- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I will take that as a yes that at conception we have a human being. I am glad you do not ignore scientific fact.
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, being it arrives due to a human sex act, it certainly isn't a platypus.
Oh, I got that point. You failed to realize that there are those who hope to criminalize spontaneous abortion in the name of being anti-abortion.
And if there was respect for life you'd realize my womb is none of your business.
She gave scientific fact. Try addressing the scientific facts.
My organs are in this body and I control how they're treated.You have rights. Your organs do not in themselves. The purpose of the uterus is to propagate life not dispose of it.
It is a matter of responsibility. The womb is indifferent to its purpose. The health of the woman is relational to the function of the uterus.You should at least see the ending of a human being in the womb is not the intended purpose.
If human beingness were the qualifier for life we'd have a very different world. Because life wouldn't be taken or suffer due to the respect in the utmost that would be accorded the living.I will take that as a yes that at conception we have a human being. I am glad you do not ignore scientific fact.
Of course not. A miscarriage is involuntary and unintended. Abortion is a premeditated action. There is intent.
Why do people continue this fallacious line of rationalizing?
Don Marquis has the best argument for why abortion is immoral. He says that if you believe it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being then you should also believe it is wrong to abort a human fetus. It goes like this:
First premises:
This moral principle is also true in cases of abortion:
- One reason it is wrong to kill a normal adult human being (NAHB) because killing them harms them.
- Killing a NAHB harms them because it deprives them of a valuable, human future (VHF).
- Therefore, killing a NAHB is wrong because it deprives them of a VHF. (Among other reasons).
It's about a successful a philosophical argument as I've seen (I hold a degree in philosophy, I've seen a few arguments). Some people try to challenge it in the following ways but I think all of these are unsuccessful:
- Killing a fetus deprives it of a VHF.
- Therefore killing a fetus is wrong for the same reason that killing a NAHB is wrong.
- Therefore abortion is immoral.
"According to Marquis' principle birth control, masturbation, and menstruation would also be immoral because human sperm and eggs have a VHF just like a fetus does."
This objection fails for scientific reasons. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, genetically speaking the sperm and egg cease to exist and a brand new human zygote is formed. The zygote is genetically unique from both the sperm and the egg. There is great reason to consider a zygote a potential human being whereas there is very little reason to consider an independent sperm or egg a potential human being. Therefore, the zygote has a VHF in a way that a sperm or egg alone does not.
Furthermore it is possible to assign harm in cases of abortion whereas it is not possible to assign harm in cases of contraception. In cases of abortion a fetus or zygote is harmed because it is deprived of future, human experiences. But what is harmed in cases of contraception? It cannot be a singular sperm because there's no reason to assign harm to a sperm and not an ovum. It cannot be assigned to a singular ovum because there is no reason to assign harm to an ovum and not a sperm. It cannot be assigned to a sperm and ovum together because the possibilities during conception are so large that we can never know which sperm will fertilize which ovum. There is no actual agent to assign harm to that is not arbitrary in cases of contraception.
"According to this argument God would be the greatest mass murdered of all time. A good amount of fertilized eggs don't make it to full gestation. Many are naturally aborted by the body even before the woman knows she is pregnant."
This objection is something of a red herring. Whether or not God chooses to end a human life is not relevant to the discussion. It may be that God has rights over life that human beings do not. The question at hand is whether or not human beings have the right to abort a fetus. This objection is a smoke screen that fails to really deal with the argument.
"Marquis' argument doesn't explain why it's wrong to kill old people. Killing an old man deprives him of relatively little VHF. Yet we still feel that it is very wrong to kill him."
Killing a NAHB may be wrong for multiple reasons. It may be wrong to kill an old man for other reasons than depriving him of a VHF. This does no damage to the original principle. Taking away a VHF is still a great harm and great wrong whether it's suffered by a NAHB or by a fetus. The harm is the same.
Those are the best objections I'm aware of. Perhaps you can find others. Anyway... did Marquis have the last word?
I agree it would be scary to enter into a state where you are no longer considered a person with a right to live and could legally be killed if someone wanted to kill you for any reason . I would be very much against that concept and i think so would the vast majority of people .In fact living in a society where it is ok to be killed in a temporary coma would be a terribly frightening concept to anyone.
I believe the US Constitution says something about all humans having the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happinessThat's the meaning of freedom and Constitutional protection of the viable citizen adult. The 1st amendment, the 3rd, the 4th,the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment.
Indeed it does. And the right of liberty applies to women and their choice regarding reproduction.I believe the US Constitution says something about all humans having the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness
What's your opinion of the death penalty?I agree it would be scary to enter into a state where you are no longer considered a person with a right to live and could legally be killed if someone wanted to kill you for any reason . I would be very much against that concept and i think so would the vast majority of people .
are you one of those people who use the term " reproductive right and justice " when referring to abortion . Is that a popular thing for people who are pro-choice to do portray themselves as struggling for 'reproductive rights' ? Do you use this terminology and its it common ?Indeed it does. And the right of liberty applies to women and their choice regarding reproduction.
Oh yes, let's gloss over this one as quickly as we can!
The moronic clowns who suggest that women who opt to terminate a pregnancy should be brought up on murder charges, overlook quite a few significant problems in their bigoted zeal.
How would such a cruel law be enforced, for one!?
The 'good Christian' neighbour of a pregnant woman hears that the woman is no longer pregnant. She reports this to the authorities. The woman states that she has miscarried.
Where do we go from here? Is the woman to be forcibly examined to determine her actions? If the remains of her miscarriage have been disposed of, will she be charged with destroying evidence? If the woman has performed the abortion herself ( which will once again become very common if it is made illegal) what mechanisms will the authorities put in place to 'weed out' the guilty from the innocent? Perhaps we return to a time centuries ago, when old crones kept a watchful eye on the young women in their village?
Her FACTS are not in dispute, as I stated, by anyone in this discussion. But her statements about human BEINGS are an OPINION. One at which she arrives by begging the question. It is obvious that this woman has already decided what SHE considers to be a human being and then she arranges a host of scientific facts about fertilisation, implantation, etc as an attempt to lend weight to that OPINION.
Would it shock you greatly to know that there are other biological researchers who, in possession of the same facts as this woman, have an alternative view as to what constitutes a 'human being'?
My organs are in this body and I control how they're treated.
If I drink I put my liver at risk. If I smoke I put my lungs, trachea, mouth, and body overall at risk. If I have unprotected sex I put my entire self at risk. My organs only have the right to function at a state of health that is my responsibility in large part.
The last part of your observation about the uterus purpose is in error. The uterus expels life as we discussed.
It is a matter of responsibility. The womb is indifferent to its purpose. The health of the woman is relational to the function of the uterus.
Further, your observation fails to consider infertility.
If human beingness were the qualifier for life we'd have a very different world. Because life wouldn't be taken or suffer due to the respect in the utmost that would be accorded the living.
That isn't reality. It isn't even reality in your scriptures.
Note anything you like just don't attribute your misunderstanding to me. I never said that.Noted your opinion is you do not regard preborn life as human.
No, never said that either.Or worse you do but see it as subhuman to you. That is your subjective opinion based on convenience. Noted.
Would you understand that when you haven't understood what else I've said?Please explain what this has to do with infertility?
OK.That did not make sense.
I'm one of those people who believe my womb is not your business and vice versa. I believe that it is a personal right to decide what one carries inside themselves and what they do not. And I believe when people argue women have no right to decide their reproductive rights for themselves while those same people argue they are pro-life, just not pro-quality of life that respects personal sovereignty of other people, that they've lost the argument entirely.are you one of those people who use the term " reproductive right and justice " when referring to abortion . Is that a popular thing for people who are pro-choice to do portray themselves as struggling for 'reproductive rights' ? Do you use this terminology and its it common ?
As am I.I am against the death penalty .
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?