Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

We haven't established that it's an individual or a member of any species yet.

Really? Which scientific textbook are you using that says a fetus is not an individual?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Now that your false claim has been refuted, do you have anything relevant to add?

What false claim? You responded twice to the same post avoiding the others. (go figure).

I said this:

The FDA has a legal limit of BPA that has been shown to be detrimental to fetal brain development. The government can change anything they like, including laws, even if it isn't "backed up" by scientific research.

I also said this:

Did you know that the terms "miscarriage" and "induced abortion" are interchangeable and don't differentiate between natural or forced termination of pregnancies? There are no statistics separating the 2....I wonder why that is.

Both quotes are facts and not opinion. (Seek and you shall find). But the blind will remain blind it seems. 》》》BYE.

 

[comana]

The apps were developed to help women get pregnant. I knew a girl that was maybe 30 and her husband was 70 so their window of opportunity was only maybe 24 hours.

That 24 hours may be the ideal window but the fertile window is usually about 5-6 days. Irregular cycles make it difficult to pin down that 6 day window. Relying on an app to prevent pregnancy is not a good idea.

If a woman is certain she does not want to get pregnant then she should seek out more reliable contraceptive methods.

 

[Lost Witness]

Are you implying that all such matters suddenly became immediately clear at one moment? The absurdity of that question should refute any notion of an Age of Accountability.

On the other hand, the notion that all humans begin to sin immediately upon conception is equally absurd.

The logical conclusion is that the notion of sin is what's really absurd.

'Right From Wrong' Was used simply because,
how can I give you independent examples of when you learned not to "lie' 'Cheat', steal murder etc.
Only You and GOD knows when you learned each one of those things.
But when you became aware of lying for instance,
you then became accountable for lying?

 

[Lost Witness]

On the other hand, the notion that all humans begin to sin immediately upon conception is equally absurd.

How So?
Have You ever been "Born Again"?

 

[NxNW]

Really? Which scientific textbook are you using that says a fetus is not an individual?

It's not a human being until it has higher level brain activity. Before then, it is merely a potential human.

 

[NxNW]

What false claim?

That the morning after pill can cause abortions.

 

[NxNW]

'Right From Wrong' Was used simply because,
how can I give you independent examples of when you learned not to "lie' 'Cheat', steal murder etc.
Only You and GOD knows when you learned each one of those things.
But when you became aware of lying for instance,
you then became accountable for lying?

If there are different rules for each person, then morality is subjective.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

It's not a human being until it has higher level brain activity. Before then, it is merely a potential human.

Do you have a source for your claims? Because every biology textbook I know of disagrees with you. As the most widely used textbook on embryology writes:

"Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (The Developing Human, 7th edition, 2003)

Langman's Medical Embryology notes:
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

So which textbook on embryology do you get your claim from?

 

[GodLovesCats]

No. We don't.

We know a fetus has its own unique DNA. What is in question is when that foetus becomes a person. The law maintains that it at the point of birth. Objectors to abortion disagree with that.

The start of personhood has always been as clear as the crystal ball SA that dropped at midnight on Times Square. Nothing in the Bible tells us to disobey are "leaders" - monarchs, presidents, dictators, etc.just to pretend only God's Word matters in a constitutionally secular society.

 

[NxNW]

"Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (The Developing Human, 7th edition, 2003)

And I've already proven such sources to be overly simplistic and incorrect because of twinning.

Textbooks written for grade school children may have their uses, but they also have limitations. For example, such science textbooks may depict the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus like a moon around a planet, but such depictions are inaccurate even if they serve the purpose of giving a beginner a general idea of the basics. I'm assuming here that you're mature and intelligent enough to move beyond the basics and understand that the existence of twinning makes such simplistic explanations obsolete. Either both identical twins exist in the single zygote (impossible), or life begins after conception (refuting your simplistic textbook source). Any complete definition of human being will include the fact that they are distinct and quantifiable. Birth certificates, death certificates, tax forms listing dependents, murder indictments, all require that the number of humans be quantified. The fact that, upon conception, you can't quantify the number of human beings that will result, means you don't have a human being at that moment. It might result in one, or two, but most likely zero. It's in a state of flux, and until it finalizes days later, you don't have a human being or beings.

And now that we've established that human beings don't exist until *after* conception, it's just a matter of deciding where to draw the line. I take my argument from Carl Sagan's article on the topic, which is as informed and logical as anything you'll read. I'd recommend you (and everyone) read it and think about it.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

And I've already proven such sources to be overly simplistic and incorrect because of twinning.

Textbooks written for grade school children may have their uses, but they also have limitations. For example, such science textbooks may depict the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus like a moon around a planet, but such depictions are inaccurate even if they serve the purpose of giving a beginner a general idea of the basics. I'm assuming here that you're mature and intelligent enough to move beyond the basics and understand that the existence of twinning makes such simplistic explanations obsolete. Either both identical twins exist in the single zygote (impossible), or life begins after conception (refuting your simplistic textbook source). Any complete definition of human being will include the fact that they are distinct and quantifiable. Birth certificates, death certificates, tax forms listing dependents, murder indictments, all require that the number of humans be quantified. The fact that, upon conception, you can't quantify the number of human beings that will result, means you don't have a human being at that moment. It might result in one, or two, but most likely zero. It's in a state of flux, and until it finalizes days later, you don't have a human being or beings.

And now that we've established that human beings don't exist until *after* conception, it's just a matter of deciding where to draw the line. I take my argument from Carl Sagan's article on the topic, which is as informed and logical as anything you'll read. I'd recommend you (and everyone) read it and think about it.

I didn't quote any textbook written for grade school children, I quoted you the most respected scientific textbook on embryology used by the scientific community. Your persistent refusal to name any biological textbook to support your nonsensical claims is demonstrating how out of touch with reality your opinion on this topic is. The development of a human being begins before he can speak, before he can walk, and before he has "higher level brain activity".
The consensus among biologists is abundantly clear, and as long as you refuse to take biological facts seriously nobody is going to take you seriously either.

 

[NxNW]

Your persistent refusal to name any biological textbook to support your nonsensical claims is demonstrating how out of touch with reality your opinion on this topic is.

It's a fact, not an opinion. The existence of twinning utterly refutes your claims that life begins at conception.

Any thoughts on the Sagan article?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

It's a fact, not an opinion. The existence of twinning utterly refutes your claims that life begins at conception.

A fact is based on actual sources. You haven't provided any. That human life begins at conception is a biological fact:

Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'

Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The

papers.ssrn.com

 

[Kylie]

A fact is based on actual sources. You haven't provided any. That human life begins at conception is a biological fact:

Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'

Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The

papers.ssrn.com

Only in the sense that it is a living ball of cells with a unique DNA sequence.

If this is what is going to count as sufficient justification to keep it alive, then we should never pull the plug on a brain dead adult who is hooked up to life support.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Only in the sense that it is a living ball of cells with a unique DNA sequence.

If this is what is going to count as sufficient justification to keep it alive, then we should never pull the plug on a brain dead adult who is hooked up to life support.

I am not in favor of ending life support for anyone unless there is a 0% chance for them to survive (which is usually the case with brain dead people, right?). The unborn human has a 100% chance to survive if you don't deliberately kill him. A better analogy would be to compare the unborn human with a person who is in a coma of which you know for a fact that they will wake up from the coma in let's say... 9 months.

Should you be allowed to kill someone who is known to be waking up from a coma, or not?

 

[Kylie]

I am not in favor of ending life support for anyone unless there is a 0% chance for them to survive (which is usually the case with brain dead people, right?). The unborn human has a 100% chance to survive if you don't deliberately kill him. A better analogy would be to compare the unborn human with a person who is in a coma of which you know for a fact that they will wake up from the coma in let's say... 9 months.

Should you be allowed to kill someone who is known to be waking up from a coma, or not?

So what about cases where the unborn fetus has some condition that means they can not possibly survive after being born? Is it okay to have an abortion in that case?

 

[ralliann]

Ah, so all Christians will be in complete agreement over who deserves shame and stigma?

Aside from the fact that all Christians do NOT agree on this, can you show me where in the Bible it says that a True Christian (tm) is justified in shaming and stigmatizing someone?

Well take your pick here....these concern those in the assembly, among us, calling themselves a brother.

Rom 5:9 ¶ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

2 th. 3:13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. {be … : or, faint not }
14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. {by … : or, signify that man by an epistle }
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.


! cor 5:1 ¶ It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, {judged: or, determined }
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

So what about cases where the unborn fetus has some condition that means they can not possibly survive after being born? Is it okay to have an abortion in that case?

I do think that if death is inevitable we can disburden the child of unnecessary suffering, but we should be honest and careful about what we call "can not possibly survive". There are illnesses that are not lethal but cause a lot of suffering, and such cases are surely a topic of hot debate, but I wouldn't give a blank approval to kill unborn children with such conditions. There are lots of people in this world who have serious conditions but are nevertheless thankful to experience living. We shouldn't take that opportunity away from anyone without their consent - again, unless death is, in fact, inevitable.

 

[Kylie]

Well take your pick here....these concern those in the assembly, among us, calling themselves a brother.

Rom 5:9 ¶ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

2 th. 3:13 But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing. {be … : or, faint not }
14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. {by … : or, signify that man by an epistle }
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.


! cor 5:1 ¶ It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, {judged: or, determined }
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

At best, that passages says that a Christian should not associate with such people. A far cry from shaming and stigmatizing them.