Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[YahuahSaves]

I disagree that a woman is required to sacrifice her body to suffer a pregnancy and delivery because “biology”

"Sacrifice her body"... you make it sound like stretch marks are lethal. you do know rapid weight gain from food intake can result in stretch marks, regardless if someone is pregnant or not. Perhaps if a woman cares about how she looks more than the value of a child's life, she should use contraceptive methods or refrain from engaging in sex.

 

[comana]

"Sacrifice her body"... you make it sound like stretch marks are lethal. you do know rapid weight gain from food intake can result in stretch marks, regardless if someone is pregnant or not. Perhaps if a woman cares about how she looks more than the value of a child's life, she should use contraceptive methods or refrain from engaging in sex.

I am not talking about stretch marks. I’m guessing you have never been pregnant or you wouldn’t be so flippant.

 

[comana]

Your child lives inside you 3 days before birth as well. If "living inside" is really what you think is the deciding factor then you should have no problem with killing the unborn human 3 days before birth.
And "dependent on the other" is even less of a distinction. Children are 100% dependent on others even after birth. What do you think will happen if nobody feeds the newborn?

I gave a first trimester window. Clearly at nine months the woman chose to stay pregnant.

Yes, children are dependent but they do not require a specific person to feed and care for them. Pregnancy requires a specific person to choose to continue to term.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Try to keep up. Twinning proves this to be false.

Twinning proves this to be false.

Link to the evidence or else it's just your warped opinion.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Clearly at nine months the woman chose to stay pregnant.

The question has never been whether anyone chooses to be pregnant. The question is whether you think it is wrong to kill the unborn baby 3 days before birth. Do you?

 

[Lost Witness]

Just because it is what we evolved to do does not mean it doesn’t come at a physical cost.

No evolution was required,
'Woman' came from the RIB of a Man.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I am not talking about stretch marks. I’m guessing you have never been pregnant or you wouldn’t be so flippant.

So what other reasons are you suggesting if you aren't talking cosmetic?

Women who carry to term will tell you their bodies are changed permanently.

Yeah, many say their bodies have changed cosmetically such as stretchmarks and stretching "downstairs".

I disagree that a woman is required to sacrifice her body to suffer a pregnancy and delivery because “biology”

What "sacrifice" ? People choose to have sex. Why should another human lose its life because a woman doesn't want the burden? Actions have consequences.

 

[comana]

So what other reasons are you suggesting if you aren't talking cosmetic?


Yeah, many say their bodies have changed cosmetically such as stretchmarks and stretching "downstairs".

What "sacrifice" ? People choose to have sex. Why should another human lose its life because a woman doesn't want the burden? Actions have consequences.

Just being pregnant is physically hard and then add in any complications. Then there are long term issues after birth that can manifest decades later

Here are some common issues: Long-term Effects of Pregnancy Not Talked About | Piedmont Healthcare

What difficulties during and after childbirth a woman will experience can’t be predicted. A woman should willingly choose it.

 

[comana]

The question has never been whether anyone chooses to be pregnant. The question is whether you think it is wrong to kill the unborn baby 3 days before birth. Do you?

A baby that can survive outside the womb should not be terminated for non medically necessary reasons.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

A baby that can survive outside the womb should not be terminated for non medically necessary reasons.

So a human life is not inherently valuable. Why is it wrong to kill a baby that could survive outside the womb then?

 

[comana]

So a human life is not inherently valuable. Why is it wrong to kill a baby that could survive outside the womb then?

For the reason it can survive outside the womb. The woman needs to choose before that point.

We are not going to make any headway towards agreement so this has run its course.

 

[YahuahSaves]

What difficulties during and after childbirth a woman will experience can’t be predicted. A woman should willingly choose it.

She should also willingly choose to use contraceptives and make her partner use contraceptives as well. Not that hard. There's complications that arise after abortion as well even decades later. Prevention is better than either result if one does not want to get pregnant or have a child.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

For the reason it can survive outside the womb.

But the baby isn't outside the womb. Your argument was

It’s more about one living inside and dependent on the other.

which is the case with every unborn baby up until the point of birth. Just because it could theoretically survive outside the womb doesn't make it less "living inside" or less "dependent on the other" in practice.

Your argument is applicable to newborns, not to a third-trimester fetus. Can you make a coherent argument for a fetus, or do you take the statement back that "living inside" a woman is enough of a reason to kill the fetus?

 

[comana]

She should also willingly choose to use contraceptives and make her partner use contraceptives as well. Not that hard. There's complications that arise after abortion as well even decades later. Prevention is better than either result if one does not want to get pregnant or have a child.

Of course prevention is best. When that fails or doesn’t happen for whatever reason, there is still an option to rectify that if she so chooses. Very early abortions, usually done with a pill, are highly unlikely to have any long term affects.

 

[Derf]

I never want to debate abortion with people who disagree with me on the issue because it just goes around in circles, with "pro-lifers" wrongly accusing pro-choicers of murdering babies (which is obviously a lie) and pro-choicers calling pro-lifers misogynists who only care about controlling girls and women. In rape and incest cases, the latter is true, but most claims I read from both sides of the issue are incorrect unless people are just talking about Psalms 139, Job 10, and child development. I want to know if there is any way people can just agree to disagree on when abortion is only for convenience, when fetuses in the womb are viable, and how women should get rid of unwanted babies they can't take care of. There is no reason to doubt someone is a Christian just because he or she disagrees on this one issue, whatever the opinion differences are. I want to be able to trade views about a Christian issue without a fear that someone will deny my faith in God. I know everyone who reads God's Word would feel the same way, whether the issue is abortion or something else.

So instead of debating whether abortion is right or wrong and on what basis, I want to see if people are able to have a friendly discussion on the topic that does not devolve into crap such as, "You are not a Christian," or stupid name-calling.

It's because you keep losing the argument, right? You have neither logic nor morality to back up your position, so you resort to name-calling. You say above pro-lifers wrongly accuse pro-choicers of murdering babies, then you proceed to accuse pro-lifers of lying, then you say both pro-lifers and pro-choicers are lying.

Jesus made it clear that those who were liars would not enter His kingdom:
[Revelation 22:15 KJV] For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

I think that means He doubted their christianity, and it's a warning to them not to continue down that path. By calling pro-lifers liars (and adding pro-choicers, too), you have just said that all christians are not christians, then you hide behind CF policy to keep anyone from doing the same thing you do. You want to have a civil conversation, but you mean that you get to question other people's faith, but no one can question yours. That's hypocrisy, my friend, and it will benefit you to know it.

(P.S. If you say someone is lying when they aren't lying, that makes you a liar. Just thought you ought to know...)

 

[coffee4u]

How many years, months, days, hours, and minutes until this moment? Is it the same moment for identical twins?

Which is why I said only God knows.

 

[coffee4u]

So that's a no? In which case life does not begin at conception.

It's a life, singular at that stage. The zygote has all the 7 biological markers of life.

The Characteristics of Life | Biology for Majors I

courses.lumenlearning.com

1. Organized genes. It contains all the genetic information that’s required to create an individual human being.

2. Response.
The zygote responds to simuli in their environment. Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to various factors such as when albumin is introduced into the zygote's environment, they respond by producing a compound called paf. When paf is present, even if it's introduced artificially, the zygote responds to it with growth and activity.

3. Zygotes divide through mitosis, in which each cell doubles.

4. Growth and Development: Attached diagram. (day 1 to 23)

5. Chromosome segregation regulation.

6. The zygote uses oxidative metabolism

7. The source of energy for the zygote immediately following the fertilization is the mitochondria.

 

[NxNW]

I can't tell whether you are serious or joking. You act as if the child chose to be there. You can blame a total of 2 people for a pregnancy: mom and dad. The unborn human is the only one who has zero say in the matter. That the human is in the womb is the direct result of the parents' actions.

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, and the fact that you're now talking about blame indicates that you think of pregnancy as punishment.
You ignored my example, but let's make it even more extreme. Let's say the intruder is a kidnap victim who was drugged and left unconscious in your house after you accidentally left it unlocked. (You might compare that to birth control failing after a rape). If you come home and discover the intruder waking up, you still have the right to eject her at gunpoint, even if she'll die in the storm, and if she refuses, you can shoot her. Every Republican will support your right to do so.

 

[NxNW]

This is then what many people disagree with you on. Life is a basic human right

Not at the cost of someone else's bodily autonomy. I can't force you to donate blood or a kidney to save my life. A womb is no different.

 

[NxNW]

I know that you don't believe that humans at that stage of development have the same rights as you.

You're trying to give first trimester embryos extra rights that no other human has. Nobody has the right to attach themselves to another without permission, and nobody can force you to donate blood or a kidney. Why do you want to grant these special rights to first trimester embryos?

My question is, why. If stage of development defines the value of a human life, it would mean that adults are more valuable than infants.

They are both the same, having been born and being considered human beings.