Chemical Abortions

[NxNW]

smh

Would you be willing to say that to the billions of mothers today and also throughout history who know that the life they carry in the womb is NOT an innocent unborn baby?

Not all women feel as you do. I know plenty of women who have had abortions. I also know women who profess to be anti-choice in public and who make the same arguments you do, but who confide in private that they are pro-choice.

 

[NxNW]

Now that I know that you have declared yourself to be an atheist, I realize that only the Holy Spirit of God can change your mind on this topic, as well as perhaps many other topics in this website. I hope that you don't mind if I pray to God for you.

I don't mind, but I have my doubts anyone is listening.

I believe that the Lord places a soul within the unborn humans at the moment of conception. That belief holds true for twins, triplets, etc.

At the moment of conception, there is a single cell. Are you saying there are two or more souls in a single cell? If so, wouldn't at least one of the souls be lacking a 'body' to occupy, since it's not the 'owner' of that cell? And setting aside the soul question, you must also be claiming that, biologically speaking, both identical twins physically exist at the moment of conception. This is impossible, since there is only the one cell.

Since your above position seems to lead to contradictions, you might want to reconsider the moment of ensoulment.

 

[Whyayeman]

There is no reconciling these two views.

As somebody for whom the existence of a God of any sort is unproven I have no difficulty with the idea that an embryo has no soul. However, it is not necessary to have a soul to be a person. The issue is at what stage an embryo becomes a person. The law has long regarded this question as settled; the moment a person comes into existence is at birth.

To consider that some God puts a soul into an ovum at the moment of conception strikes me as an ugly, voyeuristic intrusion into private affairs. It suggests lurking. And it is a strange concept. Only modern Christians have this concept. My guess is that it was invented specifically by anti-abortion campaigners and has no wider theological authority. There is nothing Biblical about it, surely?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

The baby always dies. Selfish and sad.

You can keep saying it, but that doesn’t make it factual.

 

[Vambram]

I don't mind, but I have my doubts anyone is listening.

At the moment of conception, there is a single cell. Are you saying there are two or more souls in a single cell? If so, wouldn't at least one of the souls be lacking a 'body' to occupy, since it's not the 'owner' of that cell? And setting aside the soul question, you must also be claiming that, biologically speaking, both identical twins physically exist at the moment of conception. This is impossible, since there is only the one cell.

Since your above position seems to lead to contradictions, you might want to reconsider the moment of ensoulment.

Questions and answers about souls cannot truly be answered by scientific and naturalistic points of view, in my opinion.

Christians look to God, who is the Creator, and the Holy Bible for answers to questions about souls and spiritual matters.
I have zero doubts about no problem in believing that the Creator of souls can place them into a cell at conception.
The Lord God is still the Creator and He is fully capable of this.

 

[Vambram]

Not all women feel as you do. I know plenty of women who have had abortions. I also know women who profess to be anti-choice in public and who make the same arguments you do, but who confide in private that they are pro-choice.

Although you are being honest in your point of view, I am also being equally honest with the point of view that pregnant women who want their baby to be born do believe that there's an unborn human life in their womb.

 

[Whyayeman]

pregnant women who want their baby to be born do believe that there's an unborn human life in their womb.

Well, some do. Others are of the opinion that a foetus is not yet a person. It does not mean they do not expect to love their offspring.

 

[Desk trauma]

I believe that the Lord places a soul within the unborn humans at the moment of conception.

Which would result in the majority of souls never being aware of their life on earth.

 

[RileyG]

You can keep saying it, but that doesn’t make it factual.

Biology says it's a baby and different from its mother. Facts.

 

[RileyG]

Some years ago I severed the tip of my right index finger clean off.
I didn’t have it cremated or buried, it was my DNA and contained everything I am, yet it wasn’t a human.
(I actually superglued it back on top of the digit to act as a an bandage of me.)

Not the same thing. An unborn fetus is a baby that is distinct from its mother. Period. Even biology says that.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Biology says it's a baby and different from its mother. Facts.

Again, following up a statement with “facts” doesn’t prove or answer anything in the topic of abortion. It may be simpler or easier for some minds to distill it down that way, but it really means very little in the grand discussion which is far more complex than just standing with clenched fists and yelling “it is so because I say so.”

 

[Whyayeman]

Biology says it's a baby and different from its mother. Facts.

No it doesn't.

Not the same thing. An unborn fetus is a baby that is distinct from its mother. Period. Even biology says that.

In that case all miscarriages should be given funerals. Why is there nobody urging this?

 

[NxNW]

Biology says it's a baby and different from its mother.

No it doesn't.

Facts.

Not.

 

[NxNW]

Not the same thing. An unborn fetus is a baby that is distinct from its mother. Period.

You used the word "distinct". At conception, you have a single cell. If twinning occurs days later, when does each one become distinct?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

No it doesn't.

Not.

It Does

Does


You quoted someone's post and edited it, I thought that was against the rules?

 

[NxNW]

You quoted someone's post and edited it, I thought that was against the rules?

Didn't happen.

 

[Whyayeman]

Just to get back to the topic of abortion pills' on-line availability: is anybody surprised that when official channels are closed desperate women will risk other means? This is what has happened, to nobody's surprise.

There has always been abortion. Some are horrified by this so do as much as they can to make it illegal, as if that would somehow put an end to it. The rise in illegal abortions was predicted.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't mind, but I have my doubts anyone is listening.

At the moment of conception, there is a single cell. Are you saying there are two or more souls in a single cell? If so, wouldn't at least one of the souls be lacking a 'body' to occupy, since it's not the 'owner' of that cell? And setting aside the soul question, you must also be claiming that, biologically speaking, both identical twins physically exist at the moment of conception. This is impossible, since there is only the one cell.

Since your above position seems to lead to contradictions, you might want to reconsider the moment of ensoulment.

Or perhaps souls aren't what people think they are, some unchanging essence that gets inserted into a body at the time of conception.

 

[FireDragon76]

No it doesn't.

In that case all miscarriages should be given funerals. Why is there nobody urging this?

Some religions do practice that. It's not unusual in Japan, for instance, for parents to engage in religious rituals arround miscarriage or abortion. It is called mizuko-kuyo (literally "water baby", a reference to the Japanese Buddhist notion that the unborn child exists in a liminal state of becoming, like a wave appearing on water).

 

[Whyayeman]

Some religions do practice that. It's not unusual in Japan, for instance, for parents to engage in religious rituals arround miscarriage or abortion. It is called mizuko-kuyo (literally "water baby", a reference to the Japanese Buddhist notion that the unborn child exists in a liminal state of becoming, like a wave appearing on water).

Well, why not among Christians? I don't advocate it. It is just that there is an inconsistency here. So much dogmatic insistence on the 'unborn child' while ignoring natural miscarriages.