-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion is murder
- Thread starter factotum
- Start date
How about a comparison between a zygote and a baby, then?
As I alluded to in my last post, after the child is born, you can't compel the mother to give so much as a hair off her head for the baby, even if the child would certainly die as a result.
... and this continues even after the woman dies. If her instructions are that her body should remain intact after death, then it doesn't get touched. It doesn't matter how many lives might be saved by her organs and tissues - her right to bodily security - even in death - outweights the right to life of anyone else.
When we prohibit (or even limit) abortion, we implicitly argue one of two things:
- pregnant women do not deserve the normal rights we give to any person, or
- fetuses deserve greater than the normal rights that we give to any person.
Which is it? Are you elevating the value of fetuses to some "super-human" status, or are you devaluing pregnant women to a status below that of corpses?
If you're arguing for prohibitions or restrictions on abortion, then that's precisely what you're arguing for.
One method that's been used for a long time to prevent pregnancy is a man "pulling out" just before the sperm could make contact with the ovum, thereby stopping the potential production of a zygote. In this case, a man's pulling out prevents a future life from being conceived. This is what I meant by comparing a zygote to wasted sperm (i.e. the sperm that would have led to the production of a zygote).
So if the value of the zygote is judged by what it would have become had it not been aborted, why shouldn't the value of the wasted sperm also be judged by what it would have become had it not been directed away from the ovum?
Bismillah
Submit
The likelihood of a single sperm cell fertilizing an ovum and that resulting in a functioning zygote is incomprehensibly small. In contrast a zygote has already begun the process of forming a person it has already begun the necessary conjunction of two hapliod cells to create a person. A sperm cell alone can never attest to that and the chances of it actually contacting a ovum are minute. This is why your comparison is absurd.
The intention of the man who pulls out, though, is to prevent a baby from being conceived — he's taking into account the possibility that it might lead to pregnancy and trying to nip it in the bud. The possibility of fertilization through a single sperm may be small, but it's that small possibility that the man has in mind when he "pulls out" in a deliberate attempt to prevent the formation of a zygote in the first place.
I don't think the probability in this matter counts for much. Conception happens all the time. Pulling out could very easily be the difference between starting a life and not. If you have any concern regarding the potential of life, then this should also be a concern.
Bismillah
Submit
Again however you are comparing a sperm cell singular with that of a zygote. Pull out or not, you must understand this fact that the vast majority of sperm cells live and die in your testes. They never had a chance in the first place. A zygote on the other hand has all the tools necessary to create a person, granted that it is not destroyed in the first place. That is why your comparison falls.
You can not look at sperm in their entirety and compare it to a singular cell that does not make any sense. Rather you look at the first stage where life is possible and guaranteed to replicate to form a functioning person. It is not at the stage of a singular gamete such as the sperm, it is only when you look at the zygote is it awarded this distinction.
You can not look at sperm in their entirety and compare it to a singular cell that does not make any sense. Rather you look at the first stage where life is possible and guaranteed to replicate to form a functioning person. It is not at the stage of a singular gamete such as the sperm, it is only when you look at the zygote is it awarded this distinction.
The comparison is fine. You are using words such as 'where life is possible'. Life is possible if you don't pull out. Life is impossible if you do pull out. Zygote represents greater possibility, though still not guarantee. One is more likely than another but they are still both potentials. Abortion or pull out both represent eliminating those potentials.
Comparison win.
Comparison win.
I misunderstood, then. I guess I jumped to conclusions.
Bismillah
Submit
Again it boils down to the fact that a sperm cannot replicate or create a human. It cannot, that is biologically impossible. A zygote can. That is why there is a difference between killing a sperm cell and killing a zygote and that should not be hard to see for anyone here.
If I kill a sperm cell the chances of that particular cell having been a person are incomprehnsibly small.
If I kill a zygote I have eliminated a cell that would have, without my interference, lived as much as you and I.
Now this is becoming repititive so let me just end the conversation here.
1. I never advocated for placing limitations on abortion.
2. The comparison between a sperm cell and a zygote is absurd in its very nature, this was the origanl reason why I responded and to this I say that we all know better than to claim the two equal.
3. To serve as a reminder that to stop the self replication of a zygote is in effect nipping life at its bud most assuredly no ifs ands or buts about it. And it is this sobering fact that should lead us to pause before carrying out abortions. Its magnitude and effect should be fully appreciated before carrying out such a procedure.
I think the fact that a man pulls out implies acknowledgement of a possible pregnancy, so the question here isn't about the probability of fertilization; it is one of whether or not deliberately preventing a future life from being conceived is "wrong." There's still potential for a future life here that is nipped in the bud once the man decides not to mix his sperm with the ovum of the woman.
If the sperm didn't have the potential to form a zygote through fusion with the ovum (and therefore a future life), there would be no need at all to try to prevent that through methods such as pulling out.
... only if it receives certain things: a proper environment, maternal hormones at the right times, etc.
If a sperm cell does not encounter an egg cell, it will not lead to a baby. If the mother's body does not produce enough progesterone, a fertilized egg will not lead to a baby.
A sperm cell is necessary, but not sufficient, to produce a child. A fertilized egg is necessary, but not sufficient, to produce a child. The comparison seems pretty fitting to me.
It isn't guaranteed. Zygotes have a 25% chance of spontaneously aborting before week 6 in the embryonic stage and before the woman even realizes she was pregnant.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
My thoughts are that abortion is in fact not murder, considering that a fetus lacks the qualities that define personhood; the ability to think and feel, self-awareness/consciousness, sentience, sapience, etc.
Curious George
Veteran Member
No, no
You have all misunderstood. Apparently we should because of the potential of life have children begin engaging in intercourse as soon as the female begins menstruation and as soon as the male produces sperm. This way no potential for life will ever go unheard. Sure the egg and the sperm by themselves do not equate to a complete cell, but hell when you throw out all the fixins for an omelet, you have lost the potential for an omelet as surely as you would have were you to mix them together and toss em out before they were fully cooked.
Side note- potential for a complete cell to mature (1/3 of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted). do not tell me that any single cell is guaranteed to become a child and then an adult.
Really now murder? If we are to say that abortion is murder then spontaneous abortions might be attributed to negligent homicide. We would need the mother to prove that she did everything in her power to keep the single cell (or cluster of cells) alive otherwise we could deem her negligent.
Next problem. The single cell is a life? how many mothers who have spontaneous abortions sweep that cell cluster from the toilet, purchase a coffin and have services? Sure, many families weep over the lost prospect of having children. Spontaneous abortions can be very hard on families. But I have never seen heard of the loss being equated to that of losing an infant, or even a child one has carried to the third trimester.
Next issue. This is my favorite. You are hanging out with your good friend when she confides to you that she has had an abortion. How do you react? Be honest.... Really honest. I can tell you unequivocally that if I was hanging out with my best friend and they told me that a couple of years before I met them they murdered their infant child- I would not conceal any outrage. I would leave their presence immediately. I would never speak with them again. Murder is an act deserving of great condemnation. How do I know that I do not believe abortion is murder- simple. Were someone to share this information with me I might sympathize with them or feel sad for what they missed. But murder. Certainly not.
You have all misunderstood. Apparently we should because of the potential of life have children begin engaging in intercourse as soon as the female begins menstruation and as soon as the male produces sperm. This way no potential for life will ever go unheard. Sure the egg and the sperm by themselves do not equate to a complete cell, but hell when you throw out all the fixins for an omelet, you have lost the potential for an omelet as surely as you would have were you to mix them together and toss em out before they were fully cooked.
Side note- potential for a complete cell to mature (1/3 of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted). do not tell me that any single cell is guaranteed to become a child and then an adult.
Really now murder? If we are to say that abortion is murder then spontaneous abortions might be attributed to negligent homicide. We would need the mother to prove that she did everything in her power to keep the single cell (or cluster of cells) alive otherwise we could deem her negligent.
Next problem. The single cell is a life? how many mothers who have spontaneous abortions sweep that cell cluster from the toilet, purchase a coffin and have services? Sure, many families weep over the lost prospect of having children. Spontaneous abortions can be very hard on families. But I have never seen heard of the loss being equated to that of losing an infant, or even a child one has carried to the third trimester.
Next issue. This is my favorite. You are hanging out with your good friend when she confides to you that she has had an abortion. How do you react? Be honest.... Really honest. I can tell you unequivocally that if I was hanging out with my best friend and they told me that a couple of years before I met them they murdered their infant child- I would not conceal any outrage. I would leave their presence immediately. I would never speak with them again. Murder is an act deserving of great condemnation. How do I know that I do not believe abortion is murder- simple. Were someone to share this information with me I might sympathize with them or feel sad for what they missed. But murder. Certainly not.
In this case the woman's body is a murder weapon. Perhaps these women could be sent away to non-conjugal visit safety cells, and set free if their body's can be rehabilitated- so no more innocent lives might be taken by their sexual neglagence.
Just making sure you're in a financial position to pay all expenses for the child I didn't want to have. That's my demand if you're going to dictate what comes out of my uterus.
AND if the mother dies in labor, he needs also to pay for the missing care and funding all of her OTHER motherless children now need as well.
Aren't there town ordinances regarding where a corpse/human remains may and may not be laid to rest? And musn't authorities be notified about every human death? Death certificate and all that?