Abortion: All Should Read

[Gallego]

The problem is that you said that if human life begins at conception then a seed is a tree. It turns out, that a seed is not a tree just as fetus is not an adult. However, the species of a seed is fixed just as the species of the fertilized egg is fixed. The fact is, we're discussing whether or not a fertilized egg is a human. I've already explained that it is by all scientific definitions. You threw in the bit about the seed being a tree and we got side-tracked.

For you, is a seed a tree?

Is it the same to cut a tree or not to plant a seed?

I will put a real example:
Where I live, due to massification of foreign trees, it is forbidden to cut an oak tree without permission. Special permissions are given to build roads and things like that.
But it is not forbidden to kill an oak's seed!!

 

[Magisterium]

For you, is a seed a tree?

Is it the same to cut a tree or not to plant a seed?

I will put a real example:
Where I live, due to massification of foreign trees, it is forbidden to cut an oak tree without permission. Special permissions are given to build roads and things like that.
But it is not forbidden to kill an oak's seed!!

Again, how is discussion of seeds relevant to the discussion of human life?

 

[Gallego]

Again, how is discussion of seeds relevant to the discussion of human life?

Because we are considering if killing a fetus is the same that killing a person (analogy: cuting a tree or not planting a seed)

 

[Magisterium]

Because we are considering if killing a fetus is the same that killing a person (analogy: cuting a tree or not planting a seed)

As I said, a seed relates to a tree just as a fetus relates to an adult. The difference is that the tree and the adult have reached maturity.

Your statement about laws banning the cutting down of trees indicates that your government values the plant genus quercus (the genus of the oak tree) when it has reached maturity but not in the seed state.

However, the value of human life is not subject to such quantification. The value of human life is incalulable from its very inception. Of course I'm speaking from the perspective of an american and according to our constitution. The problem is that our constitution recognizes the right to life as inalienable to all human beings irrespective of developmental state, or maturity.

 

[Gallego]

As I said, a seed relates to a tree just as a fetus relates to an adult. The difference is that the tree and the adult have reached maturity.

Your statement about laws banning the cutting down of trees indicates that your government values the plant genus quercus (the genus of the oak tree) when it has reached maturity but not in the seed state.

However, the value of human life is not subject to such quantification. The value of human life is incalulable from its very inception. Of course I'm speaking from the perspective of an american and according to our constitution. The problem is that our constitution recognizes the right to life as inalienable to all human beings irrespective of developmental state, or maturity.

The difference is that some people think that a seed is not a tree.

And, equally, they think that a fetus is not a human being, but just a project. So the rights are not the same, as in the oak's case.

 

[rainbowprism]

The difference is that some people think that a seed is not a tree.

And, equally, they think that a fetus is not a human being, but just a project. So the rights are not the same, as in the oak's case.

Well then why is it if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with a double homocide? Would you argue that the law is wrong?

 

[Gallego]

Well then why is it if a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer is charged with a double homocide? Would you argue that the law is wrong?

In Spain there is an increment in his charges, but not the double.

Laws can be wrong or can be OK. It is up to us, as we have the moral considerations to catalogue them as good or bad. These moral thinkings also influence when they are written.

I mean that we both are doing some kind of circular reasoning here:
it is wrong just beacuse a law says it is wrong.

What we must decide is if, from objetive data, we can put some moral considerations on it.
Of course I also have doubts when a human being begins, but there are also a lot of reasons to consider.
There are extraordinary cases (artificial conception, fetus or mother will die, etc) to be considered.
Also we have limits in the age to vote, so (in Spain) a person has not all rights till 18 years. Why 18? A day before 18 is different from 1 day after 18? No too much sense!!
The limit is arbitrary but not totally arbitrary: at that age you are suppose to finished your school education.

So I think that it is better not to use a white/blank scale, but a grey one,

It is possible to establish an arbitrary limit not totally arbitrary.

 

[TommyS]

Thankyou God!


Holly3278,

May God's peace so be with you! Thank you for sharing what you have shared. And now pray with us that the Holy Spirit will soften peoples' hearts enough to let in the truth as He did with you. Pray for more conversions as yours. For the unborn need them. May God bless you and keep you always on the path of Truth and Light.

-Tommy

 

[Magisterium]

The difference is that some people think that a seed is not a tree.

And, equally, they think that a fetus is not a human being, but just a project. So the rights are not the same, as in the oak's case.

Here, you've stated a logical fallacy. Saying "a seed is not a tree" is akin to saying that "a fetus is not an adult". An acorn cannot grow up to be anything but an oak tree that is it's genus just as a fetus cannot grow up to be anything but a human being.

To say that a fetus is not a human being for any reason is false because the term human being refers to the genus and species homosapient irrespective of developmental stage. from the time of fertilization, the initial cell is indeed a human being. (as I've cemonstrated throughout this thread). The seed versus tree is just another fallacy. The seed is still an oak seed. The fetus is still a human fetus.

 

[Gallego]

The seed is still an oak seed. The fetus is still a human fetus.

The seed is an oak seed, but it is not an oak tree

The fetus is a human fetus, but not a human being, not a human person

 

[rainbowprism]

The seed is an oak seed, but it is not an oak tree

The fetus is a human fetus, but not a human being, not a human person

Then why, o why, is a murderer charged with double homocide if he kills a pregnant woman?

 

[challenger]

What I think:
Abortion should be avoided, but ultimately, it is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, sometimes it is needed, and trying to come up with and exact set of general rules is a bad way to go, IMO. I don't think that a fetus is a person, even if a fetus were, it would not be as valuable a life as that of the mother, this is because a fetus has no mind, no experience, no understanding of self and no duties, a woman has a mind of her own and a life of her own, she has responsiblities and loved ones. Its only logical that the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus' potential life.

 

[SolomonVII]

What I think:
Abortion should be avoided, but ultimately, it is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, sometimes it is needed, and trying to come up with and exact set of general rules is a bad way to go, IMO. I don't think that a fetus is a person, even if a fetus were, it would not be as valuable a life as that of the mother, this is because a fetus has no mind, no experience, no understanding of self and no duties, a woman has a mind of her own and a life of her own, she has responsiblities and loved ones. Its only logical that the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus' potential life.

Should we therefore place the value of a mentally handicapped as being lesser than of a fully functioning adult? Or wpuld the life of an aged, with no duties be of lesser worth than that of a fully employed adult?
Where in the hierarchy of values and worth would an Alzheimer's patient fit, or a welfar bum. or a schitzophrenic? Pure logic would dictate that these people would be of lesser value to society as well.

 

[challenger]

Should we therefore place the value of a mentally handicapped as being lesser than of a fully functioning adult? Or wpuld the life of an aged, with no duties be of lesser worth than that of a fully employed adult?

It depends.

Where in the hierarchy of values and worth would an Alzheimer's patient fit, or a welfar bum. or a schitzophrenic? Pure logic would dictate that these people would be of lesser value to society as well.

There is no hierarchy of values, merely a set of subjective case by case decisions.

Frankly I think that you're just trying to trick me into saying that certain people are less valuable, in the hopes of avoiding the issue. I think that that is dishonest and shoddy debating.

 

[SolomonVII]

It depends.


There is no hierarchy of values, merely a set of subjective case by case decisions.

Frankly I think that you're just trying to trick me into saying that certain people are less valuable, in the hopes of avoiding the issue. I think that that is dishonest and shoddy debating.

It does not follow from your first argument in the previous post that there is not a hierarchy of values. Recall that you stated that even if the fetus was a person, it would be of lesser value than the woman. Furthermore, you provided a criteria upon which we could subjectively reach such a conclusion.
Following the premise of your argument to its absurd conclusion is neither shoddy, nor dishonest debate.
I agree, there should be no hierarchy of values when it comes to human life. All human life should be held to be inherently valuable. Therefore, whether or not a fetus is human is the of upmost importance and cannot be dismissed as easily as you seem it might be.

 

[challenger]

It does not follow from your first argument in the previous post that there is not a hierarchy of values. Recall that you stated that even if the fetus was a person, it would be of lesser value than the woman. Furthermore, you provided a criteria upon which we could subjectively reach such a conclusion.
Following the premise of your argument to its absurd conclusion is neither shoddy, nor dishonest debate.
I agree, there should be no hierarchy of values when it comes to human life. All human life should be held to be inherently valuable. Therefore, whether or not a fetus is human is the of upmost importance and cannot be dismissed as easily as you seem it might be.

I say that the life of the mother takes primacy because she has a life, the fetus merely has a potential life, a sad thing to waste to be sure, but not worth risking the mother's life unless she wants to. Its not "easy" for me to say that a fetus is less valuable, the idea of losing a potential human life is very sad to me, but its far better than the loss of an actual human life.

 

[Carl Carlson]

I used to be Pro-Choice. I was one of those who said that abortion is wrong but it should be up to the mother. Well, if abortion is murder, then how can I honestly say that the woman has the right to murder her unborn child?! I cannot sit here and say that and still be justified in the eyes of God!

Great point. We confuse our rights as humans when we sear on conscience and justify sin. We shouldn't use what we consider "our rights" to defy God's explicit commands.

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[Carl Carlson]

I don't think that a fetus is a person, even if a fetus were, it would not be as valuable a life as that of the mother, this is because a fetus has no mind, no experience, no understanding of self and no duties, a woman has a mind of her own and a life of her own, she has responsiblities and loved ones. Its only logical that the mother's life is more valuable than the fetus' potential life.

God speaks very clearly in the Bible on the value of unborn children.

God's word says that He personally made each one of us, and has a plan for each life:

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you, before you were born I set you apart."

Galatians 1:15
"Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His."

Psalm 139:13,16
"For you created my innermost being; you knit me in my mother's womb...Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be."

Job 10:8-12
"Your hands shaped me and made me...Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life."

Isaiah 44:2
"This is what the LORD says-He who made you, who formed you in the womb."

Job 31:15
"Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?"

Because man is made in God's own image (Genesis 1:27), each life is of great value to God.

Psalm 127:3
"Children are a gift from God."

He even calls our children His own:

Ezekiel 16:20-21
"You took your sons and daughters whom you bore to Me and sacrificed them...You slaughtered My children."

The Bible says of our Creator, "In His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of every human being" (Job 12:10). God, the giver of life, commands us not to take the life of an innocent person: "Do not shed innocent blood" (Jeremiah 7:6); "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person" (Deuteronomy 27:25).

Exodus 20:13
"You shall not murder"

Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder.

Jeremiah 20:17
"He didn't kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave".

And God vowed to punish those who "ripped open the women with child" (Amos 1:13). The unborn child was granted equal protection under the law; if he lost his life, the one who caused his death must lose his own life:

Exodus 21:22,23
"If men who are fighting hit the pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined...But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life."

Life is a gift created by God, and is not to be taken away by abortion. God is "pro-choice", but He tells us clearly the only acceptable choice to make:

Deuteronomy 30:19
"I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live."

 

[Carl Carlson]

Honestly - I'm not one to put words into God's mouth & even if you believe all of the bible - abortion isn't mentioned. Believe me, I am sure it existed. For as long as man has existed there have been medicinal/poisonous plants given to women to end unwanted pregnancies. Why not mention "it is a sin to kill the life in your womb" in the bible if it is so wrong?

An unborn fetus is not the equivalent of my 3yr old godson. It is not the equivalent of its mother. The possible potential of its human life does not dissuade me from supporting the right of the woman to choose to abort it.

Concerning abortion not being in the Bible...check out my earlier post...

Also...

What if it WAS your godson? Would that affect you? Don't you think he had rights before he was born? I'm sure you love your godson. Even though you didn't give birth to him, you still love him, right? What if he wasn't given a chance? Would that upset you? How would you feel if someone chose to terminate his life? What could he do about it?

Is it still ok to play God?

 

[Carl Carlson]

"I think abortion is wrong (or should be a last resort), but I still feel the mother should have the right to choose?

This is not a reasonable argument..."

"I think smoking is wrong, but I still feel people should have the right to choose."
You see, your argument only works for people who consider abortion to be murder, and my guess is those people aren't pro-choice.


"I would never do anything to intentionally hurt my child, in order to save myself. I would die"

And thats your Choice. But you Don't have the right to force people to die, just because you would, it should be their choice. To force people to die is not very "pro life."

For those who still cannot take responsibility for their actions, the choice was already made at conception.

I don't know about you, but I learned where babies come from a while ago. If you don't want kids...don't have sex! That's exactly where they come from. There isn't actually a stork...

This isn't intended for those who have been raped, which is less than a percent of all abortions in America. Although I'm not condoning ending a life as a result of it, there are better options.

The vast majority of abortions are a result of irresponsibility. And we're leaving peoples lives (the decision of whether or not to terminate the life) in the hands of the irresponsible. Does that make sense?

Take responsibility. You murder, you go to jail. You have sex and get pregnant, you have a kid. You can put it up for adoption...but theres no reason to pass the consequences on to your child.

STEP UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!