If you're a Christian and pro-choice, you're on the wrong side of the issue.

[TomZzyzx]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "whole".

Out of curiosity, would you be in plead guilty to a manslaughter charge in the car accident scenario I described earlier?

I mean the unborn are whole human beings in the same way we are whole human beings. Nothing is lacking or nothing more is required to be considered a human being.

Since pro-lifers believe that...
1.the unborn is a living, distinct and whole human being from conception.
2. It is morally wrong to unjustly kill a human being.
3. Every elective abortion kills a human being.
4. Therefore every elective abortion is morally wrong.

And since the unborn are the same kind of being as you and I and thus they have the same basic rights we do.

So yes, I believe if anyone was responsible for the death of an unborn should be guilty and punished the same way as being guilty of killing someone born.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

My simple short answer is killing is a sin. Hence abortion is a sin. When the sperm and the egg are together it creates life. If bacteria on mars is called life, then this to is life.

 

[PapaZoom]

My simple short answer is killing is a sin. Hence abortion is a sin. When the sperm and the egg are together it creates life. If bacteria on mars is called life, then this to is life.

You are exactly right. And that life is a life of a particular kind. That is a human life. And the life that lives is a being at a particular stage in his/her development. That's how we all start out. So if follows that at the moment of conception, a new human being comes into existence. To end that life is to kill an innocent human being without justification.

 

[pat34lee]

Its not about "life". Ending a life is not murder, or God would have us be vegetarians. Its about killing a person. And you didnt address how we define a person.

(Oh, wait, broccoli is alive too...)

When you can prove that broccoli becomes a person at some stage then what you're saying may mean something.

A person is a person, from the time they are conceived until they die.
Whatever you want to call a person at different stages of his life, he is no less a person at any point along the way.

 

[pat34lee]

Answer the question, please.

I answered the other part. Make sense and I'll answer the first part.

 

[Cearbhall]

To end that life is to kill an innocent human being without justification.

Do you feel that this applies to cases of sexual assault? Because there's no situation where someone has the right to tether someone else's life to my body, and doing so would not obligate me to let this continue. I would retain the right to cut off life support and reclaim my autonomy, just as I do if the situation is pregnancy.

 

[PapaZoom]

Do you feel that this applies to cases of sexual assault? Because there's no situation where someone has the right to tether someone else's life to my body, and doing so would not obligate me to let this continue. I would retain the right to cut off life support and reclaim my autonomy, just as I do if the situation is pregnancy.

So do you think it's justified to kill an innocent human who had nothing to do with the sexual assault? You can't kill the man who did the assault. That would be murder.

If taking the life of the unborn is wrong, how would it be justified to kill an unborn human just because they were conceived in rape? How is that the child's fault?

If a woman was raped and ended up in a coma, and was also pregnant, and ended up giving birth and shortly after coming out of the coma, is she justified in killing the newborn because the very though of having a child by a rapist is too traumatic?

 

[Cearbhall]

So do you think it's justified to kill an innocent human who had nothing to do with the sexual assault?

Yes. If I did not consent to using my body as someone else's life support machine, I can cut off that support. That's how the law works in every scenario. You can't even take tissue from a corpse to save a baby without the person's prior consent. It's consistent.

 

[PapaZoom]

Yes. If I did not consent to using my body as someone else's life support machine, I can cut off that support. That's how the law works in every scenario. You can't even take tissue from a corpse to save a baby without the person's prior consent. It's consistent.

Because a person's body is sacred to them. Unless it's a developing baby then that body can be killed by any means necessary.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Great. Test your theory this week. Walk around naked all week.

That's not doing something with "my body".

Engage in consuming illicit drugs. Opps. You'll be arrested.

Depends wich drugs though.
Here in Belgium however, I will not simply be arrested by default.
I can drink alcohol, for example. For other drugs, most likely I wont get arrested unless I'm packing large quantities.

Also, I won't actually be arrested for using drugs. I'ld be arrested for HAVING drugs.

You can't use those drugs on your body

No, I can't HAVE drugs. It's the drug itself that is illegal. Not what you do with it.

Try to sell one of your organs.

I can donate a kidney.
I can donate blood.
I can donate all kinds of things out of my own freewill.
Nobody can force me to donate any of those things though.

Try public urinating for another test.

That is again not doing something to my body.

So you see, you can't do whatever you want with your body in a civilized society.

"whatever you want" is kind of a stretch off course.
But in general, yes.

As for abortion and a woman's bodily autonomy, the fetus isn't part of the woman's body.

But it feeds on it. Another person has no default right to another person's body. If you need a kidney and I am a match, you can't force me to hand over a kidney. Even if not handing over the kidney would mean certain death for you.

And just because the woman "owns" her own body, that doesn't give her the right to kill the body of another human.

Following that logic, you should be allowed to force me to hand over a kidney to you if it means you would die if I don't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How is being taken from the environment that sustains the life of the small baby not harming the baby?

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of placing you or i on Mars without the benefit of oxygen or anything that would sustain our life?

Is the baby lacking oxygen?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because a person's body is sacred to them. Unless it's a developing baby then that body can be killed by any means necessary.

This is so contradicting....

Your logic is exactly the same as forcing something to donate a kidney.
Literally. The exact same.

If a body is "sacred to a person" and if that gives one the right to REFUSE donating organs, then one surely also has the right to REFUSE being a host for a parasite. Then one surely also has the right to REFUSE playing life-support machine.

And I'm not even mentioning the amount of energy and stress this requires of the body to play that host. Surely you can't force someone to do that.

If you can, then where does it stop?

Why can one force a person to do that, but not force a person to donate a kidney?

 

[ranunculus]

I mean the unborn are whole human beings in the same way we are whole human beings. Nothing is lacking or nothing more is required to be considered a human being.

Since pro-lifers believe that...
1.the unborn is a living, distinct and whole human being from conception.
2. It is morally wrong to unjustly kill a human being.
3. Every elective abortion kills a human being.
4. Therefore every elective abortion is morally wrong.

And since the unborn are the same kind of being as you and I and thus they have the same basic rights we do.

So yes, I believe if anyone was responsible for the death of an unborn should be guilty and punished the same way as being guilty of killing someone born.

The problem with affording a fetus the same rights as a human being is practical, not just moral.

What would the world look like if a zygote is a human being with the same rights?
Every woman between the age of 10-60 would have to report every loss of blood to a doctor, who would then have to make sure no human being has died. In that case, a criminal investigation would have to follow. Involuntary manslaughter would be the lowest possible charge.
"You had an early miscarriage due to to poor implantation.
Oh you didn't know you were pregnant and went out to a party and had a few drinks? You ate some sushi?"
10-16 months in prison.

Literally every miscarriage would become an automatic criminal investigation into murder.
Artificial insemination would be impossible.
Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

 

[brinny]

Ana the Ist said:
Well if you want to get technical, the womb is a part of her body...

So what if she were to just have the person in her womb removed? Not harmed...just taken out via cesarean. Technically then, she wouldn't be killing anyone...they would just be unable to live on their own power. Is that more to your liking?

How is being taken from the environment that sustains the life of the small baby not harming the baby?

Wouldn't that be the equivalent of placing you or i on Mars without the benefit of oxygen or anything that would sustain our life?

Is the baby lacking oxygen?

they would just be unable to live on their own power.

What did you mean by the above statement? Please elaborate.

 

[brinny]

The problem with affording a fetus the same rights as a human being is practical, not just moral.

What would the world look like if a zygote is a human being with the same rights?
Every woman between the age of 10-60 would have to report every loss of blood to a doctor, who would then have to make sure no human being has died. In that case, a criminal investigation would have to follow. Involuntary manslaughter would be the lowest possible charge.
"You had an early miscarriage due to to poor implantation.
Oh you didn't know you were pregnant and went out to a party and had a few drinks? You ate some sushi?"
10-16 months in prison.

Literally every miscarriage would become an automatic criminal investigation into murder.
Artificial insemination would be impossible.
Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!

Is the loss of blood a baby?

 

[Chany]

I answered the other part. Make sense and I'll answer the first part.

The question is for those who say abortion is always wrong, even if the health of the mother is at stake. Do you believe that?

 

[Chany]

Is the loss of blood a baby?

Sometimes, the zygote fails to implant itself onto the wall of the uterus. When that happens, the zygote is lost during the woman's next period. If you believe that the person begins at the moment of conception, this means that every failed zygote is the death of a baby. The fact that we do not freak out when we discover this fact is a good indicator of how we view personhood.

 

[KWCrazy]

The question is for those who say abortion is always wrong, even if the health of the mother is at stake. Do you believe that?

The health of the mother is rarely the issue. I knew someone who had two tubal pregnancies. In those cases, the health of the mother was one deciding factor, the fact that the baby could not live was the other. However, those cases are rare. More likely people claim that abortion would help the mental health of the mother. "Oh... I just can't take it unless I kill my baby."

One problem is that so many young people are stupid, immoral and irresponsible. You can try to raise them up with values but when adolescence kicks in they cast it all aside and run out to act like stray dogs mounting anything that will stand still. They think knocking up young girls is a status symbol. They even brag about having kids they don't support. Where is the shame? We've removed it. Our society is so permissive of deviant behavior that now conforming to previously acceptable behavior is the deviance. We should DEMAND that the fathers support these babies, even if it means sending them to work farms. Having a consequence to bad behavior does have an impact on that behavior. They are taught about birth control in grade school. There is absolutely no excuse for the amount of unwed mothers in this country. Take away the rampant unwed pregnancy and the abortion problem goes away on its own.

 

[brinny]

Sometimes, the zygote fails to implant itself onto the wall of the uterus. When that happens, the zygote is lost during the woman's next period. If you believe that the person begins at the moment of conception, this means that every failed zygote is the death of a baby. The fact that we do not freak out when we discover this fact is a good indicator of how we view personhood.

Sometimes. Exactly. There's blood, and then there's the blood of the very small baby. The two are very separate, aren't they?

...just wondering...when you say that the very small baby "fails to implant" theirself onto the wall of the uterus, do you mean that they didn't reach out and grab the uterus? Can you elaborate?

 

[KWCrazy]

Sometimes, the zygote fails to implant itself onto the wall of the uterus. When that happens, the zygote is lost during the woman's next period. If you believe that the person begins at the moment of conception, this means that every failed zygote is the death of a baby.

A pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg is implanted onto the uterine wall. Before that you have living cells, but they aren't yet a human being. They can be frozen, thawed and implanted to become a baby. Once the embryo has been successfully implanted a chemical reaction begins and the cells begin to divide. At this point they can't be frozen and thawed any longer. At this point there is a human life beginning with about a 50% likelihood of surviving the first 30 days. Now if the embryo fails to implant, there was never a pregnancy. In this case the "morning after" pill can be considered an abortion to some but not to others. While I have no strong feelings either way with this procedure, certainly allowing a life to begin and then ending it is murder, not birth control. I don't believe in birth control. I believe in conception prevention.