A question on Abortion

[SPF]

And yet you are willing to establish your ethics based on this understanding of souls.

Says the guy ignoring every single cited textbook I’ve quoted and is going against basic, middle school level biology and refuses to acknowledge that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

 

[Sketcher]

I only propose that even if genetics only weighed in as a 1% influence over rapes, that is 1% too many, and should be taken into account in circumstances where the mother may die and the embryo is still non sentient without the experience of pain or suffering.

But if that's the case, then you're writing off everyone conceived from rape as a future rapist. Roughly half the time, the baby will be female, and while a particularly dedicated woman could rape someone, that is highly unlikely. In the case of boys, there are still boys who are born of rape who themselves do not rape. Therefore, preemptive abortion would be killing a lot of babies who wouldn't rape anyway. Also, by the time the male parts form in the womb, the baby can feel pain already, so if you wanted to reduce it to all males, you wouldn't be able to do it painlessly. And then of course, there's the moral problem of killing someone who hasn't done anything wrong yet, based on the fear that he or she might do something wrong. I cannot justify that.

 

[NerdGirl]

Having had to live through a similar experience, i can answer on what we believed was the will of god.

first off, abortion is wrong no matter what.

my wife experienced a tubal pregnancy. The doctors told us ( and we went to a catholic hospital) that there was no technology to move the baby to the womb and if we didn't act, the baby would rupture my wife and if not given medical attention both would die .

So no matter what we had to choose- let both die or let just one die. those were our only options unless god would give a strong word from someone that the baby woud be miracuously moved.

We opted for teh abortion and mourned for the baby that we had to give up so my wife could live.

Having said that, what conditions in your scenario would cause your wife to have a high probability of death by giving birth? There are C-sections before the terminus time wherew both wife and baby can live, so what is the missing condition ?

I'm so terribly sorry for your loss. I can't imagine how difficult that decision was for the two of you. God bless you both.

 

[Job 33:6]

Says the guy ignoring every single cited textbook I’ve quoted and is going against basic, middle school level biology and refuses to acknowledge that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

The law of conservation of matter says otherwise.

You're confusing "coming into existence" with "changing into a new form".

A chair doesn't come into existence when I put it together. But rather the fundamental materials of the chair already existed. The same goes for a human embryo. Nothing is actually coming into existence.

 

[Job 33:6]

But if that's the case, then you're writing off everyone conceived from rape as a future rapist. Roughly half the time, the baby will be female, and while a particularly dedicated woman could rape someone, that is highly unlikely. In the case of boys, there are still boys who are born of rape who themselves do not rape. Therefore, preemptive abortion would be killing a lot of babies who wouldn't rape anyway. Also, by the time the male parts form in the womb, the baby can feel pain already, so if you wanted to reduce it to all males, you wouldn't be able to do it painlessly. And then of course, there's the moral problem of killing someone who hasn't done anything wrong yet, based on the fear that he or she might do something wrong. I cannot justify that.

It's not my argument to say that all babies of rapists will be rapists.

I'm simply saying that it is an additional factor to consider on top of a mother's health being jeapordised, and on top of it not being God's will but Satan's will to compell a rapist to begin with, on top of the fact that an embryo feels no pain etc.

And imagine if a rapists baby did one day commit another rape? One would have to second guess if the abortion would have been, in practical terms, the more moral decision.

 

[Sketcher]

It's not my argument to say that all babies of rapists will be rapists.

I'm simply saying that it is an additional factor to consider on top of a mother's health being jeapordised, and on top of it not being God's will but Satan's will to compell a rapist to begin with, on top of the fact that an embryo feels no pain etc.

To me, the only justification for an abortion is if carrying the baby to term is very likely to either kill her, or allow something else to kill her. Part of being pro-life to me means that when two lives are going to end, save them both if you can, and save one if you can't save two. Therefore, if she is highly likely to die if she tries to carry the baby to term, that's good enough reason to do what is necessary to save her life. The rape doesn't need to be added as a bonus motivation to abort.

And imagine if a rapists baby did one day commit another rape? One would have to second guess if the abortion would have been, in practical terms, the more moral decision.

One would second guess that, but it wouldn't be justified. The moral way to handle that is to make sure that baby grows up in a loving and stable home and doesn't have problems at school, and has access to good psychiatric care early on so that he isn't as likely to commit rape in the first place.

 

[chilehed]

This is all subjective.

So you say. I see no rationality in the claim that some human beings have less intrinsic value than other human beings; in fact, that is a perniciously evil idea.

Humans have intrinsic value greater than other animals because that's just the way it is?

That's the way God created the world, yes. Take it up with him if you don't like it.

Lower animals don't have souls?

It's obvious that you're not listening.

 

[mreeed]

@KomatiiteBIF

Let's talk about what life is first before we go on to discuss the various types of life and their values.

Sounds to me like you're still running with the cookie baking analogy. As if the new embryo is a blob of tissue or 'dough' that is being mixed and formed by other forces.

But "who" is making the cookie? "Who" is following the recipe? That would have to be the agent that has those instructions. Does the mother or her womb have those instructions? What about species such as some fish whose eggs fertilize externally? No, the instructions are the DNA in the embryo itself. The embryo is a newly formed agent which is proactively developing itself as described in the definition of life.

All forms of life have dependencies. None of us can truly sustain ourselves with nothing from outside. We all need to eat and in many cases also need some kind of protection from the elements in order to survive. We all make the effort to procure our food and resources from our surrounding environment, at all stages of growth and development from fertilization to birth to death. God gives food to all creatures in its season, we do well to know Who supplies our daily bread.

But the embryo has different DNA, different instructions than its parents individually, therefore it is new, and its holding and using of its own instructions means it is life - ergo, new life. Life is life, and it begins at conception, whatever species that life may be.

 

[mreeed]

The baby's life, you could even say, or more precisely, the baby's agency or procurement of resources, was far more sophisticated in the womb than after being born. What a comedown, being reduced to crying for one's food and comforts!

But both before birth, and after, those instructions are at work in the functions of the body itself, telling every cell exactly what it needs to do. This is what is meant by functionality when it comes to the definition of life, not what that creature is doing out there in the world, that is a whole other question from the definition of life.

 

[SPF]

“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

“[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

A sperm and an egg are not human beings. Left on their own, they will quickly die off and never become more than what they are. They are incapable of becoming human beings on their own. However, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new, unique, individual human being is created. All of our lives began at fertilization, that is our uttermost beginning.

“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)

 

[Job 33:6]

@KomatiiteBIF

Let's talk about what life is first before we go on to discuss the various types of life and their values.

Sounds to me like you're still running with the cookie baking analogy. As if the new embryo is a blob of tissue or 'dough' that is being mixed and formed by other forces.

But "who" is making the cookie? "Who" is following the recipe? That would have to be the agent that has those instructions. Does the mother or her womb have those instructions? What about species such as some fish whose eggs fertilize externally? No, the instructions are the DNA in the embryo itself. The embryo is a newly formed agent which is proactively developing itself as described in the definition of life.

All forms of life have dependencies. None of us can truly sustain ourselves with nothing from outside. We all need to eat and in many cases also need some kind of protection from the elements in order to survive. We all make the effort to procure our food and resources from our surrounding environment, at all stages of growth and development from fertilization to birth to death. God gives food to all creatures in its season, we do well to know Who supplies our daily bread.

But the embryo has different DNA, different instructions than its parents individually, therefore it is new, and its holding and using of its own instructions means it is life - ergo, new life. Life is life, and it begins at conception, whatever species that life may be.

The reason the cookie analogy is used isn't to describe how life comes from non-life.

The cookie analogy is purely about how nothing physical comes into existence but we start calling a cookie a cookie only after it is baked. But to be fair we don't really know when the cookie actually becomes a cookie. Maybe it's after the dough is baked 5 minutes maybe it's after the dough has baked 6 minutes. It's kind of arbitrary. But we decide to start calling a cookie a cookie because it's simplifies our discussion about desserts.

It's not a cookie because anything has come into existence. We haven't created anything. We simply took something that already existed and we changed its form.

But when God creates something, God creates and brings things into existence from nothing. People don't exist eternally, But rather we are created and come into existence.

In the case of an embryo, It isn't the embryo itself that is self-replicating, But rather it is the DNA which has existed prior to the beginning of the embryo. Much like dough exists prior to the cookie. Which is to say that life pre-existed the embryo. In a physical sense.

 

[Job 33:6]

@KomatiiteBIF
But the embryo has different DNA, different instructions than its parents individually, therefore it is new, and its holding and using of its own instructions means it is life - ergo, new life. Life is life, and it begins at conception, whatever species that life may be.

The embryo has different DNA, I agree. Much like a cookie has a different form than raw dough.

But I wouldn't call this creation. When I bake cookies I am not creating and bringing something into existence.

I think the same logic applies with the book of Genesis. When God created the heavens and the Earth, he didn't take a pre-existing universe and reshape it and reform it. He created the universe from nothing physical.

And when God creates people, or persons, in His image, we as individuals do not exist eternally, God has brought us into existence. He hasn't reformed us from pre-existing things.

A cookie is re-formed from pre existing dough. The embryo, re-formed from pre existing DNA. This isn't creation, no more are people creating life when we electrocute self-replicating molecules in a petri dish in a laboratory. This isn't creating life It's just reforming that which has already been created.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is an article for example:

Scientists Create a Self-Replicating Reproductive Genome in the Lab

World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created

The article describes scientists as creating unique forms of life. But this isn't creation It's just taking something that God already created and reforming it.

How scientists are creating synthetic life

 

[SPF]

People don't exist eternally, But rather we are created and come into existence.

Correct, and we come into existence at fertilization. This is basic, middle school level biology.

“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

“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)

 

[Job 33:6]

"Correct, and we come into existence at fertilization. This is basic, middle school level biology."

No, We don't come into existence at fertilization no more does life come into existence in a petri dish when scientists suggest that theyve created life either. No more does a cookie come into existence when I pull it out of the oven.

something coming into existence should not be confused with something changing form from something already exists.

When God created the heavens and the earth he didn't take a previously existing heaven or earth and reform it into something new. Earth didn't previously exist in a different form and wasn't then reshaped to create the earth that we know. But rather nothing existed before then.

When it comes to DNA joining between the egg and the sperm, This matter, this DNA, existed and has simply been reformed at conception. This isn't creation, This is the rearrangement of things that God has already created.

When I bake a cookie I'm not creating cookies, I'm simply rearranging the pre-existing dough. I'm not creating and bringing cookies into existence from non-existence. The dough existed all along I simply rearranged that dough and warmed it up, And then for the simplicity of discussion decided to start calling it a cookie at an arbitrary time in the baking process.

 

[Job 33:6]

"The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception"

Yes, and a cookie "begins existence" when I pull it out of the oven. But this isn't creation, This is just rearrangement of constituents that pre-exist the cookie.

When God created the universe he did not take a pre-existing universe and rearrange it for creation. He brought it into existence from non-existence.

When someone builds a house, They aren't bringing a house into existence, They are simply taking what God has already created (trees), and are rearranging the wood in the shape of rectangles to build a house.

They aren't creating a house in the sense that God creates the heavens and the earth and creates man in his image. They're simply taking what God already created and are rearranging it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Genesis 2:7 states:

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being

Notice how God didn't simply stop at dust of the ground. God used dust of the ground in part, But Adam was not alive until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

The creation of life involves more than the mere reshaping of dust of the ground ie physical matter.

the creation of anything involves more than the mere reshaping of that which was already created. And this includes man being created in the image of God. It isn't just a physical rearrangement of DNA.

 

[SPF]

No, We don't come into existence at fertilization

We do, and at this point unless you can provide some sort of supporting evidence beyond “because I said so”, I think I’ll take the dozens of resources I’ve provided as more informed and authoritative than your seemingly uneducated opinion.

something coming into existence should not be confused with something changing form from something already exists.

The zygote that results from fertilization is a new, unique, individual human being that previously did not exist. This is basic biology.

When it comes to DNA joining between the egg and the sperm, This matter, this DNA, existed and has simply been reformed at conception. This isn't creation, This is the rearrangement of things that God has already created.

A sperm contains 23 chromosomes, and an egg contains 23 chromosomes, at fertilization, a new organism containing 46 chromosomes comes into existence that develops over a 25 year period.

Your continual denial of basic biology and use of false analogies isn’t helping you establish anything.

 

[Job 33:6]

When Does Life Begin?

Here's an interesting article from answers in Genesis, everyone's favorite website.

This article states that up to 2 weeks after conception, an embryo can split to form twins.

If life begins at conception then how could it be that 2 weeks later another life forms?

 

[Job 33:6]

We do, and at this point unless you can provide some sort of supporting evidence beyond “because I said so”, I think I’ll take the dozens of resources I’ve provided as more informed and authoritative than your seemingly uneducated opinion.

The zygote that results from fertilization is a new, unique, individual human being that previously did not exist. This is basic biology.

A sperm contains 23 chromosomes, and an egg contains 23 chromosomes, at fertilization, a new organism containing 46 chromosomes comes into existence that develops over a 25 year period.

Your continual denial of basic biology and use of false analogies isn’t helping you establish anything.

This is just being intellectually lazy.

Re-forming matter, is not equivelant to bringing something into existence.

You're continual denial of the law of conservation of matter, isn't helping you establish anything.