Abortion

[MsVanessa]

If the baby is not alive, then why do you have to kill it?

 

[tcampen]

One thing to note, that I found interesting, is that the bible does not consider the death of a baby inside a mother as a murder.

I believe its in Exodus where a woman who miscarries as a result of two men fighting gets a lesser punishment that the woman who herself dies in such an altercation. Different translations present these laws differently, even changing the meaning at times. But it does appear God places a different value on the two lives based on the degree of punishment.

This may cause a biblical study of the matter, which is unavoidable, I suppose. But before we get there, lets be sure to check our emotional sledgehammers at the door and respect how thoughtful people can approach this issue differently.

 

[Dyrwen]

Basically, since it's been... oh, about 5 minutes since the last Abortion thread was created.

I support a woman's right to do what she wants with her body and all that is in it.

The woman is not "killing" her unborn child, she's disposing of the parasitic growth which has the potential to become human. The zygote that dwells within her can be destroyed if it 1) threatens her life, 2) shows no reason to be born (ie: don't want it) or 3) accidental, which is similar to #2.

To have an abortion, is to dispose of a zygote before it becomes that which is truly important: People. Once it's born, it must be taken care of or else someone gets charged with murder. Until it's born, it's merely a zygote, a fetus, that which lives inside the woman, completely held to the will of the mother. It is HER body, and she should be ABLE to do what she wants with what SHE has created.

Quite frankly, if it's in there, it's her responsibility as to what she feels is right to do with it.

 

[tcampen]

If the baby is not alive, then why do you have to kill it?

I don't think there is any question it is alive. I think the issue is whether it should be afforded the same legal protection as you or I with regard to the right to be alive. Emotionally, it is easy to see photos of a well developed fetus with clear human features and say "How can you kill that?" But what about the just fertilized, single cell. Should that get the same protections? If so, then many fertility techniques must be tossed out, for example.

Some say as many as half of all fertilized eggs do not attach and are naturally miscarried, usually without the mother's knowledge. Considering nature destroys as many as half of all such life, why would taking a drug like RU-486, which prevents the egg from attaching, but so much more wrong than what nature does a great deal of the time? Playing God scenario? Same could be said with keeping people alive who would otherwise die. These are difficult issues.

I believe that the right of the fetus to live increases with each day, and that at some point exceeds the right of the woman to abort the pregnancy. It is that grey area which makes many uncomfortable, and drawing the line at conception easy and bright. i'm just not sure it's really that simple.

 

[Arikay]

Not really trying to start a biblical discussion, I have just always found it interesting, mainly because, before coming the forums, it was my understanding that many of the christian pro life arguments came from the bible, and thus it struck me as an interesting verse.

You are right, it is a very fuzzy area as to where exactly does the fetus become fully under the law.

 

[BigToe]

Ok, well I VOTE pro-choice. But I think even labeling people as pro-choice and pro-life can be and is usually a touchy subject and leads to uneccessary heated emotions.

I say I vote that way because I am not sure how I personally feel about it. But I also believe my personal feelings on the matter should NOT dictate how another person lives their lives.

I vote pro-choice because I am exactly that, I support people knowing what their choices are and being educated on all of them. I think when a woman gets pregnant her doctor should give her information all on her choices. Not only tell her that she can have it or not or put it up for adoption, but tell her what the process is for making each decision. Tell her what may or may not happen. I know a lot of times making a decision is a lot scarier not knowing what you have to do or will happen after. Perhaps if the women know how to put their child up for adoption they might take that route instead.

 

[Apologist]

To have an abortion, is to dispose of a zygote before it becomes that which is truly important: People.

That is a very illogical remark.
The zygote IS a human. We do not come from a zygote, we once were a zygote. We do not come from a fetus, we once were a fetus.
The process of maturing over time does not change the ontological makeup of the unborn.

 

[BigToe]

if we once were something, doesn't that mean we came from that something?

 

[Pooty]

This is a boring topic already. Why not discuss something like after-birth abortions? Kids can be little annoyances, just get rid of them.

 

[BigToe]

hehe ok

 

[panterapat]

God is the author of life. Life is sacred. At the union of the sperm and egg a unique individual is formed with unique chromosomes and a seperate blood supply from the mother. To have an abortion is to murder ones own child.

One cannot be a Christian and also be pro-choice on abortion. For pro-choice is approval of the murder of a pre-born child.

 

[Dyrwen]

That is a very illogical remark.
The zygote IS a human. We do not come from a zygote, we once were a zygote. We do not come from a fetus, we once were a fetus.
The process of maturing over time does not change the ontological makeup of the unborn.

Ahem:
"In BIOLOGY, a zygote is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells — usually (but not necessarily in some organisms) a male sperm cell and a female ovum or ovule — merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote."-onelook.com

"Fetus; noun: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal "

Maturing is a sign of development. It has not fully developed so it is not human. You don't pull out your liver and call it "human" do ya? It's a sign of the makeup of a human being in your case, but it's not human. A cell from any part of your body is considered human and shouldn't be destroyed. But guess what, it happens. And in a cell this large and with this much control of a woman's life, it should be maintained that she may dispose of it before it is capable of sustaining itself on it's own.

 

[Arikay]

Ah, now we get biblical and I mention that it does appear the bible says abortion is not murder. It is not accepted (since it is punished) but it is not murder.

God is the author of life. Life is sacred. At the union of the sperm and egg a unique individual is formed with unique chromosomes and a seperate blood supply from the mother. To have an abortion is to murder ones own child.

One cannot be a Christian and also be pro-choice on abortion. For pro-choice is approval of the murder of a pre-born child.

 

[Ampmonster]

yeah so in all that devolpment...when does the soul develop?
they dont mention those in science books. anyone know?

 

[Apologist]

And in a cell this large and with this much control of a woman's life, it should be maintained that she may dispose of it before it is capable of sustaining itself on it's own.

The unborn entity within the pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code.
Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her. To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and — with the case of a male conceptus — a penis and two testicles. Furthermore, since scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish in the case of the "test-tube" baby, and this conceptus if it has white parents can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman’s body. Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one’s right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others. In this respect this argument also begs the question, because it assumes that the unborn are not fully human.

 

[Ampmonster]

". You don't pull out your liver and call it "human" do ya?"

c,mon. even science tells you liver only part of a human. but only fetus or zygote or whatever it is TURNS INTO LIFE.
so thats not a very good joke...sorry

 

[Apologist]

". You don't pull out your liver and call it "human" do ya?"

c,mon. even science tells you liver only part of a human. but only fetus or zygote or whatever it is TURNS INTO LIFE.
so thats not a very good joke...sorry

This is what's known as a 'Red Herring' argument. It distracts attention from the real issue with a nonsensical statement.

 

[Ampmonster]

oh yeah the very nature of all liberal arguments

 

[DXRocker73]

You guys have started the debate I am the biggest and most bluntly anal person on.

The issue is very one-sided, there can be no middle ground. You are either pro-life or pro-murder.

I'm pro-life by the way.

The reason I am, is not because of religon, the Bible, or God. Because none of those things have anything to do with abortion. That's right, nothing.

Facts are every reason I am anti-abortion. Solid scientific biological and medical facts. Where opinion is non-existant, because of proof.

The baby in the womb, is alive, human, and maturing as any human baby is.

The scientific definition of "alive":

Something that is growing, maturing, and replacing it's own dying cells.

That's something a fertilized egg can even boast. Thus proving the idea that "human life begins at moment of conception" is not an idea. But a proven fact.

And yes it is human, mere logic states that. I mean come one people, name on woman who gave birth an infant of any species except human.

And is it a person? Well can tell me just what is a person now?

Fact remains, you are killing a human baby in the womb, out of cold blood. That baby has no way of self-defense, and the killing is out of selfishness in just about every scenario.

Abortion as form of birh control is pure murder.

Abortion in cases of rape is rare. But it's still not right, not that I don't feel terrible for every innocent woman who falls victim to that hateful crime. But an act of violence, isn't solved with an act of violence.

Abortion in cases of incest. Believe it or not, not one case of this has ever been reported.

There is only one, and I mean only one, case where abortion is even remotely tolerable. And that is when a woman's life is threatened by the pregancy and/or delivery of the baby.

Otherwise, it's murder. Fact. Not my opinion. But fact.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy into this whole "it's not my right to decide for others" argument just because it can't apply to abortion. Unless of course, you think the authorities shouldn't have jailed Timothy McVeigh for killing a hundred or so people in Oklahome, because the U.S. law would have been "deciding for him".

Pro-choice, is pro-abortion. There's no difference.

Anyone wanna take me on? I dare you, I really do. I hate to get blunt, but I just don't tolerate murder

 

[Ampmonster]

"There is only one, and I mean only one, case where abortion is even remotely tolerable. And that is when a woman's life is threatened by the pregancy and/or delivery of the baby."

ok, careful. pro-choicers will use that .01% of those cases to justify the other 99% thats just...lazy, selfish murder for convieniance.
*is blunt also*