Is abortion ever acceptable?

Tropical Wilds said:

I’m pro-choice so I feel like determining the right or wrong of such a thing is only done in a case where I’m the person in that situation. If somebody else is in that situation, whatever they do or don’t choose as long as they are the ones choosing, they will have my unconditional and unyielding support, love, and prayers.

Click to expand...

Do you see human life as morally valuable regardless of stage of development?

Paul of Eugene OR said:

It is simple. The contents of the womb are human of course, are alive of course, but are not yet a person - not yet a soul - and therefore it is not a murder to terminate the pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

redleghunter said:

Do you see human life as morally valuable regardless of stage of development?

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, sure.

Jon Osterman said:

We have laws against that, and I don't think anyone here is advocating that. So this is a straw man.

Click to expand...

We used to have laws against on demand abortion. So the question is valid given some bioethicists don’t consider new born babies as cognitive persons.

Jon Osterman said:

You believe this to be true. But why should anyone else care?

Click to expand...

Because it is a biological fact we are human beings at conception.

There is only one definition of when a distinct (from parents) human being begins. That is at conception.

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Keith L. Moore’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (7th edition, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003)

http://www.textbookrush.com/browse/...calinventory&gclid=CJGkm7nNncoCFQqpaQodVZINSA


The French geneticist Jerome L. LeJeune has stated:

“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” [The Human Life Bill: Hearings on S. 158 Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 97th Congress, 1st Session (1981). See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1989), p. 149 also Francis J. Beckwith,Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and Mayo Clinic physician stated:

“I think we can now also say that the question of the beginning of life – when life begins – is no longer a question for theological or philosophical dispute. It is an established scientific fact. Theologians and philosophers may go on to debate the meaning of life or purpose of life, but it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.” [The Human Life Bill – S. 158, Report 9, see Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), p. 42.] (Emphases mine – VJT.)

To cite just a few examples, the American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.” (For reference, a zygote is the first stage of a human embryo.)

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Sciencestates that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

[The] statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

1. Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

1. Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

1. Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

1. Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Furthermore, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

In accord with the facts above, the textbook Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects directly states: “The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” This may be controversial from a political perspective, but the sciences of embryology and genetics leave no doubt as to when human life begins.

The science of abortion: When does life begin? - Just Facts

Archivist said:

In the US citizenship begins at birth, so no that could not happen legally.

Click to expand...

What if the law changes and allows termination of new borns in certain circumstances? Will your views change with the law to respect the choice of the woman?

Overall what I’m seeing from you and a few others is that secular law sets your worldview on what is or is not moral.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

One can certainly point out that during the first half of the pregnancy the brain has simply not developed enough to support the ability to be a person.

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

You are playing that game with the word "human". You assert the zygote is "human" which we all agree it isn't carrot or a kitten and then you assume that means it is a person as a consequence, which does not follow. It could easily not be a person yet, merely on a road that, if completed, would lead to it being a person.

Click to expand...

If it is not a human zygote then what is it?

You have yet to define the term “person.” What objective standard are you using to define “personhood?”

redleghunter said:

Because it is a biological fact we are human beings at conception.

There is only one definition of when a distinct (from parents) human being begins. That is at conception.

Click to expand...

There you go again, confusing "human" with "person" . Personhood cannot exist without an adequate information processing organ capable of sustaining that personhood and so there is no person until the brain is adequate for personhood.

A zygote [fertilized egg] is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, an alternate fate awaits the zygote. It may become twins . . and be TWO persons. It may become triplets, etc. Or in rare cases it may combine with another zygote and the two form one person. Or, as it begins its development, it may perish due to some biological error and never become a person without human intervention.

[The] statement that “human life begins at conception” is consistent with both of these definitions, because human zygotes display all four empirical attributes of life:

Click to expand...

There you go again, with the confusing of meanings of words, because nobody disputes that a zygote is alive. The question is whether or not it counts, yet, as a person. Basically, your arguments depend on misusing word definitions as above and reading your assumptions into bible verses and then . . surprise . . finding your assumptions there.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

There is no bible verse to support your view unless you read into that bible verse, first, your own interpretation.

Click to expand...

Actually the genealogies in Genesis confirm we are persons at begetting or fathering of the child.

Genesis 5: KJV

6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: 7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters: 8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 10And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

12And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: 13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

There you go again, confusing "human" with "person" . Personhood cannot exist without an adequate information processing organ capable of sustaining that personhood and so there is no person until the brain is adequate for personhood.

Click to expand...

Prove there is a difference between a human being and a person. You can’t.

Archivist said:

Except, as I am sure you are aware, that is not the only place where the Bible links breath and life.

Job 33:4: "The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

Isaiah 42:5: "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it."

Click to expand...

Great verses.

Also glad to see you are literally interpreting Holy Scriptures.

Yet not one of those verses regard birth but thanking God for being alive.

Yet we do see how involved God is in our fetal development.


Perhaps you may be familiar with the following:

Isaiah 44:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 49:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.


Psalm 71:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.

Jeremiah 1:5 King James Version (KJV)
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Galatians 1:15 King James Version (KJV)
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

Psalm 139:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

Seems God is quite involved throughout our fetal development.

Tropical Wilds said:

Generally speaking, sure.

Click to expand...

Don’t know what that means.

redleghunter said:

Prove there is a difference between a human being and a person. You can’t.

Click to expand...

Your attempts to bring confusion to the discussion will continue to be exposed. Basically, to earn the title "human being", we do mean a person. For that reason, we withhold the title "human being" from a fertilized egg until it is developed enough to warrant the title. People like you will gleefully violate that convention but you are simply playing word games instead of paying attention to the reality of what is going on. Your skills at word games will not be enough to prove your point.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Unless, of course, an alternate fate awaits the zygote. It may become twins . . and be TWO persons. It may become triplets, etc. Or in rare cases it may combine with another zygote and the two form one person. Or, as it begins its development, it may perish due to some biological error and never become a person without human intervention.

Click to expand...

And my answer to these rare cases is So What? God’s been doing twins for a very long time.

Now please provide your science of personhood. Then we can get into the theological aspects of personhood.

Please cite your resources as I’ve had.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

There you go again, with the confusing of meanings of words, because nobody disputes that a zygote is alive. The question is whether or not it counts, yet, as a person.

Click to expand...

No confusion. I argued we are human beings at conception. I gave scientific evidence.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Basically, your arguments depend on misusing word definitions as above and reading your assumptions into bible verses and then . . surprise . . finding your assumptions there.

Click to expand...

Nope never did misuse terms. We are human beings at conception. Now I did say there is no difference between being a human being and a person. You can’t separate the two terms.

Now you disagree with the facts of that so we await your alternative facts and evidence that we become persons at some point in brain activity.

Now lay it out, the science and then theology supporting your claim.

Or you can plea out now and admit your “person” definition is based on your own personal philosophical view. Then we can know it is your opinion and like arm pits everyone has a couple.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Your attempts to bring confusion to the discussion will continue to be exposed. Basically, to earn the title "human being", we do mean a person. For that reason, we withhold the title "human being" from a fertilized egg until it is developed enough to warrant the title. People like you will gleefully violate that convention but you are simply playing word games instead of paying attention to the reality of what is going on. Your skills at word games will not be enough to prove your point.

Click to expand...

Lay it out brother. We are waiting for your evidence there is a difference between person and human being.

Tutorman said:

Your adding to it. By making her and anyone who helps her a murderer plus there is psychological trauma many times for the women. All people want to do is make themselves feel better by saying baby murder (abortion) is okay for this or that without thinking through what abortion really is and the consequences of such

Click to expand...

I don't think that I am adding to it, and hasn't she suffered enough already?

redleghunter said:

Lay it out brother. We are waiting for your evidence there is a difference between person and human being.

Click to expand...

There you go again, playing strange word games. Its what you do.

AnnaDeborah said:

If you believe life only begins once a foetus is viable outside the womb, then your view has to move as advances in medical science lower the age at which a foetus is viable outside the womb. So on this basis, you could abort a foetus at a particular stage as 'not fully human', yet 20 years later, a foetus at the same stage and in the same condition would be viable and therefore human.

Click to expand...

That is not my view. I don't deal in speculation, I deal in fact. I know that a single cell fertilised egg is not a person; I know a foetus close to birth is. Ergo, somewhere between these points the foetus changed from not a person to a person. I don't know exactly where that is, but it would have to at least have some sort of brain development. Therefore I would not condemn abortion when done early in the pregnancy.