Why Abortion is Immoral

[ToddNotTodd]

You ignored the science I posted over 20 times on this thread every atheist and anti-theist ignored.

Embryologists define a new human being distinct from another human being's tissue at conception.

Yes you are in the Peter Singer group. You are using a subjective point of consciousness to determine "personhood."

There could be thousands of views and that is unacceptable as we are talking about a life.

At the very least we should all realize we could be wrong and if so then you let the developing human being alone.

But that life gets in the way of someone's personal preferences and somehow Liberty trumps Life.

Due to the above those who choose liberty over another human life must find a rationalization to kill the life.

Thus you have your theory, Peter Singer has his and thousands more rationalize. Just as those who stuck their fingers in their ears when the trains passed by with human freight going to concentration camps.

So I see you're still obfuscating, hand-wringing and flat out lying. You should realize that no one wins an argument that way, right?

 

[redleghunter]

A majority of your populace in the USA (and much higher elsewhere in the world) support that right.

For the US? Quite a mixed bag as you break it down by region:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/11/5-facts-about-abortion/

 

[redleghunter]

What I think is not what I asked. If you cant answer please just say so.

Answer what exactly? The same information I posted over 20 times?

 

[redleghunter]

So I see you're still obfuscating, hand-wringing and flat out lying. You should realize that no one wins an argument that way, right?

Yes, I noticed you changed the subject to science fiction, and never addressed the science sources I posted.

Show me the lies. You made a bold accusation I lied. Now show me.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes, I noticed you changed the subject to science fiction, and never addressed the science sources I posted.

Show me the lies. You made a bold accusation I lied. Now show me.

You said:
"You ignored the science I posted over 20 times on this thread every atheist and anti-theist ignored."

But I clearly haven't ignored it. I've said that no one is disputing that a fetus is human tissue. I really doubt anyone on these boards has said that a fetus wasn't human tissue.

It's actually you that have ignored my points. And like I've said before, I believe you're doing so because you don't like the answers you'd have to give if you answered honestly...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I believe you are addressing the various philosophical views (thousands of them!) on what constitutes 'personhood.' They reflect worldviews but not science.

Scientists who are embryologists don't disagree on the science of when a new life, a new human being begins. It's conception. The only rebuttal I received here was from a bioethicist who is not an embryologist. And that rebuttal showed the person's opinion based on his membership in International Planned Parenthood and also is a eugenicist author.

So the science is clear. A new human being is created at conception.

No, it is merely the start of the creation of a human being, it is not the accomplishment of the creation of a human being.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So you are asserting you do not agree with embryologists and biologists that at conception we have a distinct human being?

You are misstating the views of embryologists and biologists. They are not in lockstep agreement with you on this. You can find a minority in agreement with you on this, and that is all you can find.

 

[AntoineL]

No, it is merely the start of the creation of a human being, it is not the accomplishment of the creation of a human being.

The unborn is a child plain and simple. When is a human being created according to you? The unborn child is a human being.

Scripture even uses "brephos" when talking about john the baptist in his mother's womb. The same word used for Jesus when he was in the manger.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The unborn is a child plain and simple. When is a human being created according to you? The unborn child is a human being.

Scripture even uses "brephos" when talking about john the baptist in his mother's womb. The same word used for Jesus when he was in the manger.

I'm willing to concede a normal embryo in the last three months may be termed a person.

 

[AntoineL]

I'm willing to concede a normal embryo in the last three months may be termed a person.

?

 

[Cute Tink]

Be careful. There are many accusations flying around in here. Do remember not attack what a person says and not attack the person.

 

[patricius79]

No, it is merely the start of the creation of a human being, it is not the accomplishment of the creation of a human being.

Life begins at conception. All the genetics are there and the whole soul is there.

 

[redleghunter]

You said:
"You ignored the science I posted over 20 times on this thread every atheist and anti-theist ignored."

But I clearly haven't ignored it. I've said that no one is disputing that a fetus is human tissue. I really doubt anyone on these boards has said that a fetus wasn't human tissue.

It's actually you that have ignored my points. And like I've said before, I believe you're doing so because you don't like the answers you'd have to give if you answered honestly...

No Sir you keep saying human tissue. Well at the bare fact you are right. We both typing away are human tissue too.

However my point was at conception we have a new human being which tissue is a subset of the being.

That is what you have avoided. Confirming the science which states we have a new human being at conception.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
Confirming the science which states we have a new human being at conception.

This is not what science says. Please debate honestly.

 

[KCfromNC]

Life begins at conception. All the genetics are there and the whole soul is there.

I wish I could be so confident in the stuff I made up out of thin air.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No Sir you keep saying human tissue. Well at the bare fact you are right. We both typing away are human tissue too.

However my point was at conception we have a new human being which tissue is a subset of the being.

That is what you have avoided. Confirming the science which states we have a new human being at conception.

Nooo, again... I haven't avoided anything. I've already stated that the phrase "human being" is a worthless term because it's too vague. Some people use it mean a biological fact (our DNA is human). Some people use it to mean a philosophical fact (some human DNA can be considered persons and some cannot). Some people try to make it mean both at the same time, which is obviously fallacious, as there is human DNA that is demonstrably not persons (i.e. brain dead bodies).

The fact that you're using the phrase to seemingly imply that science says anything that would suggest that early fetuses are deserving of personhood status is disingenuous. There is no bridge between saying tissue is human and saying that tissue is a person.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Life begins at conception. All the genetics are there and the whole soul is there.

What scripture specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Life begins at conception. All the genetics are there and the whole soul is there.

There is another aspect to think about, regardless of one's position on the personhood of the new life beginning to form.
Consider me as an organ doner. I have two kidneys, a liver, and a heart. Suppose four people, young and otherwise healthy, were in desperate need of organ donation, and I lived in a country where a despot ruled, who came up to me and told me I was going to have my organs harvested, because that would save four lives that would otherwise die, and my own life, being only one, could not morally be left to live . . . four lives saved versus one life saved seems to be a compelling argument. Is it moral for the ruler to have my organs harvested against my will?

Of course not. We recognize I have a right to the integrity of my own body, regardless of the life saving potential for the others. Indeed, if I were to propose committing suicide that the others might live, many participants in this forum would be horrified at that idea, you would argue against my doing that, in spite of the math, four lives being saved at the cost of the one.

Isn't it the same for the pregnant woman? Doesn't she have the final say as to the use of her body?

 

[redleghunter]

Nooo, again... I haven't avoided anything. I've already stated that the phrase "human being" is a worthless term because it's too vague. Some people use it mean a biological fact (our DNA is human). Some people use it to mean a philosophical fact (some human DNA can be considered persons and some cannot). Some people try to make it mean both at the same time, which is obviously fallacious, as there is human DNA that is demonstrably not persons (i.e. brain dead bodies).

The fact that you're using the phrase to seemingly imply that science says anything that would suggest that early fetuses are deserving of personhood status is disingenuous. There is no bridge between saying tissue is human and saying that tissue is a person.

Interesting that human being established by scientific fact 'is a worthless term because it is too vague.' What makes your estimation of 'personhood' more valid than science? Please enlighten us with the supreme infallible opinion of some philosopher you obviously adhere to. I already posited up thread the opinions of bioethicist Peter Singer who believes personhood does not begin even with birth or the months after.

So what is your definition of 'personhood?'

 

[redleghunter]

I wish I could be so confident in the stuff I made up out of thin air.

Well she is correct. Human life begins at conception. To kick at the goads at her statement is to deny science as embryologists have stated at conception a new human being is formed.