Abortion and 'responsibility'

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Killing this human life is according to Jedi no problem, and again according to Jedi no Christian should have any qualms with killing it:

8 Weeks Gestation

• All essential organs have begun to form.
• Elbows and toes are visible.
• The fingers have grown to the first joint.
• Facial features &#8212; the eyes, nose, lips, and tongue &#8212; continue to develop.
• The outer ears begin to take shape.
• Organs begin to be controlled by the brain.
• The length is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch.

Information copyrighted by the Texas Department of Health. Please click this link to see a picture of the 8 weeks old embryo: Texas Department of State Health Services, Woman's Right to Know Act - House Bill 15, Fetal Development week 8

 

[Jedi]

For the benefit of clarity and avoiding excessive repetition, I'll just quote what seems to be the main points (of course, if you feel a point was missed, point it out, but it seems about half of the post was merely saying the same thing over again and there's no reason to entertain repetition).

Jedi,

Not the same but they are as you referred to them, ‘persons’, one is not yet fully developed.

Meh, a mere mispeak. Should've typed "human" to make sure the waters weren't muddied. Regardless, if something is not developed, it should not be treated as if it were. Treat things as they are; not what they may (or may not) become. I really can't emphasize this enough.

What thing?

Anything. Explain how something without a mind (and never had a mind) can be a person. If you can do this, you will finally backup your claim that a zygote (something with no mental facilities) is a person and thus warrants the protection due to persons.

Incorrect.

By three weeks of conceiving, the brain cells begin to form at the tip of the embryo.

Week 3 of gestation, but that's week 5 of pregnancy. Different things. The brain isn't even formed into its 5 sections until about the 2 month mark. However, this is the very basic parts of the brain (e.g. controlling the heart beat). Only about the 26-week mark does the fetus develop its higher brain functions and becomes sentient. It's only at this point that it possesses the capacity for emotion, a will, memories, etc. The essence of a person is a combination of these things to form a single "mind." Only then is it a person and warrant protection. Until then, it is a shell; a biological apparatus being readied to house a person.

As I said the Bible passages you cited in support of abortion (even though only one referred to abortion) made no distinction between the physical and spiritual life. Nor do Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 they simply refer to the person in question, God knowing them. Got that yet?

Unless you are ready to say there is no distinction between biological and spiritual life mentioned anywhere in scripture, saying certain passages don't mention a distinction is irrelevant. It exists in spite of that fact. Got that yet?

The question to you is, the sperm and the egg coming together is conception, there is no event before conception that without conception a life can begin and develop. If you agree say so, if not what event is there. NB the existence of the sperm isn't an event which leads to development of life.

Like I mentioned before, this is circular reasoning, which is invalid. Please refer to my previous post on this topic, where I even gave examples of how it doesn't work;

I said Sperm are not an event, Conception is an event.

Great - but the creation of the sperm is an event. Come on, man...

A human being will not develop after the creation of sperm,

Really? Pretty sure that's a necessary step in the process of human development; that people are created only after the creation of the sperm. Madness, I know.

Technicalities aside, you're resting on a very familiar assumption: that a conception means the resulting cell will become a fully developed human being. In all honesty, you and I both know that's not necessarily true. 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so there's a very real possibility that the conception will not result in a fully developed human being. Conception only allows the possiblity for other steps to take place toward that end; it doesn't necessitate. However, if this is so, it's on the same level as the creation of the sperm or egg - which also allow for the possiblity for other steps to take place toward the same end.

I never said that either, I agreed with you that conception is a critical point without which human life could not be created, in which case aborting is terminating such a life. You have lost the argument.

Again it proves abortion is terminating what you admitted was human life.

Human in a biological sense, not a sentient, spiritual sense. Two completely different things. The fact that you still have trouble even understanding the opposing view indicates the futility of trying to make progress with you.

In what way please say. Do most countries not have abortion as legal between 12 and 24 weeks?

Please re-read my explanation. Division does not negate truth, else nothing you say should be listened to, because "humanity cannot agree on abortion as a whole, so none of their arguments are valid." You've only drawn attention to a red herring here - I've already told you I'm not here to discuss which countries have what laws. I'm here to discuss the nature of the subject in question on a moral/philosophical level, not a legal one. The hogwash is your insistance that because there is division, they are further from the truth than you are. What you fail to see is that consensus often only means that all the fools are on the same side. Numbers and agreement are not synonymous with truth.

 

[Jedi]

Borrowing your manner of speech, you are accusing an embryo of being a worthless piece of matter. You recognize that it is a matter of life, but you say that human life is not the issue, and that killing it is okay. And you claim that yours is a Christian point of view or even the Christian point of view.

To be clear, the matter is spiritual life - not biological life. You and Phinehas seem to be hell bent on the latter when what really matters - what makes this subject different from skin cells or roaches - is spiritual life. Biological life is not the issue; spiritual life is. Lumping both together by just saying "life is the issue" only muddies the waters and confuses the matter.

And no, I'm not asserting my view as "the" Christian point of view, but one of numerous possibilities. I merely assert this seems to be the most likely view to correspond to reality, as it focuses on the development and evidences of the most important matter: human personhood

 

[Jedi]

Killing this human life is according to Jedi no problem, and again according to Jedi no Christian should have any qualms with killing it:

Information copyrighted by the Texas Department of Health. Please click this link to see a picture of the 8 weeks old embryo: Texas Department of State Health Services, Woman's Right to Know Act - House Bill 15, Fetal Development week 8

I submit there is no inherent wrong in biologically killing a hollow organic shell that houses no person. The essence of a person is composed of a will, emotions, memories, sentience, etc. The zygote has none of these at 8 weeks. Thus we kill no person at this point. However, at the 26-week mark when the higher brain functions come online, it becomes a different matter entirely. The nature of the subject changes with the introduction of personhood.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

I submit there is no inherent wrong in biologically killing a hollow organic shell that houses no person. The essence of a person is composed of a will, emotions, memories, sentience, etc. The zygote has none of these at 8 weeks. Thus we kill no person at this point. However, at the 26-week mark when the higher brain functions come online, it becomes a different matter entirely. The nature of the subject changes with the introduction of personhood.

puke

You don't need me to vilify your point of view, or whatever it was that you accused me of in your every post.

 

[Phinehas2]

Jedi,

Meh, a mere mispeak. Should've typed "human" to make sure the waters weren't muddied.

Ok, a crucial misspeak, especially as it came with a question to me.

. Regardless, if something is not developed, it should not be treated as if it were.

I quite agree, I never said it shouldn’t, what I was pointing out was it should either be treated as developed or developing. Abortion destroys it whilst it is developing.

Anything.

Sorry but we are discussing a life.

Explain how something without a mind (and never had a mind) can be a person.

Who says the foetus doesn’t have a mind? First you incorrectly claim the private parts of the brain are not present until after 2 months and now as that didn’t work you refer to mind. The life that is developing is a human and a person, the consciousness concerning identity isnt there yet and never will be there if the life is aborted. That’s the point, scratching around for one subjective view of the issue is not proving anything.

Week 3 of gestation, but that's week 5 of pregnancy. Different things.

But before 2 months the spinal cord, heart and brain of the life begin to develop.
[quote] The brain isn't even formed into its 5 sections until about the 2 month mark. [/quote] irrelevant, its started to form in the human being who was created at conception.

Unless you are ready to say there is no distinction between biological and spiritual life mentioned anywhere in scripture, saying certain passages don't mention a distinction is irrelevant.

As I said the Bible passages you cited in support of abortion (even though only one referred to abortion) made no distinction between the physical and spiritual life. Nor do Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 they simply refer to the person in question, God knowing them. Got that yet?

Like I mentioned before, this is circular reasoning, which is invalid.

No it is reality and one of the reasons why your argument is wrong, and thus why you refuse to address it.
I said Sperm are not an event, Conception is an event.

Great - but the creation of the sperm is an event. Come on, man...

I said sperm so why are you saying the creation of sperm As I said, sperm, nor the production of sperm, produce a life that develops, conception of sperm and egg does.

Really? Pretty sure that's a necessary step in the process of human development; that people are created only after the creation of the sperm. Madness, I know.

No its isn’t, a sperm is no step in the process of human development, conception is.

Technicalities aside, you're resting on a very familiar assumption:

nope, sperm are not human being developing, conception is the beginning of a human developing, so that’s the reality.

In all honesty, you and I both know that's not necessarily true. 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, so there's a very real possibility that the conception will not result in a fully developed human being.

If miscarriage means the conception will not result in a fully developed human being, without miscarriage it will, so conception results in a fully developed human being. There is your start of life.

Human in a biological sense, not a sentient, spiritual sense.

Your distinction has been proved unfounded and unsupportable. If you want to talk spirit, God knows us the womb so don’t deny that and then talk spiritual denying it!!

The fact that you still have trouble even understanding the opposing view indicates the futility of trying to make progress with you.

That you cant grasp reality is to my credit that I cant grasp what you are saying. The tragedy of pro-choice abortion is not recognising reality.
In what way please say. Do most countries not have abortion as legal between 12 and 24 weeks?

Please re-read my explanation.

Nope, first you read mine. In what way please say. Do most countries not have abortion as legal between 12 and 24 weeks?

 

[Singermom]

When someone finds out they're pregnant, does ANYONE say to them, "Congratulations! You're now with zygote that is nothing now but may or may not become a sentient human!"

No. Most people say, "Pregnant"; "with child"; "having a baby", etc.

Only when there is an inconvenience of some sort is the baby being formed miraculously turned into meaningless cells...zygotes...whatever you want to call it that doesn't make killing it sound so bad for the sake of convenience.

I know this post has nothing to do with either science or the Bible...but it is on my heart, and I just thought I'd put it out there.

 

[Jedi]

puke

You don't need me to vilify your point of view, or whatever it was that you accused me of in your every post.

And I find it incredible that you would morally condemn someone of killing a person when the subject being killed contained no elements inherent to persons.

 

[Jedi]

Sorry but we are discussing a life.

So pick something living then. Explain to me how something living that has never possessed the mental facilities of will, emotion, sentience, memory, etc. qualifies as a person.

Who says the foetus doesn&#8217;t have a mind? First you incorrectly claim the private parts of the brain are not present until after 2 months and now as that didn&#8217;t work you refer to mind.

To be clear, I said a zygote doesn't have a mind. If you disagree, please provide an authoritative source that explains that the higher functions of the brain to include thought, memory, and sentience occur before 2 months after conception. I said only the most basic parts of the brain are formed (not still "forming") by 2 months. The brain sending signals to the heart to beat does not constitute the presence of a personality. The brain is forming and its most primitive functions are coming online at a much earlier stage than when the elements of personhood are present (e.g. emotions, memory, a will, sentience, etc).

The life that is developing is a human and a person, the consciousness concerning identity isnt there yet and never will be there if the life is aborted.

How, then, can you insist that something is a person but in the same breath also claim the person has no identity?

But before 2 months the spinal cord, heart and brain of the life begin to develop.

"Begin to develop" is not the same as "active and formed." Simply put, there is absolutely no evidence that a zygote/fetus has any element of any personality of any kind until about the 26 week mark.

As I said the Bible passages you cited in support of abortion (even though only one referred to abortion) made no distinction between the physical and spiritual life. Nor do Psalm 139, Job 31 and Jeremiah 1 they simply refer to the person in question, God knowing them. Got that yet?

An appeal to irrelevancy. The Bible does make a distinction between organic and spiritual life elsewhere. It is one of the most prominent distinctions in all of scripture. It doesn't need to be in every verse. The fact of the matter is you know there's a difference. Further still, none of the passages you referenced necessitate that the spirit and body have their creation at the moment of conception. God knowing someone before they're born or knitting them together does not necessitate that the first step to people-making is putting a soul in the biological apparatus.

Indeed, when people die, we know that the body continues to persist for a while without the spirit. If, then, we know of a clear example of an organic body without a soul, it's easily conceivable that the same organic body existed for a while without a soul at its beginning as well. The existence of the soul and body need not be in sync.

I said sperm so why are you saying the creation of sperm As I said, sperm, nor the production of sperm, produce a life that develops, conception of sperm and egg does.

You're missing the entire point. You seem to have this idea that conception is where the process of human-making begins. But what about the processes required for conception? Say, the production of sperm or eggs. Aren't they equally important, as without those events, no more human beings would be created?

No its isn&#8217;t, a sperm is no step in the process of human development, conception is.

Haha, wow. Just wow. You've got to be kidding me. Someone needs to learn about the birds and the bees. Pretty sure even the most basic science class would just laugh at this quote. If sperm are not involved as a step to human creation, then they are not needed to create humans. I wonder how that zygote was produced, then. Spontaneously spawning from thin air, perhaps?

If miscarriage means the conception will not result in a fully developed human being, without miscarriage it will, so conception results in a fully developed human being.

But don't you see? The development of a zygote to a fetus to a baby is a contingent process. If a long list of biological criteria isn't met, the end result will not happen. Just because someone conceived does not mean it will result in a fully developed human being. It may or may not happen. Thus my point earlier: we must treat things as they are, not as what they may (or may not) become.

It makes no sense to say "conception will always result in a fully developed human... assuming that it won't not result in a fully developed human."

Your distinction has been proved unfounded and unsupportable.

Yeah, John 3:16 and countless other versus never make any distinction between biological and spiritual life. I must be mad.

If you want to talk spirit, God knows us the womb so don&#8217;t deny that and then talk spiritual denying it!!

And I never denied that. Just because I don't agree with your blind assumption that a spirit is bestowed to the zygote upon conception does not mean I think there is no spirit ever bestowed on the fetus at some later time. In a temporal sense, why must God's knowledge of the person in a spiritual way begin at conception - why couldn't that knowledge begin at some later point while its still in the womb? Further still - and more importantly - God's knowledge is timeless. He knows people before they exist in body or spirit, so God saying "before you were born, I knew you," has no bearing whatsoever on when God placed that spirit inside the biological apparatus.

Nope, first you read mine. In what way please say. Do most countries not have abortion as legal between 12 and 24 weeks?

I already have. You misunderstood the reference of "this." The clear reference was your argument, insisting that because there is division among a group of people, there is complete lack of truth and understanding. It is a baseless assertion that is not only countered with experience and void of any logical foundation, but an assertion that backfires on the very person who asserted it.

As to the question on countries, I'm sure they do. But if what I read is correct, and the higher functions of the brain are not present until about the 26 week mark, then it very well could be the case that until that point, we are dealing with a biological shell. An empty apparatus awaiting a soul/mind, since before that point, there is no evidence of sentience, consciousness, will, emotion, memory, etc. - the higher functions of the brain that are the defining essentials of personhood.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

And I find it incredible that you would morally condemn someone of killing a person when the subject being killed contained no elements inherent to persons.

God is the only judge, just as life belongs to him and not to mortals. But I can give you this piece of advice: There's hope for the repentent!

 

[Jedi]

When someone finds out they're pregnant, does ANYONE say to them, "Congratulations! You're now with zygote that is nothing now but may or may not become a sentient human!"

No. Most people say, "Pregnant"; "with child"; "having a baby", etc.

Granted, but popular vernacular isn't always accurate. When people say "I love you with all my heart," we know very well that is incorrect. The heart has absolutely nothing to do with affection. In a similar fashion, when people ask me "How old are you," and I say "27" referencing my birthday, that's not quite accurate. If we were persons at some point in the womb, as I think we all agree on here, then aren't we technically older than we say?

When someone announces they're pregnant, people rush to their side with words of congratulations, celebrating the presumed outcome: a baby. No one ever mentions the fact that only 3/4 pregnancies end in that result. No one takes time to reflect on at what state the developing zygote/fetus becomes a person. It just isn't the time or environment for that and in the excitement of what is to come, people often treat the zygote/fetus with the value everyone agrees it has upon birth, regardless of whether or not it really possesses that value. Their hearts and minds are focused on the future baby over the current zygote, so that's how they speak about it.

 

[Jedi]

God is the only judge, just as life belongs to him and not to mortals.

And I agree with Galileo when he said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed us with sense and reason intended us to forgo their use." God may be the only source of knowledge concerning all truths, but there's no reason to suppose that we cannot discern matters for ourselves to the best of our ability. In our case, there's evidence that suggests personhood begins in the womb, but not so early as many pro-lifers assume.

But I can give you this piece of advice: There's hope for the repentent!

Then you and I are both in luck, yes? Oh, wait, I see. This was one of those condescending finger-pointing times where a pro-lifer shakes its boney finger of hellfire at someone who disagrees with them. Silly me to think your quote equally applicable to the both of us.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Their hearts and minds are focused on the future baby over the current zygote, so that's how they speak about it.

It's very difficult to know what is best, to laugh or to cry. I am certain that you do not yourself believe in what you say.

 

[Jedi]

It's very difficult to know what is best, to laugh or to cry. I am certain that you do not yourself believe in what you say.

I'm pretty sure that when someone says they're pregnant, images of babies pop into their heads - not a tiny cell invisible to the naked eye. So what I said remains true. Sure, some (perhaps most?) will think it a person from conception, but then again, that is a commonly accepted traditional belief that is often accepted without much criticism.

 

[Singermom]

Their hearts and minds are focused on the future baby over the current zygote, so that's how they speak about it.

Actually, most people I know, their hearts and minds are focused on the current zygote that is to become (God willing) the future baby.

Don't give me all that nonsense about how not all pregnancies go to term...you don't have to keep rubbing that in my face...I know from experience that not all do. However, most people - particularly people who TRY to become pregnant - look at becoming pregnant as carrying a baby...and if they should be so unfortunate as to lose it, as I said before, they don't think of it as "shedding a zygote", but as "losing a child".


Also, to be perfectly honest, I have never even HEARD the word "zygote" before this topic...and it's becoming very annoying to me, as do the phrases "straw man" and "red herring". Nothing but catch phrases and convenient phraseology.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Oh, wait, I see. This was one of those condescending finger-pointing times where a pro-lifer shakes its boney finger of hellfire at someone who disagrees with them.

That's another thing I DIDN'T do. Can you read? I said "GOD IS THE ONLY JUDGE." Now get out of my thread, please, since you can't behave.

 

[Jedi]

That's another thing I DIDN'T do. Can you read? I said "GOD IS THE ONLY JUDGE." Now get out of my thread, please, since you can't behave.

Yes, which only means you seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. First, you say God is the only judge, then you imply moral judgment at me in particular by "giving me a bit of advice" that "there's hope for the repentant."

That would make absolutely no sense if you did not mean to judge your target (in this case, me) as morally wrong in the case of abortion.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Goodbye, Jedi. You can talk to the walls now.

 

[Nilla]

Mod Hat On

Thread closed at OP's request
Mod Hat Off​