Abortion

[Dave Ellis]

If your daughter was on life support and the doctors wanted to withdraw it because there was no hope of recovery - not the same as killing, btw, since she would already be brain dead - I'm sure you wouldn't say, "go ahead; she's not a person any longer".

I would.... if her brain function has been completely destroyed, then the person I knew and loved is no more. Due to the life support machines the heart may still be pumping, and the lungs still drawing breath, but they are no longer the person that they had been before brain death. And there's no point keeping them on life support at that point.

 

[jayem]

Yet the caterpillar and acorn are still life, just a stage of life. That is exactly what those in the know, the scientists (pediatricians) who are experts in this area say.

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
When Human Life Begins

We can debate philosophy and morality ad infinitum. But I'm far more interested in practical matters--like legality. Is a collection of living cells with human DNA a "person" in the legal sense? It obviously has the potential to become a person--but in its current stage, it is not. Claiming that it is is like saying a dug out foundation and a set of blueprints is a house. It can be a house, but it needs work, material, and time. This is not a trivial distinction. In the real world, the difference between potentiality and actuality is profound. Which you seem to be minimizing, or ignoring.

BTW, as a pragmatist, I'm really more anti-criminalization than I am pro-choice. In the purely philosophic sense, I agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons, or sexual assault, is morally suspect. BUT--not everything immoral has to be illegal. That's just not feasible. As undesirable as abortion may be, using the police power of the state to criminalize it at all stages of pregnancy is worse.

 

[stevevw]

Can you demonstrate that to be a fact, because all I'm seeing is an assertion without any evidence backing it.

The evidence comes from the bible. I am replying to those who have used the bible to make out God is evil for killing children. If they want to use the bible to make an argument against God then the same can be done for showing he is not evil. The bible says that children go to be with God when they die. The bible speaks about life after death many times and that it is more important and a greater life than this world.

Then why did he create evil people?

What makes you think God created evil people. Don't they have free will.

Morality has an objective basis, however our moral decisions are necessarily subjective. However, that's irrelevant. If god exists and he created the universe knowing exactly how it would turn out, then all of the evildoers are acting out part of gods plan. He can't justifiably kill people that are doing what he knew they'd do when he created them that way.

How do you know this. You have just made an objective claim that what you believe is correct over all other possible scenarios. In other words you are playing god. Just as you say God knows everything, you would also have to know everything to be sure that your claim about God is objectively true. Otherwise it is just you view. God may be on a plane that we cannot comprehend. He may by all knowing but also has to act unknowingly to accommodate free will. If God knows how things turn out and continually interferes with things then wouldn't that negate our rights as humans.

Why do we need a saviour exactly? One would assume an all powerful god is capable of forgiving people without sending his kid off to be murdered....

Yes one would assume but we don't know the full story as to why exactly. For an theist this would be an irrelevant question. Nor would they understand or appreciate the act of Christ sacrificing himself for us. I am not sure I could explain it and do justice. Perhaps reading the bible may help or some commentary on it.

The whole story makes no sense.

To may Christians it make the most sense in the world and beyond. The problem I think is that people use worldly thinking that requires evidence to try to understand these things when it is a matter of faith. The bible says some will look but not see and listen but not hear. Matthew 13:13-14

 

[stevevw]

We can debate philosophy and morality ad infinitum. But I'm far more interested in practical matters--like legality. Is a collection of living cells with human DNA a "person" in the legal sense? It obviously has the potential to become a person--but in its current stage, it is not. Claiming that it is is like saying a dug out foundation and a set of blueprints is a house. It can be a house, but it needs work, material, and time. This is not a trivial distinction. In the real world, the difference between potentiality and actuality is profound. Which you seem to be minimizing, or ignoring.

All I know is whenever people want to find the facts they turn to the science. people like to quote the Dover trial for support of evolution over creation/ID. They use forensics and DNA to prove cases. But it seems when it comes to certain areas like gender, parenthood, family and abortion the science goes out the window in favor of political correctness. Pediatricians are the experts in the field of whether an embryo and fetus is life and they say it is life from conception. This is not philosophy or morality but scientific fact.

It is different to the foundations of a house as it is organic and continuous. There is no separation of the stages and it is all part of a human in development. They don't just see human development as from birth but from conception. as they state
At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.

Just as biologists and geneticists know best when discussing evolution Pediatricians understand and know best embryonic and fetal development and what is involved.

BTW, as a pragmatist, I'm really more anti-criminalization than I am pro-choice. In the purely philosophic sense, I agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons, or sexual assault, is morally suspect. BUT--not everything immoral has to be illegal. That's just not feasible. As undesirable as abortion may be, using the police power of the state to criminalize it at all stages of pregnancy is worse.

I agree and as Christians it is hard and impossible to enforce a theocracy onto society. That would defeat the purpose of Christianity which is about choice. There are many things Christians disagree with but also have to live with in secular society. Abortion is just one of them and secular society has the right to decide what they think is best and no one apart from the people as in a democracy can override that. But also as a Christian we accept that there will be situations where things happen as a result of what we may think is wrong. But that does not mean we will judge people and deny them empathy and help.

 

[NxNW]

All I know is whenever people want to find the facts they turn to the science. Pediatricians are the experts in the field of whether an embryo and fetus is life and they say it is life from conception. This is not philosophy or morality but scientific fact.

"Life" is quite a bit different from "human being". Human beings are protected, while "life" in general is not.

At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens

I've already explained why this is a false statement. Humans are distinct and quantifiable. But at conception, it's impossible to distinguish how many births will result: one? Twins? Triplets? This lack of quantifiability at conception proves that it's not a human being at that stage.

 

[Strong in Him]

I would.... if her brain function has been completely destroyed, then the person I knew and loved is no more. Due to the life support machines the heart may still be pumping, and the lungs still drawing breath, but they are no longer the person that they had been before brain death. And there's no point keeping them on life support at that point.

Logically, you're right. But many people would still believe the person on life support to be their daughter/mother/husband and keep talking to them etc.

Even so, this is not like a foetus, which is alive, can feel pain and other sensations and is growing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The evidence comes from the bible. I am replying to those who have used the bible to make out God is evil for killing children. If they want to use the bible to make an argument against God then the same can be done for showing he is not evil. The bible says that children go to be with God when they die. The bible speaks about life after death many times and that it is more important and a greater life than this world.

The bible is not evidence, the bible is the claim. Evidence is what you use to prove what's written in the bible is correct. So, what do you have for evidence?

What makes you think God created evil people. Don't they have free will.

If all things happen according to god's plan, then it is impossible to have free will. Free will would give you the option of violating god's plan, and that is impossible according to your scriptures.

How do you know this. You have just made an objective claim that what you believe is correct over all other possible scenarios. In other words you are playing god. Just as you say God knows everything, you would also have to know everything to be sure that your claim about God is objectively true. Otherwise it is just you view. God may be on a plane that we cannot comprehend. He may by all knowing but also has to act unknowingly to accommodate free will. If God knows how things turn out and continually interferes with things then wouldn't that negate our rights as humans.

Making a claim does not equate to playing god.

Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

The usual objective basis for morality has to do with well-being, etc. For example, if I am a happy, healthy person it's an objective fact that someone feeding me poison will harm me. Harming someone unnecessarily is wrong, therefore it is an immoral act.

That's a basic example of course, and I'm sure you'll want to come back with a ton of "grey area" or more complicated examples, however it still ultimately boils down to whether you are acting to benefit or harm others no matter how complex whatever scenario you can dream up gets.

Another common retort is to ask why we should be moral without god, and it's really quite simple, it's in the self interest of ourselves both as individuals, and as a society. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is killing, raping, or stealing from everyone randomly on the streets, and the vast majority of people would agree. Civilization would collapse into anarchy. And yes, there are some criminals or unethical people, but the vast majority of civilization aren't made up of those people. That's enough to make things work.

So, it's in our best interests to have each others backs and act morally towards each other. You don't need a god for that at all. In fact, I'd god if he exists is irrelevant when it comes to what is and isn't moral, and whether we should act morally towards each other.

Yes one would assume but we don't know the full story as to why exactly. For an theist this would be an irrelevant question. Nor would they understand or appreciate the act of Christ sacrificing himself for us. I am not sure I could explain it and do justice. Perhaps reading the bible may help or some commentary on it.

If the justification behind the single most important event in your religion (the death and resurrection of Jesus) is an irrelevant question to you, that speaks volumes into how much critical thinking you've employed when it comes to your faith.

The reality is nothing about the death/resurrection makes any sense when you take a step back and look at it. As I mentioned before, an all powerful god should have the power to forgive without murdering his son. Us humans can forgive each other all the time, why can't god?

On top of that, what does killing Jesus do anyway? It's immoral to kill an innocent person, and it's immoral for any guilty person to have another person serve their punishment for them. If I killed someone, it would not be right to send an innocent person to jail to serve my sentence for me. So, if I was a sinner, how is it moral to have Jesus pay for my sins? The fundamental backbone story of Christianity is based on a flagrantly immoral act. If your god exists, and he's perfectly moral, he could not have chosen this course of action. He would have either given a just and proportional punishment to individuals for sins they have committed, or forgiven people when warranted.

In reality, I think the whole story is at best largely mythical and is based on the Yom Kippur Atonement Ritual. In that ritual, there are two goats. One goat is sacrificed to atone for the sins of the community, and the other goat is set free into the wilderness to carry the sins away.

We see the same thing during the supposed trial of Jesus. We have Jesus, the supposed son of god, and Barabbas in the scene. The aramaic translation of Barabbas is "Son of the father", and in some early manuscripts he's even named "Jesus Barabbas". The same story plays out, except instead of two goats, you have two "sons of the father". One sacrificed to atone for sins, the other set free.

Combined with the fact that a lot of the key elements of the story (for example the "roman tradition of releasing a prisoner" seems to be made up entirely) never actually happened, and it looks far more likely someone repurposed an old Jewish ritual and embellished it for Christianity. If I had to bet money, I'd wager the whole pilate/jesus story was made up entirely.

To may Christians it make the most sense in the world and beyond. The problem I think is that people use worldly thinking that requires evidence to try to understand these things when it is a matter of faith. The bible says some will look but not see and listen but not hear. Matthew 13:13-14

When someone tries telling you to not worry about verifying their claims, and that you should just trust them and believe, it's a safe bet they are lying to you.

An honest person will tell you to fact check and verify what they are saying.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Logically, you're right. But many people would still believe the person on life support to be their daughter/mother/husband and keep talking to them etc.

Even so, this is not like a foetus, which is alive, can feel pain and other sensations and is growing.

They are still your daughter, it's just that your daughter is effectively dead in that scenario and it's almost cruel to artificially extend their life in that way. If my brain functions were ever completely destroyed without hope of recovery, pull the plug. I'm just using resources that another person who may actually stand a chance of recovery could use.

As for a fetus, it depends on the stage of development. If it's early in development, it has no more self awareness or ability to feel anything than the brain dead person on life support.

Regardless, even if it did, the bodily autonomy of the mother is still the key issue. If you believe the fetus is a person and has all the same rights as any independent human being does, then it still doesn't have the right to use the mothers body without her consent.

 

[Strong in Him]

Regardless, even if it did, the bodily autonomy of the mother is still the key issue. If you believe the fetus is a person and has all the same rights as any independent human being does, then it still doesn't have the right to use the mothers body without her consent.

?? If a woman deliberately has sexual intercourse without protection, she must know there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. She may assume it won't happen to her, but she is deliberately doing something while aware of the possible consequences. If a woman has sex and doesn't want, or consent to having, a child, she uses contraception.
And it's obviously not a case of a foetus using its mothers body. A woman produces eggs, and puts herself in the position where one of those eggs may be fertilised (with the exceptions of rape or abuse.) Once fertilised, the egg grows inside the womb; it's what happens. Consent doesn't come into it; it's a biological process.

Does the mother have the right to kill her child without its consent?
And you may not think of a foetus as being a child. Clearly it's not fully grown/developed, especially in the early stages - but how many women do you know who've ever said "darling, I have a fertilised egg in my body which has the potential of becoming a human being"? Or "I'm about 1/9th pregnant. There's no point getting excited about it; it's only a clump of cells"?

 

[NxNW]

?? If a woman deliberately has sexual intercourse without protection, she must know there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. If a woman has sex and doesn't want, or consent to having, a child, she uses contraception.

If 100 million women correctly use contraception, with a 1% failure rate you still have a million unwanted pregnancies.

And it's obviously not a case of a foetus using its mothers body. A woman produces eggs, and puts herself in the position where one of those eggs may be fertilised (with the exceptions of rape or abuse.) Once fertilised, the egg grows inside the womb; it's what happens. Consent doesn't come into it; it's a biological process.

Anit-choicers claim (incoreectly) that the unborn are full-flledged human beings with all the rights. If that's the case, they also have the responsibility to not attach themselves without permission. Absurd, I know, but when you drill down on the anti-choice argument, you realize how absurd it is.

Does the mother have the right to kill her child without its consent?

If it's not a child, your question becomes nonsensical.

 

[stevevw]

"Life" is quite a bit different from "human being". Human beings are protected, while "life" in general is not.

The point is the experts (Pediatricians) are saying that life as a human being begins at conception. They are viewing humans as developing through many stages inside and outside the womb and they don't separate those stages but see them as all part of being human. Separating and taking away any of those stages stops the development and life of humans. That's why the part I highlighted is so important. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. So focusing on any stage whether in utero or outside does not define human life. All stages define human life by nature.

I've already explained why this is a false statement. Humans are distinct and quantifiable. But at conception, it's impossible to distinguish how many births will result: one? Twins? Triplets? This lack of quantifiability at conception proves that it's not a human being at that stage.

I would rather rely on science and the experts in this field than on lay persons who may not know all that is involved and therefore cannot give a qualified answer. Otherwise it comes back to subjective views which are based on individual feelings and not facts and are different for everyone. Especially in something like abortion where peoples views can be influenced by personal reasons and motives.

 

[Speedwell]

The point is the experts (Pediatricians) are saying that life as a human being begins at conception. They are viewing humans as developing through many stages inside and outside the womb and they don't separate those stages but see them as all part of being human. Separating and taking away any of those stages stops the development and life of humans. That's why the part I highlighted is so important. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. So focusing on any stage whether in utero or outside does not define human life. All stages define human life by nature.

I would rather rely on science and the experts in this field than on lay persons who may not know all that is involved and therefore cannot give a qualified answer. Otherwise it comes back to subjective views which are based on individual feelings and not facts and are different for everyone. Especially in something like abortion where peoples views can be influenced by personal reasons and motives.

Where is the person during the "zygotic stage?" How can that person be identified and communicated with?

 

[stevevw]

Where is the person during the "zygotic stage?" How can that person be identified and communicated with?

Ask the pediatricians. You are bringing up personal opinion and not expert views on what is human and life. Who would understand more about these things a layperson or the expert like a pediatrician who studies the development of the embryo and fetus at the academic level. Just like a geneticist knows about DNA a pediatrician knows about fetal development. Once again the article states "When Human Life Begins" and says This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins. Not personal and layperson opinion but scientific evidence.

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
When Human Life Begins

 

[NxNW]

The point is the experts (Pediatricians) are saying that life as a human being begins at conception.

You haven't provided evidence for that claim. You're confusing (deliberately, in my opinion) the terms "life" with "human being", which are entirely different. A hangnail with living tissue is human life, but it's not a human being.

A fertlized egg is living human tissue, but because it can't be quantified (as I've explained repeatedly) it's not a human being.

I would rather rely on science and the experts in this field

The experts aren't saying what you say they're saying.

 

[Dave Ellis]

?? If a woman deliberately has sexual intercourse without protection, she must know there is a possibility of becoming pregnant. She may assume it won't happen to her, but she is deliberately doing something while aware of the possible consequences. If a woman has sex and doesn't want, or consent to having, a child, she uses contraception.

Sure, however there's two points to consider:

1) Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy
2) Contraception does fail on occasion. Sometimes people take precautions and still get pregnant

And it's obviously not a case of a foetus using its mothers body. A woman produces eggs, and puts herself in the position where one of those eggs may be fertilised (with the exceptions of rape or abuse.) Once fertilised, the egg grows inside the womb; it's what happens. Consent doesn't come into it; it's a biological process.

I don't deny that pregnancy is a biological process

Does the mother have the right to kill her child without its consent?

She has the right to remove the fetus / embryo / zygote from her body at any time. The fact it may live or die is incidental. She still has the right to bodily autonomy.

If I was on scene at a car accident and they put a needle in my arm and a needle in an accident victims arm to supply my blood to him to keep him alive, I'm perfectly within my rights to take that needle out of my arm at any point and walk away, even if that means certain death for the accident victim. That's the closest analogy to removing "life support" for the fetus during a pregnancy.

To say that pregnant women do not have the right to do that means you're trying to grant a special right to fetuses that no fully grown human has. The right to use someone else's body regardless of consent to support their own life.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The point is the experts (Pediatricians) are saying that life as a human being begins at conception.

Actually, life began a couple billion years ago and has been an ongoing process ever since.

 

[stevevw]

Can you demonstrate that to be a fact, because all I'm seeing is an assertion without any evidence backing it.

You came into the conversation out of context. I was responding to NxNW about the claims people make by using the bible examples that God is evil. Therefore, it is only fair that I can use the same bible to show these examples in context that God is not evil and including his nature and that they cannot apply human views of morality onto God as there are things we cannot know or understand. You cannot apply science to the bible in that way nor can you apply it to morality.

Then why did he create evil people?

God didn’t create evil people. People make themselves evil. Evil cannot exist unless someone acts evil.

Morality has an objective basis, however our moral decisions are necessarily subjective.

How do you measure that basic morality objectively

However, that's irrelevant. If god exists and he created the universe knowing exactly how it would turn out, then all of the evildoers are acting out part of gods plan.

Not if they were given free will. God respects our free will and if he kept interfering in our lives and denying our right to free choice then we would not be humans capable of love but puppets. Just because God is all knowing does not mean he can interfere with things. He is all things.

He can't justifiably kill people that are doing what he knew they'd do when he created them that way.

If God created people with free will and they choose to do evil and God warned them of the consequences and then they still choose to reject God and do evil He has every right to make judgment and punish evil doers. God set down the law and the bible is clear that everyone knows Gods laws in their hearts and their conscience so are without excuse. It also mentions that all know about God through nature, so it is not as if we have a clear choice of whether to acknowledge God of deny him.

Romans 2:15
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Romans 1:18-21
1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened.

See above

That does not work as explained above. The point is people claim God is evil. The moment they do that they are taking an objective position like they know everything like God. They are playing God when they do this and yet they say God is wrong when he plays God and judges objectively. If anyone is in more of a position to do this, it is God who actually knows all the circumstances to judge fairly and justly.

Why do we need a saviour exactly? One would assume an all powerful god is capable of forgiving people without sending his kid off to be murdered....

The whole story makes no sense.

No I would not assume and that is what some atheist do when they make accusations against God. They assume that events happened a certain way according to they perspective. But that is contradictory to subjectivity where everyone has a different perspective and there is no way to objective determine what is ultimately right or wrong.

As mentioned above God created us with free will. Where there is good there is evil and where there is love there is hate. Otherwise these things have no meaning. Yet these things define us and allow us to love and be loved and we know that potentially life is worth living rather than not existing. So maybe that is just the way it must be for us to be here.

I do not know exactly how evil and sin came into the equation. All I know is we are all sinners and we cannot overcome sin and make ourselves right with God without Christ sacrifice and being born again.

 

[stevevw]

Actually, life began a couple billion years ago and has been an ongoing process ever since.

Not sure those supporting abortion would be taking that into consideration. But it is a good point and comparison. Evolution relies heavily on the first common ancestor for life which is often seen as a single celled organism. That single cell is said to have evolved into multi celled life and this led to the evolution of all life. But taking away any stage especially the first universal life would mean no life. So it shows how the stages of life are a continued and connected process and not separate and irrelevant. The first universal life is every bit and if not even more important as life in relation to the coming about of humans.

 

[muichimotsu]

Not sure those supporting abortion would be taking that into consideration. But it is a good point and comparison. Evolution relies heavily on the first common ancestor for life which is often seen as a single celled organism. That single cell is said to have evolved into multi celled life and this led to the evolution of all life. But taking away any stage especially the first universal life would mean no life. So it shows how the stages of life are a continued and connected process and not separate and irrelevant. The first universal life is every bit and if not even more important as life in relation to the coming about of humans.

Sequentially, fine, but I don't think we'd consider the LUCA a human or person, only that it was required for us to get to the point we are now by the evolutionary process over billions of years since the earth formed.

Not really sure how that's pertinent to the abortion discussion at large, but I'll admit I'm jumping in late and going backwards in the thread (not always a smart idea, I realize)

 

[coffee4u]

Anit-choicers claim (incoreectly) that the unborn are full-flledged human beings with all the rights. If that's the case, they also have the responsibility to not attach themselves without permission. Absurd, I know, but when you drill down on the anti-choice argument, you realize how absurd it is..

Children are too young to give consent or take responsibility whether they are in utero, 2 or 6 years old. If a 6-year-old steals from a store or is truant from school the parent gets the blame not the child.

They are human life from the moment of conception.
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception