• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Abortion

transientlife

lotus on the mount
Mar 21, 2004
1,300
52
✟1,724.00
Faith
Christian
Bob Moore said:
Excuse me. I don't want to offend, but that is complete claptrap. You somehow see virtue in refusing to defend innocent life. Apparently the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' have no place in you. What you have said is that although you wouldn't do murder, you have no problem if someone else does.

And 'pro-choice' is semantically equivalent to 'pro-abortion'. If you are not against murder, then you are for it. There is no tenable middle ground.


I don't agree with you, either. But you have the right to your own opinion, as do I. I am not refusing to defend innocent life, I am more concerned about other people butting in to someone's personal decision. There is right and there is wrong, but I do think there IS gray area in some matters. I do think abortion isn't the best idea, but far be it from me to force someone else to see it that way.
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
transientlife said:
I quite disagree. I'm not debating if the fetus is living or not. And we do have the choice to murder an individual outside the womb, it's more or less the exercising of that choice. Most people CHOOSE not to kill others because of the repercussions and/or individual's morals. You completely missed the point I was trying to make in the post, but oh well. To each our own. I choose to let individuals decide for themselves and let them deal with the consequences...not impose my morals and ethics on those who may not share the same. It's their body, their kid (or not, depending) and none of my business.

I don't think I missed your point, but if you think I did, explain what I missed.

So, you'd be okay with some guy murdering one of your loved one's because it's their choice and they have the right to exercise that choice and face the consequences? That is what you have said in the above.
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
transientlife said:
I don't agree with you, either. But you have the right to your own opinion, as do I. I am not refusing to defend innocent life, I am more concerned about other people butting in to someone's personal decision. There is right and there is wrong, but I do think there IS gray area in some matters. I do think abortion isn't the best idea, but far be it from me to force someone else to see it that way.

I don't understand what is gray about murder. That is something you will have to explain to me.
 
Upvote 0

transientlife

lotus on the mount
Mar 21, 2004
1,300
52
✟1,724.00
Faith
Christian
I did not say anything was gray ABOUT MURDER, I said in SOME MATTERS. What you are missing is that I'm not focusing on the right and wrong of abortion, I am focusing on the judgment of it and the inability of some to mind their own business. Unless it's your fetus, I think it's no one else's business what you do. You don't want strangers telling you how to raise your kid, why would you want them telling you what to do in that situation either? And if my brother or whoever aborted their kid, I can't prejudge on how I'd feel about it , because I've not experienced it, but it'd be their kid, not mine, therefor NOT my decision. You are obviously pro-life, and I am pro choice (which is not semantics for pro abortion, that's just ridiculous) and welcome to YOUR opinion. I understand and respect the ability to want to protect life, but I also respect the idea of FREE WILL and choice. But if you cannot understand what I am trying to say then we are on two different wavelengths.
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
transientlife said:
I did not say anything was gray ABOUT MURDER, I said in SOME MATTERS. What you are missing is that I'm not focusing on the right and wrong of abortion, I am focusing on the judgment of it and the inability of some to mind their own business. Unless it's your fetus, I think it's no one else's business what you do. You don't want strangers telling you how to raise your kid, why would you want them telling you what to do in that situation either? And if my brother or whoever aborted their kid, I can't prejudge on how I'd feel about it , because I've not experienced it, but it'd be their kid, not mine, therefor NOT my decision. You are obviously pro-life, and I am pro choice (which is not semantics for pro abortion, that's just ridiculous) and welcome to YOUR opinion. I understand and respect the ability to want to protect life, but I also respect the idea of FREE WILL and choice. But if you cannot understand what I am trying to say then we are on two different wavelengths.

Abortion is murder, and you say it is gray. That's all I was commenting on.

Obviously you do not view the fetus within the womb as you do a child. They do not have the same rights in your mind.

This is a forum for debate. There is no need for you to become all defensive when people disagree with you. And I didn't call you pro-abortion - I try to respect others by using the term pro-choice, though some pro-choicers on here freely label me as "anti-choice" - which I am not.
 
Upvote 0

transientlife

lotus on the mount
Mar 21, 2004
1,300
52
✟1,724.00
Faith
Christian
jazzbird said:
Abortion is murder, and you say it is gray. That's all I was commenting on.

Obviously you do not view the fetus within the womb as you do a child. They do not have the same rights in your mind.

This is a forum for debate. There is no need for you to become all defensive when people disagree with you. And I didn't call you pro-abortion - I try to respect others by using the term pro-choice, though some pro-choicers on here freely label me as "anti-choice" - which I am not.


The gray areas are not murder, I meant some matter OTHER than abortion. I should have worded it differently I see. I'm not trying to be defensive, I am just trying to make my point understandable. BTW, I was lumping the pro-abortion line in with a post from Bob Moore, not yourself, sorry for the confusion there, and I wouldn't refer to any prolifer as antichoice.
 
Upvote 0

elivi

Rescued
Mar 18, 2004
23
2
Portland, OR
✟167.00
Faith
Christian
Transientlife,

I think that what jazzbird was trying to point out is that someone's right to privacy or their own personal business has a place, and this is not it.

You wouldn't say it was okay for your neighbor to abuse (or kill) his children just because it was "his" child and he did it in the privacy of his own home.

In the same way, we don't say that the only people who have a right to comment on slavery were those who owned slaves.

Finally, the Bible is full of the admonition to defend those who cannot defend themselves. If ever there was a defenseless person, an unborn child would have be it.
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Thanks Elivi, for clarifying my words for me - that is what I was trying to say. Sorry if I wasn't being clear Transient. There are a lot of people on here who avoid the essential issue, which is human life, by dancing around it and playing semantics games. I didn't mean to jump all over you. I just get tired of people avoiding the heart of the matter.
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
transientlife said:
I was lumping the pro-abortion line in with a post from Bob Moore, not yourself, sorry for the confusion there, and I wouldn't refer to any prolifer as antichoice.

Well, I agree with Bob that one who is pro-choice is pro-abortion, but I prefer not to use that term, simply to avoid having someone get upset over a label. I will call people by the label they prefer. I guess some people are offended by being called pro-abortion, yet I'm not really sure why, since they do indeed support abortion. :confused: Oh, well. Anyway, that's my reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
transientlife said:
I do see and respect your points, and don't think it (abortion) is right, but I still hold to freewill and choice. That's all. Sometimes it's hard to say exactly what you mean and how you want to say it on here.
Yes, it is very easy to be misunderstood and to misunderstand over a computer screen - especially over issues like this. :)
 
Upvote 0

elivi

Rescued
Mar 18, 2004
23
2
Portland, OR
✟167.00
Faith
Christian
Jazzbird,

Respectfully, I disagree that if you are "pro-choice" you are pro-abortion. I used to be pro-choice but thought abortion was deplorable. I have since been "educated" a little more and am now firmly pro-life.

On the other hand, I would agree that Planned Parenthood and the likes are pro-abortion. I have spoken to former employees of the organization about how they were taught to "coach" women into agreeing to abortions, even pressuring them when they clearely were unsure, didn't want to, etc.

Again, how many women agree to abortions because parents, or boyfriends, etc are pressuring them to abort? I think most women do not want to do this. Makes you wonder whose choice is being protected here?
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
elivi said:
Jazzbird,

Respectfully, I disagree that if you are "pro-choice" you are pro-abortion. I used to be pro-choice but thought abortion was deplorable. I have since been "educated" to know better.

On the other hand, I would agree that Planned Parenthood and the likes are pro-abortion. I have spoken to former employees of the organization about how they were taught to "coach" women into agreeing to abortions, even pressuring them when they clearely were unsure, didn't want to, etc.

Again, how many women agree to abortions because parents, or boyfriends, etc are pressuring them to abort? I think most women do not want to do this. Makes you wonder whose choice is being protected here?

Hmmm...I do see your point. Perhaps I need to qualify that a bit more. I do agree that many women are pressured into abortions that they may not want and I definetely would not lump them in with "pro-abortionists," simply because they have an abortion. I guess I think of those on these boards who will go to any length to defend abortion, and to me, that is a very "pro-abortion" attitude. I will concede that not all Pro-choicers are pro-abortion. Thanks for giving me something to think about. :)
 
Upvote 0

Bob Moore

Reformed Apologist
Dec 16, 2003
936
38
77
North Carolina
✟23,884.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
What you are missing is that I'm not focusing on the right and wrong of abortion, I am focusing on the judgment of it and the inability of some to mind their own business.

Since when has the condemnation of murder been deemed 'judgmental'?
 
Upvote 0

gladiatrix

Card-carrying EAC member
Sep 10, 2002
1,676
371
Florida
Visit site
✟28,397.00
Faith
Atheist
jazzbird said:
The problem with your arguement here is that the 46 chromosomes of the fetus is new and unique. So, I have cells in my body with 46 chromosomes, so what? Don't you find your illustration of the appendix just a bit hyperbolic, and yes, even silly.
Your "unique" DNA = humanity equation doesn't work. According to this definition identical twins, triplets and quads aren't human because they aren't "unique" (their DNA is IDENTICAL). There is more that goes into making a PERSON unique than their DNA and that is all the experiences and memories that they acquire. Or are you now going to tell me that all identical siblings aren't also unique individuals unto themselves, despite the fact that their DNA is identical?

Some terminology since you seem to like to talk about a pregnancy as if it were always in the "fetal" stage...

A. A fertilized egg is a fertilized egg or conceptus . A conceptus or conception is known as a zygote (some would call it an embryo at this point) once it starts dividing.

B. A zygote that implants in the uterine lining (definition of a pregnancy..a conception does NOT a pregnancy make) SUCCESSFULLY is called an embryo. Remember that most zygotes aren't fortunate enough make it to the implantation stage....is God a murderer for "aborting" all these "unique human"? If so then He is a mass murderer without peer, according to your definition.

C. An embryo becomes a fetus if it makes it to the 8 week stage (30-40% of these will be spontaneously aborted before the 12th week).

But then it doesn't quite stir the emotions to use the correct terminology now does it? I guess that is why Joe Scheidler and other leaders of your movement are so into the Use of Inflammatory Rhetoric (Chap. 47-Closed! 99 Ways to Stop Abortion). Then this lot has the profound hypocrisy to try and claim they "don't advocate violence" when that sort of language breeds nothing but violence! You will just have to understand when I find your disclaimers that you don't agree with them a bit disingenuous (Scheidler et al are the LEADERS of your movment, if you don't agree with sort of tack then why do you tolerate them and why are books like his sold on nearly every anti-choicer site with an on-line bookstore?)

jazzbird said:
We all know very well that your appendix is what it is: an appendix - one part of your body which is made to function in a specific way. It does not become something other than what it is: an appendix. It never can become a new and unique human being on it's own. So you argue that it can be used to clone a human being. So, what if it can? It isn't a human being. It's raw material. /snip rest of strawman/
I remind you that your definition of humanity is those 46 chromosomes. Therefore. ALL the CELLS in that appendix are human beings according to that definition. I wasn't talking about the appendix as a unit, but that is a strawman stuffed by you to avoid the FACT that the CELLS of that appendix would be classed a human beings by the DNA definition.

When you see the problem, you try to skam us with the "uniqueness" argument. The fact remains that IF I made a hundred clones of the person from whom the appendix came, using the nucleus from a single cell from that appendix for each clone, each one would be nothing more than an IDENTICAL TWIN of the donor. Again are you really going to try to tell me that these people aren't also unique human beings, JUST because their DNA is identical?

jazzbird said:
You cannot seperate humanness from personhood. They are synonymous. /SNIP rest of strawman now repeated TWICE by jazzbird)
I NEVER separated personhood from humaness... AGAIN that is a strawman of YOUR own stuffing and I challenge you to quote me where I ever said any such thing.

jazzbird said:
You admit that life begins at conception because you cannot deny that whatever it is inside the woman is indeed alive, so the only arguement you have left is that of personhood.
First, you will have to define what you mean by "life".

Second, WHERE did I EVER say that "life begins at conception"? And NO I don't agree that "life beings at conception". Furthermore, I suspect that what you mean by "life" and what I mean by "life" are not the same. OK, just for you I'll repost what I actually said (Post #127)

WHAT BIOLOGISTS MEAN WHEN THEY DEFINE "LIFE"...

Actually the egg and sperm are "alive", as is every functioning cell in the body of the woman in whom a conception may occur. All cells are BIOLOGICALLY alive in that they meet the 7 criteria biologists associate with life:
  1. presence of carbon-All living things contain carbon. With few exceptions, carbon is found exclusively in association with living things.
  2. organization & complexity-All living things exhibit remarkable organization in their body plans and when compared to non-living things are extremely complex.
  3. metabolism-All living things absorb, convert, store, use and release energy in a variety of complex chemical reactions.
  4. homeostasis-Living organisms regulate metabolic processes to maintain a "steady state".
  5. response to stimuli-Living things respond to a variety of stimuli (Ex. temperature, moisture, concentration of chemicals, light, scent, etc.)
  6. growth-An organism continues to increase in size (even bacteria do this) til maturity is reached.
  7. reproduction-Living organisms produce generations of like organisms.
This is what scientists mean when they say something is "alive", so

  • Is a fertilized egg "alive"?===>Yes
  • Is a zygote(3-7 day old pre-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
  • Is an embryo (before 8 wks., post-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
  • Is a fetus[older than 8 wks] "alive"?===>Yes
The real question is not is a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus "alive" and "human'", but when is it a human being. or a "person"

Anti-choicers are always saying that "life" begins at conception??? What do they really mean by that?
Most of them are theists, who really mean God implants a "soul", but most will hesitate to admit that this is what they mean.
They know good and well there is no evidence for a soul nor can they prove when such an "endowment" takes place (provided one could prove that such a thing as a soul exists).

Christians just get hoist on their own petard with the soul argument. A soul is important to Christians because that is the medium through which they claim to experience eternal life. It is supposed to be our "badge" of superiority over the rest of creation. This notion that it's okay to kill, eat, and experiment on animals is supposed to be because they don't have souls. What is really funny here is that many other religions believe that not only do animals have souls, but so do "inanimate" objects like rocks, fire, or trees. Without some kind of empirical evidence, how does one decide which if, any religious viewpoint, is correct?

The question of just when a fetus gets this all-important soul arises. What many anti-choicers are ignorant of is that according to the early Church fathers, life did NOT "begin at conception". Aquinas and Augustine, following Aristotle's lead, declared that a male embryo acquired a soul at 40 days and the female embryo did so at 90 days. The "ensoulment" argument leads to one big philosophical problem, namely the logical impossibility of precisely defining the "ensoulment line" (the "bald-hairy" distinction problem). For instance, how can one PRECISELY draw a line between day and night? The "hairy-bald" problem with the fetus, is how could one draw the line as to when the fetus gets a soul (not to mention the FACT that there is no evidence that such a thing as a soul exists)? Such a determination is impossible because the fetus is continually growing.

The more scientifically sophisticated anti-choicers will point out that the conceptus has the DNA "blue-print" (46 chromosomes) for a human being, therefore, it IS a human being at that point. But does this argument really work? No, because the logical outcome of this argument would extend the definition of "human being" to ANY cell with 46 chromosomes. That would mean that when a surgeon chucks an appendix in the trash after an appendectomy he would be guilty of mass murder. The point is that every cell in the body has the "blue-print" for creating a new human being via cloning (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) (a tutorial). All I would have to do is use the nucleus from any body cell, put it into an egg cell and voila! I have a twin of the person who donated the nucleus. The technology has advanced to the point that using the process of trandifferentiation, I could convert adult stem cells to egg cells, which don't need to fertilized to become embryos (known as parthenogenic embryos):
Besides the unaccustomed idea of generating human oocytes in the laboratory, Dr. Schöler's research points to another anomaly: the oocytes can develop in a dish into embryos, a process that involves a spontaneous doubling of their own genetic material instead of acquiring a second set of chromosomes from a sperm. Dr. Schöler said he has not yet had time to test whether the mouse oocytes and embryos are viable or whether human embryonic stem cells behave in the same way.

These developments have surprised theologians accustomed to defining human life as something that starts at conception with the union of oocyte and sperm. "This scientific research is like a cannon ball fired across the bow of Christian bioethics," Dr. Ted Peters of the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley said in a statement.

Dr. Peters added in an interview that ethicists in the past had thought human dignity could be seen to derive from the fertilization process. But mammalian cloning was the first shot at this argument and Dr. Scholer's generation of parthenogenetic embryos "is maybe the second shot," he said.
Hopefully you will see the problem with what I call the "life begins at conception and "DNA = humanity" anti-choice arguments. Even theologians realize that these arguments are on the way out. I can see why anti-choicers are do dead set against embryonic cell research and cloning considering that these technology gut these arguments. That is why I think that development is the determining factor here (the personhood argument).....

jazzbird said:
So you argue that one does not become a person until some certain point. What precisely is that magical point when a being that is made from other humans becomes a human being and a person, instead of a mere, though living, blob of tissue that you call human but not a human being? If life begins at conception, how can anyone arbitrarily decide when it is a human being?
You said it IF "life begins at conception" (really meaningless phrase).
  • What you refuse to acknowledge is that you have yet to define just what you mean by "life"
  • NOR have you given an EVIDENCE that "life", as you have defined it, is really the EQUIVALENT of a human being.
In short, you haven't begun to prove that a murder is being commited. I am not going to let you get away with making these claims as though everyone agreed with your "definitions".

jazzbird said:
This is a non-issue. It's not a legitimate arguement for abortion because you are making no distinction between spontaneous death and murder.
I remind you that you have YET to establish that a person is in FACT being murdered. All you do is assert it. Where are your facts establishing that a human being IN FACT exists from the moment of conception?

You have made affirmative claim (it's a human being, therefore it's murder), therefore, the burden of proof is on you (why it is on you) and so far all I see masquerading as evidence are appeals to emotion, bad science and inflammatory rhetoric. (babies are being murdered!)

jazzbird said:
I was wondering, Gladiatrix, to what extent you support abortion? Is there a certain timeline or do you believe a woman should be able to have one at any time during her pregnancy? Just wondering...
Abortion should be an option to an unwanted pregnancy up until the 20th week (90% usually occur before the 12 week and only 1% occur after the 20th week). The reason for choosing this "cut-off" (really nearly a month earlier than any preemie can survive) is given in Post #127. If a drug like RU-486 were readily available then most abortions could be done very safety without surgery before the 7th week. The RU-486 regime could be done in the privacy of any doctor's office (all he/she need to know is how to use it). In France, where this drug has been available for 2 decades, the cut-off for a legal abortion has been set at 12 weeks. Please spare me the usual lying anti-choicer scare stories about RU-486.

If there is a threat to the woman's life or future health, then her well-bing should take precedence over continuing the pregnancy That is of course up to he. If her life or health is at risk and she wants the to go to term, that is strictly up to her and those concerned.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Malakar said:
So how do feel about abortion? I want to hear logical argument for or against the matter. I already know about what the Bible says, so please don't mention that in your post.

Just 3 hours after fertilization the zygote starts to divide cells. By every definition of known science it is alive, and human, at this point. It makes its way down the fallopian tube and develpes into an embryo in about a week. Once the fetus is implanted the female body protects it from menstruation by secreting a hormone. The primordial embroy begins to form organs in a process called morphogenesis and all the vital parts for a human being are evident. By the end of the sixth week vital functions are forming and at this point its only about 1/2 of an inch long.

Everything that defines a human being is evident within weeks. I'm not sure where I would place to point where the fetus becomes a child but there is no reason to conclude that this is not a person after the first trimester. It will change and grow but that does not disqualify it as a person. It is not only viable at the 12th week it has every vital function by which we define personhood. I'm going to try to be clear at this point, once every vital function is intact it is a person. This whole process involves no more then 12 weeks in my estimation. It must be considered conscious when the brain starts functioning, I think that this is done well within the 12 weeks of the first trimester.
 
Upvote 0

Kira Faye

Spiritualist Witch
Aug 27, 2003
872
26
39
Visit site
✟1,172.00
Faith
Pagan
I think what society is finding is abortion is a nessercery evil...... we also seem to clump the poor unfortunates that have a real need with the idiots, and thats what gets me angry is that the people who really need help have such problems cause the other people are stuffing it up for everyone.

gladiatrix, that was very well researched, I enjoyed reading it

I have also noticed people calling pro-choice people pro-abortion, I think this is an unfair assesment, I am pro-choice but would be there for a friend and work with them for another alternative, and if there is no other possible way, be there for them when they have an abortion, cause they are going through hell.
 
Upvote 0

jazzbird

Senior Veteran
Mar 11, 2004
2,450
154
Wisconsin
✟27,241.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
mark kennedy said:
Everything that defines a human being is evident within weeks. I'm not sure where I would place to point where the fetus becomes a child but there is no reason to conclude that this is not a person after the first trimester. It will change and grow but that does not disqualify it as a person. It is not only viable at the 12th week it has every vital function by which we define personhood. I'm going to try to be clear at this point, once every vital function is intact it is a person. This whole process involves no more then 12 weeks in my estimation. It must be considered conscious when the brain starts functioning, I think that this is done well within the 12 weeks of the first trimester.
So you don't believe that it is a person from the very beginning? Just wanting to clarify.
 
Upvote 0