Abortion Discussion

[Verv]

While this isn't something I'll have to worry about, I do wonder how Jesus would feel about people using hell to guilt trip someone else into submission.

Fun thing... St. Augustine believed those that love God only to avoid going to hell are not true Christians at all, and are at great risk of going to hell.

The idea of loving to avoid personal pain is very shallow. If you are using hell to guilt trip someone, please stop -- it's good for neither of your theological perceptions.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas Hendrickson said: ↑
Yes, "a human life" is human life. But "human life"[for instance in the womb] is not (necessarily) a human life.The cancer is not a human life, but it is undoubtedly human and alive, i.e. human life.

A human life is not cancer. You can file 13 that notion.

And you can TRY READING ACCURATELY. I never said "a human life" is (a) cancer, nor that a cancer is a human life.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Based on the truth, true statements. I believe in the truth.

I said: "It is not "a human life" (which is a living autonomous being), but IT IS HUMAN LIFE, and what that means is that it is composed of human cells." IT'S A COLLECTION OF CELLS, so perhaps it's a "collective," whatever you mean by that term. It is not very intelligible to call it (a fetus) "part of a collective." What collective would that be?

If you care to check my posts nearby where I have been explaining this to "Redleg," you should be very aware that it is SERIOUSLY TRUE that there is human life that is not a human life. A cancer is obviously that!

So, you equate a mutated cell (cancer) with human life. That leads me to believe you equate the value of a mutated cell with human life....would that be correct?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Wrong again! What makes the unborn a unique individual is its DNA--not birth!

Depends on what you want to pack into "unique individual." It is one and not many in that it is ONE (UNIQUE) FETUS.
With unique DNA. It is existing and can be pointed to as "one thing," and that thing is very properly and TOTALLY TRULY called a fetus, an existing unique fetus. "Individual" if you want to call it that.
Certainly not a human being, not an actual born member of an animal species.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So, you equate a mutated cell (cancer) with human life. That leads me to believe you equate the value of a mutated cell with human life....would that be correct?

I don't think there is any mutated cell. (That is(a) cancer or in a cancer.)
Certainly a cancer is (generally) NOT a single cell. And I think the cancer cells are not so much mutated as reproducing uncontrollably. (Speaking of reproduction.)
I certainly don't equate the value of a cancer with the value of a human life, if that is what you are trying to say.

 

[redleghunter]

"I don't advocate abortion but I don't think I should stand in someone else's way to have one...."
I wanna hear the explanation for that one at the Great White Throne Judgement......bet there will lots of tap dancing....to no avail.....

There is an abortion thread in the Christian only ethics forum where the above would evoke an interesting debate.

 

[redleghunter]

I said it's what a pregnancy is. Do you not know when there is a pregnancy?

Now you defending human life begins at conception?

 

[redleghunter]

Wrong! If you consult a biology book, you will discover that what makes us alive is oxygen. Adam became alive when oxygen supply was provided to his body. The same is true about the unborn. Oxygen is supplied to the unborn through the placenta. This is why the unborn is alive and able to grow.

Some High school teachers need to be fired for all the Frankenstein science we see on these threads.

 

[redleghunter]

I see. Questions that are difficult to confront are "goads".

How rather typical.

Please have a nice evening Steve.

 

[redleghunter]

Based on the truth, true statements. I believe in the truth.

I said: "It is not "a human life" (which is a living autonomous being), but IT IS HUMAN LIFE, and what that means is that it is composed of human cells." IT'S A COLLECTION OF CELLS, so perhaps it's a "collective," whatever you mean by that term. It is not very intelligible to call it (a fetus) "part of a collective." What collective would that be?

If you care to check my posts nearby where I have been explaining this to "Redleg," you should be very aware that it is SERIOUSLY TRUE that there is human life that is not a human life. A cancer is obviously that!

At what point does one achieve this life apart?

Babies do seem quite reliant on the mother for sustenance after birth.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't think there is any mutated cell. (That is(a) cancer or in a cancer.)

Cancer starts up as a single mutated cell.....go look up the evidence if you like.

Certainly a cancer is (generally) NOT a single cell. And I think the cancer cells are not so much mutated as reproducing uncontrollably. (Speaking of reproduction.)

They reproduce uncontrollably because they are mutated....

I certainly don't equate the value of a cancer with the value of a human life, if that is what you are trying to say.

I did not say that. This is what I said:

So, you equate a mutated cell (cancer) with human life. That leads me to believe you equate the value of a mutated cell with human life....would that be correct?

You made this statement:

The cancer is not a human life, but it is undoubtedly human and alive, i.e. human life.

Do you equate the value of a cancer cell with the value of human life since you believe the cancer cell is human and alive....in other words "human life"?

 

[Verv]

I could never support abortion because I have no compelling reason to believe that a fetus is not a human life. If the fetus is left to itself, it will become a full human life. It is immoral to stop it from doing that.

I also feel that, other than being raped, you can avoid pregnancy, the idea of justifying abortion for the sake of terminating a preventable pregnancy is particularly repugnant.

Even if we are "unsure" and legally decided that it is 'not a human life,' the idea that you would enter this moral gray area and terminate a pregnancy because you didn't use birth control as opposed to being responsible and celebrating the joy of a new life.. Well, that is crazy to me.

 

[redleghunter]

Depends on what you want to pack into "unique individual." It is one and not many in that it is ONE (UNIQUE) FETUS.
With unique DNA. It is existing and can be pointed to as "one thing," and that thing is very properly and TOTALLY TRULY called a fetus, an existing unique fetus. "Individual" if you want to call it that.
Certainly not a human being, not an actual born member of an animal species.

Human being is defined as being a part of the species homo sapien sapien. So yes at conception the human life gestating is a human being.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

I do not believe that a fertilized egg is an individual in anyway, shape, or form. Period. It may become an individual if it makes it through birth and survives.

Across the street from where I live there is a building being erected. It is not finished yet. Does this mean that I have a right to come with a wrecking machine and demolish it?

According to the Bible the human development is the work of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Book also teaches that our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Our bodies are the property of the builder—God, the creator of human life.

Besides, God has forbidden the killing of innocent human beings, and he has condemned the shedding of blood.

At what stage of development, would you consider it morally wrong to take the life of an unborn baby? At birth? One minute before birth? Two weeks before birth? A month before birth? Can you be specific!

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Now you defending human life begins at conception?

No human life begins at conception. There IS human life at conception - the sperm is human and alive, and so too is the ovum.
And so too the unity that they constitute at conception and that flesh, when it is flesh, when it is a fetus, IS HUMAN. It consists of human cells and has THE LIFE GIVEN IT FROM THE SPERM AND THE EGG. (No new life.)
One must be able to distinguish "life" which the mosquitoes has and the sperm has and the fetus has, which all living things have, and a human being life, which is only possible after a human being has been created (in the womb).

First a thing is created, made, constructed, then (and not before) you have the thing made.
A fetus is the making of a human being - birth gives us the being actually existing.

 

[redleghunter]

No human life begins at conception. There IS human life at conception - the sperm is human and alive, and so too is the ovum.
And so too the unity that they constitute at conception and that flesh, when it is flesh, when it is a fetus, IS HUMAN. It consists of human cells and has THE LIFE GIVEN IT FROM THE SPERM AND THE EGG. (No new life.)
One must be able to distinguish "life" which the mosquitoes has and the sperm has and the fetus has, which all living things have, and a human being life, which is only possible after a human being has been created (in the womb).

First a thing is created, made, constructed, then (and not before) you have the thing made.
A fetus is the making of a human being - birth gives us the being actually existing.

The sperm and egg is alive meme.

Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69092147

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...n-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page-10#post-69082245



Abortion: Biblical exegesis of Exodus 21:22ff

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...arding-abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098322

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...r-for-the-babies.7922364/page-3#post-68987259

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-34#post-69060024



Abortion: The Mind of God on our humanity; How TaNaKh Jews viewed conception

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page-42#post-69090685



Is abortion Ethical for seculars:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/it-should-be-murder.7925104/page-33#post-69118203



Bitter water explained:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/pro-life-or-pro-choice.7934246/page-98#post-69342499



Kill and Murder: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...rs-of-euthanasia.7936568/page-7#post-69372766

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, embryo, zygote, fetus, but not human person , or a live baby. It is not a person until it is born. The Bible tells us so.

“Yes, embryo, zygote, fetus, but not human person , …”

Really, how about a living human being? Would you deny its humanity and the fact that it is a being—it’s alive and growing, isn’t it?

“or a live baby. …”

Is it dead? Not a baby? How about a fetus? Are you aware that fetus is the Latin word for baby?

“It is not a person until it is born. The Bible tells us so …”

Where? Can you provide the text from the Bible.

 

[Chany]

I am not sure you know what you are talking about here. Please describe to me the "organism" that possess the 23 paired chromosomes of humans that you would not say is human. Unless you are saying human life is of no moral worth?

I am (ultimately) saying the genetic makeup of an organism is irrelevant to the morality of its worth.

All human cells (which are organisms), minus sex cells, possess 23 pairs of chromosomes. If an organism merely needed to possess these 23 chromosomes to garner moral worth, then all human cells garner the moral worth as all persons. But this is absurd.

Just because the conceptus possesses 23 pairs of chromosomes does not mean it is worthy of moral consideration. I fear an equivocation between two senses of the word, "human". In one sense, there is "human" as possessing those 23 pairs of choromosomes. Both the adult human and the human conceptus are human in this way. However, this does not matter much, as I argue what makes us worthy of moral consideration is beyond our human genes. There is also another way we use "human": "human person". It is not clear that a human conceptus is a human person. My concern is that the common pro-life argument based on genetic code equivocates the two senses.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, they are alive; however, they are not persons or a child.

Personhood is a legal term invented by those determined to deny their rights to certain groups of human beings. It was used before the Civil War to hold blacks under slavery. Now it is used to deny the right to life to the unborn.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am (ultimately) saying the genetic makeup of an organism is irrelevant to the morality of its worth.

So, a cow, pig or chicken is morally evquivalent to a human?

All human cells (which are organisms), minus sex cells, possess 23 pairs of chromosomes. If an organism merely needed to possess these 23 chromosomes to garner moral worth, then all human cells garner the moral worth as all persons. But this is absurd

You say it is absurd but you don't say why it is absurd. Why is it absurd?

Just because the conceptus possesses 23 pairs of chromosomes does not mean it is worthy of moral consideration.

Why?

I fear an equivocation between two senses of the word, "human". In one sense, there is "human" as possessing those 23 pairs of choromosomes. Both the adult human and the human conceptus are human in this way. However, this does not matter much, as I argue what makes us worthy of moral consideration is beyond our human genes.

OK, what beyond our genes is needed?

There is also another way we use "human": "human person". It is not clear that a human conceptus is a human person.

And is it not true that a person on trial is innocent until all evidence is in and considered; should we not with hold judgement until then? And if inconclusive should we not side with life?