A question on Abortion

[Job 33:6]

@SPF

Do you understand that a cookie does not come into existence when I bake chocolate chips and dough in the oven?

The cookie does not come into existence but rather the cookie is a form of something that existed prior to being baked.

Do you understand this?

The same goes for the discussion about an embryo. The embryo doesn't come into existence, His human being whatever that literally and physically is doesn't come into existence. nothing is physically coming into existence and so there is no scientific statement that can ever conclude that a human being comes into existence.

There's a difference between us observing the change in form of something that already exists and calling it by a new name for simplicity of discussion, And the idea that this entity actually came into existence.

 

[NerdGirl]

Pretty sure cookies don't multiply and divide and grow arms and legs... by your logic, the sperm and egg would just mesh together and never become anything but 1 sperm and 1 egg mashed together.

 

[Job 33:6]

And it's important to understand that nothing comes into existence in a physical sense.

Once we understand that nothing is physically coming into existence, We can then turn our view to a discussion of what literally happens, in which case what we observe are The combination of two sets of DNA.

But one that has to ask why the combination of this DNA is any more special than the combination of DNA in any farm animal that we eat any other day without a second thought?

Does it have a spirit? What actually gives it it's intrinsic value beyond us simply assigning it a title?

 

[Job 33:6]

Pretty sure cookies don't multiply and divide and grow arms and legs... by your logic, the sperm and egg would just mesh together and never become anything but 1 sperm and 1 egg mashed together.

By this same logic a farm animals DNA multiplies as well. But we don't treat that with value.

So what is it about this moment in time when the human sperm and egg meet, That gives this a greater intrinsic value over any other biological system of any other animal?

Does scripture say that God sends a spirit into the genes at this moment? No. But rather we just start calling it human because it's easier to talk about. As observers we assign a title to it even though nothing about it has actually come into existence. In a physical sense these genes are literally the same as they were a second prior to their contact with one another. But for some reason we don't assign a value to it until they touch, And then for some reason we don't assign the same value when genes of other life forms touch.

presumably because we know these genes will eventually become something that they are not currently. That being what we identify as a human being. But at that moment when those genes touch, They literally aren't different than the sperm or egg a second prior that we'd dispose of with use of contraceptives. But we don't call use of contraceptives murder.

 

[NerdGirl]

By this same logic a farm animals DNA multiplies as well. But we don't treat that with value.

So what is it about this moment in time when the human sperm and egg meet, That gives this a greater intrinsic value over any other biological system of any other animal?

If you believe that humans are on the same level as cattle, nobody is going to be able to drag you kicking and screaming into a different point of view. You either believe that or you don't. People can sit here and point out all the ways in which human beings are superior to animals all day long, but if you refuse to accept it, you refuse to accept it. Based on everything I've seen in this thread, it would be a waste of everyone's time, including yours.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you believe that humans are on the same level as cattle, nobody is going to be able to drag you kicking and screaming into a different point of view. You either believe that or you don't. People can sit here and point out all the ways in which human beings are superior to animals all day long, but if you refuse to accept it, you refuse to accept it. Based on everything I've seen in this thread, it would be a waste of everyone's time, including yours.

How are humans superior? By intelligence? The genes that come in contact with one another are not intelligent. They may someday become intelligent. But at conception they are not.

however we still assign more value to them than we do intelligent adult animals.

And by looking at things like intelligence, and assigning an embryo of a human more value than any other animal of the animal kingdom, We are also assuming that any other animal of the animal kingdom will never at any point in the present or future make a decision as intelligent as any human being ever could. And that is an assumption that cannot be rightfully made.

And by destroying a non-human life you eliminate all future possibility of that potential intelligent decision. Without a care. And I'm not talking about a cow making an intelligent decision, I'm talking about potential descendants of that cow making an intelligent decision.

 

[lsume]

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.

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?

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?

Where the mothers life is endangered, I think that was always an option even before abortion.

 

[lsume]

If you believe that humans are on the same level as cattle, nobody is going to be able to drag you kicking and screaming into a different point of view. You either believe that or you don't. People can sit here and point out all the ways in which human beings are superior to animals all day long, but if you refuse to accept it, you refuse to accept it. Based on everything I've seen in this thread, it would be a waste of everyone's time, including yours.

I like the response.

 

[SPF]

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.

What I mean is that the new, unique, living organism is a physical organism. It has mass, it is a real, living, newly created physical being. A human being to be specific. This is settled science. You're just making yourself look dumb, stop! For your sake, stop! Repeating your ignorance over and over isn't going to make it true.

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“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

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

See cited references above. What has come into existence is a new, unique, individual that has its own DNA and has begun to grow and develop and will continue to do so for 25 years.

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

See above.

 

[SPF]

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

The question of when human life begins has been answered in a variety of ways by different religious and philosophical traditions throughout the ages, leading many to conclude the question cannot be definitively answered. Yet what does science tell us about when life begins?[1] One of the basic insights of modern biology is that life is continuous, with living cells giving rise to new types of cells and, ultimately, to new individuals. Therefore, in considering the question of when a new human life begins, we must first address the more fundamental question of when a new cell, distinct from sperm and egg, comes into existence.

The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed.

Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.

What is the nature of the new cell that comes into existence upon sperm-egg fusion? Most importantly, is the zygote merely another human cell (like a liver cell or a skin cell) or is it something else? Just as science distinguishes between different types of cells, it also makes clear distinctions between cells and organisms. Both cells and organisms are alive, yet organisms exhibit unique characteristics that can reliably distinguish them from mere cells.[2]

An organism is defined as “(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.” (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are “living beings.” Therefore, another name for a human organism is a “human being”; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.

Human beings can be distinguished from human cells using the same kind of criteria scientists use to distinguish different cell types. A human being (i.e., a human organism) is composed of human parts (cells, proteins, RNA, DNA), yet it is different from a mere collection of cells because it has the characteristic molecular composition and behavior of an organism: it acts in an interdependent and coordinated manner to “carry on the activities of life.”

Human embryos from the one-cell (zygote) stage forward show uniquely integrated, organismal behavior that is unlike the behavior of mere human cells. The zygote produces increasingly complex tissues, structures and organs that work together in a coordinated way. Importantly, the cells, tissues and organs produced during development do not somehow “generate” the embryo (as if there were some unseen, mysterious “manufacturer” directing this process), they are produced by the embryo as it directs its own development to more mature stages of human life. This organized, coordinated behavior of the embryo is the defining characteristic of a human organism.

In contrast to human embryos, human cells are alive and, under some circumstances, they can assemble into primitive tissues and structures. Yet under no circumstances do mere human cells produce the kind of coordinated interactions necessary for building a fully integrated human body. They do not produce tissues in a coherent manner and do not organize them so as to sustain the life of the entity as a whole. They produce tumors; i.e., parts of the human body in a chaotic, disorganized manner. They behave like cells, not like organisms.

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications)."

Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

 

[NerdGirl]

I like the response.

Thanks I don't believe in engaging with people who have their minds already made up and just want to shore up their rigid point of view through endless arguments, while posing as being "open-minded and wanting feedback". At some point, it just becomes painfully obvious that they aren't the least bit interested in learning or expanding their own viewpoint. They just get off on debating with others.

 

[Brightmoon]

As far as the OP, it’s a personal choice for the women involved. I think so called prolifers are hypocrites as very few of them would subject themselves to the conditions they’d gladly impose on some hapless women. Bad health? No time, energy or money ? Doesn’t like or doesn’t want children? Have a health condition caused by the pregnancy? Be the victim of a domestic violence, rape or incest? Have the baby anyway and by the way we’ll harass you because you had sex and we pro lifers won’t help you! .

 

[SPF]

As far as the OP, it’s a personal choice for the women involved. I think so called prolifers are hypocrites as very few of them would subject themselves to the conditions they’d gladly impose on some hapless women. Bad health? No time, energy or money ? Doesn’t like or doesn’t want children? Have a health condition caused by the pregnancy? Be the victim of a domestic violence, rape or incest? Have the baby anyway and by the way we’ll harass you because you had sex and we pro lifers won’t help you! .

Yea, you nailed it alright. The better option is to kill the innocent unborn child that is created in God's Image and possesses the same inherent moral worth and value as you do. Just kill em, they're inconvenient!

 

[NerdGirl]

As far as the OP, it’s a personal choice for the women involved. I think so called prolifers are hypocrites as very few of them would subject themselves to the conditions they’d gladly impose on some hapless women. Bad health? No time, energy or money ? Doesn’t like or doesn’t want children? Have a health condition caused by the pregnancy? Be the victim of a domestic violence, rape or incest? Have the baby anyway and by the way we’ll harass you because you had sex and we pro lifers won’t help you! .

For whatever it's worth, I think this is a fallacy perpetuated endlessly by the pro-abortion side, until it's simply another talking point that flows without being questioned.

I don't think it's true at all, of most pro-lifers. Most crisis centers for pregnant women are run by pro-life groups, many of them Christian. Many adoption resource organizations are run by churches or religious groups. My church has financially supported our local crisis pregnancy center for 20+ years and counting. I could list several local centers where I live, and all are run and supported by pro-life people, mainly Christians. They provide free pregnancy testing, counseling (whether the woman wants to parent or adopt out), and abortion recovery services. Some of them provide on-site housing, clothing, job placement, and childcare until the woman gets on her own two feet. They connect pregnant women to other resources in the community to ensure they receive medical care, housing, food, whatever they need.

I have firsthand knowledge of my local crisis pregnancy centers and how they are run and supported by local, pro-life Christians. I also have firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be young, pregnant, unmarried, and scared to death. I know what it's like to navigate the system. I know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure there are less-than-stellar "pregnancy help" groups out there. But they aren't the majority. I would encourage people who would like to learn more, and see for themselves, to volunteer at some local crisis pregnancy centers wherever you live, and see how they function with your own eyes.

The idea that "pro-life people don't care about the women or babies after the birth" is simply a lie.

 

[SPF]

For whatever it's worth, I think this is a fallacy perpetuated endlessly by the pro-abortion side, until it's simply another talking point that flows without being questioned.

I don't think it's true at all, of most pro-lifers. Most crisis centers for pregnant women are run by pro-life groups, many of them Christian. Many adoption resource organizations are run by churches or religious groups. My church has financially supported our local crisis pregnancy center for 20+ years and counting. I could list several local centers where I live, and all are run and supported by pro-life people, mainly Christians. They provide free pregnancy testing, counseling (whether the woman wants to parent or adopt out), and abortion recovery services. Some of them provide on-site housing, clothing, job placement, and childcare until the woman gets on her own two feet. They connect pregnant women to other resources in the community to ensure they receive medical care, housing, food, whatever they need.

I have firsthand knowledge of my local crisis pregnancy centers and how they are run and supported by local, pro-life Christians. I also have firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be young, pregnant, unmarried, and scared to death. I know what it's like to navigate the system. I know what I'm talking about.

I'm sure there are less-than-stellar "pregnancy help" groups out there. But they aren't the majority. I would encourage people who would like to learn more, and see for themselves, to volunteer at some local crisis pregnancy centers wherever you live, and see how they function with your own eyes.

The idea that "pro-life people don't care about the women or babies after the birth" is simply a lie.

Thanks for this post, and I think what you said is much more reflective of reality than the stereotyping, judgmental comments of Brightmoon. My wife and I are foster parents, and have easily spent over 6 figures of our own money over the years supporting children and single women.

I think the actual reality is more like pro-life people DO support and help, while pro-choice advocates like Brightmoon's contribution doesn't extend beyond encouraging women who for convenience reasons don't want a baby to just go ahead and have them killed.

In fact, at the moment I can't think of another foster parent that I know who isn't pro-life.

 

[NerdGirl]

Thanks for this post, and I think what you said is much more reflective of reality than the stereotyping, judgmental comments of Brightmoon. My wife and I are foster parents, and have easily spent over 6 figures of our own money over the years supporting children and single women.

I think the actual reality is more like pro-life people DO support and help, while pro-choice advocates like Brightmoon's contribution doesn't extend beyond encouraging women who for convenience reasons don't want a baby to just go ahead and have them killed.

In fact, at the moment I can't think of another foster parent that I know who isn't pro-life.

God bless you and your wife for opening your hearts and homes to children in need! Good foster parents are SO desperately needed.

I don't want to speak harshly of Brightmoon, as I don't know them. But I think that part of the "pro-life people don't care about born babies or women" argument is that it helps to harden their hearts on the issue of abortion overall. It helps support the idea that "well, these children will just be neglected and abused, so let's spare them a difficult life by killing them in the womb". Of course, this thinking is flawed for two reasons. The first is that many unexpected pregnancies result in happy, secure, thriving children, and the second is that it's still not an excuse to murder the unborn.

 

[Brightmoon]

Convenience ? I said it’s her CHOICE . Made according to HER lifestyle .

 

[SPF]

Convenience ? I said it’s her CHOICE . Made according to HER lifestyle .

Well, 98.5% of abortions are performed for non-medical, convenience reasons.

And as Christians, we should at the very least be against the 98.5% of abortions that are performed for convenience reasons.

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

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

 

[Brightmoon]

I’m still not going to tell another woman that she HAS to give birth as I feel it’s not my decision. Do I think that she should be able to decide that for herself? yes!

 

[SPF]

I’m still not going to tell another woman that she HAS to give birth as I feel it’s not my decision. Do I think that she should be able to decide that for herself? yes!

Well I suppose we all have to prioritize what's important. You're fine disregarding the unborn child as worthless and not worthy of protection, discriminating against it simply because it's not as developed as you. I find that... sad.