life begins at conception. what kind of life? human.
are we taking away a woman's right to chose?maybe so, but the question is chose WHAT
let me ask you this. do we also have laws in society such as do not steal and do not kill? these laws take away our rights.ex. my right to shoot someone if i am angered, or to assault a stranger when they give me trouble etc. These rules are in place because it is ethically and morally wrong, just like abortion
@Doobrai15 Since when are stealing and killing human rights? They are "freedoms" with different consequences depending on the laws of your society. Abortions will happen, the choice is between safe & regulated or dangerous & unregulated.
The religious pro-life position can be countered with this simple logic:
Would God send aborted babies to hell? No ofcourse not, so they go to heaven, so guaranteed eternal bliss without ever risking eternal torture in hell.
@TherionNLDwith your logic "Since when are stealing and killing human rights? They are "freedoms"."
so then taking away abortion is not taking away a womens right, because abortion is killing. Therefore it must just be infringing on their "freedoms" just as telling a serial killer they cant murder their next victim.
@Doobrai15 The problem which this issue usually boils down to is "Is abortion murder?" like you just raised. Or "When does a fertilized egg become a human life?". You probably say "At conception". But obviously many people disagree with you on that, and even if it is a human life many people agree that in certain situations it's still morally justified to abort (like rape, incest, fetus' health issues, mother's health issues).
I don't agree that a microscopic clump of cells equals a human life-
@TherionNLD Well, you may not agree, but it is the truth. At the moment of conception the sperm is no longer a sperm, and the egg no longer an egg. Together they make a human life. Yes it is more dependent at the beginning and needs time to grow but i would say the same for a newborn.
Let me ask you this one question, when should abortions be cut off in your eyes? 12 weeks? 5 months? 9?
@Doobrai15 You're asking me to draw lines, I'd say abortion in 1st month should be the woman's choice regardless of the reason. Third trimester should be illegal except if there is high risk for the mother or if the fetus is going to be stillborn, those kinds of reasons would be justified. In between I don't know, but I do know it's not a black & white issue.
@TherionNLD I then ask you this, how is it not black and white? If the unborn child is not a human life like you claim, then abortion could be allowed all throughout the pregnancy. What makes you draw the line at 1 month? Is it because after that the baby grows bigger and looks more human? In that case your logic would then say that it is alright to kill people based on LOOKS,SIZE, AGE, and INTELLIGENCE. that could also suggest that you wld allow the killing of people with special needs..
@Doobrai15 I just explained how it's not black & white, there are situations where I think an abortion should be an option regardless of when you think an embryo should have equal rights as you & me.
But you mean why the definition of human life isn't black & white when it comes to the unborn, let me explain. It's not about looks, size, age or intelligence. It's more about level of development, consciousness, self-awareness. I'll give 2 examples to clarify (see next reply)...
A person has a motorcycle accident and suffers severe irreparable brain damage and is only kept alive via artificial life support. Next to this person lies someone who's recovering from a shoulder operation.
The building sets on fire and you can only save one of these 2 people. Who do you choose?
Example 2
You're in a burning building and have the chance to save one of two things:
@TherionNLD Here is what it boils down to, you just gave me an abstract situation that would never actually happen, b ut even if you did you would save as many as you could in the little time you had. The point we are trying to get to is does one human life have more value than another, or have rights that supercede another based on Potential for happiness, gender, age, stage of development, disabilities, etc. but what I postulate cannot be disproven as it is a first premise ie. every human ...
@Doobrai15 Now I know most analogy's usually fall short and you'll probably say the person from example 1 doesn't have a viable future unlike an embryo, though this objection doesn't count for example 2.
My point is that it's not about future potential, it's about what the life form CURRENTLY is. If it is about future potential then any and all unused sperm & eggs are losses that should be mourned, potential combinations that will never develop to become human life.
@TherionNLD (cont'd) life is intriniscly and equally valuable, from conception until natural death. we can hash out how much abortions damage women physically and mentally, the women who have been raped and chose to have their child, or children who survived abortions and are thankful everyday and speak out about i etc.... but what it comes down to is whether or not human beings are valuable for their own sake. just for being in existence.
@Doobrai15 If life starts at conception then God is the biggest mass murderer ever, since only 30 - 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester (according to wikipedia). Who's mourning or demonstrating to all that loss of human life? Nobody, because nobody cares because a fertilized egg does not equal a born human being.
@TherionNLD First, in order to support your conclusion you must show that God is causing these embryos to die. I would argue that it is part of nature and very unfortunate.
In addition you are wrong, I know couples who have miscarried and they definitely mourn that loss.
@rockstumin Isn't God the creator of nature? And I meant the fertilized eggs that don't attach to the uterus wall, those aren't mourned, even if you learned this after the fact, it's certainly not mourned as strongly as a late term misscarriage. Of course people mourn when they have a miscarriage after being pregnant for a long time, looking forward to having their baby soon. Another point that suggests a fertilized egg isn't considered equal to an almost full grown baby.
@TherionNLD Yes he is, but that is not enough for direct causation. At best you could infer an indirect causation. According to all major forms of theism hold that creation was good, but was tarnished with sin which was the fault of mankind. So again God is not the cause.
@YMTheology Didn't God decide the parameters of a "fallen creation" as opposed to the "perfect creation"? Or was it like random, or did someone else decide?
@TherionNLD No, God did not decide. At least not out of thin air (so to speak). God because of what He made creation to be, because of His character, and because of man's choice to reject what God had given proclaimed to man what had to be, by necessity of the things I previously listed.
@TherionNLD If you watch the debate I give clear evidence that strongly supports not only that a zygote is living, but that it has its own human genome sequence. That sounds like a living human being. Virtually every embryology text book you can find will attest to these two facts. That makes it a living human being. If we both accept that it is also innocent then killing it would be the definition of murder (taking the life of an innocent human being).
@Doobrai15 it has the potential to become human life yes, but throwing away some frozen IVF embryo's doesn't equal gunning down a bunch of random people on the street in any way and neither does having an abortion. I think abortions should be minimized as much as possible, especially past the 1st trimester but even if you legally ban abortions they will still happen, in horrible scenario's so what's the point in doing that?
@TherionNLD You are simply wrong, it IS human life this is supported by science as well as common sense. If it is not human life, what kind of life is it?
@YMTheology I never said it wasn't alive or some different kind of life, I said it's not equal. How can something you can't even see without a microscope be equal to a human being you can hold and touch?
If you HAD to choose between: 1. "Abortions are ONLY allowed within the first month of pregnancy" OR 2. "Abortions are ONLY allowed in the third trimester" which would you choose? Or wouldn't it matter to you? If you rather have abortions take place in the first month then you agree with me.
@TherionNLD That is an interesting question. I would chose the one you think I would chose, but probably not for the reasons you think. Both lives are valuable in and of themselves. As life goes on value is most often gained in addition to the original value of the living human being. That said, my reason for choosing to allow in the first trimester (only if I had to choose between the options you gave) would be because the baby would be more likely to live in the third trimester.
@TherionNLD The mistake you make in your hypothetical is choosing between two lives. Abortion isn't choosing between two lives, it is about choosing whether or not to end one life. The obvious but very limited exception to this is when the life of the mother is in danger.
@YMTheology I've kind of run out of things to say, except that it seems to me that the pro-life camp wants the impossible (there to be no abortions period) and have an unrealistic utopian stance on the issue, while the pro-choice camp wants real solutions to reduce the amount of abortions while keeping them safe and accessible for those women who do have them.
@TherionNLD I appreciate the conversation and the input. I don't think Utopian is possible and while I think some of the solutions pro-lifers (not all pro-lifers, but ones that think like I do) want are difficult, I do think they would better achieve fewer abortions and I do believe the safest abortion is one that doesn't happen.
Again, I appreciate your input and the respect you gave in your arguments.
@TherionNLD there are many people who believe that everyone will go to heaven, does that mean it would be okay to kill anyone they want because they will go to heaven?
Furthermore the same argument could be used on 6 month old babies. I am assuming that you would not use that argument for 6 month old babies.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims would all say that mankind is made in God's image and not something to be treated lightly. Because of that your argument does not work.
@YMTheology I was talking specifically about those who believe in a literal hell, wouldn't a parent do ANYTHING to prevent their children from being tortured for eternity? I know this argument isn't valid for many other believers.
@TherionNLD No, a parent wouldn't do anything, for instance a parent wouldn't do things that don't work. And though hell is bad and heaven is good, life on earth is a gift from God and to take it without justification would not only be a sin against the life taken, but against the God who gave it.
Would a parent do many things or a lot of things...yes, but killing an unborn or born bay so it goes to heaven is pretty sick.
Women do have choices just like we all do. and nobody has the right to kill another human being.not even women.
me25422 3 months ago
Wow, I didn't realize there was a good conversation going on, I would like to respond to a few arguments presented...give me a couple days to do it.
YMTheology 7 months ago
pro-choice arguments are lacking...
life begins at conception. what kind of life? human.
are we taking away a woman's right to chose?maybe so, but the question is chose WHAT
let me ask you this. do we also have laws in society such as do not steal and do not kill? these laws take away our rights.ex. my right to shoot someone if i am angered, or to assault a stranger when they give me trouble etc. These rules are in place because it is ethically and morally wrong, just like abortion
Doobrai15 9 months ago
@Doobrai15 Since when are stealing and killing human rights? They are "freedoms" with different consequences depending on the laws of your society. Abortions will happen, the choice is between safe & regulated or dangerous & unregulated.
The religious pro-life position can be countered with this simple logic:
Would God send aborted babies to hell? No ofcourse not, so they go to heaven, so guaranteed eternal bliss without ever risking eternal torture in hell.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLDwith your logic "Since when are stealing and killing human rights? They are "freedoms"."
so then taking away abortion is not taking away a womens right, because abortion is killing. Therefore it must just be infringing on their "freedoms" just as telling a serial killer they cant murder their next victim.
Doobrai15 7 months ago
@Doobrai15 The problem which this issue usually boils down to is "Is abortion murder?" like you just raised. Or "When does a fertilized egg become a human life?". You probably say "At conception". But obviously many people disagree with you on that, and even if it is a human life many people agree that in certain situations it's still morally justified to abort (like rape, incest, fetus' health issues, mother's health issues).
I don't agree that a microscopic clump of cells equals a human life-
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD Well, you may not agree, but it is the truth. At the moment of conception the sperm is no longer a sperm, and the egg no longer an egg. Together they make a human life. Yes it is more dependent at the beginning and needs time to grow but i would say the same for a newborn.
Let me ask you this one question, when should abortions be cut off in your eyes? 12 weeks? 5 months? 9?
Doobrai15 7 months ago
@Doobrai15 You're asking me to draw lines, I'd say abortion in 1st month should be the woman's choice regardless of the reason. Third trimester should be illegal except if there is high risk for the mother or if the fetus is going to be stillborn, those kinds of reasons would be justified. In between I don't know, but I do know it's not a black & white issue.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD I then ask you this, how is it not black and white? If the unborn child is not a human life like you claim, then abortion could be allowed all throughout the pregnancy. What makes you draw the line at 1 month? Is it because after that the baby grows bigger and looks more human? In that case your logic would then say that it is alright to kill people based on LOOKS,SIZE, AGE, and INTELLIGENCE. that could also suggest that you wld allow the killing of people with special needs..
Doobrai15 7 months ago
@Doobrai15 I just explained how it's not black & white, there are situations where I think an abortion should be an option regardless of when you think an embryo should have equal rights as you & me.
But you mean why the definition of human life isn't black & white when it comes to the unborn, let me explain. It's not about looks, size, age or intelligence. It's more about level of development, consciousness, self-awareness. I'll give 2 examples to clarify (see next reply)...
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@Doobrai15 Example 1
A person has a motorcycle accident and suffers severe irreparable brain damage and is only kept alive via artificial life support. Next to this person lies someone who's recovering from a shoulder operation.
The building sets on fire and you can only save one of these 2 people. Who do you choose?
Example 2
You're in a burning building and have the chance to save one of two things:
1. A case of 50 IVF embryo's
2. A 2-year old crying in the corridor
Which do you choose?
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD Here is what it boils down to, you just gave me an abstract situation that would never actually happen, b ut even if you did you would save as many as you could in the little time you had. The point we are trying to get to is does one human life have more value than another, or have rights that supercede another based on Potential for happiness, gender, age, stage of development, disabilities, etc. but what I postulate cannot be disproven as it is a first premise ie. every human ...
Doobrai15 7 months ago
@Doobrai15 Now I know most analogy's usually fall short and you'll probably say the person from example 1 doesn't have a viable future unlike an embryo, though this objection doesn't count for example 2.
My point is that it's not about future potential, it's about what the life form CURRENTLY is. If it is about future potential then any and all unused sperm & eggs are losses that should be mourned, potential combinations that will never develop to become human life.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD (cont'd) life is intriniscly and equally valuable, from conception until natural death. we can hash out how much abortions damage women physically and mentally, the women who have been raped and chose to have their child, or children who survived abortions and are thankful everyday and speak out about i etc.... but what it comes down to is whether or not human beings are valuable for their own sake. just for being in existence.
Doobrai15 7 months ago
@Doobrai15 If life starts at conception then God is the biggest mass murderer ever, since only 30 - 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester (according to wikipedia). Who's mourning or demonstrating to all that loss of human life? Nobody, because nobody cares because a fertilized egg does not equal a born human being.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD First, in order to support your conclusion you must show that God is causing these embryos to die. I would argue that it is part of nature and very unfortunate.
In addition you are wrong, I know couples who have miscarried and they definitely mourn that loss.
rockstumin 7 months ago
@rockstumin Isn't God the creator of nature? And I meant the fertilized eggs that don't attach to the uterus wall, those aren't mourned, even if you learned this after the fact, it's certainly not mourned as strongly as a late term misscarriage. Of course people mourn when they have a miscarriage after being pregnant for a long time, looking forward to having their baby soon. Another point that suggests a fertilized egg isn't considered equal to an almost full grown baby.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD Yes he is, but that is not enough for direct causation. At best you could infer an indirect causation. According to all major forms of theism hold that creation was good, but was tarnished with sin which was the fault of mankind. So again God is not the cause.
YMTheology 7 months ago
@YMTheology Didn't God decide the parameters of a "fallen creation" as opposed to the "perfect creation"? Or was it like random, or did someone else decide?
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD No, God did not decide. At least not out of thin air (so to speak). God because of what He made creation to be, because of His character, and because of man's choice to reject what God had given proclaimed to man what had to be, by necessity of the things I previously listed.
YMTheology 7 months ago
@TherionNLD If you watch the debate I give clear evidence that strongly supports not only that a zygote is living, but that it has its own human genome sequence. That sounds like a living human being. Virtually every embryology text book you can find will attest to these two facts. That makes it a living human being. If we both accept that it is also innocent then killing it would be the definition of murder (taking the life of an innocent human being).
rockstumin 7 months ago
@Doobrai15 it has the potential to become human life yes, but throwing away some frozen IVF embryo's doesn't equal gunning down a bunch of random people on the street in any way and neither does having an abortion. I think abortions should be minimized as much as possible, especially past the 1st trimester but even if you legally ban abortions they will still happen, in horrible scenario's so what's the point in doing that?
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD You are simply wrong, it IS human life this is supported by science as well as common sense. If it is not human life, what kind of life is it?
YMTheology 7 months ago
@YMTheology I never said it wasn't alive or some different kind of life, I said it's not equal. How can something you can't even see without a microscope be equal to a human being you can hold and touch?
If you HAD to choose between: 1. "Abortions are ONLY allowed within the first month of pregnancy" OR 2. "Abortions are ONLY allowed in the third trimester" which would you choose? Or wouldn't it matter to you? If you rather have abortions take place in the first month then you agree with me.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD That is an interesting question. I would chose the one you think I would chose, but probably not for the reasons you think. Both lives are valuable in and of themselves. As life goes on value is most often gained in addition to the original value of the living human being. That said, my reason for choosing to allow in the first trimester (only if I had to choose between the options you gave) would be because the baby would be more likely to live in the third trimester.
YMTheology 7 months ago
@TherionNLD The mistake you make in your hypothetical is choosing between two lives. Abortion isn't choosing between two lives, it is about choosing whether or not to end one life. The obvious but very limited exception to this is when the life of the mother is in danger.
YMTheology 7 months ago
@YMTheology I've kind of run out of things to say, except that it seems to me that the pro-life camp wants the impossible (there to be no abortions period) and have an unrealistic utopian stance on the issue, while the pro-choice camp wants real solutions to reduce the amount of abortions while keeping them safe and accessible for those women who do have them.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD I appreciate the conversation and the input. I don't think Utopian is possible and while I think some of the solutions pro-lifers (not all pro-lifers, but ones that think like I do) want are difficult, I do think they would better achieve fewer abortions and I do believe the safest abortion is one that doesn't happen.
Again, I appreciate your input and the respect you gave in your arguments.
YMTheology 7 months ago
@TherionNLD there are many people who believe that everyone will go to heaven, does that mean it would be okay to kill anyone they want because they will go to heaven?
Furthermore the same argument could be used on 6 month old babies. I am assuming that you would not use that argument for 6 month old babies.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims would all say that mankind is made in God's image and not something to be treated lightly. Because of that your argument does not work.
YMTheology 7 months ago
@YMTheology I was talking specifically about those who believe in a literal hell, wouldn't a parent do ANYTHING to prevent their children from being tortured for eternity? I know this argument isn't valid for many other believers.
TherionNLD 7 months ago
@TherionNLD No, a parent wouldn't do anything, for instance a parent wouldn't do things that don't work. And though hell is bad and heaven is good, life on earth is a gift from God and to take it without justification would not only be a sin against the life taken, but against the God who gave it.
Would a parent do many things or a lot of things...yes, but killing an unborn or born bay so it goes to heaven is pretty sick.
YMTheology 7 months ago