Why Abortion is Immoral

[Davian]

Women have the right to either abstain or take the necessary precautions to prevent conception. They do NOT have the right to kill another human being.

This whole business of "women's rights" is phony. Once there is a living fetus, two human beings have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

No, they cannot be equal. Pregnancy is not like bringing a bag of groceries home from the market. Somethings, the health - or life - of the mother is on the line.

As I said previously in this thread, if it were not for modern medical intervention, my wife and first child would have died while in labour. Pain so intense that it burst blood vessels in the skin of her face. This I could only watch.

This whole business of denying the truth about the personhood of a fetus is also totally phony.

Your opinion is noted.

It is just like the Nazi philosophy which denied personhood to Jews and other "undesirables" and wiped them off the face of the earth. That was mass murder, and this is individual murder.

You have missed the bus on this one. In my country - Canada - it is not illegal. It is not murder. And while I personally find the concept abhorrent, I am not anti-choice.

I am not saying that we (the un-impregnate-able) should not be allowed to challenge the ethics of abortion, I am saying that we should not get to put both hands on the steering wheel.

 

[Davian]

Steve,
While it may not be universally accepted, we should focus on the truth,

I do not accept your opinion as truth.

not the lies people tell each other, or governments tell the general public, or supreme court justices tell the world, or doctors tell their patients. Had the truth been acknowledged from the very beginning, abortion would be classified as murder, and the death penalty would be applicable for first degree murder.

And what of miscarriages? My wife lost two babies. Would you have her investigated for murder?

I'm glad I am not a woman in your world.

 

[redleghunter]

I make no error at all.

You offer the proposition that there is something 'special' at conception, in that the embryo formed is alive and possesses unique human DNA.

So do ova and sperm cells. In that regard, there is no difference between the cells before fusing and after. Your contrast is arbitrary.

Look, I alluded to this earlier. Human reproduction is not a 'go-stop' interval. It is a cycle. A cycle which looks something like this:

Reproductive cells -> embryo -> foetus -> baby -> child -> sexually mature adult -> reproductive cells ->.........ad infinitum

Now, as communities, we have determined that the space between "baby" and "sexually mature adult" is a 'human being'. This entity is endowed with certain rights, largely centring around the right to exist. People like you, however, seek to place another arbitrary marker at "embryo" and to endow it with similar rights. And this is fine, in respecting your own point of view. But the arbitrary nature of the placement of your marker carries no particular compulsion for others to agree with your view. As I have said repeatedly, if you view this whole thing as a cyclical process, there is no place in that cycle whereby the destruction of any element will not halt the cycle! 'Killing' sperm cells and ova breaks the cycle. Sterilising a sexually mature adult breaks the cycle. And yes, destroying an embryo breaks the cycle.

But, if you are going to argue from a secular viewpoint, as the initiator of this discussion attempts to do, there is no difference between any of those 'cycle breakers' mentioned above.

Thank you for explaining the secular subjective view.

 

[redleghunter]

When you think of a 'human being ', do you actually envision a certain kind of DNA configuration?

Yes one that identifies as being human.

I'll explain. A human father provides the sperm, and the mother provides the egg. I would explain how this happens but I don't know if you are 18 or older.

When the sperm fertilizes the egg, what results is conception. At conception the DNA is human given the mother and father are human.

 

[Job8]

And what of miscarriages? My wife lost two babies. Would you have her investigated for murder?

This is a straw man argument. No one is talking about miscarriages. As for the truth, investigate it for yourself and confirm that a new individual comes into existence at conception.http://liveactionnews.org/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/

 

[Job8]

And, of course, you and the people who hold your minority view are the sole arbiters of the "truth", correct?

Science confirms this truth. http://liveactionnews.org/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/

 

[Davian]

This is a straw man argument. No one is talking about miscarriages.

Claimed miscarriages. Make abortion illegal, and you force women to do these things in secret, under the guise of a "miscarriage". How many innocent women would fall victim to suspicion of murder under your plan? They just lost their baby (my wife was crushed when she had her miscarriage) and now the police are at the door...

Do you really think these things through?

 

[SteveB28]

Science confirms this truth. http://liveactionnews.org/life-begins-at-conception-science-teaches/

Please. The "truth" you were claiming was that abortion amounted to 'killing a human being'.

It doesn't. The minority view that you represent is wrong. It's wrong legally, ethically and morally. If you disagree, then don't have an abortion. But then, I'll wager that you can't have an abortion, because I'll bet that you are yet another know-all male who thinks it appropriate to tell women what they should and should not do with their bodies! Correct?

 

[SteveB28]

Thank you for explaining the secular subjective view.

You are welcome. One can only hope you learn something from it.

 

[redleghunter]

You are welcome. One can only hope you learn something from it.

All I learned is that you did not understand a life at conception is a distinct human life with their own distinct DNA.

The sperm is the father's DNA and the egg is the mothers DNA.

 

[SteveB28]

All I learned is that you did not understand a life at conception is a distinct human life with their own distinct DNA.

The sperm is the father's DNA and the egg is the mothers DNA.

And so is the embryo. It is composed of a combination of the DNA from both - 50% of each.

And the 'human life' reference is redundant. At EVERY stage of the reproductive cycle, 'life' is present. You see, the cycle fails to work without it. Sterilise the sexually mature adult and the cycle breaks. Destroy the ova and/or sperm cells and the cycle breaks. Destroy the embryo and the cycle breaks. Your 'special' break in the cycle is entirely arbitrary.

 

[fhansen]

And so is the embryo. It is composed of a combination of the DNA from both - 50% of each.

And the 'human life' reference is redundant. At EVERY stage of the reproductive cycle, 'life' is present. You see, the cycle fails to work without it. Sterilise the sexually mature adult and the cycle breaks. Destroy the ova and/or sperm cells and the cycle breaks. Destroy the embryo and the cycle breaks. Your 'special' break in the cycle is entirely arbitrary.

So, at what point, then, does the unborn become worthy of protection-of the right to life? Or is the right to life for a human, since it's reportedly just based on man-made morality anyway, not really so important to begin with?

 

[redleghunter]

And so is the embryo. It is composed of a combination of the DNA from both - 50% of each.

And the 'human life' reference is redundant. At EVERY stage of the reproductive cycle, 'life' is present. You see, the cycle fails to work without it. Sterilise the sexually mature adult and the cycle breaks. Destroy the ova and/or sperm cells and the cycle breaks. Destroy the embryo and the cycle breaks. Your 'special' break in the cycle is entirely arbitrary.

Your position above I do understand from a philosophical position.

You are taking a position of Divine Providence. Interesting.

 

[AirPo]

So, at what point, then, does the unborn become worthy of protection-of the right to life?

Somewhere around viability.

 

[fhansen]

Somewhere around viability.

So humans can be killed at "somewhere around viability", but not killed before that time? Kind of an arbitrary determination needs to be made-now you die, now you live? What if we make a mistake-say, we're off by 30 minutes? Does it matter that a human being might be killed then?

 

[redleghunter]

Somewhere around viability.

By whose standards?

 

[AirPo]

So humans can be killed at "somewhere around viability", but not killed before that time? Kind of an arbitrary determination needs to be made-now you die, now you live? What if we make a mistake-say, we're off by 30 minutes? Does it matter that a human being might be killed then?

You've got that backwards, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you meant not after. It doesn't come down to minutes, that's why I said around.

 

[AirPo]

By whose standards?

Not yours.

 

[redleghunter]

Not yours.

Interesting.

Are you going to enlighten us on how you came to your conclusions?

 

[AirPo]

Interesting.

Are you going to enlighten us on how you came to your conclusions?

You're not pregnant.