- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,439
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well said. The choice has to remain with the pregnant woman.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well said. The choice has to remain with the pregnant woman.More or less, I believe it's a woman's choice she decides with the help of her doctor and her religious beliefs.
The “how” in which a new human being comes into existence has no bearing upon the moral worth and value of that human being.Well said. The choice has to remain with the pregnant woman.
However dashes any concept of what we call justice. An aborted human being who was developing in the womb is terminated (killed) without legal representation, judge and jury. Even in the Law one could not be executed for murder without 2 or 3 witnesses.
Does the moral worth of a human being in the womb change accordingly with how they were conceived.Yeah that's why I usually stay out of abortion discussions. This is wisdom: I will never be beaten raped and impregnated because I'm a man, so I will never have to walk in the shoes of a woman that was. So I can't judge her for any actions she commits as a result of the abuse.
Now the interesting thing is that we live in a democratic society where the majority rules in voting into office those that make the laws. And I like our system. It's the most fair government. Do injustices happen as a result: sure. But we have less injustices than other countries with different forms of government.
So abortion is illegal in most of the US according to wikipedia. Some states support abortion in the case of different factors, one of which is incest. I would have to agree that in the case of incest the child should be allowed to be aborted. For the sake of the child that was raped. How do you feel about that?
Actually, thanks to advancements in science we DO know that a new human being is formed and created and begins its life at conception.
“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)
“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)
“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)
“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
An embryology textbook describes how birth is just an event in the development of a baby, not the beginning of his/her life:
“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
Every person has a right to self defense. If a wonan’s Life is at risk because of her pregnancy, she has the right to take all steps necessary to protect her life including terminating the pregnancy.The “how” in which a new human being comes into existence has no bearing upon the moral worth and value of that human being.
For a person to assert that it’s immoral to abort a child that was conceived by loving, married parents, but then say it’s morally acceptable to abort a child conceived by a forceful, reprehensible act cannot be justified.
It cannot be justified because the morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the unborn life inside the womb.
And last time I checked, we would not consider one adult as possessing more inherent moral worth and value over another adult based upon how they were originally conceived.
It’s certainly not “my” definition I provided. It’s overwhelming scientific fact at this point that a new human being is formed at fertilization, that’s a fact.If all that were true, than what about all of eggs which are fertilized but never implant on the uterus and are lost in the next menstruation cycle? Your definition suggests that abortions are natural, and frequent, and unstoppable in nature. I don't accept that as likely and doubt that a fertilized egg could be seen as a person in any legal or spiritual sense.
I’m personally more concerned with discussing what is morally right and wrong, which is not determined by the law.Every person has a right to self defense. If a wonan’s Life is at risk because of her pregnancy, she has the right to take all steps necessary to protect her life including terminating the pregnancy.
The Constitution bars indentured servitude. No woman who was a victim of rape should be forced to carry the spawn of her attacker against her will. That would be indentured servitude.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.I’m personally more concerned with discussing what is morally right and wrong, which is not determined by the law.
As a Christian, I filter my beliefs about morality through Scripture, not what the law permits. Otherwise, as abortion is legal, we wouldn’t be having this discussion because the law permits abortion for convenience sake, which I find morally wrong.
So for me, I see Scripture declaring that human beings are unique among God’s creation and possess inherent moral worth and value. We know human life begins at conception. Therefore, I see human beings as creatures created in the image of God, possessing inherent moral value from their earliest moments of life.
Does the moral worth of a human being in the womb change accordingly with how they were conceived.
The obvious problem with your question in relation to abortion is that the defenseless unborn human has no capacity to defend herself, and she has just as much a right to life as the mother carrying her.You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
I noticed that you didn’t bother answering the first portion of my post. Are you saying that people do not have an inherent right to defend themselves even if that means using deadly force?
Actually “it” has everything to do with the worth of the unborn human.It has nothing to do with the worth of the fetus.
Actually “it” has everything to do with the worth of the unborn human.
The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we determine the moral worth and value of the unborn.
And again, Biblically, we know that all humans are created in the image of God, and possess inherent moral worth and value.
The “how” in which a new human being comes into existence has 100% no impact upon whether an abortion is a moral or immoral action.
The fetus is now an aggressor slave holding species?Every person has a right to self defense. If a wonan’s Life is at risk because of her pregnancy, she has the right to take all steps necessary to protect her life including terminating the pregnancy.
The Constitution bars indentured servitude. No woman who was a victim of rape should be forced to carry the spawn of her attacker against her will. That would be indentured servitude.
Somehow for your argument to work you have to apply motive to the fetus for trying to kill and or enslave the pregnant woman.You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
I noticed that you didn’t bother answering the first portion of my post. Are you saying that people do not have an inherent right to defend themselves even if that means using deadly force?
Why are you strongly opposed to abortion outside of the situations you list above?In the case of rape, incest, death to the mother and damaged fetus it should be up to the woman to decide whether she wants to abort. But other than that I am strongly against abortion.
Therefore a six month old who can only koo poop in diapers and cry when hungry is less than a person to Rover the dog who can understand my commands and obey?It has nothing to do with the worth of the fetus. I could argue that animals can be trained and are therefore more conscious than a fetus or baby.
Therefore animals have more moral worth to you than even babies with not yet fully developed brains?Their brains are not yet developed enough to match the intellect of some grown animals. But we kill animals to eat. So I don't want to be so naive in my Christian beliefs that I am callous to the suffering of women.
The Scriptures do indeed address the taking of human life Exodus 20:13Besides the bible does not address abortion of rape and incest victims. Nor will it, since Revelation is a closed door. I guess it's up to each of us to decide morally where we stand on the issue. I'll keep seeking God's wisdom on the issue, but this is what I get so far.
At what stage of development in the brain does one become a “person.” And please define “person” as the current definition of person is one who is a human being. If we are not human beings before your arbitrary definition of personhood, then what are we genetically?based on how the brain develops in the embryo.
I think that is their point. They don’t see the human Life developing in the womb as a human being made in image and according to the likeness of God. It’s an invasive agressor species.The obvious problem with your question in relation to abortion is that the defenseless unborn human has no capacity to defend herself, and she has just as much a right to life as the mother carrying her.
Which you pointed out several times which goes ignored. But once again according to their view the fetus is an agressor non human species which invaded the womb becoming a burden on the woman.But in the extremely few and rare instances in which the life of the mother and the unborn are both in danger I think the doctor should view both the mother and the unborn as his patients and he should try and save both lives.
However, in cases in which the life of the mother is in danger and the unborn is under the age of viability, then unfortunately the doctor will only be able to save one. But if the unborn has developed to viability, both can probably be saved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?