If it's not okay outside the womb, why is it okay INSIDE the womb?

[AndersHoveland]

We have read all sorts of horrific reports about "fetuses" being born alive and unbelievable things done to them, all outside the womb. The accounts are so horrific that even radical pro-choicers are not defending it.
Recently, at an abortion clinic in Houston, Texas, this shocking story came to light:

One baby, before death, opened his hand and grabbed the abortionist’s finger, according to Deborah Edge, former employee at the clinic.

“The fetus was still alive. He thought it was dead. The fetus opened his eyes and was able to grab his finger.”

“Most of the time the fetus would come all the way out before he either cut the spinal cord or introduced one of the instruments into the soft-spot of the fetus in order to kill the fetus,” explained Deborah in a videotaped interview. “Either that or twisting the head off the neck with his own bare hands.”

So the question has to be asked:
If it is not okay for this to happen OUTSIDE the womb, why is it okay when done inside ?

Is it because we don't see it? Out of sight, out of mind?
Imagine if an abortion doctor dismembered a fetus while it was still alive, helplessly lying on a cold metal table. Yet this is what happens all the time inside the womb, and pro-choicers defend it.

 

[TheDag]

Rather simple answer to that. The general view amongst pro-choice is that while inside the womb life has not started yet therefore it is not taking a human life. Naturally you disagree with that view but that is why they consider it acceptable while in the womb.

 

[childofdust]

Rather simple answer to that. The general view amongst pro-choice is that while inside the womb life has not started yet therefore it is not taking a human life. Naturally you disagree with that view but that is why they consider it acceptable while in the womb.

Yep, rather simple answer. Strange that you shouldn't know that.

Fact is, it is not just the general view among pro-choicers, it has been the majority view of the entire world since the dawn of human history. And it is also the view of the ancient Israelites and of the biblical text. Life begins with the permanent coming of breath and ends with the permanent departure of breath. That is why the bible literally calls it "the breath of life." So long as a fetus is in the womb, it can't begin to breathe, therefore it does not have the breath "of life" and is not yet a living being.

And the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
--Gen 2:7

 

[TheDag]

Yep, rather simple answer. Strange that you shouldn't know that.

Fact is, it is not just the general view among pro-choicers, it has been the majority view of the entire world since the dawn of human history. And it is also the view of the ancient Israelites and of the biblical text. Life begins with the permanent coming of breath and ends with the permanent departure of breath. That is why the bible literally calls it "the breath of life." So long as a fetus is in the womb, it can't begin to breathe, therefore it does not have the breath "of life" and is not yet a living being.

And the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
--Gen 2:7

Sorry I'm confused. What is it you are saying I do not know?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yep, rather simple answer. Strange that you shouldn't know that.

Fact is, it is not just the general view among pro-choicers, it has been the majority view of the entire world since the dawn of human history. And it is also the view of the ancient Israelites and of the biblical text. Life begins with the permanent coming of breath and ends with the permanent departure of breath. That is why the bible literally calls it "the breath of life." So long as a fetus is in the womb, it can't begin to breathe, therefore it does not have the breath "of life" and is not yet a living being.

And the Lord God formed the man of dus from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.
--Gen 2:7

This may be the view of the ancient Israelites but it is not the view of the entire world. If the unborn is not a human life then what kind of life is it? Humans do not reproduce anything but another human. The unborn is a human being from conception till death.

 

[TheDag]

This may be the view of the ancient Israelites but it is not the view of the entire world. If the unborn is not a human life then what kind of life is it? Humans do not reproduce anything but another human. The unborn is a human being from conception till death.

what is your evidence of that Tom? At the end of the day you can only come back to your definition of what makes a human life. Fact is ancient jewish belief and therefore ancient christian (Jesus did not start a new faith) is that life begins with first breath. In culture where first born is very important how did they tell the first born? If life begins at conception then you must determine first born in the womb.

 

[TomZzyzx]

what is your evidence of that Tom? At the end of the day you can only come back to your definition of what makes a human life. Fact is ancient jewish belief and therefore ancient christian (Jesus did not start a new faith) is that life begins with first breath. In culture where first born is very important how did they tell the first born? If life begins at conception then you must determine first born in the womb.

Evidence for what Dag? That the unborn are human beings at conception. Embryonic science already tells us that.

I'm not denying that ancient Jewish belief is that life begins with first breath. But that is not taught in the bible. The bible say that God created Adam from the dust of the earth and He breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life. At best this teaches that every human that God created from the dust of the earth begins it's life by God breathing into their nostrils.

Now how many humans do you know of that God created from the dust of the earth?

 

[Breckmin]

Over the years I've debated pro-choicers who DO believe it is wrong to kill
a fetus if it is either viable or if it is in the 3rd trimester.

Some have even held that abortions should only be performed/allowed
in the first trimester before alpha brain waves (at 17 weeks of gestation).


Some pro-abortionists wrongfully view the pregnancy as a constant
and look at a fully developed fetus/baby as a zygote.... those
are political and pretty radical.

Most pro-choicers I've debated do NOT do this. They believe it is
wrong to terminate the pregnancy of a developed fetus but still allow
abortions of embryos or early fetuses. I think morphology really
complicates this issue scientifically for those who do not believe
that the pregnancy is a gift from God.

 

[TheDag]

Evidence for what Dag? That the unborn are human beings at conception. Embryonic science already tells us that.

I'm not denying that ancient Jewish belief is that life begins with first breath. But that is not taught in the bible. The bible say that God created Adam from the dust of the earth and He breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life. At best this teaches that every human that God created from the dust of the earth begins it's life by God breathing into their nostrils.

Now how many humans do you know of that God created from the dust of the earth?

Didn't see this when first posted.

If that is the case then the bible does not say life begins at conception so you can not justify your belief that life begins at conception either which means your no better. But here is the real hypocrisy of most christians on this matter. Every single christian I have ever met is happy to accept many Jewish teachings when it comes to their christian faith. Yet for this topic they say no thats not right the Jews don't know what they are talking about! If they were using stuff from new testament then yeah that is different. it isn't actually just that passage. Job, Ezekial and Psalms all speak of the breath of God as being life. Of course with Psalms we need to remember it is poetry and so must be careful in interpreting it not to take it too literally. Only NT passages can be used to justify the main christian view on abortion which only came to be the main christian view in the early 1970's. Before then it was perfectly acceptable to agree with abortion and be a christian. Indeed we find magazine articles from very prominent christians arguing that and nobody got upset. So what changed in the 1970's to cause the christian view to change from allowing either option to must believe a certain view? The answer is money which causes influence.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Didn't see this when first posted.

If that is the case then the bible does not say life begins at conception so you can not justify your belief that life begins at conception either which means your no better. But here is the real hypocrisy of most christians on this matter. Every single christian I have ever met is happy to accept many Jewish teachings when it comes to their christian faith. Yet for this topic they say no thats not right the Jews don't know what they are talking about! If they were using stuff from new testament then yeah that is different. it isn't actually just that passage. Job, Ezekial and Psalms all speak of the breath of God as being life. Of course with Psalms we need to remember it is poetry and so must be careful in interpreting it not to take it too literally. Only NT passages can be used to justify the main christian view on abortion which only came to be the main christian view in the early 1970's. Before then it was perfectly acceptable to agree with abortion and be a christian. Indeed we find magazine articles from very prominent christians arguing that and nobody got upset. So what changed in the 1970's to cause the christian view to change from allowing either option to must believe a certain view? The answer is money which causes influence.

First of all, the Bible doesn't have to say life starts at conception for it to be true as long as it doesn't contradict the bible. Second, I already told you that embryonic science already states that the unborn are human beings.

I don't know a single Christian that accepts a Jewish teaching that contradicts the bible.

What has changed is a clear understanding that elective abortion kills a defenceless human being.

 

[TheDag]

First of all, the Bible doesn't have to say life starts at conception for it to be true as long as it doesn't contradict the bible. Second, I already told you that embryonic science already states that the unborn are human beings.

Well you better throw away your christian faith then. After all they say there is no God either! I agree the bible is not a science book but science also says miracles do not happen. So that means the bible must be wrong about Jesus healing so many people and feeding of the 5000 and so on. So a persons heart beats while in the womb but still does not affect the biblical view.The mother is the one who breathes for the unborn baby. The baby does not breathe until they are born or during delivery.

I don't know a single Christian that accepts a Jewish teaching that contradicts the bible.

except the jewish teaching I'm talking about does not contradict the bible but is actually confirmed several times in the bible. So other views are what contradict the bible.

What has changed is a clear understanding that elective abortion kills a defenceless human being.

 

[Conscious Z]

First of all, the Bible doesn't have to say life starts at conception for it to be true as long as it doesn't contradict the bible. Second, I already told you that embryonic science already states that the unborn are human beings.

I don't know a single Christian that accepts a Jewish teaching that contradicts the bible.

What has changed is a clear understanding that elective abortion kills a defenceless human being.

There's no debate about whether fetuses are humans. The debate is whether or not they have life. That is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Well you better throw away your christian faith then. After all they say there is no God either! I agree the bible is not a science book but science also says miracles do not happen. So that means the bible must be wrong about Jesus healing so many people and feeding of the 5000 and so on. So a persons heart beats while in the womb but still does not affect the biblical view.The mother is the one who breathes for the unborn baby. The baby does not breathe until they are born or during delivery.

except the jewish teaching I'm talking about does not contradict the bible but is actually confirmed several times in the bible. So other views are what contradict the bible.

I give you scientific facts that don't contradict christianity and you say I better throw away my christian faith. Your responses are starting to border on the comical. I can't tell if you're serious or not. By the way, who are "they" that say there is no God?

Here's another one... you said "science also says miracles do not happen". Science has never said miracles don't happen. Science cannot says miracles don't happen. That's not what science does. Science can't test the supernatural. I guess that means the bible must be right.

The last three sentences in your first paragraph I agree with, but what that has to do with the unborn being human I don't know.

I need more information to make sense of your last paragraph. What "other views" are you talking about?

 

[TomZzyzx]

There's no debate about whether fetuses are humans. The debate is whether or not they have life. That is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.

No it is not. Science already confirms that the unborn are living, human beings making it a scientific fact.

 

[Conscious Z]

No it is not. Science already confirms that the unborn are living, human beings making it a scientific fact.

The question of what is alive and what is not is inherently a philosophical question. Life is, by definition, more than the sum of its parts. There is no consensus on what constitutes "life" because almost any definition so far suggested either doesn't include things that most would consider living or includes things most would consider to not be living.

That question is a question that has been addressed by philosophers for centuries.

Science can tell you the facts of a fetus -- development of its biological systems. The question of "Is it alive?" is a philosophical one.

That isn't to say it has no answer, but it's not the case that a scientific conclusion of "fetuses have X development at week 16" could somehow mean that the fetus is alive. There is an additional step in reasoning that must take place, and that is what philosophy of science is.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The question of what is alive and what is not is inherently a philosophical question. Life is, by definition, more than the sum of its parts. There is no consensus on what constitutes "life" because almost any definition so far suggested either doesn't include things that most would consider living or includes things most would consider to not be living.

That question is a question that has been addressed by philosophers for centuries.

Science can tell you the facts of a fetus -- development of its biological systems. The question of "Is it alive?" is a philosophical one.

That isn't to say it has no answer, but it's not the case that a scientific conclusion of "fetuses have X development at week 16" could somehow mean that the fetus is alive. There is an additional step in reasoning that must take place, and that is what philosophy of science is.

It only becomes a philosophical one when we can't agree if something is alive.

Just because we don't know if something is alive doesn't mean we can't know if anything is alive.

How do we know that the unborn is alive? Scientists generally agree that anything that exhibits irritability (reaction to stimuli), metabolism (converting food to energy), and cellular reproduction (growth) is alive.

The easiest way too tell if the unborn is alive is... dead things don't grow.

 

[Conscious Z]

It only becomes a philosophical one when we can't agree if something is alive.

Just because we don't know if something is alive doesn't mean we can't know if anything is alive.

How do we know that the unborn is alive? Scientists generally agree that anything that exhibits irritability (reaction to stimuli), metabolism (converting food to energy), and cellular reproduction (growth) is alive.

The easiest way too tell if the unborn is alive is... dead things don't grow.

Those aren't even close to the minimum requirements for life. There also must be an ability to reproduce, homeostasis and a couple others. Also, the notion of "growth" isn't scientific in the least. Mountains grow. Fires grow. Neither is alive.

Also, I didn't claim that we couldn't know whether anything was alive. There are many living things, but most scientists will agree that life is difficult to define but generally we know it when we see it. That is why definitions of life are more descriptions that definitions.

None of this really matters, however, because the question of whether a fetus is alive or not is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. We kill many living things.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Those aren't even close to the minimum requirements for life. There also must be an ability to reproduce, homeostasis and a couple others. Also, the notion of "growth" isn't scientific in the least. Mountains grow. Fires grow. Neither is alive.

Also, I didn't claim that we couldn't know whether anything was alive. There are many living things, but most scientists will agree that life is difficult to define but generally we know it when we see it. That is why definitions of life are more descriptions that definitions.

None of this really matters, however, because the question of whether a fetus is alive or not is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. We kill many living things.

Yes we do kill many living things. The problem arises when we kill human beings.

Because... it is wrong to kill any human being without justification.
The unborn are living, whole, human beings.
Elective abortion kills a defenceless human being without justification.
Therefore elective abortion is wrong.

 

[Conscious Z]

Yes we do kill many living things. The problem arises when we kill human beings.

Because... it is wrong to kill any human being without justification.
The unborn are living, whole, human beings.
Elective abortion kills a defenceless human being without justification.
Therefore elective abortion is wrong.

There is nothing special about being human. Human life isn't inherently valuable. It is valuable based on its features, not its status as human. Life of any kind is valuable only if it features a conscious, sentient creature. If there's no consciousness, there's no value. There're no moral wrong in killing a tree because a tree is not a conscious entity. There is moral wrong in killing a human or a cow or a dog because there is something "inside" that is doing the suffering. Fetuses are not conscious from the moment of conception. It is developed, and most likely develops gradually. Abortions that take place before the development of consciousness are not immoral because it is the killing of a being that is not conscious or sentient.

It has nothing to do with whether a fetus is defenseless or not. It has to do with whether it is conscious.

 

[TheDag]

I give you scientific facts that don't contradict christianity and you say I better throw away my christian faith. Your responses are starting to border on the comical. I can't tell if you're serious or not. By the way, who are "they" that say there is no God?

There have been scientific studies done on if prayer works. The conclusion was it does not. So if you are going to argue that because science says something it must be right then you need to accept that they say your faith is wrong and a waste of time. Can't have it both ways.

Here's another one... you said "science also says miracles do not happen". Science has never said miracles don't happen. Science cannot says miracles don't happen. That's not what science does. Science can't test the supernatural. I guess that means the bible must be right.

I know that. You know that but you are the one who claimed scientific studies make something right.

I need more information to make sense of your last paragraph. What "other views" are you talking about?

Other views are things like what your claiming is biblical.

No it is not. Science already confirms that the unborn are living, human beings making it a scientific fact.

no that does not follow. That is not what the studies said. You are putting your own worldview into the conclusion. Yet the interesting thing is christians don't tend to get upset over life support being switched off. Fits all the same requirements for life that you listed.