I disagree...abortion should not be accepted in any form unless the physical survival of the mother is severely threatened, which should be determined by 3 medical doctors.
I think you take abortion far too lightly. You seem to give too much respect to the mother's judgment. She has a responsibility to take care of the human life that she brought into the world.
To suggest that she has some sort of say in whether it lives or dies presupposes that she "owns" the child
There is a deeper and thornier question, one which also can not be taken too lightly.... there is no scientific consensus as to when the fetus becomes a separate life, and is no longer part of the mother's body -- whether the woman has the right to "kill" the fetus, surely a free society permits her the belief in the right to remove it from her body? It seems then that life begins at the moment it can be sustained outside the body of the carrier....
That is exactly the problem, since "the moment that life begins" is itself a matter of belief, of which we can not impose ours on other people.... now, you can say that we can not accept that, and you and I are free to not accept that, to show scorn and disapproval to one who has done that -- but what else would you have us do? Assault the woman? Or the person who performs the procedure? Expand the power of government to do these things?
This is not a belief. It is an objective, scientific fact that the zygote possesses it's own unique genetic code, separate from the mother's. It is also a fact that the zygote is human life.
When the zygote appears, life has appeared. Therefore, life begins at conception.
Abortion should be made illegal except in special cases of the survival of the mother. This can be done in a hospital as it will be rare.
The possession of a unique genetic code does not render the possessor a "life" -- the zygote that unknowingly gets washed away in the woman's next menstrual cycle has a unique genetic code, but it can't be said to be alive (and with as many fetuses miscarried as born, are we going to create the possibility of all women who miscarry to be prosecuted for manslaughter, for whatever carelessness might have lead to the event.... but, more importantly....
....you propose to increase the power of government, and by championing the exercise of that power, to legitimize governmental coercion and violence against the individual.... but surely you know that governments are corrupt or corruptible, and the power you give them today may be used against you tomorrow.... if you wish to end a disapproved conduct, the solution is to convince your fellow men to scorn the doer of the act....
@TheMuninn On this planet, probably about 2.5 to 3 billion years ago.... but all "life" is simply the expression of one entity transcending all things, so really it always has been and always will be.... when does the life of a bacteria begin, do you s'pose?
I think we basically agree.... and I would hope that every childbearer would share your discomfort with the idea of abortion and require an extremely important reason to go down that path. But you are correct in saying that we can never get into the mind of another to gauge their true motivations!!
I think that would be the view under most any idea of pandeism -- but do you agree that it would be immoral for a woman to have an abortion for the purpose of causing suffering to the father of the child?
makeing stuff up agian
Abortion is a good thing
FIGHTFANNERD3 2 years ago
I disagree...abortion should not be accepted in any form unless the physical survival of the mother is severely threatened, which should be determined by 3 medical doctors.
I think you take abortion far too lightly. You seem to give too much respect to the mother's judgment. She has a responsibility to take care of the human life that she brought into the world.
To suggest that she has some sort of say in whether it lives or dies presupposes that she "owns" the child
bj07bran7 2 years ago
There is a deeper and thornier question, one which also can not be taken too lightly.... there is no scientific consensus as to when the fetus becomes a separate life, and is no longer part of the mother's body -- whether the woman has the right to "kill" the fetus, surely a free society permits her the belief in the right to remove it from her body? It seems then that life begins at the moment it can be sustained outside the body of the carrier....
PanDeism 2 years ago
No, she should not have the right to remove it from her body. It is human life. She does not own it simply because it is inside her womb.
From the moment of conception, human life begins. The zygote has its own unique genetic code.
bj07bran7 2 years ago
That is exactly the problem, since "the moment that life begins" is itself a matter of belief, of which we can not impose ours on other people.... now, you can say that we can not accept that, and you and I are free to not accept that, to show scorn and disapproval to one who has done that -- but what else would you have us do? Assault the woman? Or the person who performs the procedure? Expand the power of government to do these things?
PanDeism 2 years ago
----" the moment that life begins"
This is not a belief. It is an objective, scientific fact that the zygote possesses it's own unique genetic code, separate from the mother's. It is also a fact that the zygote is human life.
When the zygote appears, life has appeared. Therefore, life begins at conception.
Abortion should be made illegal except in special cases of the survival of the mother. This can be done in a hospital as it will be rare.
The clinics should be demolished
bj07bran7 2 years ago
The possession of a unique genetic code does not render the possessor a "life" -- the zygote that unknowingly gets washed away in the woman's next menstrual cycle has a unique genetic code, but it can't be said to be alive (and with as many fetuses miscarried as born, are we going to create the possibility of all women who miscarry to be prosecuted for manslaughter, for whatever carelessness might have lead to the event.... but, more importantly....
PanDeism 2 years ago
....you propose to increase the power of government, and by championing the exercise of that power, to legitimize governmental coercion and violence against the individual.... but surely you know that governments are corrupt or corruptible, and the power you give them today may be used against you tomorrow.... if you wish to end a disapproved conduct, the solution is to convince your fellow men to scorn the doer of the act....
PanDeism 2 years ago
@PanDeism Well what does life began?
TheMuninn 1 year ago
@TheMuninn On this planet, probably about 2.5 to 3 billion years ago.... but all "life" is simply the expression of one entity transcending all things, so really it always has been and always will be.... when does the life of a bacteria begin, do you s'pose?
PanDeism 1 year ago
I think we basically agree.... and I would hope that every childbearer would share your discomfort with the idea of abortion and require an extremely important reason to go down that path. But you are correct in saying that we can never get into the mind of another to gauge their true motivations!!
PanDeism 2 years ago
I think that would be the view under most any idea of pandeism -- but do you agree that it would be immoral for a woman to have an abortion for the purpose of causing suffering to the father of the child?
PanDeism 2 years ago
My abortion video makes a similar argument. Check it out on my channel
bj07bran7 2 years ago