each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

[Podo]

I'm late to the party, but abortion is a woman's decision and nothing more. Nobody else's opinion should matter on the subject. Thankfully in most civilised nations, a woman has the freedom to choose what happens to and with her own body. Body autonomy is important, and banning abortions is nothing more than a government saying that a fetus has more rights than the mother, which is patently absurd.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I'm late to the party, but abortion is a woman's decision and nothing more. Nobody else's opinion should matter on the subject. Thankfully in most civilised nations, a woman has the freedom to choose what happens to and with her own body. Body autonomy is important, and banning abortions is nothing more than a government saying that a fetus has more rights than the mother, which is patently absurd.

Hello. Do you think the father of the baby should have any input?

Peace

 

[Podo]

Hello. Do you think the father of the baby should have any input?

Peace

None whatsoever, no. If the mother wishes to consider his opinion, then that's her decision. But the ultimate decision should be (and is) 100% hers and hers alone.

 

[Valjean]

I'm late to the party, but abortion is a woman's decision and nothing more. Nobody else's opinion should matter on the subject. Thankfully in most civilised nations, a woman has the freedom to choose what happens to and with her own body. Body autonomy is important, and banning abortions is nothing more than a government saying that a fetus has more rights than the mother, which is patently absurd.

But the foetus isn't "her own body," it's a seperate, parasitic organism.
Send tissue samples to a histology or a genetics lab for blind testing, and the analytic results would indicate different individuals.

 

[Regiomontanus]

None whatsoever, no. If the mother wishes to consider his opinion, then that's her decision. But the ultimate decision should be (and is) 100% hers and hers alone.

Interesting opinion!

By the way, I wonder if anyone's view on abortion has ever been changed by threads like this one. Judging by the heated posts here, I doubt it.

Peace

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Hello. Do you think the father of the baby should have any input?

Peace

There is work on artificial wombs. When fathers can incubate babies and not just mothers, THEN they get some say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is work on artificial wombs. When fathers can incubate babies and not just mothers, THEN they get some say.

When it comes to abortions it will appear to be unfair to both sides. To guys it seems unfair that they cannot stop a woman from aborting "his baby". Or that he would have to help financially with a baby that he does not want.

From the woman's side they can see that they will have to go through all of the risk, discomfort, and possible permanent changes to their bodies.

Though it is not perfect I do agree that it is the woman's choice and her choice only. And when it comes to sex both participants need to remember that there can be very complicated consequences that arise from it.

 

[Prestor John]

I’m now convinced that you are either operating under a false assumption of what my position is on this topic or you are deliberately trying to force a position upon me that I did not agree to in a discussion I did not know I was having.

No, I did not say that. It is always a good idea to quote rather than to incorrectly interpret what somebody said.

Thank you for the good advice.

In post #230, in response to my comment, which was, “All I have am doing is reminding women who get pregnant that they have a human life growing inside them and they should be responsible for it.”

You said, “that depends on how one [defines] "human".” (I’m assuming you meant to say “defines” rather than “defies”)

Leaving the definition of the term “human” up to the individual is exactly what “subjective” means, which is something “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”

You also made the same exact claim in your very last post, #251 (which was irrelevant to what I said, but I’ll get to that later),

“Once again it depends upon how one defines "human".”

So, based on the fact that you most definitely made the claim that the definition of the term “human” should be left up to the individual person to decide, how did I “incorrectly interpret” what you said when I claimed that you believe that the definition of the term “human” was subjective?

Really? Your reasoning abilities are that limited?

Yeah, real mature. You really one-upped me here. :/

The discussion hinges on whether a fetus, not a baby, counts as a human being with human rights or not.

Yes, a distinction that you have repeatedly claimed was up to the individual to make (posts #230 and #251).

So, because the term “human” is subjective (according to you), anyone is free to label anything “human” or anyone “not human.”

This process of thought has been used to justify the most atrocious acts committed throughout human history. To support Man’s inhumanity to Man.

We could kill the enemy because they weren’t like “us.” We made people property because they were “less than.”

And today anyone can be the Judge, Jury and Executioner - at least to the small and defenseless.

Since this is the standard that you yourself have proposed, how am I at fault for believing the unborn are human?

Is it not up to me, the individual, to decide for myself what is or is not “human”?

Legally they are not. The Bible seems to feel that way too.

I do not find appeals to authority to be very effective or convincing. It’s a common logical fallacy.

What is or is not “legal” can and has been changed. The Bible can be interpreted any which way.

Your post has nothing to do with that argument.

Why do you think it is strange that my posts have nothing to do with an argument that I never made?

I have stated many times on this thread that I am merely sharing my opinion and most of my points have been from a position of logic and morality.

I have also argued that the question of whether or not an unborn child is “human” cannot be answered by any law or even the Bible.

There is no biological evidence that supports the idea that a human fetus is not “human”. In fact, it is possible to differentiate between a “human fetus” and the fetus’ of other species.

If you think that this topic can only be discussed through the lenses of “law” and the Bible then you are sorely mistaken.

And back to the red herring. Try again. We are not talking about babies, we are talking about fetuses, embryos and earlier. Please try to keep on subject.

Yet, according to you, I and any other person are free to judge for ourselves what is or is not “human.” Why should “baby” be any different?

If there is no evidence to support the claim that any human female has given birth to anything other than another human, then there is no logical basis for assuming that what is formed in a human womb is anything less than human.

If we can tell the difference between a human ovum from the ovum of another species and a human sperm cell from the sperm cells of another species, why assume that a fertilized human egg is something other than what it is?

Like I said previously, you are allowing politics to dictate your narrative, not logic and science.

If you can't be honest you will never learn.

Said the guy who falsely stated that he did not claim that the definition of the term “human” was subjective.

Try to focus on the issue of fetuses.

First off, I can focus on whatever I want.

Second, I have been focusing on the issue of human fetuses. They are underdeveloped human babies.

You, on the other hand, have been focusing on the "law", which cannot determine the species of any fetus.

You also mentioned the Bible when there is no reason to assume that the Bible would record anything about human fetuses.

You are trying to twist the argument. That is a strawman.

No, you are trying to narrow the scope of the discussion to only what you want to focus on because you know that your stance is immoral, illogical and not based on science.

Wrong again. I explained those to you. It is only cognitive dissonance at best that keeps you from understanding your errors. This sort of reply of yours is what leads to accusations of not being honest. The proper action to take when you do not understand is to ask questions politely and properly. And your last add on was a throw away error. You failed to support any claim that abortion is wrong.

Why would I need to support any claim that abortion is “wrong” when there is nothing to support the claim that abortion is “right”?

You have been running with the idea that abortion is “right” because it is “legal”, yet the fact that many other things that were once “legal” are now in fact considered “wrong” blows your argument out of the water.

Also, since you have claimed that this is a matter of law and not morality, how effective would any moral argument be with you?

We are able to determine the species of any given egg, ovum or sperm cell.

If we had a fertilized duck egg, logic and science would dictate that a duckling would be incubating inside.

Just like if we had a pregnant human, both logic and science would dictate that a human infant was forming in her womb.

Since both logic and science are on the side of a human fetus being human, you want me to argue why it would be “wrong” to destroy that human?

How about you first prove that a human fetus is not a human before you argue to destroy it?

Once again with the same red herring. I can see that my wager would have been correct.

Try again.

You only consider it a “red herring” because you don’t want this to be a question of morality, science or logic.

You want it to be only about law and politics, which are the real “red herrings” here

 

[Prestor John]

The point is that we are not debating when an organism becomes a human being. We are discussing when an organism has both legal and moral rights.

This is what I meant when I said above that you were “trying to force a position upon me that I did not agree to in a discussion I did not know I was having.”

I actually have been debating when an organism becomes a human being. The only answer to that is at conception.

Since I have not argued for any legislation to force any woman to carry her unborn child to term, why would I need to discuss the rights of the unborn child?

What I have done in this thread is shared my opinion and encouraged others to live by certain standards.

It’s like I said before, “All I have am doing is reminding women who get pregnant that they have a human life growing inside them and they should be responsible for it.”

You are not in control here.

You have made logical error after logical error and won't let yourself understand them. This alone can be argued to be a dishonest act on your part. Drop the red herrings, drop the other logical fallacies and see if you can actually support your beliefs.

All that has happened here is you not liking what I have had to say. That’s it.

Oh, and you lied about your claim that “human” is a subjective term.

You even seem to know that the biblical position is a very weak one.

As I said earlier, I don’t believe that appeals to authority are very effective or convincing.

How would my referencing the Bible help me here anyway considering that you are an atheist?

I know that all you have is an appeal to authority (Almighty law!), but I know I can do better and have done better.

What do you have that supports your opposition to a women having her choice in this matter?

This led me to say earlier that you are, “operating under a false assumption of what my position is on this topic.”

I never once claimed that a woman should not have the right to choose. I merely encourage them not to abort.

Remember when you told me that it was a good idea to quote your opponent? Maybe you should follow your own advice?

And we are back to the equivocation argument.

Claiming that a fetus is alive is not the same as claiming that it is human. So, how is this an “equivocation argument”?

I clearly stated that the arguments for a fetus being alive or being human are two different arguments.

When did I say, “Since a fetus is alive it is therefore human”? Quote me saying that please. Remember the good advice you gave me?

You are using a definition that supports your side while ignoring the definitions that do not support yours.

My belief is that there should only be the one definition for “human” and it should not be left up to the individual.

That is how genocide and slavery have been justified.

Many definitions limit "human" to baby and beyond.

Yet, we can differentiate a human fetus from all other fetuses. How is that possible if there is nothing “human” about a human fetus?

Also, don't forget that you believe that what is or is not "human" is up to the individual.

You are kinda hurting your own case here by claiming "human" should only mean baby and beyond.

The fact that a fetus is alive does not support your claim.

I never said that it did. Learn to read and then quote me.

I argued that a fetus was alive to combat the claim made by another RF member that it was only tissue.

I never said that a fetus being alive proved that it was human. That’s FAKE NEWS!

And you appear to understand the weakness of your argument.

You don’t even know what my arguments are! You keep attributing arguments to me that I never made.

Legally a fetus is not a "human" in the sense of having legal rights.

Since laws are subject to change, I don't think they should be used to define biological terms.

Science can’t claim that a fetus is not human, therefore laws aren’t able to either.

Morally the burden of proof is upon you since you want to affect the life of the women involved.

FAKE NEWS!

I will let them answer that question for themselves. It is a highly persona one that cannot be clearly stated either way at this point in time.

As I said earlier, all of human history, logic and science prove that 100% of all people are products of pregnancy.

There is no question that a human fetus is a human being. Any attempt to redefine them as something “less than human” is just a means to justify killing unborn babies for the sake of convenience.

And to achieve political goals!

I have not argued for a woman to be forced to carry her child to term, either through legislation or any other way, but I have strongly encouraged them not to abort.

You’d know that if you actually read my posts.

Once again, you really should not try to put words into other peoples' mouths.

Pot calling the kettle black. :/

Not even as a question. Your questions presently are on the order of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" An assumption buried in a question is almost always dishonest and once again, if you claim to be a Christian you should avoid that.

Explain how my questions are loaded such?

 

[Prestor John]

It is the mother who is obligated to raise the child and if she chooses not to have that child it is her choice and only her choice.

No mother is under such obligation. Adoption is always an option.

 

[Prestor John]

Pay more attention: the post I responded to talked about legality.

Then why mention me in the post at all when I never contested the legality of anything?

If we're going by the Biblical take on personhood, there's always Numbers 3: males are counted in the population of Israel once they're 30 days old and females aren't counted at all.

This seems as Biblical a position on when personhood begins as I've ever seen.

Really? You can't think of any other reason for why the ancient Israelites did it that way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m now convinced that you are either operating under a false assumption of what my position is on this topic or you are deliberately trying to force a position upon me that I did not agree to in a discussion I did not know I was having.

Thank you for the good advice.

In post #230, in response to my comment, which was, “All I have am doing is reminding women who get pregnant that they have a human life growing inside them and they should be responsible for it.”

You said, “that depends on how one [defines] "human".” (I’m assuming you meant to say “defines” rather than “defies”)

Leaving the definition of the term “human” up to the individual is exactly what “subjective” means, which is something “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”

You also made the same exact claim in your very last post, #251 (which was irrelevant to what I said, but I’ll get to that later),

“Once again it depends upon how one defines "human".”

So, based on the fact that you most definitely made the claim that the definition of the term “human” should be left up to the individual person to decide, how did I “incorrectly interpret” what you said when I claimed that you believe that the definition of the term “human” was subjective?

Yeah, real mature. You really one-upped me here. :/

Yes, a distinction that you have repeatedly claimed was up to the individual to make (posts #230 and #251).

So, because the term “human” is subjective (according to you), anyone is free to label anything “human” or anyone “not human.”

This process of thought has been used to justify the most atrocious acts committed throughout human history. To support Man’s inhumanity to Man.

We could kill the enemy because they weren’t like “us.” We made people property because they were “less than.”

And today anyone can be the Judge, Jury and Executioner - at least to the small and defenseless.

Since this is the standard that you yourself have proposed, how am I at fault for believing the unborn are human?

Is it not up to me, the individual, to decide for myself what is or is not “human”?

I do not find appeals to authority to be very effective or convincing. It’s a common logical fallacy.

What is or is not “legal” can and has been changed. The Bible can be interpreted any which way.

Why do you think it is strange that my posts have nothing to do with an argument that I never made?

I have stated many times on this thread that I am merely sharing my opinion and most of my points have been from a position of logic and morality.

I have also argued that the question of whether or not an unborn child is “human” cannot be answered by any law or even the Bible.

There is no biological evidence that supports the idea that a human fetus is not “human”. In fact, it is possible to differentiate between a “human fetus” and the fetus’ of other species.

If you think that this topic can only be discussed through the lenses of “law” and the Bible then you are sorely mistaken.

Yet, according to you, I and any other person are free to judge for ourselves what is or is not “human.” Why should “baby” be any different?

If there is no evidence to support the claim that any human female has given birth to anything other than another human, then there is no logical basis for assuming that what is formed in a human womb is anything less than human.

If we can tell the difference between a human ovum from the ovum of another species and a human sperm cell from the sperm cells of another species, why assume that a fertilized human egg is something other than what it is?

Like I said previously, you are allowing politics to dictate your narrative, not logic and science.

Said the guy who falsely stated that he did not claim that the definition of the term “human” was subjective.

First off, I can focus on whatever I want.

Second, I have been focusing on the issue of human fetuses. They are underdeveloped human babies.

You, on the other hand, have been focusing on the "law", which cannot determine the species of any fetus.

You also mentioned the Bible when there is no reason to assume that the Bible would record anything about human fetuses.

No, you are trying to narrow the scope of the discussion to only what you want to focus on because you know that your stance is immoral, illogical and not based on science.

Why would I need to support any claim that abortion is “wrong” when there is nothing to support the claim that abortion is “right”?

You have been running with the idea that abortion is “right” because it is “legal”, yet the fact that many other things that were once “legal” are now in fact considered “wrong” blows your argument out of the water.

Also, since you have claimed that this is a matter of law and not morality, how effective would any moral argument be with you?

We are able to determine the species of any given egg, ovum or sperm cell.

If we had a fertilized duck egg, logic and science would dictate that a duckling would be incubating inside.

Just like if we had a pregnant human, both logic and science would dictate that a human infant was forming in her womb.

Since both logic and science are on the side of a human fetus being human, you want me to argue why it would be “wrong” to destroy that human?

How about you first prove that a human fetus is not a human before you argue to destroy it?

You only consider it a “red herring” because you don’t want this to be a question of morality, science or logic.

You want it to be only about law and politics, which are the real “red herrings” here

too long didn't read. It looks like a long series trying to defend one logical fallacy after another. When you are so defensive you will never learn.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Ah okay, another abortion thread. I'll restate as in previous threads: it is impossible for me to treat abortion as a black and white issue. Dharmically speaking, the fetus is a form of transitory life. It is developing into human cognition, and the like. It isn't there yet. For me the morality of a woman having rights has to take precedent there. A woman is a fully developed, cognitive human being. I do think that elective abortion is unideal personally, but I think a woman must choose. It would be more karmically destructive in my perspective to coerce or compel a woman to do something against her will.

 

[Prestor John]

That’s a great point.

It was actually irrelevant considering that neither you I were contesting the legality of abortion or the woman's right to choose.

They are certainly alive. Whether they have souls and are at that point “human babies” is questionable.

If it is questionable, why destroy them? That's like executing someone when the entire case against them is "questionable."

And yet, when Genesis talks about the creation of human beings, the word
means “living soul.”

Yet, you were claiming earlier that nephesh meant only "soul", not "living soul."

The Genesis account reads that Adam became a "living nephesh."

And it didn’t occur in the womb. It happened at first breath. According to the Bible.

How can you not understand that using the only person to not have been formed in a womb as an example that unborn babies aren't alive or human is a very weak argument?

The RAPE is the act of violence that resulted in an unwanted lump of living tissue being deposited in the woman’s body without her consent.

Oh, now it's "living tissue" rather than simply "tissue", like you said before. At least you understand that it's not a tumor or a kidney.

Every single human being that has ever lived, is living, and will ever live begin as these little "lumps of living tissue."

Why doesn't that matter to you?

Its genetics are shared by the perpetrator of the violent act.

The woman not having consent and the perpetuation of the offender's genes are most likely the reasons why the Lord is forgiving towards those women who decide to abort their children who are the product of rape.

I mean, if I was the spirit of the unborn child, I wouldn't want to be the child of a rapist. No one woudl willingly want to come into this world that way.

So, it may be in the best interest of the unborn child to abort in that case. However, as I said before, the mother woudl need to consult with the Lord before coming to that decision.

For many women, that causes extreme emotional upset, which, of itself, is violence.

No, that is not violence. Violence has a someone choosing to commit the act. An unborn child does not decide to be born.

Many women have claimed that going through with the abortion was an "extreme emotional upset", so could it not then be argued that the abortion is also an act of violence?

It most certainly is an act of violence against the unborn child.

Not all mothers believe in prayer.

Not relevant.

I conveyed the Lord's instruction. Whether or not the mother believes in God or prayer does not matter in the least.

It doesn’t “need to be prayerfully sought out.” It should bear serious thought and reflection.

Prayer includes "serious thought and reflection." Do you not know what prayer is?

That’s why abortion.

You kinda skipped over my actual response, which was about teaching the mother the truth about God, herself and the unborn child.

But that doesn't really matter to do does it? Voices of dissent can't be heard over the screams of the slaughtered unborn masses.

There was no “Adam’s spirit” in the Bible, until God breathed it into The lump of clay. It was at that point that the lump of clay became nephesh.

And what exactly do you think God "breathed" into Adam's physical body?

You believe that every human being, other than Adam, has a spirit?

And don't forget that he became a "living nephesh." Since you believe that nephesh means only "soul", you can't also believe that it could mean "living soul."

You can't have it both ways.

Letting someone suffer trauma from violence is acceptable... at what time?

Childbirth isn't violence.

 

[Regiomontanus]

There is work on artificial wombs. When fathers can incubate babies and not just mothers, THEN they get some say.

Hello. Pretty wild! Not right around the corner, but I would bet it will be here in the next few decades:

Artificial wombs: The coming era of motherless births? | Genetic Literacy Project

https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05999.x


Peace

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really? You can't think of any other reason for why the ancient Israelites did it that way?

According to the story, they did it that way because God told them to do it that way, period.

... but the passage has God describing his thought process; take verse 15:

“Number the sons of Levi by their fathers’ households, by their families; every male from a month old and upward you shall number.”

So according to the verse:

- God wants them to count all the sons.
- God specifies how to do this: by counting every male that’s at least a month old.
- Therefore, we can infer that God doesn’t consider male babies less than a month old to be “sons.”

So why aren’t newborn babies “sons of Levi” (or sons of the other tribes - the passage goes on to describe something similar for the other tribes)? The child’s parentage doesn’t change when he turns a month old. What could the reason be for this except that God didn’t regard the child as a person until that age?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No mother is under such obligation. Adoption is always an option.

Um... you have to have the child before you can off er it for adoption.

 

[columbus]

None whatsoever, no. If the mother wishes to consider his opinion, then that's her decision. But the ultimate decision should be (and is) 100% hers and hers alone.

Do you think fathers should be expected to pay child support on a "clump of cells"?
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

Um... you have to have the child before you can off er it for adoption.

RF member james dixon said in post# 258,

"It is the mother who is obligated to raise the child..."

The "obligation" mentioned by james dixon was the raising of the child, not the child birth.

That is why I said,

"No mother is under such obligation. Adoption is always an option."

A woman deciding to bear a child does not obligate her to raise that child.

Adoption is always an option.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think fathers should be expected to pay child support on a "clump of cells"?
Tom

Of course not. But once born they are on the hook. It may not seem to be fair, but one should know the risk when one has sex with another. No matter what the system will be "unfair". This a complex issue where everyone is happy. If a man does not want to be a father there are options. He could always have a vasectomy so that he only fired blanks. He could avoid sex. He could use other methods of sex.

But as the saying goes: "You plays the games, you takes your chances".