interesting. your analysis of what it means to be human commits you to the granting of full rights to someone born w/o a brain, or one who is fully brain-dead.
The only human who can survive without a brain is one who hasn't developed one just yet. And brain-dead people are theoretically dead, they are not maturing, nor growing, and only kept alive through artificial procedures. Unborn babies' bodies are replacing dying cells on their own.
Personally, I really don't think someone without a brain that can only live on a respirator, etc., can really be said to be a full human being, but maybe that's just me. EEEEnteresting.
Perhaps but those do not apply to unborn babies now do they?
How many aborted babies do you think were missing their brains anyways?
Not very many. Most babies are aborted late enough to where their brains have already developed.
I think this reminds me of a Ravi Zacharias sermon where he mentions that reality is defined by language. You can either believe that what is is exactly what God says is (that would be knowing truth) or you can re-invent reality (albeit a false one) by renaming it's parts and thereby changing their meaning and inter-relations. When you call brutally killing an unborn baby 'exercising your right of choice' you re-define the terms God laid out, you now act lawfully and good within 'your' reality... problem is, I got news for you buddy, you aren't God, and your reality is nothing but words spoke into the dark. Try God's version, it's a whole lot better! Now we all mess some of it up, but as long as we believe what God says Jesus is, there's hope.
Yep.
Your site seems a bit biased. 0.0 I'll leave the science stuff to people who understand it and can explain it. I just hope you got permission to use the information you quoted:
No it's a neutral site. Although I won't argue that the site owners are likely pro-life, they point out factual basis, not twisted logic. No I did not get copyright information, but you know, the site has on it's homepage in bold letters "abortion Information you can use." Plus I'm not trying to take credit for it, so sue me.
The way you keep using 'baby' one might think you're making appeals to emotion ^_~. When people see 'baby' they think "fully, developed human with personhood status" it is the mother's rights we are discussing because it has not been established when the fetus gains personhood status. Until such time it's really just a parasite.
I use "baby" because that's exactly what it is, a baby. I don't know where you bring emotion into this, but fact proven, it's a baby. A baby human person. Saying it's just a parasite just dehumanizes what's proven to be human.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
What?
I hate it when people adopt the "all women who have abortions treat it like this: go to grocery store, get abortion, look at drapes" These women should not be condemned or judged. I'll tell you, I used to be fully pro-life until I met women who had had abortions. I don't think any pro-lifers fully understand what women go through. Like those who have to get abortions for medical reasons. The response I've seen lately is "well, there's a chance the baby could've survived" "it should be left it God's hands" etc...
I've already said that the only case an abortion should be allowed is in the event that the carrying or delivery of the child will kill the mother, that is the only case that it can be moral.
I think anyone who hasn't been in that situation would be fully ready to play the martyr or wait for a miracle. I don't think they realize how scary it is and what an important decision it is. Even abortions for non medical reasons (though I don't agree with them) are serious decisions.
Yes I'm sure non-medical abortions are serious decisions. Yet I bet Hitler's decision to buil consentration camps for Jews were as well. Being a serious decision fails to make abortion right.
One person I met said she had an abortion because she was scared of her parents--who apparently frowned on permarital sex. Apparently her sister had had a baby and was disowned by her parents and never saw the father again. She had no financial support and even though she wanted to keep the baby she had to give it up.
I don't think her's was the best decision...like I said, we can all say 'if it were me..'
While I hate to hear of bad parents, abortion was not the right answer, you don't solve your problems with murder.
Do I think abortions are right? Depends on the given situation. If the life of the mother and/or baby is in danger. If the fetus is dead inside of the womb. If it has developed without a brain. Then yes, I would not be against abortions. If they just couldn't handle the responsibility...well, I would be sympathetic...but I wouldn't support them having an abortion.
I think it should be an option. the LAST option.
There's an icredibly HUGE difference between babies aborted and babies who die naturally.
Now I've not read all of the previous posts about in this topic, so I apoligize if this is just a rehash of something previously said.
Myself, I am firm believer you can't morally, ethically, nor logically abort a fetus(though I would refer to a fetus as a 'baby', I will refer to a baby as a 'fetus' to keep some one of the posters from accusing my of appealing to emotions).
There are exactly four differences between a fetus and a grown human(if you think there are more than these four, by all means, post them): size, leval of development, location, and the degree of dependancy. I will cover each of these one at a time.
Size
A fetus is smaller than a grown human. Should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of that? Of course not. Nor are we allowed to harm a young child, who is smaller than a grown human, in such a way that they are sure to die. Size doens't mean a fetus isn't a human.
Level of Development
Certianly, a fetus isn't as developed as a grown human. Should we be able to abort it, leading to certain death, because of that? Of course not. We are not allowed to kill a young child because they aren't as fully developed a grown human. A young child's reproduction organs aren't even close to being fully developed until they reach puberty. The level of development of a fetus makes it no less human than a young child.
Location
Because a fetus is inside a mother's womb, should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of it's location? Of course not. My being in front of my computer instead of in Antartica makes me no less human. Why should the location of a fetus make it any less a human?
Degree of Dependancy
Because a fetus relies on the mother to live, should we be able to abort it, leading to certian death, because of it's dependancy? Of course not. Do we have a right to kill someone who is a diabetic or who requires an oxygen tank simply because they rely on something besides their own body for staying alive? No, it makes them no less human than those of us who don't need any special medications or machines to keep us alive. So, does that make a fetus any less a human?
I believe I have shown how none of these four differences can be used to say a fetus is any less human than you or I. Certianly, a human has rights to live. Therefore, certianly a fetus has rights to live.
If any of this doesn't make sense, or is flawed, by all means, please reply and explain why.
osm
Good post there, well thought.
If I get prenant, it will be an ectopic pregnancy. The location of the zygote will be in the fallopian tubes. If I don't abort the pregnancy, I will bleed to death. I guess what I want to ask is, "Do I, as an adult woman, have the right to decide what to do with my body?" Do I have a right to go to the hospital and have it surgically removed thus sparing my life? Would it be considered 'committing suicide' if I opted to NOT have the pregnancy terminated knowing full well I will die?
Abortions are acceptable in ectopic preganacies. There is no way the baby can survive and the only person with a chance of survival is the mother... if the baby is aborted. There's no winning in such a situation and the baby is inevitably going to die in pregancy. An abortion would be acceptable.
What's your opinion on natural abortions? And God's role in them.
Freewill. As a Catholic I believe in freewill. Within that freewill... bad things happen... some by nature.
Don't get me wrong, it just seems that Christians want all 'potential life' to be spared. If that's the case, every woman who uses BC, everytime she has a cycle and that egg is lost has committed a 'loss of potential life.' Every time a man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and spills his seed, all those millions of potential human beings die. Anywhoo, just my $0.02.
Sperm and eggs have to be together for there to be life. A fertilized egg alone is an alive human. And as a Catholic, I'll never use Birth Control.
I think just about everyone already has their mind made up on this issue. But to those who are morally opposed to abortion, I do respect your opinions, and you have every right to persuade, convince, cajole, educate, or enlighten people to reject abortion voluntarily. The question I have is what do you think is the role of government in all this? How far should the police power of the state be used to restrict abortion? Do you think there should be any exceptions, i.e., medical indications? And how would someone get "approval" to have a medically necessary abortion? I work in health care, and I know how difficult insurance beaurocracies are. I'm just curious about the nuts and bolts practical matters.
Homicide is illegal in the United States, therfore, as abortion is homicide but extremely rare cases, it should be illegal.
