• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A question on Abortion

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
39,043
9,486
✟419,707.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Since this would be to save her life, then yes.

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro life people's thoughts on these two topics?
I don't believe that there's a genetic determinism that makes someone more likely to rape someone or not. There is also environment and values to consider. Furthermore, not all rapists are alike - you've got the aggressive, athletic rapists who just overpower their victims, and the nerdy, subdued rapists who rely more on trickery and drugs to facilitate their crimes. This to me weakens the case for genetic causes of rape.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,002
2,819
Australia
✟166,475.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So I was just wondering what kinds of responses pro life people might give for the following:
Lets say you're a man, and your wife is raped, and she has a high probability of dying if she carries on through the pregnancy and gives birth.

Hypotheticals that won't happen or that are so incredibly rare if they ever do are used as questions to make people feel a crisis of thought. It's a known tactic in brainwashing, so how about you don't. That whole chestnut of "She has to have an abortion to save her life" is fake, certainly these days

Hundreds of doctors have a signed a statement that puts the situation in perspective. In part, the statement reads:
There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.

That whole to 'save her life' is more myth and hype than reality.


If an abortion could be conducted in the first few weeks of pregnancy while the baby is still in an embryo stage, where it would not experience pain, would an abortion then be potentially acceptable?


Before the baby is formed God already sees them as a person.
Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.


Now if you are talking about ectopic pregnancy, different medical words are used in this situation because both lives are at risk. It is not called a 'procured abortion' due to the fact that the doctor is not intentionally killing the embryo. More medical research needs to be done in this area, as most times the ectopic pregnancy is very much wanted. There has been cases where an ectopic pregnancy was moved successfully. This should always be the attempted goal.
Does an ectopic pregnancy justify intentionally killing the baby? - Celebrate Life Magazine

Ectopic pregnancy survivor Thomas Smith can be found in the documentary Pro-Life Without Exception, tells the story of his mother’s heroism and his own survival. An ectopic pregnancy does not have to be a death sentence for the baby.

And sometimes I wonder, what if the baby grows up, then spreads genes of that rapist that perhaps promotes rape in future progeny. What are pro life people's thoughts on these two topics?

Seriously? You are going to label an innocent baby a possible future rapist because of his father? There isn't a 'rape gene'.
 
Reactions: NerdGirl
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
You recognize some kind of a gradation in the value of life based on something. Something other than scripture.
You might say that. But I'd classify them all into only two main categories.

First, there are animals which come with various level of intelligence and physical ability. Second, there are humans, who were made in the image and likeness of God and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.

That is a distinction not to be ignored when discussing this matter (abortion).
 
Reactions: NerdGirl
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

That's why I've provided further scope to the hypothetical, where we are placed in a situation in which the woman may also die if she follows through with the pregnancy. Where we are in a position of deciding between the life of the woman and the life of the non-sentient embryo of the rapist.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No matter what comes before this, the answer is no. To intentionally kill an innocent baby is always an intrinsically evil act.

By what logic? That destruction of life is wrong? Well we do that every day when we eat steak and chicken. Or veal and chicken nuggets. We kill innocent babies, millions of them, every day, every hour even, to fill out supermarkets.

So in order to justify your idea, the human non-sentient embryo, a grouping of cells, must have greater intrinsic value, than the life of any animal of the animal kingdom (aside from mankind).

Even though a dog can experience fear and pain and suffering if you kick it, it's life, according to pro life advocates, is intrinsically worth less than the embryo which doesn't experience any of the above.

And this position, I disagree with.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,703
1,536
New York, NY
✟153,657.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single

For me it's complicated to answer because as a Catholic I am entirely against abortion. However, as contradictory to the Church as it may sound, I do also believe in circumstances.
As Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 details that there is a time for everything...

So regardless of my beliefs in the Church, I just can't hold it against the person who made such a decision to abort due to extreme circumstances (and the term). I can't support past 4 weeks regardless though (maybe even less if someone presents science facts in regards to the development of the fetus).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟149,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Incorrect. All your doing is displaying your complete and total ignorance of basic biology. At fertilization, a new, and unique being comes into existence and begins a roughly 25 year period of development.

Scripture teaches that all human beings are created in the Image of God. You don't find any discrimination in Scripture, yet you insist on being a bigot and discriminating. Why? To what end? What does that accomplish? You can't defend it objectively. You can't support it scientifically or Scripturally.

All humans go through 25 years of development, beginning at fertilization. Yet at no point during our development are we not a human being!

And what you're saying here is basically that a human life is worth more than any other form of life simply because it's what scripture says.
Yes, and as a fellow Christian, I would assume that you would agree that if Scripture declares something, it's true! Perhaps you don't think Scripture is authoritative, in which case we probably should another, more important discussion. But if Scripture declares that human beings are a unique creation of God, and the only creation of God created in His Image, then that's True!

Again, you're just flat out wrong, and I even provided you with credible resources and support, yet you doubled down on ignorance.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136

No more is there much different about an embryo 2 seconds after the egg meets the sperm. Or even when the genetics of the sperm and egg meet there's nothing significantly different when they meet then they were one second prior to meeting.
Again, you're wrong, and every biological textbook disagrees with you. On what basis are you making these claims? Do you have some education I'm not aware of? Do you have some resources you can cite? Because science and biology totally disagree with you.

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)


So saying that human life begins when these genes meet really is just an arbitrary way of simplifying the idea of when human life begins, But in a physically real sense it's not really meaningful.
Nope, it's a matter of scientific fact. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization, and begins a roughly 25 year period of development. It's meaningful, factual, and important to the discussion of whether or not abortions are moral or immoral.

So again, this brings us back to two basic, fundamental principles in play:

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value (animals do not).

2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

When we put those two together, we ought to easily be able to say that the 98.5% of abortions performed for convenience reasons are immoral.
 
Reactions: NerdGirl
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,845
8,376
Dallas
✟1,086,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

These people are completely incapable of determining whether it was genetic or a product of their environment. A newborn baby is a clean slate like a blank sheet of paper. It will absorb whatever it is exposed to in its environment. How many rapists didn’t have children that became rapists or parents who weren’t rapists? If it were genetic then there would be a distinguishable pattern but there isn’t. The determining factor here is environment not genetics.
 
Reactions: NerdGirl
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

I'm a geologist and, I can say that a granite comes into existence at a certain point of time (when it has a specific chemical nature to it), But the word granite is just an arbitrary title that I assign to the rock for the sake of simplicity in the conversation.

But what the granite was one second before it became granite is really not much different than what it was a second into being a granite. In practical terms they are the same rock. The granite never really "came into existence", But rather I assigned it a title based on my personal observation of its changed form.

And the same followers for the idea of a human being. A human being doesn't just metaphysically come into existence the moment sperm touches an egg (scripture doesn't say that). And in a physical sense the egg and sperm touching as well doesn't instantaneously create the human being. We simply call it human because it's a way of simplifying the discussion. But for practical purposes when it comes to determining a person, saying that a human being starts when a egg meets a sperm is arbitrary. Because in physical reality, it's still just an egg and sperm that happen to be touching. (Or dna that happens to be touching from the sperm and egg).

It's not really a matter of whether the granite scientifically is a granite or not, It's a matter of whether there's something about that granite that is more than what it was a second prior. In which case calling the rock a granite is just a name that we assign to it to simplify discussion of what it generally is. But in physical reality, the granite is for practical purposes, the same as it was a second prior, much like the sperm and egg. The granite didn't come into existence. A second prior or a second further from the sperm and egg touching, doesn't really say anything about the person of the physical matter and it coming into existence. The sperm and egg touching are the same as the sperm and egg 1 second prior to touching, in a literal sense. We just arbitrarily say okay it's human just to make things simple for discussion.

Ultimately what I'm saying is, this isn't a matter of science because as scientists we assign names to things arbitrarily (which is why we constantly argue over scientific definitions of things like granites). But rather this is a matter of philosophy and a matter of truly looking at when something comes into existence (the sperm and the egg), As opposed to simply looking at when something that already exists changes form (the sperm and egg touch). Or the same goes for DNA, the sperm dna or the egg dna, and when the two touch.

And in order to make the point that we are created in God's image and therefore an embryo is in God's image, We further have to somehow establish a link between the touching of DNA and the statement in scripture of being created in God's image. But scripture doesn't say anything about when human life begins. It doesn't say that human life begins when DNA of the sperm touches DNA of the egg.

So what you're doing is you're arbitrarily assigning the word human to something, then you're going further and you're trying to link it to scripture that says no such thing.

And you're trying to use scientific assignment of names to something that isn't a discussion of science. Just as it's meaningless to say what percentages of feldspar make up a granite rather than addressing whether or not the granite truly came into existence when it reached that 30% feldspar versus 29%. In reality the granite did not come into existence even when we started calling it granite, The granite (what makes it granite) predated and pre-existed it's arbitrary assignment of a name.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that assignment of a name to something such as a human being or a granite, Is a concept of the observer's mind more-so than it is something actually coming into existence. And nothing in scripture or science says otherwise. And quoting scientific articles that talk about how we conceptually define granite or human beings, doesn't change that because these are articles simply talking about how we conceptually identify something based on our personal observation and assignment of title. It's not God calling the embryo human, it's us, people, just assigning names for simplicity of discussion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟149,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You're just wrong, and I keep demonstrating why. And you keep displaying a total lack of understanding of biology.

A sperm is not a human being. An egg is not a human being. Left on their own, they will always be a sperm and they will always be an egg. But when you bring them together, something unique happens biologically. It's a scientific fact that at fertilization a new, unique living organism comes into existence. This is what happens, we can literally see it happen now. You continually saying this isn't what happens doesn't make it true. Again, here are some credible biological references for you:

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. He said:

“after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...“it is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”


Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

This isn't geology, this is biology, and you clearly are not understanding biology. A sperm is not a human being, it is a sperm. An egg is not a human being, it is an egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg has the capacity on their own to become a human being. At fertilization, the sperm ceases to exist and the egg cease to exist, and what we have is a newly created organism. This organism will spend about 25 years growing and developing.

Scripture doesn't need to say when a new human being comes into existence. Just like Scripture doesn't need to say why the sun rises, we know why the sun rises thanks to science. We know when a new human being comes into existence thanks to science.

What Scripture provides for us is our moral framework. You know that the only reason objective morals exist in the first place is because morality is based upon the immutable, perfect character of God.

In the same way, this perfect God has declared that He created the universe and all that exists in it. He has declared that He created human beings as a unique creation, different from the rest of creation, and that we alone are created in His Image.

So again, this brings us back to two fundamental principles:

1. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization and goes through a 25 year developmental period.

2. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

What you won't find in Scripture is anything that would suggest that our moral worth and value is based upon our level of development, race, gender, or location of residence. Why are you so keen on discriminating against humans and stripping some of them of their moral worth and value? I still don't see why that's something you want to do.
 
Reactions: NerdGirl
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'll give another example here:

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Saying that the gametes of the sperm in the egg contact one another, Is not equivalent to saying that a human being comes into existence. In a literal sense it's just saying that these genes contact each other.

And further scripture doesn't say that a human being comes into existence when DNA contacts one another. In a literal sense nothing is coming into existence, We simply observe the contact of DNA and we say okay I want to call that a human for simplicity of discussion.

But there isn't anything scriptural or specifically metaphysical about this observation that we can use to say that a human being has come into existence at that moment. And even physically the game it's touching one another in a literal sense is nothing more than what it was a second prior when the game meets were not touching.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"“after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being...“it is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”"


This isnt a scientific conclusions, they are personal statements. It's not published for example.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Neither the sperm nor the egg has the capacity on their own to become a human being. "

When they give me to the sperm and an egg joined together and ultimately grow to be what we call human, This occurrence is not equivalent to a human being coming into existence. But rather it is a case where we observe the change in the form of something that pre-exists and then we start calling it human when it meets a certain arbitrary boundary that we feel comfortable calling human.

You're confusing us calling something human (for simplicity of discussion) with the idea that the human actually came into existence.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"“The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. "

Again, you're confusing us calling something human with the question of whether that entity actually came into existence.

I can say that when I mix my chocolate chips and dough, That cookies come into existence once I pull them out of the oven. But this is just my observation and arbitrary title that I assigned to something for the simplicity of explaining cookies.

In reality nothing about the cookies literally came into existence. But rather the dough and the chocolate chips that pre-existed were put together an intermingled and they took on a particular form.

And dough and chocolate chips taking on the shape of an oval doesn't make a cookie come into existence, It's just us calling it a cookie as observers that want to have a simple discussion about dough and chocolate chips.

And there is a beginning time in which we decide to start calling a cookie a cookie. A cookie does have a beginning according to our observed and applied titles. But in physical reality the cookie doesn't come into existence even if we begin to start calling it a cookie.

We as people and observers make a personal choice to start calling it a cookie just for a simplicity of discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Hmm

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know
Sep 27, 2019
4,866
5,027
35
Shropshire
✟193,879.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
In a literal sense nothing is coming into existence, We simply observe the contact of DNA and we say okay I want to call that a human for simplicity of discussion.

Something has come into existence though. Once this contact has been made then in the natural course of events a human baby is the result. It takes active intervention to stop it. This is not the case before contact and so the contact has instituted a fundamental change.
 
Reactions: NerdGirl
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

What has come into existence? A spirit or soul?

No physical matter came into existence. We started calling the embryo an embryo for simplicity of discussion but nothing actually came into existence. Nothing that we are actually aware of.

And scripture doesn't say otherwise. Scripture doesn't clarify on when a human becomes a human of when a human comes into existence, at best I can only think that Adam became human and came into existence when God breathed into him (breathed into pre existing clay). But beyond that metaphysical or spiritual statement in scripture there's nothing to work with to say when a human truly comes into existence.

But thank you for understanding what I'm trying to say.


And for the person who keeps postings statements by scientists, You have to distinguish between statements made by scientists and scientific statements that are published. No scientist is saying that humans are coming into existence. Beginning? Yes, just like my cookies begin to exist when I pull them out of the oven. But in a scientific sense the cookie doesn't truly come into existence. Scientifically in truth we know that E equals MC squared and that matter is not created nor destroyed, at least not by any human activity or in any observation associated with birth. The cookie did not come into existence but rather we just started calling it a cookie for simplicity of discussion. As far as we are aware nothing truly came into existence.

We can't confuse statements by scientists with scientific statements.

when we talk about being created in the image of God We are talking about creation and something coming into existence, We aren't talking about when people just decide to start calling it something, we're talking about when that something actually comes into existence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SPF

Well-Known Member
Feb 7, 2017
3,594
1,984
ATL
✟149,581.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I provided lots of published material which you continue to ignore an pretend your opinions are more author

When they give me to the sperm and an egg joined together and ultimately grow to be what we call human, This occurrence is not equivalent to a human being coming into existence.
Again, you saying this doesn’t make it true, and contradicts what all biology textbooks teach, it contradicts established science.



You're confusing us calling something human (for simplicity of discussion) with the idea that the human actually came into existence.
Except at fertilization a new human has come into existence. At fertilization a new, living, unique organism with its own DNA has come into existence which will continue to grow and develop over a period of 25 years.

No physical matter came into existence. We started calling the embryo an embryo for simplicity of discussion but nothing actually came into existence. Nothing that we are actually aware of.
Again, flat wrong. Physical matter does exist, a new, physical, unique, living, growing human being has come into existence.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,373
3,184
Hartford, Connecticut
✟355,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A new, physical, unique, living, growing human being has come into existence.

Physical matter has not come into existence and no scientific article has ever said this. If you think it does then you should revisit the concept that matter is not created nor destroyed.

And I'm sorry that you're unwilling to accept this.

You can't say that something has come into existence when in a literal sense nothing has come into existence.

The only thing that could arguably have come into existence is your imagined conceptual assignment of a name to something. Or perhaps you could try arguing that a spirit came into existence, But that's not what you're trying to do You're trying to argue from scientific stance but obviously science doesn't deal with spirits.

Just like I say that my cookies come into existence when I pull them out of the oven, The cookies aren't actually coming into existence, I simply begin calling them cookies and that's all there is to it. It's a personal imagined observation.

It is a change in the mindset of the observer, It is not a case of the cookie actually coming into existence.

You're saying " a human being coming into existence", But what you're saying isnt real or true.

And this is important because when we talk about being created in the image of God, we're talking about something coming into existence. We're not talking about assignment of a name by an observer.
 
Upvote 0