Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[NxNW]

it amazes me how so many are so quick to snuff out the life of an unborn child but fail to see they could've been aborted just as easily had their parents felt the same way as them..

glad your mom didn't feel the same way?

You think you're the first person to ask that question? Abortion doesn't kill anyone. My mom should have had the right to terminate her pregnancy, and if she had done so during the first trimester, I never would have existed because I wasn't a human being at that point.

 

[NxNW]

Link to the evidence or else it's just your warped opinion.

Either life begins at conception or it begins later. Since you've admitted it begins after conception, you've conceded the point.

 

[NxNW]

Which is why I said only God knows.

Which refutes the claim that morality is objective.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Not at the cost of someone else's bodily autonomy. I can't force you to donate blood or a kidney to save my life. A womb is no different.

Of course it is different, lol. By not donating blood I am not actively murdering you, but abortion is actively killing someone. That's the entire point of abortion. That's exactly why there is no problem with (passive) miscarriages, but a big problem with actively inducing one. You are willingly and knowingly ending the life of another human.

 

[GodLovesCats]

A fact is based on actual sources. You haven't provided any. That human life begins at conception is a biological fact:

Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'

Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The

papers.ssrn.com

The post you replied to is an undeniable, repeatedly proven, extremely obvious fact. Twins cannot be identical unless they come from the same zygote. Therefore ,it is biologically impossible to for life to begin at conception in the case of identical twins. You don't need any source. We all learned about it in school.

 

[coffee4u]

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, and the fact that you're now talking about blame indicates that you think of pregnancy as punishment.
You ignored my example, but let's make it even more extreme. Let's say the intruder is a kidnap victim who was drugged and left unconscious in your house after you accidentally left it unlocked. (You might compare that to birth control failing after a rape). If you come home and discover the intruder waking up, you still have the right to eject her at gunpoint, even if she'll die in the storm, and if she refuses, you can shoot her. Every Republican will support your right to do so.

I'm a Christian and conservative and very much pro life. I enjoy listening to Candice Owens. I sound like a Republican. But guess what? I would not support that and I also support gun control. So what is the one factor missing? Being American. That factor seems to unhinge people and then you all think that's how Christian conservatives act, or how right leaning people act, nope its just how Americans act.
If I ever lived there (hahaha what a joke) I would have to vote Republican. Still wouldn't change how I felt about that example.

 

[coffee4u]

Either life begins at conception or it begins later. Since you've admitted it begins after conception, you've conceded the point.

We all know your argument has no leg to stand on. The Zygote meets all 7 biological markers for life. The reason you and others choose to ignore that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with feelings and ideology. You don't want it to be life as that doesn't align with your agenda.

I also know that if they found something on Mars that had even 4 markers for life you would all be on here screaming about life on Mars!

 

[coffee4u]

Which refutes the claim that morality is objective.

I don't see what your statement has to do with this topic. It doesn't even have anything to do with what the post you responded to. You asked me when a child would sin and I said only God knows.

What does that have to do with objective morality?
Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist, that some actions and beliefs are inherently good or bad.

 

[Lost Witness]

You think you're the first person to ask that question? Abortion doesn't kill anyone. My mom should have had the right to terminate her pregnancy, and if she had done so during the first trimester, I never would have existed because I wasn't a human being at that point.

 

[coffee4u]

You're trying to give first trimester embryos extra rights that no other human has. Nobody has the right to attach themselves to another without permission, and nobody can force you to donate blood or a kidney. Why do you want to grant these special rights to first trimester embryos?

The mother granted them permission when she had sex with a man. She could choose to not have sex and so no zygote would form. If all you eat are MacDonald's you are giving permission to have high cholesterol. if you smoke like a chimney you are giving it permission to develop lung cancer and if you lie down with some random guy you are giving him permission to 'attache himself to you' and add sperm to your body. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex.

Then of course you will cry about rape, which we all know is less then 1% of abortions. Does this mean you are against the other 99% of abortions and would be happy with just rape catered for? Since I have yet to meet a pro abortionist who thinks like that I call hypocrisy. You are all for abortion for any and all reasons including casual sex which as we know makes up the vast, VAST majority of abortions. Casual sex = consent to pregnancy.

 

[coffee4u]

You think you're the first person to ask that question? Abortion doesn't kill anyone. My mom should have had the right to terminate her pregnancy, and if she had done so during the first trimester, I never would have existed because I wasn't a human being at that point.

Wow, what a morally bankrupt thing to say.
Again the zygote has all 7 markers used to define life. They are a human being.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

The post you replied to is an undeniable, repeatedly proven, extremely obvious fact. Twins cannot be identical unless they come from the same zygote. Therefore ,it is biologically impossible to for life to begin at conception in the case of identical twins. You don't need any source. We all learned about it in school.

Funny how every biology textbook disagrees with you, and that we learned the opposite in school. And I already provided multiple sources proving that biologists disagree with you, so your claim that "no source is needed" is quite laughable; no offence.
Tell me then: is an amoeba a living organism or not? You surely know very well that amoeba "twin" just like the zygote does. Claiming that the amoeba is "not a life" before splitting is ridiculous, and every biologist would facepalm.

 

[rturner76]

There are different types or morals on the issue.

Is your morality in favor of freedom for girls and women who suffer the physical, mental, and social pains of accidental pregnancies that cannot be felt by their unwanted offspring growing inside them?

Is it with the children who were forced to be born against the will of their single mothers who can't take care of them, knowing they will never meet their fathers whi9le being abuse3d and neglected?

Or is it with people like Job, who wished they had been miscarried because they know an automatic trip to heaven would have been much better than a very slow route to hell?

Everyone who opposes abortion says, "All life is sacred." If that is true, why don't they ever think about the mother's life being sacred or that unwanted child's life being sacred after birth? Why is it that people only talk about unborn lives being sacred?

If you want to talk about all life being sacred, you must begin with the mother, who is already born and, unlike most zygotes, will live long enough to suffer both physically and psychologically during gestation.

I don't know how to answer this except to say that in an ideal world, women would keep their legs closed if they want to remain without a child. When they make the conscious decision to open their legs to a man who is not their husband, they roll the dice on having a baby. That gamble shouldn't cost a viable life. That's MY morality but we all know "stuff happens" so what are you going to do about it now? We have the precious life of a woman vs the precious lie of an unborn child who did not ask to be conceived.

 

[comana]

I don't know how to answer this except to say that in an ideal world, women would keep their legs closed if they want to remain without a child. When they make the conscious decision to open their legs to a man who is not their husband, they roll the dice on having a baby. That gamble shouldn't cost a viable life. That's MY morality but we all know "stuff happens" so what are you going to do about it now? We have the precious life of a woman vs the precious lie of an unborn child who did not ask to be conceived.

Married women have abortions too.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Funny how every biology textbook disagrees with you, and that we learned the opposite in school. And I already provided multiple sources proving that biologists disagree with you, so your claim that "no source is needed" is quite laughable; no offence.
Tell me then: is an amoeba a living organism or not? You surely know very well that amoeba "twin" just like the zygote does. Claiming that the amoeba is "not a life" before splitting is ridiculous, and every biologist would facepalm.

We all learned in school life begins at conception for the single cell and twinning occurs when the zygote splits in half. Obviously fertilization occurred before there were twins.

 

[Kylie]

We all learned in school life begins at conception for the single cell and twinning occurs when the zygote splits in half. Obviously fertilization occurred before there were twins.

The sperm and the ova that met, were they alive?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

We all learned in school life begins at conception for the single cell and twinning occurs when the zygote splits in half. Obviously fertilization occurred before there were twins.

Read this thread (with the sources I provided) or a book on embryology and you'll see that the consensus among biologists is that the single cell before twinning is a human life. Abortion is killing a human life every single time, no matter whether twinning occurs or not.

 

[NxNW]

Of course it is different, lol. By not donating blood I am not actively murdering you, but abortion is actively killing someone. That's the entire point of abortion. That's exactly why there is no problem with (passive) miscarriages, but a big problem with actively inducing one. You are willingly and knowingly ending the life of another human.

Both cases are simply denying the use of someone else's body.

 

[NxNW]

We all know your argument has no leg to stand on.

You and others have already conceded the point, so it's a bit too late to argue one way, and then the other.

The Zygote meets all 7 biological markers for life.

But it doesn't meet them for two lives. And since two or more "lives" can eventually result, and you've already stipulated that human beings are distinct, the fact that the zygote can't be quantified defeats your argument. "There is at least one life" is not a valid arguement. If you can't quantify it, it's not human.

The reason you and others choose to ignore that has nothing to do with science

Except I've used science to defeat your argument.

and everything to do with feelings and ideology. You don't want it to be life as that doesn't align with your agenda.

You have no business dictating what my thoughts are. You're the one being emotional here.

I also know that if they found something on Mars that had even 4 markers for life you would all be on here screaming about life on Mars!

But it wouldn't be a human being.

 

[NxNW]

I don't see what your statement has to do with this topic. It doesn't even have anything to do with what the post you responded to. You asked me when a child would sin and I said only God knows.

What does that have to do with objective morality?

If it was objective, it could be deduced by everyone, and everyone would come to the exact same conclusion.