Abortion Poll

[Jamme]

Your post was filled with false statements and strawman arguments.

Wrong again, Charlie.

My post was filled with biology and scripture.
I haven't started on personal morality yet.

Tell you what - once you've chilled out a bit, go and find a kid's biology book, read it, learn about basic genetics, then come back and be taken seriously.

 

[Charlie V]

Tell you what - once you've chilled out a bit, go and find a kid's biology book, read it, learn about basic genetics, then come back and be taken seriously.

I shouldn't need to "chill"--because you shouldn't be throwing insults around, if you want to maintain a reasonable discussion.

I know about basic genetics. What I was talking about wasn't the science of basic genetics, which is why I used the phrase "straw man." Distorting my position is akin to lying, and then follow it with insults, certainly isn't a way to maintain a reasonable discussion.

Charlie

 

[Autumnleaf]

Both are fully intact human beings in an early stage of development. One is just at an earlier stage of development.

If you deprive either one of any of the many things it takes to make a whole person, it won't happen. This includes genetic material such as sperm, and also food, oxygen, warmth, a womb.

I continue to see very little difference between the fertilized and unfertilized egg. You can say that both are fully intact human beings -- or neither are fully intact human beings, if you think of a "human being" as a multi-celled organism, which I usually do. Then they both become potential human beings rather than human beings. But that's just semantics.

A sperm and an egg are not a whole person. They are parts to make a whole person. Alone they will never become a whole person anymore than a tree will become a piece of paper by itself. At conception the parts become whole and the person is made and starts to grow... By your definition, a moment after conception the multi-celled organism, "human being", is made when the cell splits.

Sometimes twins have the same DNA.

Yes, it is different than their parents.

I see very little difference from the single cell before fertilization and the single cell after. If my mother did not get pregnant, and the egg died, I wouldn't be here. In exactly the same way, if my mother got pregnant and the egg died as a single-cell zygote, I wouldn't be here. Both cases are exactly identical -- the single cell which eventually became "me" died.

Or may be it divides once and dies. The result is the same.

But I don't think I'm a single cell. I'm a human being, which has multiple cells.

Can you show me one human being who did not start as one single cell?

Unless you think human beings can have one cell. In which case my unfertilized egg was me -- a human being that just needs some warmth, oxygen, food and genetic material. Depriving my unfertilized egg of those things is murdering me before I'm born, just as much as depriving my fertilized egg of those things is murdering me before I'm born.

Fertilized is alive and growing into an old person, like a seed sprouting underground. Its there sprouting. It sure doesn't look like a tree yet...

Unfertilized is in stasis. It is not viable, like an appleseed cut in half sitting on a table it won't grow into what it can be.

In that case, a period is murder. Every female capable of becoming pregnant that fails to do so purposely murders another human being and cheapens life.

Charlie

A period is a .

 

[Charlie V]

A sperm and an egg are not a whole person. They are parts to make a whole person.

Nor is the union of a sperm and an egg a whole person. It is a part that makes a whole person.

Alone they will never become a whole person anymore than a tree will become a piece of paper by itself. At conception the parts become whole

At conception, it becomes a whole person, you say? A whole person has lungs, a spinal chord, blood and skin. At conception, none of these things are present.

and the person is made and starts to grow... By your definition, a moment after conception the multi-celled organism, "human being", is made when the cell splits.

Not quite. Two cells do not make a human being either. But, if one insists that a single cell makes a human being, then an egg alone may be called a human being.

Can you show me one human being who did not start as one single cell?

They all start as two seperate cells, an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell.
If killing the fertilised egg is murder, so is killing seperately the egg and the sperm. That's if we assume that the single cells are human beings.

I, personally, do not believe a human being is a microscopic organism.

Fertilized is alive and growing into an old person, like a seed sprouting underground. Its there sprouting. It sure doesn't look like a tree yet...

That's because it's not a tree. A seed isn't a tree. A sprouting seed isn't a tree.

Unfertilized is in stasis. It is not viable, like an appleseed cut in half sitting on a table it won't grow into what it can be.

Fertilized is in stasis. It by itself is not viable, like an appleseed that has barely begun sprouting cut in half on a table it won't grow into what it can be.

Charlie

 

[Jamme]

You still haven't picked up the smallest scrap of knowledge of biology have you, Charlie?

 

[Charlie V]

You still haven't picked up the smallest scrap of knowledge of biology have you, Charlie?

Yes, I know biology. More than the smallest scrap, in fact.

That being said, since you've shown you're incapable of discussing a subject without insulting another person, please refrain from responding to my posts, at least until you can demonstrate some control over your manners. My last post was in response to another person.

Charlie

 

[Autumnleaf]

Good points Charlie V.

Nor is the union of a sperm and an egg a whole person. It is a part that makes a whole person.

At conception, it becomes a whole person, you say? A whole person has lungs, a spinal chord, blood and skin. At conception, none of these things are present.

So I could put those things in a box, or an abortionist could pull them out of a recently pregnant woman's vagina, and it would be a person?

I know a guy who went to jail for breaking the eggs of an endangered desert tortoise. Wonder why the authorities didn't understand eggs aren't endangered desert tortoises.

Not quite. Two cells do not make a human being either. But, if one insists that a single cell makes a human being, then an egg alone may be called a human being.

A human being starts as one living cell and grows until they die. An egg alone is merely an egg until it is fertilized, because its not growing. An egg or sperm alone is alive but its not a person yet.

They all start as two seperate cells, an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell.
If killing the fertilised egg is murder, so is killing seperately the egg and the sperm. That's if we assume that the single cells are human beings.

Human beings start as a fertilized egg. Before that they are parts of their parents.

I, personally, do not believe a human being is a microscopic organism.

Then where do people come from before they are visible?

That's because it's not a tree. A seed isn't a tree. A sprouting seed isn't a tree.

It is stage of the tree's life cycle.

Fertilized is in stasis. It by itself is not viable, like an appleseed that has barely begun sprouting cut in half on a table it won't grow into what it can be.

Charlie

Fertilized in a woman is growing, hence it is not in stasis. It is where it needs to be to grow and is growing.

 

[aimejl]

I am against abortion for any and all reasons! don't try to change my mind.

 

[KirstinT84]

If you've read the 19 pages of this thread and haven't changed your mind, it's not going to happen.

 

[aimejl]

have not read the 19 pages yet but still I won't be changing my mind anytime soon.

 

[SolomonVII]

Give me another word that describes the parasitic existence of a fetus in a mother other then the word parasite and I'll be happy to use it.

A fetus is in no way a parasite. A woman's body is specially designed to carry a child, and the act of bearing a child, while sometimes dangerous, in most normal situations is a perfectly healthy state of existence.

And in the best of situations, what an unborn baby gives to the mother is of a benefit that is immeasurable.

Parasites, by definition weaken the organism. A baby within a woman's body is a source of power for that woman, or happiness, and ultimately, strengthens the woman.

That so many do not see the unborn child as such, is an indictment against an unhealthy and suicidal society. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any biological truths of child bearing.

A fetus is not a parasite.

 

[meebs]

Please vote in the poll, and expand your answer below

I voted other

First i would like to say i am actually pro-choice.

However in my personal opinion i think abortion should only be allowed if either the mothers life is threatened (which is in the poll) or the child will not make it in life or in the womb, e.g: be born with a severe disability.

Like i said thats my personal opinion, i do beleive its the womans choice to do as she wishes, no matter what I think about the issue.

 

[D'Ann]

Well Jamme,

Since you prefer this thread to remain an only ethic and moral thread... that's fine with me. The following information are facts as to why it is wrong and unethical and immoral to have abortions.



35 Million Abortions have been performed since 1973



"Any country that accepts abortion
is not teaching its people to love,
but to use any violence to get what
they want" - Mother Teresa 2-3-94

http://www.catholicgoldmine.com/prolife/index.htm

The Physical Effects of Abortion



Definition. The expulsion of the human ovum occurring during the first three months of pregnancy, and occurring from any cause whatsoever, is called abortion. In the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh months -- i.e., from the formation of the placenta to the period of viability -- the occurrence is called immature delivery, or miscarriage, and a delivery occurring from the twenty-eighth week (the earliest period of viability) to the thirty-eighth week is called premature.

Causes of abortion. To understand the physical effects of abortion we must know something of the causes, which are in the main the same as the causes of miscarriage and premature delivery. Abortion may be due to pathological changes in the ovum, the uterus, or its adnexa one or both -- to the physical or nervous condition of the woman, to diseases either inherited or acquired (syphilis, tuberculosis, rheumatism); to any infectious, contagious, or inflammatory disease; to shock, injury, or accident. It may be induced knowingly, willingly, and criminally by the pregnant person herself, or by someone else, with the aid of drugs, or instruments, or both.

Physical effects of abortion. Naturally, therefore, the physical effects of abortion will depend in direct ratio on the causation thereof, and the comparative malignity or benignity of such causation. In any case, abortion is fraught with serious consequences, direct and indirect -- and is a sad miscarriage of nature's plan, greatly to be deplored, and earnestly, strenuously, and conscientiously to be avoided. Of course, when brought about with criminal intent, abortion is nothing less than murder in the first degree; and if the law of the land does not discover and punish the criminal, the higher law of the God of Nature and of Nature's inexorable reprisals for interference with, or destruction of her beneficent designs, will sooner or later most certainly do so.

When abortion is due to pathological causes it is usually preceded by the death of the fetus; so that the causes of abortion are really the causes producing the death of the fetus. The abortion may be complete or partial. If complete, the danger is principally from shock and haemorrhage; if incomplete and any debris remains, there is danger of septicaemia, uraemia, endometritis, perimetritis, diseases of the tubes, ovaries, bladder, cervix uteri, vaginal canal, and rectum; together with catarrhal discharges from one or more of these parts, displacements, impoverished blood supply, various neuroses, and usually a long and expensive convalescence.

The retention of the dead fetus is not always so dangerous. Even if decomposition or putrefaction occur, Nature frequently -- possibly more often than we are willing to give her credit for -- eliminates the offending foreign mass without the aid of the obstetrician. But it is not wise to advocate the waiting for such happy and spontaneous events. However while it is true that with proper medical care and attention most cases of abortion (excluding criminal cases and those complicated with other morbid conditions) present a modicum of danger, yet we must not forget that reports and statistics on this subject are very unreliable. First, there may be a false diagnosis; and secondly, concealment on the part of the patient, attendants, and all concerned is exceedingly common today.

Obstetrical science has made many and important advances; but abortions from one cause or another (especially criminal abortion) continue in abundance; and their results have been and are still crowding the medical offices. To tear out the living products of conception by the roots is, in most cases, to give the pregnant woman gratuitous transportation for eternity. Even in spontaneous cases, as we have seen, death may occur from various causes. How much greater the danger, then, when the vandal hand of the professional abortionist adds wounds and injuries to complete his diabolical work. Conclusion. Since so many people today have ceased to look on abortion as a calamity at all times, and as a moral monstrosity in its criminal aspect, they should be deterred from committing it by the fear of physical consequences, if they are not moved by the love of morality and righteousness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom line here... is that the Bible does tell us... not to murder. The Bible does tell us that children are loved by God. The Bible tells us so many moral and ethical things, that we just seem to ignore because we rather support murdering of innocent babies. God have mercy.

 

[sidhe]

I personally dislike abortion.

But I'm pro-choice, because other people's decisions and lives aren't my business.

So I went with "other".

 

[D'Ann]

Anyone want to see actual pictures of what a six week old unborn baby looks like? Just utilize google... you'll find one. It's despeccable that some really honestly and truly believe that it is morally okay to murder innocent babies... well it's not.

 

[D'Ann]

by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
​

CHAPTER 2
​

THE THREE QUESTIONS
​

​

FIRST, SOME DEFINITIONS.

Define "Alive"

Alive means that this being is growing, developing, maturing, and replacing its own dying cells. It means not being dead.

Define "Human"

Human means one of the biological beings who be-longs to the species Homo Sapiens. Such beings are unique from all other beings in that they have 46 human chromosomes in every cell. Such beings do not belong to the rabbit family, the carrot family, etc.

Define "Person"

Person is defined in at least a dozen different ways, according to the field or discipline in which you define it. In theology it usually means when the soul is created.

In law (in the U.S.), personhood begins at birth. Other countries have ruled that it begins at different ages. In medicine and natural science, person usually means when the being is alive and complete. In philosophy it has multiple meanings and shades of meanings. We strongly suggest that no one use this term without first defining precisely what you mean by it; for, unless you do, any discussion of personhood is foolish.

Define human life?

This is the question that must first be considered, pondered, discussed, and finally, answered. It cannot be brushed aside or ignored. It must be faced and met honestly. Upon its answer hinges the entire abortion question, as all other considerations pale to insignificance when compared with it. In a sense, nothing else really matters. If what is growing within the mother is not human life, if it is just a piece of tissue — a glob of protoplasm — then it deserves little respect or consideration, and the primary concern should be the mother’s physical and mental health, her social well-being, and, at times, even her convenience.

NOW THE THREE QUESTIONS

There are three questions that are basic to the entire abortion controversy:

The first is: "Is this human life?" As we will see, the answer clearly is Yes. That answer is a medical and scientific one, for we cannot impose a religious or philosophic belief in our nations through force of law. The second question is: "Should we grant equal protection by law to all living humans in our nation?" or,

"Should we allow discrimination against entire classes of living humans?"

The third question is about Choice and Women’s Rights.

COMMENT



For two millennia in our Western culture, written into our constitutions, specifically protected by our laws, and deeply imprinted into the hearts of all men and women, there has existed the absolute value of honoring and protecting the right of each human to live. This has been an unalienable and unequivocal right. The only exception has been that of balancing a life for a life in certain situations or by due process of law.

• Never, in modern times — except by a small group of physicians in Hitler’s Germany and by Stalin in Russia — has a price tag of economic or social use-fullness been placed on an individual human life as the price of its continued existence.
• Never, in modern times — except by physicians in Hitler’s Germany — has a certain physical perfection been required as a condition necessary for the continuation of that life.
• Never — since the law of paterfamilias in ancient Rome — has a major nation granted to a father or mother total dominion over the life or death of their child.
• Never, in modern times, has the state granted to one citizen the absolute legal right to have another killed in order to solve their own personal, social or economic problem. And yet, if this is human life, the U.S. Supreme

Court Decision in America and permissive abortion laws in other nations do all of the above. They represent a complete about-face, a total rejection of one of the core values of Western man, and an acceptance of a new ethic in which life has only a relative value. No longer will every human have a right to live simply because he or she exists. A human will now be allowed to exist only if he measures up to certain standards of independence, physical perfection, or utilitarian usefulness to others. This is a momentous change that strikes at the root of Western civilization. It makes no difference to vaguely assume that human life is more human post-born than pre-born. What is critical is to judge it to be — or not to be — human life. By a measure of "more" or "less" human, one can easily and logically justify infanticide and euthanasia. By the measure of economic and/or social usefulness, the ghastly atrocities of Hitlerian mass murders came to be. One cannot help but be reminded of the anguished comment of a condemned Nazi judge, who said to an American judge after the Nuremberg trials, "I never knew it would come to this." The American judge answered simply, "It came to this the first time you condemned an innocent life."

Ponder well the words of George Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." Wm. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, 1959

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_2.asp#NOW%20THE%20THREE%20QUESTIONS

 

[larose]

Abortion should only be acceptable when the child cannot survive.

How does one know this for sure?
This is counter to what your church teaches.

 

[larose]

I'd agree with that and would say that abortion issues are not all black and white. I used to feel that even someone who had been raped had the right to abort and I still do, but there are other ways. (I.E adoption)but it is a decision the woman will have to live with as well as being violated, not a nice thing to go through IMO.The only time I disagree with abortion is when the woman blatantly uses it as a form of contraception after the fact and didn't take precautions in the first place.

Actually it is black and white - either it's a human
being or it isn't. God has known us before, in and
after the womb. He has ordained us as His and only
he has the right to end our life. We shall not kill or
pretend to be God. Life is precious in His eyes and
should be in ours. There are no excuses to murder,
especially the helpless developing unborn.


In His Mercy,

chris

 

[Ophis]

A lot of this discussion seems to be based on two extreme views which do not appear to acknowledge the differences in a foetus at different stages of pregnancy. In my opinion there is a big difference between killing the embryo when it is just a clump of unspecialised cells and before it develops a nervous system, or killing it when it is much more developed and capable of thinking/experiencing. The poll didn't really take account of this, it only mentioned development in relation to the level of dependence on the mother, so I voted "other".

I would therefore limit abortion so that it could only be performed before there has been significant development of the brain and nervous system. Before that stage I don't think the embryo could be considered to have anything resembling a mind or soul.

 

[larose]

I would consider it acceptable only when the mother would die, the child cannot survive, and as a result of rape.

No wonder there are so many abortions - too many
subjective choices for the doctors and often they're
wrong! Does God not permit rape? Is not the child of
rape, a child of God? Would He desire this child to be
killed?


For His Children,

chris