Is abortion ever acceptable?

[JoeP222w]

Sometimes they need to abort a child who has already died.

That is not an abortion. That is a miscarriage. Vastly different.

 

[AnnaDeborah]

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I specifically said that a fetus has moral worth even though it is a potential life not a life in being. However I believe that in cases of rape the rights of the rape victim trump those of the fetus.

I did read what you wrote. Many times. Your response to being asked a question which you do not want to answer seems to be to restate an earlier comment. You have still not answered my questions regarding your belief that life does not start until birth.

 

[Archivist]

I did read what you wrote. Many times. Your response to being asked a question which you do not want to answer seems to be to restate an earlier comment. You have still not answered my questions regarding your belief that life does not start until birth.

I restate because people keep asking me questions I have already answered.

Genesis tells us that life begins with breath. Until then it is potential life.

 

[dreadnought]

You're just being disingenuous at this point.

Luke 1:15 - "For he [John] will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother's womb.

Luke 1:41,44 - When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. "For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.

For you to read the above and simply shrug your shoulders and suggest that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit AND leaped for joy in his mother's womb at the recognition of the woman carrying Jesus did somehow NOT have a soul, is honestly absurd, and shows you don't actually want to have an honest and genuine conversation.

No, I'm not. You don't know when the Lord places a soul into an unborn baby, but you do know it is unjust to force a woman to carry a child that it the result of rape.

 

[dreadnought]

Ok you keep saying this without considering what people are responding with.

Am I expected to read long-winded replies?

 

[Jason Sanders]

Abortion is never acceptable, but sometimes it is necessary; when the mothers life is in danger, and the only way to save either of them is by aborting the baby, that is the only situation in which I would accept an abortion occurring- and even then, I would not be happy about it. In every other situation it is wrong and it should not happen.

 

[redleghunter]

Actually it was stated earlier in the thread that abortion for any reason is murder, which, if it were declared to be such would make it illegal which would mean forcing rape victims to carry the fetus to term. However you were not the one who said that so I will drop the point.



No, you did not.

Ok then maybe you can explain how it is slavery and why the child in the womb is given a death sentence and the rapist does not.

Also, is it Christian to apply evil for evil?

Or are you ok with this because your view of a potential human is only involved?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Lol another piece of sophistry.

Your tendency to respond to reasoning by calling it "sophistry" is noted. Your personal defense against logic and reasoning is complete.

 

[Archivist]

Ok then maybe you can explain how it is slavery and why the child in the womb is given a death sentence and the rapist does not.

Forcing a woman who is a rape victim to carry the fetus to term is indentured servitude because for nine months it would restrict her freedom and ability to travel. The rights of a life in being trump those of a potential human life. The rapist gets punished under the law.

Also, is it Christian to apply evil for evil?

But it isn’t evil to force a woman to carry the fetus of her attacker to term against her will?

Or are you ok with this because your view of a potential human is only involved?

The rights of a life in being trump those of a potential life.

As I have said, you are entitled to your own opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A newborn neither recognizes itself nor engages in abstract thinking. If this is your standard, then we ought to be able to drown a 2 month old because they keep us up all night and we miss sleep.

A newborn, having drawn the breath of life, is functioning as a self in a way an unborn is not. It is looking around starting to draw conclusions about what it sees. It recognizes how to get the others in its life to come to its aid by crying. The formation of self recognition and abstract thinking starts at birth, and while your argument against a full self being present has some theoretical merit, the granting of human status and human rights at birth makes a lot of sense, legally and socially. In the United States, infants have citizenship rights at birth. They can be counted in the census and they can confer tax benefits to the parents.

Also, there is a good case to be made that if I were to die today that until Christ returns I would probably essentially be a disembodied spirit. A physical brain is not required for the presence of a soul.

And this argument from an unknown state of those in heaven . . . what form their self existence takes, how their thoughts are processed being completely out of our realm of knowledge . . . is proposed by a human who accuses me of using sophistry.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

That is not an abortion. That is a miscarriage. Vastly different.

It is still termed a spontaneous abortion.

 

[redleghunter]

I never claimed that a fetus lacks moral worth, but that the worth of the rape victim, a life in being, trumps that of a potential life.

Therefore not all humans are of the same moral worth.

Oh yes, now I’m being compared to the Nazis simply because I believe that rape victims must be allowed to choose to have an abortion. Again, I’m not suggesting that should be their choice—I’ve said that they certainly have the right to carry the fetus to term—but the choice has to remain with them.

Didn’t make the claim you cite above.

But if the shoe fits...

 

[redleghunter]

A fetus.

It’s biologically a human fetus. The actual term does not lessen its humanity.

What theological justification again for determining what is or is not a full human?

Also, what science is available to help me learn the biology of a “potential human?”

 

[Archivist]

Therefore not all humans are of the same moral worth.

Sure they are.

Didn’t make the claim you cite above. But if the shoe fits...

“History is full of the subhuman treatment of various groups of unwanted and undesirable people who were viewed as inconvenient.” If that doesn’t include the Nazis I don’t know what does.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It’s biologically a human fetus. The actual term does not lessen its humanity.

What theological justification again for determining what is or is not a full human?

Also, what science is available to help me learn the biology of a “potential human?”

There are several possibilities for the fate of a newly fertilized egg.

a) It may start off life and then spontaneously die.

b) It may grow into a single human being.

c) It may grow into a pair of twins.

d) It may grow into Triplets, quadruplets, or even more

e) It may combine with another fertilized cell and form a single human from two such cells.

That's something science teaches us.

These multiple fates possible are evidence against the "soul issued at egg fertilization" theory.

 

[Archivist]

It’s biologically a human fetus. The actual term does not lessen its humanity.

What theological justification again for determining what is or is not a full human?

Also, what science is available to help me learn the biology of a “potential human?”

You are misquoting me. Inlesscyouvfound a typo I said potential human life, not potential human.

 

[redleghunter]

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I specifically said that a fetus has moral worth even though it is a potential life not a life in being. However I believe that in cases of rape the rights of the rape victim trump those of the fetus.

There’s no such thing as potential life. There is life and non life. Basic biology.

To cite just a few examples, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (For reference, a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.)

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Sciencestates that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

Rubio’s statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

1. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

1. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.

The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There’s no such thing as potential life. There is life and non life. Basic biology.

There you go again, counting on alternate definitions of the same word, used confusedly, to advance your thesis.

You cannot live without the death of other life. It's what you eat. That does NOT make you a murderer.

Please speak with a clearer idea of what the words mean you are using.

 

[redleghunter]

I restate because people keep asking me questions I have already answered.

Genesis tells us that life begins with breath. Until then it is potential life.

Yeah that was Adam and Eve. A couple of points.

First when were they a human fetus? They never were.

Genesis confirms in procreation human life begins with the begetting or fathering. See Genesis 5.

Secondly, I am quite happy you are joining fundamentalists in the literal interpretation of the Creation Genesis account. Especially how our parents Adam and Eve were created. I mean who would base their entire philosophy of the beginning of life on myth and legend.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Therefore not all humans are of the same moral worth.

That is obviously true. What is your problem with that?