Abortion

[BlackCherry]

This is very simple. Cells are dividing endlessly. Breaking the life cycle of a cell is a sin to God. The examples with jacking off are just idiotic, as you would produce sperm nevertheless, and so the sin lies within the lust, not the [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][bless and do not curse] itself. Every child can understand this, people who support the notion that there is something as a justified end to the life cycle of a cell, are simply opting for what they find convenient, not what is according to the will of the Lord.

 

[JJWhite]

The issue of abortion came up in one of my classes, and I was looking for a discussion on this topic.

At what stage in the pregnancy is the baby considered alive?

This is a Muslim's take on it. This is an explanation of a Hadith (saying of Muhammad) that talks about this.

Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar

Based on that, some scholars say 40-42 days after conception. Some Muslim scholars have also said 120 days after conception because they understood that each phase takes a separate 40 day period to complete. Basically, all Islamic scholars are in agreement that aborting a fetus after 120 days is murder. Prior to that, there is a difference of opinion among Islamic scholars.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

This is very simple. Cells are dividing endlessly. Breaking the life cycle of a cell is a sin to God.

Does this ending of the cell's life cycle include all cells? Or just those of human origin?

If the former - then is not it a sin to eat meat? To kill any germ, even?

If the latter is the case - would not killing cancer cells to save a life, as they are human cells, be a sin to God?

 

[oryx]

Yasic, Robin, A2SG. Thank you for your replies. I am bringing together my reply but as you all answered at once, I dunno how long I will be. TTFN.

 

[BlackCherry]

Does this ending of the cell's life cycle include all cells? Or just those of human origin?

If the former - then is not it a sin to eat meat? To kill any germ, even?

If the latter is the case - would not killing cancer cells to save a life, as they are human cells, be a sin to God?

You underestimate me, if you didn't think I had already thought of that, although you are smart for pointing it out. The answer is obvious. Cancer cells have mutated tumor suppressor genes. They are corrupted by Satan.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

You underestimate me, if you didn't think I had already thought of that, although you are smart for pointing it out. The answer is obvious. Cancer cells have mutated tumor suppressor genes. They are corrupted by Satan.

So, it is only sin to kill those of un-mutated human originating cells?

If this is the case, what of those fertilized eggs and fetuses that are suffering a mutation causing a disorder? These are mutated cells, how is this any different than those that have a deactivated (as you put it - mutated) suppressor gene?

 

[BlackCherry]

So, it is only sin to kill those of un-mutated human originating cells?

If this is the case, what of those fertilized eggs and fetuses that are suffering a mutation causing a disorder? These are mutated cells, how is this any different than those that have a deactivated (as you put it - mutated) suppressor gene?

I don't know, what about them?

 

[BlackCherry]

So, it is only sin to kill those of un-mutated human originating cells?

If this is the case, what of those fertilized eggs and fetuses that are suffering a mutation causing a disorder? These are mutated cells, how is this any different than those that have a deactivated (as you put it - mutated) suppressor gene?

What exactly was your problem with the wording mutated for a mutated pair of alleles resulting in deactivation?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

What exactly was your problem with the wording mutated for a mutated pair of alleles resulting in deactivation?

I just happen to be more preferable to the specific term as opposed to the simplified (saying it is "deactivated" [being specific] vs simply saying it is "mutated" [being simplistic]). I had no problem with it though - it is, after all, correct to refer to them as such.


I was curious as to your reasoning on if aborting a fetus with a genetic mutation oriented disorder is morally wrong - in the line of thought that killing* cancer cells being genetically mutational is morally acceptable. As they are mutated cells, is this any different?


* "Stopping the life cycle of" was a very eloquent way of stating this, I like it.

 

[BlackCherry]

I just happen to be more preferable to the specific term as opposed to the simplified (saying it is "deactivated" [being specific] vs simply saying it is "mutated" [being simplistic]). I had no problem with it though - it is, after all, correct to refer to them as such.


I was curious as to your reasoning on if aborting a fetus with a genetic mutation oriented disorder is morally wrong - in the line of thought that killing* cancer cells being genetically mutational is morally acceptable. As they are mutated cells, is this any different?


* "Stopping the life cycle of" was a very eloquent way of stating this, I like it.

God didn't equip me with negative feelings towards surgical excision and chemotherapy of cancer. Consequently, cancer mutations must be made by Satan.

I don't really have any negative feelings towards killing off other rouge cells, like getting rid of hydatidiform moles, and it is ok to get rid of cells where there is an abnormal karyotype as well. There has to be more to it then the simple rule of thumb I stated first, otherwise I would feel bad about several issues, like helping the mom survive an ectopic pregnancy, and I don't feel bad about that.

 

[IzzyPop]

God didn't equip me with negative feelings towards surgical excision and chemotherapy of cancer. Consequently, cancer mutations must be made by Satan.

I don't really have any negative feelings towards killing off other rouge cells, like getting rid of hydatidiform moles, and it is ok to get rid of cells where there is an abnormal karyotype as well. There has to be more to it then the simple rule of thumb I stated first, otherwise I would feel bad about several issues, like helping the mom survive an ectopic pregnancy, and I don't feel bad about that.

I have really negative feelings about mustard. Should I fight other people eating mustard or just keep my nose out of their sandwiches and avoid it for me?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

God didn't equip me with negative feelings towards surgical excision and chemotherapy of cancer. Consequently, cancer mutations must be made by Satan.

I don't really have any negative feelings towards killing off other rouge cells, like getting rid of hydatidiform moles, and it is ok to get rid of cells where there is an abnormal karyotype as well. There has to be more to it then the simple rule of thumb I stated first, otherwise I would feel bad about several issues, like helping the mom survive an ectopic pregnancy, and I don't feel bad about that.

Well, then, you have understood my point. It was only to point out that such a simple rule of of thumb can not, and should not, be used on such a complex issue.

Though, I do not believe Satan has "made" anything, as this is not exactly a biblical statement to make.


[Going to my take on abortion -->] I feel sentience and spirit should be the judging factor on abortion. When does the fetus gain first conscious thought (sentience), as this should be the point at which no life should be terminated by human intervention. Granted, I don't feel I have a set time at which this occurs, nor am I certain there is any set time period to be honest.

I, overall, am against abortion if not entirely, and generally, medically, necessary - such as saving the life of the mother, in which case it is a necessary evil. The thought of killing a sentient beings chance of gaining consciousness should, to me, be enough to warrant serious reflection on the use of abortion.

I wholly support the choice of adoption, if one absolutely can not take care of the child/truly does not want the child, over abortion.

 

[MacFall]

The issue of abortion came up in one of my classes, and I was looking for a discussion on this topic.

At what stage in the pregnancy is the baby considered alive?

An egg and a sperm cell are "alive". The combination of the two, after implantation, is what becomes a "human being". (I say after implantation rather than at conception, because IIRC the DNA doesn't fuse until that point). I believe that the deliberate taking of human life, except in self-defense, is murder. An implanted zygote is alive, and it's not an orangutan or a bear or a cat or a toaster or the number five. It is human. Human life.

Anyone who wants to argue that abortion is just had better be prepared to accept the corollary that human life has no inherent moral value. Which most people will, I think, before abandoning abortion.

 

[A2SG]

Anyone who wants to argue that abortion is just had better be prepared to accept the corollary that human life has no inherent moral value. Which most people will, I think, before abandoning abortion.

Whether abortion is just or not (a decision I can't make, myself), it remains true that nothing has any inherent moral value. Value is a subjective standard, not an objective one, so there can be nothing inherent about it.

Your value differs from person to person: your value to your spouse is one thing, your value to your employer another...and your value to someone who has never met you personally but nevertheless has moral objections to the country or society in which you live is another thing entirely.

Even pregnant women value the embryo inside of their womb differently. So value really isn't a criteria in deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Real life circumstances play a much larger role in a woman's decision, I'd say.

-- A2SG, but, to be fair, you'd have to ask the woman making the decision, not me.....

 

[MacFall]

You are confusing utility with moral value. If there is such a thing as moral value it is objective. If you're saying there is no such thing as objective value, then you are denying the existence of morality. "Subjective morality" is a useless concept.

 

[A2SG]

You are confusing utility with moral value. If there is such a thing as moral value it is objective.

What is the objective moral value of a human being, then? How is it measured, what's the criteria being measured?

And please, be specific!

If you're saying there is no such thing as objective value, then you are denying the existence of morality. "Subjective morality" is a useless concept.

The only way to determine what is or isn't moral is by subjective means. You make a decision based on your values, your conscience and your moral compass. There is no objective system that states any specific act is 20% moral or anything like that.

But hey, I'm an open minded guy. If you have a method for determining morality that is truly objective, feel free to present it. First of all, let's define our terms: objective means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." (according to dictionary.com)

Show me a method for determining morality that is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice. Show me the facts, free of bias.

-- A2SG, and, if you like, feel free to use abortion as a test...show me how moral abortion is (or isn't) by some objective or empirical scale.....

 

[mpok1519]

Personhood begins with metacognition.

 

[Beechwell]

Anyone who wants to argue that abortion is just had better be prepared to accept the corollary that human life has no inherent moral value.

I would agree with that. The inherent moral value comes from personhood (being self-aware, and probably also part of society), not from the biological fact of life.

 

[Belk]

You are confusing utility with moral value. If there is such a thing as moral value it is objective. If you're saying there is no such thing as objective value, then you are denying the existence of morality. "Subjective morality" is a useless concept.

Kindly explain to us the process by which somethings "moral value" is determined. What algorithm do you use to quantify it? Heck, what are the quantum?

 

[MacFall]

I believe that human life is a good thing in and of itself, and that makes its needless ending wrong. It is a qualitative, not quantitative standard.