Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

FYI a "scheduled delivery" is a doctor appointment to have either a C-section or induced labor. An expecting mother's due date is 40 weeks after the first day of her last period, not nine months after fertilization. So I suspect that date is often not accurate.

Thanks, I didn't know there is a term for that. In my language we call the due date "angesetzter Termin", which literally translates to "scheduled date".

Is it possible that we can get away from the semantics? I'm sure you've understood my question by now, even with my broken English.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Thanks, I didn't know there is a term for that. In my language we call the due date "angesetzter Termin", which literally translates to "scheduled date."

Is it possible that we can get away from the semantics? I'm sure you've understood my question by now, even with my broken English.

Oh, I did not realize English is your second language.

Beyond semantics, my answer to your question is YES. I only support third trimester abortions if the expecting mother either has a medical emergency or does not know until then her unborn baby would spend his/her entire life suffering life-threatening medical problems. Both situations are very rare.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Either life begins at conception or it begins later. Since you've admitted it begins after conception, you've conceded the point.

I didn't admit any such thing. I linked evidence that life begins at fertilisation (which is conception). You ignore the scientific evidence, including what happens with twinning to continue denying the reality in favour of your own personal bias. And you still can't show evidence that life does not begin at conception, perhaps because there is none!

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Oh, I did not realize English is your second language.

Beyond semantics, my answer to your question is YES. I only support third trimester abortions if the expecting mother either has a medical emergency or does not know until then her unborn baby would spend his/her entire life suffering life-threatening medical problems. Both situations are very rare.

So you are holding the opinion that there is no difference between a human and an animal before birth and also it is evil to kill a human before birth.
Isn't that a bit incoherent? Why is it evil to kill a 9-months old fetus if he - as you say - has no soul?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Several other verses in the Bible refer to God giving "the breath of life" to people. Since they were obviously alive the womb and God's name precedes that phrase, it can only mean He does not give anyone a soul prior to birth.

I oppose all unnecessary abortions, but totally understand most abortions are necessary because of our messed-up government and society.

Why would God not give us a soul prior to birth? We can see from scripture how precious we are to Him, even in the womb.

Jeremiah 1:5
Isaiah 49:1
Psalm 139:13
Job 31:15
Isaiah 44:2
Psalm 127:3
Galatians 1:15
Psalm 139:16
Luke 1:44
Luke 1:14-15
Psalm 22:9-10

 

[GodLovesCats]

So you are holding the opinion that there is no difference between a human and an animal before birth and also it is evil to kill a human before birth.
Isn't that a bit incoherent? Why is it evil to kill a 9-months old fetus if he - as you say - has no soul?

My refusal to accept the "innocent life" argument from abortion opponents specifically covered the opposite end of pregnancy. It does not contradict my personal preference that third trimester abortions be extremely rare and only legal for medical reasons.

 

[Kylie]

Of course they were..

This is the only relevant point, since I am not talking about twins.

If the sperm and ova were alive prior to fertilization, then you can not claim that life BEGINS at fertilization. Since the life did not begin. The sperm and ova were already alive. So by your logic, it is just as bad as abortion if a sperm dies or an ova dies, since they too are a loss of life. Should we punish women who menstruate, since each menses is the loss of an ova that could have been fertilized?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

My refusal to accept the "innocent life" argument from abortion opponents specifically covered the opposite end of pregnancy. It does not contradict my personal preference that third trimester abortions be extremely rare and only legal for medical reasons.

I'm not making the "innocent life" argument here, I am asking why you think it is evil to kill a 9-months-old fetus if you believe he is just the same as an animal. Or do you also believe it is evil to kill any animal? Jesus ate animals, so that would be a strange position to take.

So again: if humans have no soul prior to birth, what makes killing a 9-months-old fetus evil?

 

[NxNW]

Are you denying that abortion is actively killing a living organism?

I'd view it more as self-defense.

No, I am saying that a miscarriage is not immoral, while actively killing the unborn is immoral.

Interesting that you're fine with excessive drinking and smoking while pregnant.

 

[NxNW]

Let me ask directly then: Do you believe it is evil to kill the unborn baby 1 day prior to birth?

This wasn't directed at me but: other than medical emergencies, nobody is pushing for the right to do so. No woman seeks elective abortion a day before birth, aside from medical emergencies.

 

[NxNW]

Of course, no woman would want to have an abortion the day before her due date. I will never understand why any abortion opponent thinks such abortions happen just because mothers did not want their babies.

Exactly: it doesn't happen. Or you'd call it a C-section.

 

[NxNW]

Well, that's a clear answer You probably know that unborn children in the womb can hear your voice, learn your language and move to music, and even Luke 1 confirms that a fetus can feel joy.

Not before the 5th month, they don't. They are incapable of thought or sensory input before then.

 

[NxNW]

I didn't admit any such thing. I linked evidence that life begins at fertilisation (which is conception). You ignore the scientific evidence, including what happens with twinning to continue denying the reality in favour of your own personal bias. And you still can't show evidence that life does not begin at conception, perhaps because there is none!

Identical twins can't both begin at conception. We've already covered that.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Identical twins can't both begin at conception. We've already covered that.

Yes they can. They share the same DNA. I also shared what happens when twinning occurs when they don't. And before you argue "1 person can't split into 2 people", we've covered that as well. It's all confirmed in the science of biology and embryology. Your denial of scientific facts is personal bias and not based on logic (no matter how hard you try). Considering you view the unborn as a "foreign invader" it makes a lot of sense why you keep arguing an illogical position.

I'd view it more as self-defense.

 

[Belk]

Yes they can. They share the same DNA. I also shared what happens when twinning occurs when they don't. And before you argue "1 person can't split into 2 people", we've covered that as well. It's all confirmed in the science of biology and embryology. Your denial of scientific facts is personal bias and not based on logic (no matter how hard you try). Considering you view the unborn as a "foreign invader" it makes a lot of sense why you keep arguing an illogical position.

Slightly different DNA actually.

Many Identical Twins Actually Have Slightly Different DNA

In a new study of over 300 pairs of identical twins, only 38 had perfectly identical DNA

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[GodLovesCats]

Not before the 5th month, they don't. They are incapable of thought or sensory input before then.

That is why I keep telling people no unborn babies suffer at all during their abortions unless the mom is having a medical emergency after the sixth month, so viability should be the point that elective abortions become illegal.

 

[Aaron112]

That is why I keep telling people no unborn babies suffer at all

ooops.... sorrrry I looked into this post /thread just now....

The babies suffer often... sometimes just because of pollution or mom's diet.....

I would suggest to anyone to Stop telling people what you may very well be very sorry for later .....

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yes they can. They share the same DNA. I also shared what happens when twinning occurs when they don't. And before you argue "1 person can't split into 2 people", we've covered that as well. It's all confirmed in the science of biology and embryology. Your denial of scientific facts is personal bias and not based on logic (no matter how hard you try). Considering you view the unborn as a "foreign invader" it makes a lot of sense why you keep arguing an illogical position.

Those poster you replied to is correct. There are "identical" twins who actually have some genetic differences. In addition, there is something called tin-in-twin syndrome, which is literally a pregnant fetus. Only arithmetic matters when determining when life begins for an identical twin, so it is never conception.

 

[GodLovesCats]

ooops.... sorrrry I looked into this post /thread just now....

The babies suffer often... sometimes just because of pollution or mom's diet.....

I would suggest to anyone to Stop telling people what you may very well be very sorry for later .....

Why didn't you copy my entire post? That is called removing the context to make it mean something completely different.

 

[Aaron112]

Why didn't you copy my entire post? That is called removing the context to make it mean something completely different.

I'll copy your entire post now. You can see then that it does not make any difference at all...... or will I see something else ? Just a minute and we will see....