Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[NxNW]

For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell.

So a single cell is not by your definition life?

How many lives to you claim that it is? If one, then you're admitting that life begins after conception. If two, then you're arguing an impossibility.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

There is only one after splitting, eh?

Do you know what the word "splitting" means? You can, by definition, not end up with only one entity after splitting.

 

[Belk]

The reality is that we live in a world where we have to continuously make choices.

Agreed

you cannot claim abortion is OK because the pregnant woman didn't give verbal consent to the baby growing in her womb - that would be illogical.

It is not illogical and that is the very basis of bodily integrity

She gave consent by not using contraception (or consent that her partner didn't use protection) when engaging in an act that has a known consequence of pregnancy.

No. No matter how many times you claim it consent is not given simply by actions. Consent is not something YOU can assign for someone else and it is revokable at any time.

Your arguments don't stack up so....NEXT.

Ipsie Dixit. Toodle pipsky.

 

[YahuahSaves]

There is only one after splitting, eh?

"In a singleton (one baby) pregnancy, the zygote splits into two cells — usually around day 3 — but the cells remain connected to each other. But in twinning, rather than staying connected, those two cells fully separate into two distinct entities" SOURCE

 

[YahuahSaves]

This contradicts your earlier claim that we're formed in the womb. The sperm-egg fusion described above occurs in the fallopian tube. You can't even seem to make a consistent claim as to where conception occurs.

Try quoting the REST of the quote next time

with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards its mature state."

 

[Lost Witness]

It is not illogical and that is the very basis of bodily integrity

the above quotes illogical

 

[YahuahSaves]

Grant it to whom? We've already established that the unborn doesn't yet exist. Permission is something you grant to a person who actually exists.

Trolling much?

 

[YahuahSaves]

It is not illogical and that is the very basis of bodily integrity

Bodily integrity hey?

Consent is not something YOU can assign for someone else and it is revokable at any time.

Did the baby ask the mother to be created when she and her partner consented to unprotected sex? Like I said...illogical arguments not based in reality.

 

[ralliann]

Reality is that consequence is not the same as consent.

Reality is that consequence is not the same as consent.

But it is still "caused". A person may cause something without desiring the outcome. In the case of preganacy, the person is willfully taking a chance, they will "cause" a pregnancy. It is gambling. Who goes to a casino/stocks/investments and gambols away their money, and claims it was an accident. The bible certainly does speak to this very thing. From full on accidents, where a man must flee to a city of refuge for killing someone on accident. And not securing a pit with a fence, or an ox that had shown itself to tend to gore. these things were indeed dealt with. The ones "gambling" with harm of others By not fencing dangers they are aware "could" occur. To full on accidental death, to the city of refuge. The judgement was to determine whether the manslayer had hated the individual in the past or not.

 

[rturner76]

The point is, they are alive. and they don't live "independently" from their mother after they're born either.

Well, at that point they don't need their mother to breathe for them.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Who goes to a casino and gambling away their money, and claims it was an accident.

I'm sure there would have been some who tried that claim

 

[YahuahSaves]

Well, at that point they don't need their mother to breathe for them.

Yeah, they just need her for everything else and that is the responsibility people are truly avoiding by getting an abortion.

 

[ralliann]

Yes as a symbiote. They do not live independently of their mother until they breathe.

Well now you are talking people of every and any age, or situation. Hospitals do not have oxygen for people to choose that someone not provide it in a time of need. Certainly and especially if doing so will result in the restoration to full health.

 

[ralliann]

I'm sure there would have been some who tried that claim

Well, sure. LOL. But just let them claim their pockets were intruded into to rectify the accident.

 

[ralliann]

Well, at that point they don't need their mother to breathe for them.

Since you say you are a Christian. Life for life
Accidentally causing a woman with child to lose her fruit.
The life is in the blood

Ex 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Ex 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

 

[Hans Blaster]

From: How babies breathe in the womb

"Instead, the umbilical cord provides the baby with oxygen until the first breath"

The terms used were "breathe" and "air". Neither of those apply to fetuses.

Air is the gas mixture that makes up our atmosphere. It contains molecular oxygen in gaseous form, but it is not "oxygen".

Breathing is the process of inhaling and exhaling through the lungs. Fetuses do not use their lungs to get oxygen, that's why oxygen bound to hemoglobin flowing through the umbilicus is necessary. (Your brain, heart, muscles, intestines, liver, and other organs *also* get oxygen from hemoglobin in the blood. They do not breath either.)

Breathing of air begins at birth, not before. The lungs aren't exposed to air until then.

 

[Belk]

the above quotes illogical

Explain how it is illogical. Ipsie Dixit is not debate.

 

[ralliann]

The terms used were "breathe" and "air". Neither of those apply to fetuses.

Air is the gas mixture that makes up our atmosphere. It contains molecular oxygen in gaseous form, but it is not "oxygen".

Breathing is the process of inhaling and exhaling through the lungs. Fetuses do not use their lungs to get oxygen, that's why oxygen bound to hemoglobin flowing through the umbilicus is necessary. (Your brain, heart, muscles, intestines, liver, and other organs *also* get oxygen from hemoglobin in the blood. They do not breath either.)

Breathing of air begins at birth, not before. The lungs aren't exposed to air until then.

Who said anything about lungs. It is how babies in the womb breathe, like fish breathe through gills. Big deal it changes nothing. Their air supply, so to speak. Big deal.

 

[Belk]

Bodily integrity hey?

Did the baby ask the mother to be created when she and her partner consented to unprotected sex? Like I said...illogical arguments not based in reality.

Explain to me how it is illogical. Simply claiming it Ipsie Dixit gives me no understanding of your position.

 

[Belk]

But it is still "caused". A person may cause something without desiring the outcome. In the case of preganacy, the person is willfully taking a chance, they will "cause" a pregnancy. It is gambling. Who goes to a casino/stocks/investments and gambols away their money, and claims it was an accident.

Of course it is a possible consequence. No one with any knowledge of the debate contests that. The single point I am arguing and what everyone keeps trying to move away from is the idea that consequence is not the same as consent. That something is a possible outcome does not mean people are consenting to the outcome and are locked into that consent.

The bible certainly does speak to this very thing. From full on accidents, where a man must flee to a city of refuge for killing someone on accident. And not securing a pit with a fence, or an ox that had shown itself to tend to gore. these things were indeed dealt with. The ones "gambling" with harm of others By not fencing dangers they are aware "could" occur. To full on accidental death, to the city of refuge. The judgement was to determine whether the manslayer had hated the individual in the past or not.

I do not care what the bible has to say on the subject. I am not a believer and not bound to follow its precepts.