Is Abortion Murder?

[Servant222]

Because Adam was fully-formed by God but needed Eve there before they could together have their sons, Cain and Abel.

Biology texts also define a human being as having 46, not 23, chromosomes.

 

[happyfreak14]

what about people with 47 chromosomes? don't they count?

if an adult has their head cut off aren't they still just as alive as the zygot? both are alive at the cellular level, neither has a functioning brain connected to their body. why does the zygote deserve consideration when the decapitatied adult does not?

 

[Servant222]

I dunno- I'm not a biologist.

 

[happyfreak14]

I'm not either, so why should I decide whether or not someone else gets an abortion? I hope I would never get an abortion, and I would probably try to discourage the people I know from getting one, were they to consider it, but I don't think I have the right to make that decision for everybody else.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

But how does God feel when abortions happen? even IF the babies are not yet alive...it's like..He wants to create a new person, and chooses a mother to give birth to them...that's a priveledge...but the mother doesn't want to, and kills it. I don't have the right to make the decision for everyone else either, but I can't agree that it's ever right. I'm not judging the women, I've never been in a situation like that; and if they repent God will forgive them. But I'm still against the practice. It's something that the devil would think of...trying to prevent God from creating and corrupting what He has made. I believe these babies have souls and go right to heaven, but it's still sad.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

what about people with 47 chromosomes? don't they count?

if an adult has their head cut off aren't they still just as alive as the zygot? both are alive at the cellular level, neither has a functioning brain connected to their body. why does the zygote deserve consideration when the decapitatied adult does not?

Apparently, even those with 46 don't count unless the mom wills it.

 

[Servant222]

I'm not either, so why should I decide whether or not someone else gets an abortion? I hope I would never get an abortion, and I would probably try to discourage the people I know from getting one, were they to consider it, but I don't think I have the right to make that decision for everybody else.

No more or less so than trying to stop a person from murdering someone else.

 

[happyfreak14]

and we jump back to the beginning. never mind.

 

[April Angel]

what about people with 47 chromosomes? don't they count?

if an adult has their head cut off aren't they still just as alive as the zygot? both are alive at the cellular level, neither has a functioning brain connected to their body. why does the zygote deserve consideration when the decapitatied adult does not?

That's an interesting question.....

I think that the answer lies in the fact that there is no hope for the decapitated body. Those cells which make up a decapitated body are destined to die and fairly quickly.

A zygote on the other hand has the potential to become a human being. Not only that but it is constantly generating itself towards a point where it will take on the form of a human embryo. A zygote is in the process of generating life. A decapitated body is in the process of death and decomposing.

At the point where the zygote becomes an embryo and the brain begins to form, a new human being exists with a beating heart.

Your analogy, therefore, does not justify abortion since most abortions are carried out after six weeks gestation when the embryo already has a brain and a functioning heart.

[Note: Marie Stopes refuse to do abortions before six weeks gestation because they "cannot see whether it has been effective on the ultrasound scan". ]

 

[happyfreak14]

That's an interesting question.....

I think that the answer lies in the fact that there is no hope for the decapitated body. Those cells which make up a decapitated body are destined to die and fairly quickly.

A zygote on the other hand has the potential to become a human being. Not only that but it is constantly generating itself towards a point where it will take on the form of a human embryo. A zygote is in the process of generating life. A decapitated body is in the process of death and decomposing.

At the point where the zygote becomes an embryo and the brain begins to form, a new human being exists with a beating heart.

Your analogy, therefore, does not justify abortion since most abortions are carried out after six weeks gestation when the embryo already has a brain and a functioning heart.

[Note: Marie Stopes refuse to do abortions before six weeks gestation because they "cannot see whether it has been effective on the ultrasound scan". ]

1st...
for actually presenting a point in answer to the question.

so the zygot has greater value because it has potential, whereas the decapitated adult isn't going anywhere? okay, I agree, but I don't think it's a person yet.

my analogy was less to justify abortion in itself than to explain why considering it to be a person from the moment of conception doesn't make sense to me.

and at six weeks, an embryo does not have a functional brain, though the brain is beginning to be present.

and refusing to do early abortion because they're not sure it worked is ridiculous. if you're going to do an abortion do it as early as possible, don't wait for it to develop.

 

[Servant222]

Before ultrasound, we had no way of knowing that a foetus really was a human being.

But it was not until Lennard Nilsson published his wonderful photographs of the development of a baby that we came face to face with the fact that this was a human being, no less valuable than at any other time in its life.

As technology got better and better, we could establish earlier and earlier that a foetus was in fact a human being.

But it was not until we learned about human genetics that we realized that a foetus is a fully-formed human being at the moment of conception.

So know we really are without excuse and those who still believe that a foetus is something other than a fully-formed human being need to take heed of what is said in Matthew 13:

14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.' 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

 

[Fantine]

Servant 222 said: But it was not until we learned about human genetics that we realized that a foetus is a fully-formed human being at the moment of conception.

This is, I am sure, accurate from your religious viewpoint.

A fertilized egg, in a few undifferentiated cells, contains the same DNA and chromosomes as the baby who would be born 9 months later, if there is successful implantation and no miscarriage or abortion.

I think that that is different from saying that it's a "fully-formed human being." It is a group of undifferentiated cells which, under the right circumstances, will grow into a fully-formed human being.

And that is the problem, really, because people of good faith honestly disagree about when human life begins...

You may think it's helpful to call a few undifferentiated cells "a fully formed human being," but to those who disagree with you, it seems as unscientific as "intelligent design," (at least the 7 day version of intelligent design, otherwise known as creationism by a different name.)

A secular humanist probably would tell you:

See that little baby in the inner city with a teen mom, no dad, living in a crumbling building with lead paint on the walls, destined to go to a substandard school? THAT baby is a fully-formed Harvard graduate--given the right circumstances and environment....

And, like the rich young man in the Bible, the typical pro-lifer will shake his head and walk slowly away...ignoring the truth of what he's heard.

 

[April Angel]

This is, I am sure, accurate from your religious viewpoint.

A fertilized egg, in a few undifferentiated cells, contains the same DNA and chromosomes as the baby who would be born 9 months later, if there is successful implantation and no miscarriage or abortion.

I think that that is different from saying that it's a "fully-formed human being." It is a group of undifferentiated cells which, under the right circumstances, will grow into a fully-formed human being.

And that is the problem, really, because people of good faith honestly disagree about when human life begins...

You may think it's helpful to call a few undifferentiated cells "a fully formed human being," but to those who disagree with you, it seems as unscientific as "intelligent design," (at least the 7 day version of intelligent design, otherwise known as creationism by a different name.)

A secular humanist probably would tell you:

See that little baby in the inner city with a teen mom, no dad, living in a crumbling building with lead paint on the walls, destined to go to a substandard school? THAT baby is a fully-formed Harvard graduate--given the right circumstances and environment....

And, like the rich young man in the Bible, the typical pro-lifer will shake his head and walk slowly away...ignoring the truth of what he's heard.

This is an amazing post and very profound.

It has helped me to understand more about the rights versus no rights of the manufactured-embryos-sitting-in-petri-dishes, debate. Up until now, I have been told by religious people that these fertilized eggs have human rights and should be 'saved' at all costs.

Having said that, those fertilized eggs in petri dishes are not the same as naturally occurring fertilized eggs inside someone's body. The question still remains: Do we have a right to interfere with creation? If so, at what stage should we respect the new human life?

These are not easy questions to answer and so, personally, I tend to steer clear of producing any fertilized eggs in the first place. If I did get pregnant, I would be tempted to have a very early abortion i.e. at around 2 weeks gestation (and for good reason - I have a medical condition which is not compatible with pregnancy) but I am not sure that I would go through with it. This is because I am a God-fearing woman and I do not think that I have the right to interfere with the process of creation.

 

[Sojourner<><]

No matter what an embryo is, an abortion is the destruction of a potential human being. I don't see how that fact can be avoided.

 

[April Angel]

No matter what an embryo is, an abortion is the destruction of a potential human being. I don't see how that fact can be avoided.

If the mother's life is at risk (as mine would most definitely be if I were to get pregnant) then it could be argued that the life of the mother should take priority over the life of a potential human being. The problem arises when some (religious) people hold the life of the embryo/zygote as equal to that of the mother.

 

[Sojourner<><]

If the mother's life is at risk (as mine would most definitely be if I were to get pregnant) then it could be argued that the life of the mother should take priority over the life of a potential human being.

Understood.

The problem arises when some (religious) people hold the life of the embryo/zygote as equal to that of the mother.

How exactly is a potential human life less valuable than one that already exists?

 

[April Angel]

Understood.
How exactly is a potential human life less valuable than one that already exists?

I will use an analogy to explain what I mean:

Let's say that my pet dog who is middle-aged with breathing problems and a weak heart got pregnant. Let's say that we knew about this early on because we caught her doing the deed with next door's dog. So we take her to the vet who confirms via a pregnancy test that she is in the very early stages of pregnancy. We work out from the dates that the fertilized eggs have only just implanted and nothing has formed yet. The vet offers to give the dog a hysterectomy on the grounds that a pregnancy might kill her. She has a 65% chance of making it through the pregnancy but the birth is likely to kill her. The vet offers us two choices:
1. A hysterectomy now
2. A caesarean before the potential puppies are due.

What should we do? Are the potential puppies who have not been formed yet more important than the adult female dog? It is a difficult question. What would the female dog choose? Who knows?

This is why I firmly believe that in cases where the mother's life would seriously be at risk and she might die from a pregnancy (such as in the case of diabetics), the choice should be the mother's to make.

Having said that, I also believe that the choice should be made early on in the pregnancy so that the actual killing of a fully formed human being does not take place.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

April, it is difficult for me to imagine what I would do in that situation, and I'm pretty pro-life..but I understand your view. In either case someone dies...how do we choose, who. Indeed that is a difficult decision.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I will use an analogy to explain what I mean:

Let's say that my pet dog who is middle-aged with breathing problems and a weak heart got pregnant. Let's say that we knew about this early on because we caught her doing the deed with next door's dog. So we take her to the vet who confirms via a pregnancy test that she is in the very early stages of pregnancy. We work out from the dates that the fertilized eggs have only just implanted and nothing has formed yet. The vet offers to give the dog a hysterectomy on the grounds that a pregnancy might kill her. She has a 65% chance of making it through the pregnancy but the birth is likely to kill her. The vet offers us two choices:
1. A hysterectomy now
2. A caesarean before the potential puppies are due.

What should we do? Are the potential puppies who have not been formed yet more important than the adult female dog? It is a difficult question. What would the female dog choose? Who knows?

This is why I firmly believe that in cases where the mother's life would seriously be at risk and she might die from a pregnancy (such as in the case of diabetics), the choice should be the mother's to make.

Having said that, I also believe that the choice should be made early on in the pregnancy so that the actual killing of a fully formed human being does not take place.

I understand that there can be extenuating circumstances where very difficult choices must be made, but how do you arrive at the belief that a potential human life is less valuable than any other human life? How do you reason it out?

 

[happyfreak14]

a sperm is a potential zygote, therefore sperm = zygote

a zygote is a potential baby, therefore sperm = zygote = baby

a baby is a potential nobel prize winning genius, therefore sperm = zygote = baby = nobel prize winner

sperm = nobel prize winner?

if you could pay $100 for something that had the potential to be worth $100 would it be a wise investment, giving up an existing $100 for a chance at getting the same amount back? a potential $100 is not the same as an existing $100.

(hope that made sense. sorry if it didn't)