Abortion - is it wrong?

[Drolefille]

About Polly wanting a cracker, would you truly believe that Polly is capable of as much understanding as a human being? I am not sure what you are doing here, are you equaling animals to humans? It isa clear that most ziggotes are developing an inteligence far superior to any parrot. Not more inteligent in the momt of conception, but since then, developing already tobe far more inteligent. Though I don´t think inteligence would be the only facotr for humanhood, I would guess you don´t think that neither? After all, many animals have the ineligence of 3 year old childs, and I wouldn´t put them the same importance as 3 year old childs.

Nope, I'm saying that your claim of (the potential for (developing))"walking, talking and thinking" as reasons for considering embryos as "persons" are flawed.

However, while I recognize that English may not be your first language, the spelling has hit a point where reading your post is a serious struggle.

I am not sying it is the same cost (to lose the life of a human zygote than the life of a 3age human), I am saying the logic is the same for both questions. I just don´t understand the relevance of the question. Do I need to say "just because it happens doesn´t mean it´s okay to make it happen" ?

People die, yet murder is wrong.

But you're OK with a doctor killing an embryo to save a person when a doctor would not be able to kill another person to save a person. Otherwise we'd be yanking organs out of people without consent to stick them in other people. So you're saying the value of an embryo is less than that of a person, correct?

So find another comparison besides murder, because murder is the death of a person.

I´ll humour you and lay along as if the tumor was as important as an actual baby (even for "potential" human being I would believe there would be greater value o.0) and I´ll keep the same posture than with the actual baby. If for some supernatural reason the mother loves her tumor baby as much as to put her own life at risk for it she may let it grow, but given that it risks her life, she may very well remove it.

So the value of a mass of cells is determined on how much it is wanted?

Or is it based on the percentage chance it will develop into a person?

Are you seriously comparing atumor with ababy?! Is there ANY evidence that a tumor can become a human being?! :areyoucra

You claimed human DNA was part of your standard for personhood, tumors also have human DNA.

You yourself pointed out up ther eI don´t give the human zygote the same value as a born human being.

In any case, I do have talked about this, and yes, if it is survival you may kill someone who is threatening your life (like in die or live, not like die or live the way you don´t want to live), even if s/he is doing so unwillingly.

So, it is very clearly not (morally equivalent to) murder to kill a zygote by your standards. As again, we do not allow doctors to murder one person to save another.
Although I sincerely question why you get to decide what survival means. What if the mother would live but suffer brain damage? What if she'd live but have crippling physical damage? What if being off her psych meds means her being a danger to her self or others?

o.o I think it is inmoral to kill your 100% inocent harmless son if it comes to your place even if you are literaly responable of him being there... as crazy as it sounds :areyoucra

That's not the question. Answer the question as asked if you're taking this in good faith.

 

[Me Myself]

Nope, I'm saying that your claim of (the potential for (developing))"walking, talking and thinking" as reasons for considering embryos as "persons" are flawed.

I apologize for my lack of detail:

The fact that the embryo is already developing everything it needs to walk, talk and think in a way no other animal(or tumor or ameba ) apart from the human is capable of makes him a person.

However, while I recognize that English may not be your first language, the spelling has hit a point where reading your post is a serious struggle.

I have tried correcting this in the past and I am just to clumsy for it I have written in more than one forum and this generaly happens to me, even after I re-check.

I welcome the effort you put.

But you're OK with a doctor killing an embryo to save a person when a doctor would not be able to kill another person to save a person. Otherwise we'd be yanking organs out of people without consent to stick them in other people. So you're saying the value of an embryo is less than that of a person, correct?

So find another comparison besides murder, because murder is the death of a person.

That is again a legal problem "deffense of others" is generaly used in this case though (when w are talking about a person kililng another person).

As I have said I have no problem with mothers killing this children if they must so that at least one of them survives.

the fact that I value one person more than another doesn´t mean the "less valued" person is not a person. For example, if I had to choose between saving an old guy and saving a toddler, I would probably save the toddler even if I value them both as a person. (Well, the toddler is a little person )

So the value of a mass of cells is determined on how much it is wanted?

Or is it based on the percentage chance it will develop into a person?

You claimed human DNA was part of your standard for personhood, tumors also have human DNA.

the value of a mass of cells (like us) is determined by more than one factor. I do would believe "want" to be one of them.

I think you are missing the point entirely. Yes tumors have part of what it takes to be a human being, the same way a branch has part of what it takes to be a tree, but a branch is not a tree because it doesn´t meet enough requirements.

None of us started out as tumors, we started out as embryos. The totality of our gened were there when we were embryos. Of OUR genes. We refined them as we grew in our mother´s womb and developed all that we have now since then.

So the value of a mass of cells is determined on how much it is wanted?

Or is it based on the percentage chance it will develop into a person?

You claimed human DNA was part of your standard for personhood, tumors also have human DNA.

So, it is very clearly not (morally equivalent to) murder to kill a zygote by your standards. As again, we do not allow doctors to murder one person to save another.
Although I sincerely question why you get to decide what survival means. What if the mother would live but suffer brain damage? What if she'd live but have crippling physical damage? What if being off her psych meds means her being a danger to her self or others?

What if none of this are the cases and she just find it more convenient to kill the baby? (like most scenarios) We define in courtrooms what survival means all the times and we define in our moral heads what survival means all the times.

I don´t claim to have all the answers, but I do believe and think it´s kind of reasonable that most of the times that abortions are done are times were none of the conditions you described occur.

That's not the question. Answer the question as asked if you're taking this in good faith.

I do believe that we have the right to kill people that are stepping out boundaries in ways that make us think they will harm us(like in this context), so I do feel I have the right to take a gun and kill a traspasser of my home when I suspect that he is going to come into my house and do me harm.

I do also believe that if this "trasspaser" is my baby that is 100% inocent and currently incapable of doing me harm and that I MYSELF put there in my house (by having sex) and I KNOW that it wont do me harm then it would be inmoral for me to shoot him.

I think I´ve said more than once already, if the baby is treathening the life of the mother, the case is just different. This is a bastly low porcentage in comparison.

 

[whygodwhy]

It bugs me that they would abort a baby that would be viable outside the womb... Many 23 weekers servive with much care.

 

[Sleeppy]

Well, if you've got a new idea for making responsible sex widespread, have at it. So far, preaching about saving sex for marriage hasn't worked.

No. It works. The people who believe in the structure of a family just haven't been vigilant enough (perhaps due to distractions of other catastrophe - finance, health etc.) to maintain its popularity. And where it was never popular it was never thoroughly tought, understood and experienced.

People are just more responsive to a bomb actually exploding and killing several people, than only hearing that it will happen. In those countries where sexual diseases have drastically demolished the landscape, they continue to be ignorant or hopeless. More 'preaching' has to be done and the benefits of the family structure, under marriages, have to be experienced.

 

[Sleeppy]

But why? I don't agree with any of your opinions (and that's what these are: opinions - not facts). I believe sex is for fun, for bonding, for sharing, for stress relief, for a million great things other than squeezing out babies. I also prefer being with an experienced partner to somebody who doesn't know a ****-ring from a **** fight.

And, we have loads of options for controlling our exposure to disease and pregnancy. People who accept the likelihood that at some point they're likely to have pre-marital sex are better prepared for it. And, when all else fails and something slips through the net, we have the ability to terminate an unplanned pregnancy quickly, safely, non-invasively and long before the embryo can experience any sort of pain or disappointment.

With all this opportunity to enjoy sex (which is incredibly good for your mental and physical health, btw) without inadvertently spreading disease or making extra humans, why in the world should I accept making some of our tools inaccessible, just because of your opinion?

I'm sorry, but you do need a reason. Spite for people you deem to be sexually immoral and therefore deserving of a lifetime of "consequences" for a moment of bad luck (IOW, one in three of the women in your life) is NOT a "reason".

(BTW, I would be happy to introduce you to the concept of reason if you're finding any of this confusing. )

Amusing. You obviously approached me confused, yourself. I'll leave you where you were.

 

[Songbird]

No. It works. The people who believe in the structure of a family just haven't been vigilant enough (perhaps due to distractions of other catastrophe - finance, health etc.) to maintain its popularity. And where it was never popular it was never thoroughly tought, understood and experienced.

People are just more responsive to a bomb actually exploding and killing several people, than only hearing that it will happen. In those countries where sexual diseases have drastically demolished the landscape, they continue to be ignorant or hopeless. More 'preaching' has to be done and the benefits of the family structure, under marriages, have to be experienced.

Yeah, that must be it. :sarcastic You may like the book, The Handmaid's Tale.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. It works. The people who believe in the structure of a family just haven't been vigilant enough (perhaps due to distractions of other catastrophe - finance, health etc.) to maintain its popularity. And where it was never popular it was never thoroughly tought, understood and experienced.

So... the fact that abstinence-only education has been a colossal failure, and even though the data shows a very clear trend that the more abstinence is emphasized to the exclusion of other birth control methods, the higher the rates of teen pregnancy, you think that it we just had *more* of it, at some point the trend would magically reverse and everything would be sunshine and roses.

And I disagree with your conflation of this one issue with others. If you want to wait until marriage for sex, well, that's your own choice, but if you're going to claim that people who don't take this stance don't "believe in the structure of the family", then you had better support this on its own merits. Sex is sex; it's not marriage or family.

 

[blackout]

Besides that "marriage" safeguards NOTHING.

It does not safeguard from physical health, and high risk medical problems/conditions.
It does not safeguard from economic difficulty, poverty or ruin.
It does not safeguard from depression, or any host of mental health issues and dangers.
It does not safeguard from personal dreams, goals, visions and needs.
it does not safeguard from individuals changing, and growing apart.
It does not safeguard from age, fatigue, lack of vitality and energy.
It does not safeguard from burnout, or changed goals.
It does not safeguard against relational stagnation.
It does not safeguard against the inability to cope.
It does not safeguard against unhappiness, and lack of personal fulfillment.
It does not safeguard against regret, pain, disappointment.
It does not safeguard against separation.
it does not safeguard against death.
It does not safeguard against extreme and undue stress.
It does not safeguard against disease or addiction.
It does not safeguard against a partner who makes imprudent, and risky decisions.
It does not safeguard against a partner who engages in high risk behavior,
and subjects your children to high risk behavior.

In fact, the legal attachment only makes it worse.

It safeguards against nothing,
and it guarantees nothing.

 

[espo35]

Seems to me that the problem here is that he is just as guilty of equivocation as he claims others to be.

I never did understand why pro-lifers are all the time crying "it is a human life".
Like they think pro-choicers believe that the fetus is somehow a pig or something during the process.

Why would we think a thing like that?
*******************************************************************

Originally Posted by idea
As simple as this - there are those who cherish and honor life, and those who do not.
********************************
So, following your logic, one can safely assume that you don't bathe or brush your teach, since that would kill bacteria and thus "murdering life"? ~ Father Heathen

 

[Annenance]

Is abortion wrong?


Well, of course it's wrong. If it weren't there wouldn't be all this debate and worry and guilt about it. It wouldn't be a problem. The real question is, just HOW wrong is it? Is it wrong enough that we should persecute or prosecute people for it, and call it murder? Is it wrong enough to make someone suffer the consequences of not doing it (as in give birth and/or raise a kid you didn't want, or at least didn't want yet)? Or is it just a little bit wrong, so we do it anyway? There are some things that everybody deep down understands to be wrong, but some can tolerate better than others.

Lying is wrong, just about everyone would agree with that. But there are instances when we tolerate lying, and might even say it is justified. Breaking the law? Wrong, but in some instances tolerable. Even murder is understandable sometimes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is abortion wrong?


Well, of course it's wrong. If it weren't there wouldn't be all this debate and worry and guilt about it. It wouldn't be a problem.

I think there's something wrong in your thought process here, because if "debate and worry and guilt" is enough to declare something wrong, then we can safely declare banning abortion wrong as well.

 

[Annenance]

"We can safely declare banning abortion wrong as well."

Exactly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"We can safely declare banning abortion wrong as well."

Exactly.

I don't think I explained myself properly in my last post: there is debate on all aspects of the abortion issue. Any position that one might take would be worrying and guilt-inducing for someone. By the measure you suggest, any and every position on the issue must be wrong.

I think this is nonsensical, so I reject your argument.




BTW - Welcome to the forum. There's a tutorial on the quote function here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/100086-how-use-quote-feature.html

 

[Father Heathen]

o.0 a...ha..... an ameba that is going to become a human being?


When a human male and a human female reproduce they make amebas?

The trillions of sperm cells any individual male produces over the course of their lifespan all had the potential to become actual people, but that didn't make them people. What's your point?

does the babies that wil be aborted have any didferent constitution than that that we had when we were in our mother´s wombs?

Nope. Point being?

 

[Father Heathen]

Is abortion wrong?


Well, of course it's wrong. If it weren't there wouldn't be all this debate and worry and guilt about it. It wouldn't be a problem.

The idea of banning abortion causes debate, worry and guilt, therefore by your logic banning abortion would be wrong. Gotcha.

 

[espo35]

The idea of banning abortion causes debate, worry and guilt, therefore by your logic banning abortion would be wrong. Gotcha.

Why do you all think that by saying abortion is "wrong", pro-lifers are saying it should be banned?

Paranoid?

 

[espo35]

The idea of banning abortion causes debate, worry and guilt, therefore by your logic banning abortion would be wrong. Gotcha.

By that "logic", we should not ban mass-murder to spare the feelings of the mass-murderers' family.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why do you all think that by saying abortion is "wrong", pro-lifers are saying it should be banned?

Paranoid?

Fine, interchange "banned" with "wrong". Whatever.

 

[espo35]

If mankind can dis-associate from and destroy its' own young by calling them less than human, how much easier to call "non-human" those we dislike....blacks, mexicans and let's not forget those sub-human jews!

 

[Father Heathen]

By that "logic", we should not ban mass-murder to spare the feelings of the mass-murderers' family.

So you agree then that the logic is nonsense?