Overturning Roe V Wade

[Trailblazer]

Then how can you be sure life begins at conception? Just looking at pregnancy, the moment of conception is a combined sperm and ovum, and then for several days--if implantation is successful (most the time it isn't)--it's just a lump of cells that haven't even been "programmed" to become anything specific (and it is these cells that are prized for stem cell research because they can become any cell in the body at this point). And then for awhile we look kind of like a tadpole (we even have something like gills in the womb). And what most people claim is the heartbeat early on is not the heartbeat because that stuff hasn't developed yet. And then the fetus starts to look more like a person, but things like self awareness don't even happen until after birth.

Like I said, I don't know the answer to those questions because I am not a scientist. However, according to my religious beliefs each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception, so that is what I believe.

The Rational Soul | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe

 

[Trailblazer]

Then it appears that a ban on abortions would be immoral.

I do not see the connection. Why would a ban be immoral?
Mind you, I am not suggesting a ban on abortions as Baha'is are not to take political stances.
I do not even think it is a good idea but there has to be a better solution for this problem than what we have now.

“The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes is … essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, non-partisan, and diametrically opposed to any policy or school of thought that seeks to exalt any particular race, class or nation.”
The Promised Day Is Come, vi

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not see the connection. Why would a ban be immoral?
Mind you, I am not suggesting a ban on abortions as Baha'is are not to take political stances.
I do not even think it is a good idea but there has to be a better solution for this problem than what we have now.

“The Faith which this order serves, safeguards and promotes is … essentially supernatural, supranational, entirely non-political, non-partisan, and diametrically opposed to any policy or school of thought that seeks to exalt any particular race, class or nation.”
The Promised Day Is Come, vi

Because you are willing to ruin the lives of young kids that were too inexperienced to know better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like I said, I don't know the answer to those questions because I am not a scientist. However, according to my religious beliefs each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception, so that is what I believe.

The Rational Soul | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe

It's not an embryo until a few weeks into pregnancy and internal organs have begun to develop.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you are willing to ruin the lives of young kids that were too inexperienced to know better.

No, it is not my stance that abortion be banned altogether
That said, a pregnancy would not necessarily ruin a young life. An abortion a young woman regrets could also have a negative impact on a life.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not an embryo until a few weeks into pregnancy and internal organs have begun to develop.

I do not know exactly when the soul comes into being but according to scientists human life comes into being at the time of conception.

A Scientific View of When Life Begins

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is not my stance but a pregnancy would not necessarily ruin a young life.

I thought that you were anti-abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not know exactly when the soul comes into being but according to scientists human life comes into being at the time of conception.

A Scientific View of When Life Begins

The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.

And that is an equivocation fallacy on your part.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that is an equivocation fallacy on your part.

Please explain.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought that you were anti-abortion.

Baha'is do not take a political stance on abortion. The Baha'i laws only apply to Baha'is.

"Abortion merely to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is strictly forbidden in the Cause. There may, however, be instances in which an abortion would be justified by medical reasons, and legislation on this matter has been left to the Universal House of Justice. At the present time, however, the House of Justice does not intend to legislate on this very delicate issue, and therefore it is left to the consciences of those concerned who must carefully weigh the medical advice in the light of the general guidance given in the teachings."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Ireland, March 16, 1983; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1154)

 

[Trailblazer]

And that is an equivocation fallacy on your part.

Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain.

You have to know this one. No one is saying that a zygote, embryo, fetus, what have you, is not human being. What they are saying is that they do not qualify as persons..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why?

Because you are using two different definitions of "human".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have to know this one. No one is saying that a zygote, embryo, fetus, what have you, is not human being. What they are saying is that they do not qualify as persons..

Yeah, but as far as I can tell, that was what the link said. Biologically it is human. Morality is something else.
That you are a human is a biological fact. But it is not a fact that you are a human in a moral sense. The same goes for me.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have to know this one. No one is saying that a zygote, embryo, fetus, what have you, is not human being. What they are saying is that they do not qualify as persons..

What is the difference between a human being and a person? Does a human being have to have a personality to be a person?
But that is neither her nor there because if allowed to develop a human being becomes a person and this is the pertinent point when it comes to the abortion debate.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you are using two different definitions of "human".

#494 mikkel_the_dane beat me to the punch as that is what I was going to say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, but as far as I can tell, that was what the link said. Biologically it is human. Morality is something else.
That you are a human is a biological fact. But it is not a fact that you are a human in a moral sense. The same goes for me.

There is a difference between being biologically human and being human in a legal sense.

Let's take an extreme example. Granny just had her head chopped clean off and she is in the hospital. There is no coming back. All that made her "Granny" as a person are gone. She is consuming money at a terrible rate. Soon the estate will be all gone. Worse yet, a pandemic has hit and the hospital needs every bed. Is she "human"? Do we keep her body alive at all cost regardless of what it does to all of her heirs or to those waiting for a hospital bed or do we pull the plug because she is no longer "human"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

#494 mikkel_the_dane beat me to the punch as that is what I was going to say.

And he should have known better.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is a difference between being biologically human and being human in a legal sense.

Let's take an extreme example. Granny just had her head chopped clean off and she is in the hospital. There is no coming back. All that made her "Granny" as a person are gone. She is consuming money at a terrible rate. Soon the estate will be all gone. Worse yet, a pandemic has hit and the hospital needs every bed. Is she "human"? Do we keep her body alive at all cost regardless of what it does to all of her heirs or to those waiting for a hospital bed or do we pull the plug because she is no longer "human"?

That analogy is the fallacy of false equivalence because the zygote has the potential to become a person whereas granny can never be a person again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is a difference between being biologically human and being human in a legal sense.

Let's take an extreme example. Granny just had her head chopped clean off and she is in the hospital. There is no coming back. All that made her "Granny" as a person are gone. She is consuming money at a terrible rate. Soon the estate will be all gone. Worse yet, a pandemic has hit and the hospital needs every bed. Is she "human"? Do we keep her body alive at all cost regardless of what it does to all of her heirs or to those waiting for a hospital bed or do we pull the plug because she is no longer "human"?

Yes. We agree. It is two different domains. One is knowledge and facts. The other is moral beliefs and opinions.