Reasons why abortion is unchristian.

[Gallego]

I have no idea what you're taling about either, so I guess that makes us even.

I have no idea why you said this, so 2-1.

And we can continue ad infinitum.

 

[TommyS]

Gallego,

May God's peace be in your soul. Yes, your soul. I humbly ask you to please rephrase what you have said here:

"You ask at what time does the fetus changes to a human. Well, you have part of the reason, because it is an arbitrary limit in some extent.
It is like the limit to vote.
Are both totally arbitrary? No, not totally.
One is supposed to have gone to school to have mind "minimum" informed.
And for the second one it is supposed to have the brain "minimum" formed to be a human."

I'm sorry, but I don't exactly understand what you have said or meant here.

But as for your analogy with the oak seed: I agree, to a degree with what you said. Considering that the seed has not been planted yet. I see the seed as the egg of a woman, and the ground as the sperm of the man. If the seed has started it's process of creation, then life has started. Therefore, if a seed is planted in the ground, then the next day someone rips it back out, I would consider that destroying life: for the beginning of that seed's/tree's life has already started. Same goes for a woman's "seed". As soon as the sperm has penetrated the wall, and conception has taken place, life begins.

I must ask you: What constitutes something as living? I would say growth. Once conception takes place, growth/life takes place. If something grows, it lives, and thus is a life. So when one destroys that growing thing, one destroys life. But please know, I do not consider a fetus a thing. I only use that word for my general argument.

I pray this makes sense. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[Gallego]

"You ask at what time does the fetus changes to a human. Well, you have part of the reason, because it is an arbitrary limit in some extent.
It is like the limit to vote.
Are both totally arbitrary? No, not totally.
One is supposed to have gone to school to have mind "minimum" informed.
And for the second one it is supposed to have the brain "minimum" formed to be a human."

Hi TommyS,

English is not my first language, so sometimes my thoughts are not properly written. I will try again.
In that sentences I was trying to explain that in several aspects of our lives we establish limits to define.

Here one person is adult when he gets 18 years old.
Below that age, he cannot vote and he is not considered totally legally responsible (there is some resposability for his parents). Any important official paper will have no validity without the sign of his parents. 1 day before 18, he is not adult.
But, 1 day after 18 years, he has completely all the rights, and he is an adult.
Why is this limit there, and why is so sharp? In one day one person changes from a zone to the other.
In some extent, this border line is arbitrary, because it has no sense that today you are not adult and tomorrow yes.
But 18 years is supposed to be the age at which your personality is (more or less) developed, one must have gone to school.

The same with fetus.When is it supposed to be a transition between fetus and human? Scientists say that around 3 months, when mind is formed. It is an partially arbitrary border, with some meaning. Just like before.
If we argue that life cannot be destroyed, we cannot kill even a cell: skin cells, hair cells, etc. So we must define where human life is.


The example with the oak seed:
the seed has been formed joining male and female characters, because of polinisation of the flowers. But normally we don't say that it is a tree until it is planted.

The joining of a male sperm and the ovulus is like the polinisation, but it needs to be planted (in the correct uterus place) and feeded.


Of course we are talking always with analogies. Not necessarely everything must be copied from nature.
A fetus with 8 months is so human that you can take it from the mother and he will probably live. But a fetus with 1 week, no way. And this fetus doesn't look like human. He looks like a group of cells.

The problem is not where life is (because we are always killing cells without problem): the question is where human life begins.


I really understand both sides, the reasons that both sides give, and it is a very controversial thing.
There are also some other factors that must be considered to have the whole picture.
We need all data to get the right conclusions, as in any other problem.

Until now, we have always talked about a normal fetus.
But everybody that there some significant cases.
Mother or fetus will die -> it is the case where one has to choose between 2 lifes.
Artificials fetus still not implanted -> like the seeds?

So, and that is the point, people who is pro-choice is not a murderer, because they think that a fetus is not a human being.

 

[knuckle50]

We would immediately realize that human life is sacred regardless to the stage of development.

ah, i see what you mean. i agree. but what about women who let their periods go by without getting pregnant. each of those eggs could become a life!! we should make laws against letting a single period pass to prevent the loss of a single potential human life. also, men shouldnt be allowed to wear condoms. thats just preventing more life from occurring!!! lets face it: MEN WHO WEAR CONDOMS KILL BABIES. actually, a woman is born with far more eggs than she will ever be able to use. so why dont we extract all the excess ones and combine them with sperm and grow them in farms. that way we'll never have to endure the loss of a single precious POTENTIAL human life.
lets face the truth guys. if its not BORN, its not ALIVE. just because something has potential doesnt mean its a life. i personally dont believe in god but i think logical, intelligent christians will feel the same way i do.

now here it comes, the dreaded tree comparison. there are those of you who will say you cant compare a tree to human life, well i say im just presenting similar scenarios, im not saying a tree is just as important as a human life (although its probably more helpful and productive to the planet ). how about a pinecone. a pinecone lying on the ground. is it alive? doesnt look it. of couse not. it has potential but it isnt a living thing. when its still on the tree, yes its living, but its not an independent entity quite yet. its just an appendage to the tree, part of its structure, part of its being. just like your fingernails on you. do people protest the clipping of fingernails? as far as i know, they dont. i know people are going to be mad at my comparison of pinecones and fingernail clippings to humans. but they are accurate comparisons, although human life is worth much much more.

 

[JCBeliever]

Peace knuckle50,

Sex cells alone aren't people. They are cells our bodies produce.
When they meet to form a zygote, now that new cell is something different.
That is not a sex cell but a unique fusion of two unrelated cells.
It immediately becomes something very special. Will you agree to this?
That zygote has all the info to become one full and unique human being.
A sex cell alone doesn't have the potential to become a full human being, that is the big difference.

 

[Gallego]

Peace knuckle50,

Sex cells alone aren't people. They are cells our bodies produce.
When they meet to form a zygote, now that new cell is something different.
That is not a sex cell but a unique fusion of two unrelated cells.
It immediately becomes something very special. Will you agree to this?
That zygote has all the info to become one full and unique human being.
A sex cell alone doesn't have the potential to become a full human being, that is the big difference.

and a seed has the potential to be a tree, but it is not a tree.

It is difficult to legislate juste beacuse there are things that anyone could do.

And regarding the union of sex cells, catholics (at least the Pope) condems the use of preservatives.

 

[knuckle50]

i agree with a lot of what youre saying, but...

A sex cell alone doesn't have the potential to become a full human being, that is the big difference.

but then again, does a zygote have the potential to become a human being on its own? no.

if you cut it off from the mother's body, can it survive as its own individual entity? no. its a part of the mothers body. it has mere potential to become a human being. just as the egg needs the male gamete, the zygote needs the mothers body. the obvious rebuttal to this argument is: can a baby survive on its own? and the obvious answer is no. and yes. a baby can at least breathe and live, if not for a long period on its own. a baby is not dependant on the mother's physical body (a baby doesnt NEED breast milk), and is not inside. this is the clear and obvious difference. i believe that when the baby reaches a developmental stage where it can survive and breathe without the umbilical cord, the option to abort the fetus should no longer be allowed. it is still not ALIVE, however it is so close to being alive that it is almost a baby.

 

[knuckle50]

i also forgot to mention, i believe jesus gave people freedom of choice. if jesus approves of giving it to people and letting them decide their own faitth, how can you honestly try to take it away from them?

 

[SolomonVII]

i also forgot to mention, i believe jesus gave people freedom of choice. if jesus approves of giving it to people and letting them decide their own faitth, how can you honestly try to take it away from them?

Freedom of choice is the necessary prerequisite of morality. Freedom of choice also means having the freedom to make immoral choices.
Our freedom does not negate the existence of ethical behavior and morality.
Paul speaks of us being given freedom from the Law, but also speaks of the wrong thinking that would have us believe that such freedom should be wasted on a life of sin.

 

[Gallego]

Freedom of choice is the necessary prerequisite of morality. Freedom of choice also means having the freedom to make immoral choices.
Our freedom does not negate the existence of ethical behavior and morality.

yes, completely true.

It has no sense introducing the argument of freedom of choice in the debate, is is presumed.

"freedom = good" is a wrong equation, as you say.

Wrong from a legalistic view and wrong from a moral view.

 

[SolomonVII]

For most of the world, the legal question has already been answered. Whether or not it is ethical behavior, abortion is by and large a legal procedure since the 1970's.
So far, even in the United States, which has one of the more powerful anti-abortion lobbies in the western world, it does not seem likely that there exists a large enough constituency to reverse the trend of legality.

The argument then would not be so much be one of whether it is should be legal, but if abortion is mere medical procedure to remove unwanted tissue. The objective facet of morality would focus on when does a human become human, and when do we begin to consider a human life to recieve an inherent value.

Primarily though, morality as we experience it is not so much a matter of our objective knowledge, but expresses itself intuitively in our lives. Something is right or wrong not so much because of our intellect brings us to this understanding, but because our hearts tell us that this is so.

From observing expectant parents, it soon becomes very apparent that for even those that support legal abortion, there is a real life independant human life developing in the womb that from the very beginning is loved and nurtured. The human experience of pregnancy is not about eggs and sperm and embryonic tissue, but it is an experience of a real human life.

Such an experience is not a restrictively Christian one, but has all the appearances as being as universal as laughter.

Based on this experience alone, and apart from the philosophical, it can be assumed that the norm would be a deep experience of guilt and regret on behalf of the would-be mother in particular when a pregancy becomes terminated. Just as a miscarriage is grieved, so too would it be very difficult for a woman to remain indifferent to the loss of a child through abortion.

The argument of course is that such guilt is only as a result of the condemnations of Christians in society. It is more reasonable to acknowledge, however, that there would be an evolutionary value for such behavior over and above any Christian teaching or religious reaction. To express this in Christian terms, the law has been inscribed into the very hearts of all of us, so we are all without excuse.

As a final point, in its best expressions, Christian teaching is not about condemnation, but about forgiveness. We have all fallen short, and to the extent that we forgive one another is to the same extent that we shall be forgiven. Conversely to the extent that we bind the other to their shortfalls, is the extent that we remain bound to our own.

 

[Gallego]

The objective facet of morality would focus on when does a human become human, and when do we begin to consider a human life to recieve an inherent value.

Yes, that is the crucial point.

Yo have talked about feelings from parents when life begins.

Does parents feel the same if a fetus (loved and wanted) dies at 1 month or at 8 months?

 

[Alessandra]

You and I were once fetuses, we we not human beings? A human is a human regardless of stage of development. As a fetuses we had our own brains, heart, organs, DNA, etc.

We were fetuses - not human beings. A fetus has the POTENTIAL to be human, but is not a human being.

 

[Alessandra]

Don’t abort me because – It’s legal.

If something is Legal, we have the right to do it.

Don’t abort me because - I'm a mistake.

Tell that to the poor low income woman with insufficent housing and money for a child who religiously takes her birth control pill she struggles to afford and got pregnant.

Don’t abort me because - My father raped you.

Tell that to the emotionally ditressed woman who feels she can not carry her rapists child in her body and knows it will prolong her suffering,

Don’t abort me because - I have genetic defects.

Tell that to the married couple who already have 3 children who they both work to support and if they are forced to continue their pregnancy, one would have to leave their job and they would struggle to feed, clothe and house their existing children as well as pay great expenses for the disabled childs medical care.

Don’t abort me because - Your too young to have me.

Tell that to the parents of a raped 10 year old girl who physically can not carry and birth a child safely.

Don’t abort me because - I will just be adopted.

A woman can not be forced to carry a baby inside of her for 9 months only to hand it over. The choice to carry that baby rests with that woman. It is HER body and NOT yours.

Don’t abort me because - I'm inconvenient.

Tell that to the working woman who has to work two jobs to support her mother who is too ill to look after herself and needs to have a carer to look after her while this woman goes to work to help buy her food and pay rent.

Don’t abort me because - You can.

Don't tell another human being what to do with their body. Do I order you to dye your hair pink? No? Then don't order a woman to carry a pregnancy.

Don’t abort me because - I want to live.

Try a logical arguement for once as opposed to blatent Pro-Li...I mean...Anti Choice Propaganda.

 

[JCBeliever]

Peace Alessandra,


Is a baby as much a human being as an old man?
A baby is MUCH closer to a fetus.
Just because we are placental mammals and some of our development occurs within a womb doesn't make those stages any less human than stages out of the womb. Take a lesson in Bilology.

If something is Legal, we have the right to do it.

Do you follow God or Man first? Christians follow the Law of God before the Law of Man.

Tell that to the poor low income woman with insufficent housing and money for a child who religiously takes her birth control pill she struggles to afford and got pregnant.

Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.

Tell that to the emotionally ditressed woman who feels she can not carry her rapists child in her body and knows it will prolong her suffering,

Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.

Tell that to the married couple who already have 3 children who they both work to support and if they are forced to continue their pregnancy, one would have to leave their job and they would struggle to feed, clothe and house their existing children as well as pay great expenses for the disabled childs medical care.

Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.

Tell that to the parents of a raped 10 year old girl who physically can not carry and birth a child safely.

Then it miscarries, it dies naturally not at the hands of doctors w/ scissors.

A woman can not be forced to carry a baby inside of her for 9 months only to hand it over. The choice to carry that baby rests with that woman. It is HER body and NOT yours.

It's not the woman or the child's fault we're placental mammals and the next generation developes in the woman. That is only how our species is hardwired. The process of developemnt of a human being must be protected. People come from somewhere amnd it happens to be in a womb in the woman rather than a big egg or pouch. That next generation of humans have the unalienable right to live and there is no right that surpasses that most unalienable right.

Tell that to the working woman who has to work two jobs to support her mother who is too ill to look after herself and needs to have a carer to look after her while this woman goes to work to help buy her food and pay rent.

Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.

Don't tell another human being what to do with their body. Do I order you to dye your hair pink? No? Then don't order a woman to carry a pregnancy.

And if it involves another human's life? Does that change things?

Try a logical arguement for once as opposed to blatent Pro-Li...I mean...Anti Choice Propaganda.

I stepped in and gave you some logical arguments.
Remember: fetus...baby, baby.....................................old man (Still HUMAN, just different stage of developement)

Don't get the idea that since some of our time of development occurs in a womb that such would make those stages any less human than stages out of the womb. Any Biologist can tell you that. That's what I'm majoring in.

 

[Alessandra]

Peace Alessandra,



Is a baby as much a human being as an old man?
A baby is MUCH closer to a fetus.
Just because we are placental mammals and some of our development occurs within a womb doesn't make those stages any less human than stages out of the womb. Take a lesson in Bilology.



Do you follow God or Man first? Christians follow the Law of God before the Law of Man.



Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.


Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.


Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.



Then it miscarries, it dies naturally not at the hands of doctors w/ scissors.



It's not the woman or the child's fault we're placental mammals and the next generation developes in the woman. That is only how our species is hardwired. The process of developemnt of a human being must be protected. People come from somewhere amnd it happens to be in a womb in the woman rather than a big egg or pouch. That next generation of humans have the unalienable right to live and there is no right that surpasses that most unalienable right.



Not an excuse to cause destruction of another human's life.



And if it involves another human's life? Does that change things?



I stepped in and gave you some logical arguments.
Remember: fetus...baby, baby.....................................old man (Still HUMAN, just different stage of developement)

Don't get the idea that since some of our time of development occurs in a womb that such would make those stages any less human than stages out of the womb. Any Biologist can tell you that. That's what I'm majoring in.

A fetus is not a human - it is a lifeform that has the potential to be a human. Secondly, what you think is a good enough reason for abortion and what someone else thinks is a valid reason for abortion are two seperate things. No woman should have to carry a pregnacy she is not ready to have and no parents should be forced to raise handicapped children whose living expensese they can not afford. Do you propose the family starves?

 

[Gallego]

Don't get the idea that since some of our time of development occurs in a womb that such would make those stages any less human than stages out of the womb. Any Biologist can tell you that.

That is not true.

There are biologists from both sides of the "problem"

 

[TommyS]

Gallego,

Peace be with you.

Hi TommyS,

English is not my first language, so sometimes my thoughts are not properly written. I will try again.

That's ok. Sometimes it may not be how you write your thoughts, but my level of understanding.

In that sentences I was trying to explain that in several aspects of our lives we establish limits to define.

Here one person is adult when he gets 18 years old.
Below that age, he cannot vote and he is not considered totally legally responsible (there is some resposability for his parents). Any important official paper will have no validity without the sign of his parents. 1 day before 18, he is not adult.
But, 1 day after 18 years, he has completely all the rights, and he is an adult.
Why is this limit there, and why is so sharp? In one day one person changes from a zone to the other.
In some extent, this border line is arbitrary, because it has no sense that today you are not adult and tomorrow yes.
But 18 years is supposed to be the age at which your personality is (more or less) developed, one must have gone to school.

Again, it seems that you are trying to use legality to support morality. That being said, the government does not determine that a person is not human until he turns 18 years old. But this is what IS being said by many (and the government for that matter) when one decides at what point a "fetus" becomes a human. It's not like someone who has just turned 18 has just become a new species. He is as much as a human being as he was the day before. And one who has just been conceived is just as much a human as the 18 year old.

A fetus with 8 months is so human that you can take it from the mother and he will probably live. But a fetus with 1 week, no way. And this fetus doesn't look like human. He looks like a group of cells.

Huh, that's pretty wierd you called the 1 week fetus a he. If something is growing, it is alive. Thus, it has a life. Destroying it, therefore, is killing a life. A human life.

Until now, we have always talked about a normal fetus.
But everybody that there some significant cases.
Mother or fetus will die -> it is the case where one has to choose between 2 lifes.

Again, you have attributed life to a fetus (choose between 2 lives). Coincidence? Or truth?

Artificials fetus still not implanted -> like the seeds?

Sadly, scientists have been able to disconnect the procreative and unitive purposes of sex. Life can now be created without intercourse. But this does not make the "fetus" any less a life.

So, and that is the point, people who is pro-choice is not a murderer, because they think that a fetus is not a human being.

Then is Hitler a murderer? Or how about the KKK? They never believed that there victims were truly human. Are they not murderers? Are they not killers?

Life begins at conception, the very beginning of growth. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[TommyS]

Yes, that is the crucial point.

Yo have talked about feelings from parents when life begins.

Does parents feel the same if a fetus (loved and wanted) dies at 1 month or at 8 months?

Peace. Yes and no. Yes, because they feel grief and sorrow for the child who dies at any stage in the mother's womb, for they know it is just as much a human and their child at any age (from conception to natural death). No, because parents and the child have not bonded as much in 1 month as they could have in 8 months. Just as a couple would grieve more if their child died at 18 years old than at 8 years old. They have bonded more. Not because they think their son or daughter is not as human as he/she would be 7 months later. God bless.

-Tommy

 

[JCBeliever]

A fetus is not a human - it is a lifeform that has the potential to be a human.

Why? Please give me reasons why fetuses aren't humans.
I gave you scientific and logical evidence. I explained in depth to you why fetuses are humans.

Secondly, what you think is a good enough reason for abortion and what someone else thinks is a valid reason for abortion are two seperate things. No woman should have to carry a pregnacy she is not ready to have and no parents should be forced to raise handicapped children whose living expensese they can not afford. Do you propose the family starves?

If a really premature girl is impregnated, if that is even possible, then that child will miscarry and it's a tragic accident.

Bring the child to term and give it up for adoption. We are placental mammals and we cannot help that the next generation developes in the woman. That's how we are. A woman doesn't have control over what makes us human. You would have to accept the fetus is a human. You can decieve yourself into thinking the fetus isn't human with baseless nonsense.