw materials are missing....the mother will supply these gradually over the nine months, turning that blueprint into a house. You can point to the plan and say "this is where the kitchen will be" but you don't yet have a house. It's not legally a house, and you can't shelter in it. It isn't "a house".

If abortions are going to take place (and they are, legal or not) then I'd prefer they happened at this point or before in a safe environment....rather than later....(as the foetus becomes more and more human) in an unsafe illegal environment.

The morning after pill should be supported by all who dislike abortion.

You failed to find a definition of a human being that fits a foetus, real life.

One more question....how old are you? Do you reckon that from the date of your birth....or your date of conception?

0 Replies

Quote:

...It is like the plan of a house....and later, more like the foundations...

"...like the plan of a house..." Hmmm! Don't think I'd a said that! Confused

0 Replies

Eorl you said,
"Your turn. Show me a common definition of Human Being to prove a zygote on day one is a complete human being. "

Need definition for "complete". I'm not sure my definition would be the same as yours. People go through stages of life- toddler, teenager, elderly, parent, zygote, fetus, infant. Is each stage not complete in itself?

"Some supportive evidence that an egg is a chicken, and a seed is a tree would probably help you make your point."

Is the egg or seed fertile? A seed or an egg is just a seed or an egg if it does not have the special spark of life within it. Why plant a seed if it does not have the tree growing within it? Why incubate an egg if the chicken is not growing within it?

"All you are doing by insisting a zygote is a human being is trying to simplify the problem to "killing people is wrong" (or as "real life" prefers "killing innocent people is wrong, killing guilty people is fine"). You want to pretend that it really is that simple."

In my opinion killing all people is wrong. I don't know about pretend, but yes I do believe it is that simple. Does that mean I believe people shouldn't defend themselves, Nope. There is a difference. The difference is one of intent. It is that intent that makes the issue of the "lawfulness" of killing a human difficult and why sometimes I feel that at best all we can do is agree to disagree.

0 Replies

aurorell wrote: "...and why sometimes I feel that at best all we can do is agree to disagree."

As I've stated often on this subject, that is the only "solution," because the definition of "what is human life" cannot be reconciled between the polar sides.

I see problems with the extension of those that argue for the pro-life side, because of their concentration on the fetus while ignoring infanticide and the killing fields of Sudan. It seems all they are interested in doing is pushing their religious' agenda on all females who they don't even know. Consistency is missing in their argument.

0 Replies

auroreII wrote:

In my opinion killing all people is wrong. I don't know about pretend, but yes I do believe it is that simple. Does that mean I believe people shouldn't defend themselves, Nope. There is a difference. The difference is one of intent. It is that intent that makes the issue of the "lawfulness" of killing a human difficult and why sometimes I feel that at best all we can do is agree to disagree.

I agree. Imagine a situation where a young girl has been raped by her father who has threatened to kill her if she tells anyone...realises she is pregnant. In a society where abortion is safe, legal and confidential...she has a way out. In a society without those things...her options are: Risk her life by telling authorities why she wants an abortion...Risk her life trying to procure an illegal abortionTake her own life, and that of the foetus with it, and a few other options all of which are nasty...(in all of these cases she's going to wait longer than she otherwise would, meaning the abortion of a later-term foetus)....

I want a society that protects and values people's lives. Now, if you are able to demonstrate to me that the life of 10 day old foetus is equal to the life of a 14 year old girl, then I need to consider risking that 14 year old girl's life to protect the foetus instead. But you can't demostrate that the two lives are equal because they are not, for many reasons. This is why I view the anti-abortion position as one that is cruel and dishonest, and costs lives, rather than the other way around. This is why the left, the humanitarians, amnesty international agree with me.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

auroreII wrote:

In my opinion killing all people is wrong. I don't know about pretend, but yes I do believe it is that simple. Does that mean I believe people shouldn't defend themselves, Nope. There is a difference. The difference is one of intent. It is that intent that makes the issue of the "lawfulness" of killing a human difficult and why sometimes I feel that at best all we can do is agree to disagree.

I agree. Imagine a situation where a young girl has been raped by her father who has threatened to kill her if she tells anyone...realises she is pregnant. In a society where abortion is safe, legal and confidential...she has a way out. In a society without those things...her options are: Risk her life by telling authorities why she wants an abortion...Risk her life trying to procure an illegal abortionTake her own life, and that of the foetus with it, and a few other options all of which are nasty...(in all of these cases she's going to wait longer than she otherwise would, meaning the abortion of a later-term foetus)....

I want a society that protects and values people's lives. Now, if you are able to demonstrate to me that the life of 10 day old foetus is equal to the life of a 14 year old girl, then I need to consider risking that 14 year old girl's life to protect the foetus instead. But you can't demostrate that the two lives are equal because they are not, for many reasons. This is why I view the anti-abortion position as one that is cruel and dishonest, and costs lives, rather than the other way around. This is why the left, the humanitarians, amnesty international agree with me.

Would you recommend the girl remain silent about the rape and protect the rapist (in your scenario, her father)?

Does your answer change if the rapist is her next door neighbor?

Does your answer change if the rapist is her school teacher?

Does your answer change if the rapist is her boss at work?

Does your answer change if the rapist is a stranger?

Rape should be reported , prosecuted and the rapist put away for a looooooooooong time (IMO , the minimal sentence would be measured in decades, not months or years). Do you not agree?

How can you say you agree if you are encouraging the girl to remain silent, thus protecting the rapist?

0 Replies

EorI, It's also dishonest in that they argue only for a fetus, while ignoring all the other lives that are starving, getting killed, have no health insurance, shelter, or anything called a "life." They only wish to impose their religious' belief on women they don't even know.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

EorI, It's also dishonest in that they argue only for a fetus, while ignoring all the other lives that are starving, getting killed, have no health insurance, shelter, or anything called a "life." They only wish to impose their religious' belief on women they don't even know.

So, if more people had health insurance would you support banning abortion?

If EVERYONE had health insurance would you support banning abortion?

If more people had shelter......?

If EVERYONE had shelter.........?

If more people had adequate nutrition............?

If EVERYONE had adequate nutrition..............?

The answer to all of these is, of course, NO.

So, what has any of this to do with abortion?

It hasn't. Just a distraction so you don't have to address the topic.

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

The answer to that also is , of course, NO.

0 Replies

real, It's not a matter of either or.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know