How can Christians justify Abortion?

[SPF]

A tumor is alive too, and a tumor may have distinct DNA from your own, that doesn't make it a person

You’re absolutely right that a tumor is not a person, nobody would argue otherwise.

Identical twins have the same DNA, yet they are distinct individual human beings.

Correct, they are both growing, unique human beings.

. A unique set of DNA is NOT the qualifier for what is and what is not a person.

Correct, but it is part of it.

Is a blastocyst in the image of God? a ball of undifferentiated stem cells? With no heart, no brain, no appendages, no eyes?

This is a common argument used by the pro-abortion camp to dehumanize human beings. It’s fallacious and fails even the slightest scrutiny.

A human being spends about 25 years developing, and at each stage of development they look precisely (if healthy) like what a human being should at that level of development. A teenager isn’t more of a human being than a toddler because he is closer to full development.

Its nothing short of discrimination to argue against the humanity of a person based upon their level of development.

A married woman that is using contraceptives for family planning purposes can have fertilized eggs passing out of her body before implanting as one of the means that she does not get pregnant.

Yes, and based upon what we known scientifically (see all the cited reference material I provided), as Christians we know that birth control that results in the death of a fertilized egg is immoral.

A fertilized blastocyst is alive in the same way the sperm and the egg, or a tumor were alive, but none of those components is a human being by itself.

Nope, they are very different. A sperm and an egg are a sperm and an egg and will never be anything more than a sperm and an egg.

Actually, are you aware that each individual sperm and egg do not contain exact copies of your DNA, but rather 23 chromosomes that have been cut and pasted semi randomly together (during meosis "crossing over") from your 46 chromosomes?

I sure am! And once fertilization occurs a new life comes into existence (see cited reference material).

By your definition each sperm is a human being. It's alive, has human DNA and is a unique set of instructions.

a sperm is a sperm, it will never be a human being.

This is analogous to having blueprints to build a house (the DNA) and the starting construction materials to build a house (the undifferentiated stem cells), but you can't call that a house, because the foundation hasn't been laid yet (implantation). Once you lay the foundation and start putting up structures you can call it a building at least. But the blueprints and cement and lumber by themselves is not a building. If the land deal falls through and they don't let you lay the foundation.. that building does not come to pass, even though you have the blueprints, concrete, and lumber.

Well unless you’re going to argue that a human being doesn’t exist until their 25 year developmental period has ended your analogy fails.

Bottom line, you can keep arguing that a fertilized egg isn’t a human being until it is implanted, but the science of biology doesn’t support your assertion. I can quote another dozen textbooks that demonstrate this if necessary. It’s time for you to reevaluate.

 

[Jamdoc]

You’re absolutely right that a tumor is not a person, nobody would argue otherwise.

Correct, they are both growing, unique human beings.

Correct, but it is part of it.

This is a common argument used by the pro-abortion camp to dehumanize human beings. It’s fallacious and fails even the slightest scrutiny.

A human being spends about 25 years developing, and at each stage of development they look precisely (if healthy) like what a human being should at that level of development. A teenager isn’t more of a human being than a toddler because he is closer to full development.

Its nothing short of discrimination to argue against the humanity of a person based upon their level of development.

Yes, and based upon what we known scientifically (see all the cited reference material I provided), as Christians we know that birth control that results in the death of a fertilized egg is immoral.

Nope, they are very different. A sperm and an egg are a sperm and an egg and will never be anything more than a sperm and an egg.

I sure am! And once fertilization occurs a new life comes into existence (see cited reference material).

a sperm is a sperm, it will never be a human being.

Well unless you’re going to argue that a human being doesn’t exist until their 25 year developmental period has ended your analogy fails.

Bottom line, you can keep arguing that a fertilized egg isn’t a human being until it is implanted, but the science of biology doesn’t support your assertion. I can quote another dozen textbooks that demonstrate this if necessary. It’s time for you to reevaluate.

None of the textbooks can define what a human being is.
That's the crazy thing about science. When you go deeper into it the definitions become extremely nebulous because you keep finding exceptions to the rules. Scientists will attempt to define life by a set of criteria, and to this day, cannot come to agreement if viruses are alive because they do not fit all of the criteria but fit some, and some that they do not fit are also ones that some small intracellular obligate parasitic bacteria (such as Chlamydia trachomatis) do not exhibit, they are very virus like, yet they are a bacteria and nobody will argue that a bacteria is not alive.

Your definition of what makes a human being would also include tumors, since they are human cells with unique DNA sequences, and excludes twins, because they share the same DNA sequences. Nobody but God can accurately define what a human being is without having troublesome exceptions to their definition.

You keep bringing up this 25 years development thing and I toss that right out, because none of that 25 years even begins if it doesn't implant.
Now maybe with future technology you can use an artificial womb, but for now, every human has to implant in a womb to ever be born. Conception happens in the womb, which fits more with implantation, rather than fertilization.
Everyone seems to think of "seed" as being sperm, sperm, but, sperm is more analogous to pollen, the seed is actually a diploid product, but it is not the plant yet. It has to implant, and germinate in soil to grow, to be anything but a seed. A fertilized egg is more like a seed, than anything else. It has to be planted to grow, and will never be anything but a seed if it is not planted.

Fertilize egg, and just let it be in a petri dish and it won't grow into a person.
implant it in a womb, and it will. It's at implantation where you get your "if you just leave it alone it will develop into a baby" argument, and actually be right.
At fertilization, there's still a step missing, that fertilized embryo will do nothing if you leave it alone, otherwise we'd have spontaneous children from IVF freezers coming into being.

 

[SPF]

You keep bringing up this 25 years development thing and I toss that right out, because none of that 25 years even begins if it doesn't implant.

Incorrect. It begins at fertilization, and continues after implanted. You’re just flat out ignoring biology. Nobody agrees with you, nobody. Every single reference from actual biologists demonstrate how wrong you are. Repeating your desire over and over without any supporting material won’t make it true.

At implantation, the new and unique human being continues to develop, not begin. It began at fertilization. We literally can see it happen.

A fertilized egg is more like a seed

No, an unfertilized egg is more like a seed. A fertilized egg is different than the egg and the sperm that fertilized it.

Fertilize egg, and just let it be in a petri dish and it won't grow into a person.

Of course not. Also, remove an implanted zygote or an embryo or a fetus pre 24 weeks from a womb and it’ll die too.

Bottom line is that science isn’t on your side. You keep repeating the same thing over and over, but no biology textbook is going to agree with you.

At fertilization, a new and unique human being comes into existence and spends the next 25 years developing into a fully mature human.

 

[Jamdoc]

Incorrect. It begins at fertilization, and continues after implanted. You’re just flat out ignoring biology. Nobody agrees with you, nobody. Every single reference from actual biologists demonstrate how wrong you are. Repeating your desire over and over without any supporting material won’t make it true.

At implantation, the new and unique human being continues to develop, not begin. It began at fertilization. We literally can see it happen.

You see the formation of a seed that if planted, becomes human. But until that seed is planted, that's all it will be, a seed.

No, an unfertilized egg is more like a seed. A fertilized egg is different than the egg and the sperm that fertilized it.

A seed is not fertilized, it is produced after fertilization of the ovule in the ovary within the pistil of a plant. The seed is the DIPLOID product AFTER fertilization. It is a plant embryo, so yes, a seed is what a fertilized human egg is before its planted.

It's the blueprint and starting materials to construct something, it is not that thing yet.

 

[SPF]

It's the blueprint and starting materials to construct something, it is not that thing yet.

Sure, in the same way that a zygote is not yet constructed into an embryo, and an embryo is not yet constructed into a fetus, and a fetus not yet an infant, and an infant not yet a toddler, and a toddler not yet a small child, and a small child not yet a teenager, and a teenager not yet an adult.

However, at all stages of development, you still have a human being.

You’re just repeating your same opinion that is not supported by science.


“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

 

[Jamdoc]

Sure, in the same way that a zygote is not yet constructed into an embryo, and an embryo is not yet constructed into a fetus, and a fetus not yet an infant, and an infant not yet a toddler, and a toddler not yet a small child, and a small child not yet a teenager, and a teenager not yet an adult.

However, at all stages of development, you still have a human being.

You’re just repeating your same opinion that is not supported by science.


“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

“A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

and a seed is the beginning of a plant, but is not a plant itself.
as I pointed out earlier, biological definitions are totally nebulous once you scratch beyond the surface. The tighter you try to define what something is, the more exceptions that arise that are NOT the thing being defined and the more inclusions you have to make that ARE the thing you're trying to define.
So go ahead, try to define what a human being is. You'll quickly find any definition you try to apply will be full of holes.

Speaking of definition, what's the definition of an abortion?

Deliberate termination of a human pregnancy

what's the definition of when a woman is pregnant? When a fertilized embryo implants in her. If it just passes through, the woman is never pregnant, she will never test positive in a pregnancy test, an ultrasound will show nothing, and she'll never know there was a fertilized egg that passed out of her.

 

[SPF]

and a seed is the beginning of a plant, but is not a plant itself.

That’s great for the seed, but in human anatomy, science has come far enough to the point in which we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

is your claim that all the textbooks that I quoted are wrong? On what authority are you making that claim, what education are you bringing to the discussion?

can you cite any sources that support anything you’ve said? Should we all just ignore all the biology books that teach about when a new human being comes into existence because you simply feel otherwise?

Speaking of definition, what's the definition of an abortion?

That has nothing to do with when a new human being comes into existence.

what's the definition of when a woman is pregnant? When a fertilized embryo implants in her. If it just passes through, the woman is never pregnant, she will never test positive in a pregnancy test, an ultrasound will show nothing, and she'll never know there was a fertilized egg that passed out of her.

And again, that has nothing to do with when a new human being comes into existence.

You’re kind of on an island of one here with as far as I can tell, no education and no support other than how you feel about the subject.

I’ll go with the dozens of credible biologists on this one.

 

[Jamdoc]

That’s great for the seed, but in human anatomy, science has come far enough to the point in which we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

is your claim that all the textbooks that I quoted are wrong? On what authority are you making that claim, what education are you bringing to the discussion?

can you cite any sources that support anything you’ve said? Should we all just ignore all the biology books that teach about when a new human being comes into existence because you simply feel otherwise?

That has nothing to do with when a new human being comes into existence.

And again, that has nothing to do with when a new human being comes into existence.

You’re kind of on an island of one here with as far as I can tell, no education and no support other than how you feel about the subject.

I’ll go with the dozens of credible biologists on this one.

I have education, but I'm not going to root around for citations to win an internet argument. Contraceptives are not abortion. You're on an island here that basically only catholics agree with banning contraceptives.

Something that needs to be said on this matter is that when life "begins" is a fallacious argument to begin with, life began only at one time, since then life begats life there's never a point where you have dead inanimate material that becomes alive. That is one of the reasons why naturalism and abiogenesis fails as an origin theory, because if life could randomly come into being with no cause, then why did it only happen once?

So what matters is not where you designate the chain of when "life begins" because all the components were alive and the origins of those components were alive, there was never a step in there where it was inert material that became alive, it's all a chain of life to life. What matters is personhood, consciousness, not cells, not a unique set of DNA, not undifferentiated tissues. Until you can demonstrate that a blastocyst has the necessary structures to establish consciousness and personhood, it doesn't matter.
and unless you can demonstrate that a woman is pregnant even before implantation, you can't call it an abortion when it is in fact, preventing conception.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why isn't this apart of who you select to run your country? People seem to be hung up on the presidency being filled with a man of valor, humility, high morals, decency, honorable, truth teller and the list goes on. Most of which is an impossibility and yet a president that believes in the legitimacy of abortion is welcomed in. I don't get it.
God says "Thou shalt not kill" and you say but that is not murder. A man or woman kills a baby clinically and you say that is not murder.
Please fill me in so I can understand.
Nicely and quietly tell me why you think abortion is okay for the president you choose if you don't believe in abortion.
There are few things we can control or change but this seems to be one we can make a difference in.
Thank you.

Giving people reproductive choices is not the same as slicing up babies intentionally.

Lina Marcela Medina de Jurado (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈlina meˈðina]; born 23 September 1933) is a Peruvian woman who became the youngest confirmed mother in history, giving birth at age five years, seven months, and 21 days.

The question being, are you the one who demands a 6-year-old mother carry to term?
Are you volunteering to raise the child?
Has your church circle volunteered to raise similar children of children?

 

[SPF]

Something that needs to be said on this matter is that when life "begins" is a fallacious argument to begin with, life began only at one time, since then life begats life there's never a point where you have dead inanimate material that becomes alive. That is one of the reasons why naturalism and abiogenesis fails as an origin theory, because if life could randomly come into being with no cause, then why did it only happen once?

Again, this is non-sense. You have not existed since God created the first living being. You began to exist at a specific point in time in the past.

Thanks to advancements in science, we are able to objectively and literally see when that happened.

What matters is personhood, consciousness, not cells, not a unique set of DNA, not undifferentiated tissues. Until you can demonstrate that a blastocyst has the necessary structures to establish consciousness and personhood, it doesn't matter.

Personhood is a made up term used by abortion advocates to justify abortion. They attempt to make a distinction between a human being and a human person, asserting that only human persons are morally valuable.

They do this to justify immoral actions performed on the non-person human that would otherwise be immoral.

You have been using essentially the same form of argumentation by attempting to subjectively (with no support other than your own opinion) determine when life begins. Science disagrees with you.

unless you can demonstrate that a woman is pregnant even before implantation, you can't call it an abortion when it is in fact, preventing conception.

Science has already shown that at fertilization a new, growing, living, unique human being comes into existence. It’s already done.

You choosing to deny this fact doesn’t make it go away.

 

[SPF]

“It should always be remembered that many organs are still not completely developed by full-term and birth should be regarded only as an incident in the whole developmental process.” F Beck Human Embryology, Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1985 page vi

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.” Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

“Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology fifth edition, Moore and Persaud, 1993, Saunders Company, page 1

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

“Thus a new cell is formed from the union of a male and a female gamete. [sperm and egg cells] The cell, referred to as the zygote, contains a new combination of genetic material, resulting in an individual different from either parent and from anyone else in the world.” Sally B Olds, et al., Obstetric Nursing (Menlo Park, California: Addison – Wesley publishing, 1980) P 136



“The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization … The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.” J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. 1974 Pages 17 and 23.

“[All] organisms, however large and complex they might be as full grown, begin life as a single cell. This is true for the human being, for instance, who begins life as a fertilized ovum.”Dr. Morris Krieger “The Human Reproductive System” p 88 (1969) Sterling Pub. Co

 

[SPF]

“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another.

Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being.

There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.” James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

 

[Jamdoc]

Again, this is non-sense. You have not existed since God created the first living being. You began to exist at a specific point in time in the past.

Thanks to advancements in science, we are able to objectively and literally see when that happened.

Personhood is a made up term used by abortion advocates to justify abortion. They attempt to make a distinction between a human being and a human person, asserting that only human persons are morally valuable.

They do this to justify immoral actions performed on the non-person human that would otherwise be immoral.

You have been using essentially the same form of argumentation by attempting to subjectively (with no support other than your own opinion) determine when life begins. Science disagrees with you.

Science has already shown that at fertilization a new, growing, living, unique human being comes into existence. It’s already done.

You choosing to deny this fact doesn’t make it go away.

Abortion is terminating a pregnancy
a woman is not pregnant until implantation
therefore contraceptives prevent pregnancy, not abort them.

 

[SPF]

Abortion is terminating a pregnancy
a woman is not pregnant until implantation
therefore contraceptives prevent pregnancy, not abort them.

You do realize your simply saying that doesn’t actually make it true, right?

Abortion is the intentional terminating of a living human being that has not yet left the inside of a woman.

 

[Jamdoc]

You do realize your simply saying that doesn’t actually make it true, right?

Abortion is the intentional terminating of a living human being that has not yet left the inside of a woman.

Google abortion definition, everywhere defines it as the termination of a pregnancy.

 

[SPF]

Google abortion definition, everywhere defines it as the termination of a pregnancy.

Look, I'm happy to play the semantics game if you want. Definitions and terms are useful and important in order to have meaningful discussions.

But the overall point remains.

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

2. Intentionally killing an innocent human being is immoral and wrong.

3. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization (traditionally also referred to as conception).

The conclusion is simple - The intentional killing of a human being is immoral and wrong. The morality of killing a human being is not based upon anything about the human - ie. their age, their gender, race, residence, or anything else.

All human beings possess the same inherent moral worth and value because all human beings are created in the Image of God and our moral worth and value stem from His perfect and immutable character.

With that simple understanding, we can then look at the various practices that occur around the topic of the unborn.

We can easily say that the 98.5% of abortions which are performed for convenience reasons and non-life threatening emergencies are immoral.

Likewise, any sort of birth control that either directly kills a new human being, or prevents it from implanting would also be immoral and wrong. We can say that because we know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization (again, see the myriad of cited material).

 

[kaaBlamoes98]

OK so I just read the Question.

Abortion is not okay, Jesus doesn’t support it.

 

[SkyWriting]

OK so I just read the Question.

Abortion is not okay, Jesus doesn’t support it.

Jesus does support you in supporting your neighbor.
Mark 12:31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

James 2:8
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

Romans 15:2
Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

And supporting the local laws.

1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

1 Timothy 2:1-2
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Romans 13:1-14
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...

Titus 3:1
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work,

 

[SPF]

James 2:8
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.

Do you not consider the unborn your neighbor? Why do you discriminate against the unborn as less morally valuable than you? Seems like something a bigot would do.

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Why don't you wish to protect the life of the unborn? Do you not want other people to desire to protect your life? Why do you disregard the unborn as worthless and not worthy of your thoughts?

1 Peter 2:13-17
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

For anyone who doesn't follow SkyWriting, he holds a very unique theological position that has never been held in church history, nor is held by any contemporary theologian. And that is, he believes morality is 100% subjective, and based entirely upon what your local government declares.

True to his belief, he thinks that people like Daniel from the OT actually sinned by praying when it was declared not to.

SkyWriting, I wonder, do you agree that if you were to move to a country where abortion was illegal that you would instead of promoting abortion like you do on this forum, sing a different tune and tell people that they were sinning to have an abortion? It's all about the local laws, right?

 

[SkyWriting]

Do you not consider the unborn your neighbor? Why do you discriminate against the unborn as less morally valuable than you? Seems like something a bigot would do.

Just as your neighbors should not be monitoring your sperm or eggs or watching them combine.