• 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!

When you prevent an abortion...

S

Sedim Haba

Outa here... bye-bye!
Estro Felino said:
Surely.
But the secular State cannot prevent a woman from exercising a constitutional right.

It can dissuade her, saying that it will take care of that child.
Click to expand...
"exercising a constitutional right" that they are nullifying? Sense please?

Just what this county needed, more hate and strife and discord. Amerikkka is doomed.
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
If you don't abort them they will become a human life. But all they are in the womb is potential. So no, you did not save a human life.
Click to expand...

Yet a person can be charged with two counts of murder/manslaughter for the death of a pregnant woman.
If it isn't a human life, how can one be charged with two counts of murder/manslaughter?
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
KW said:
If you kill the unborn baby before has gained the cognitive ability to be a human in your opinion, then it will never reach that stage.

If you let it live then you have saved a human life.

Right?
Click to expand...
No. A being who does not yet exist cannot be saved or killed.
To give an example...if I choose to remain celibate I am not thereby killing my future descendants who would have had existed if I had chosen otherwise and hence doing something morally evil. There is no moral imperative on any existing beings to bring future beings into existence. The only moral imperative is not to intentionally harm beings that already exist.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
KW said:
How is it misleading?

If you kill the baby it won't live.

If you prevent the killing of the baby it lives.

You save a life.
Click to expand...

How do you define "baby"?

When I hear the word "baby", I'm thinking of this:

upload_2022-5-5_10-40-48.png


Not this:

upload_2022-5-5_10-41-47.png
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
KW said:
If you kill the unborn baby before has gained the cognitive ability to be a human in your opinion, then it will never reach that stage.

If you let it live then you have saved a human life.

Right?
Click to expand...

Your reasoning here, would mean that masturbation is the murder of millions of potential humans.
A woman completing her monthly cycle without getting pregnant would also be murder.

Every sperm and eggcell are "potential humans" also, after all.
So where do you draw the arbitrary line?
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Willamena said:
A baby can die after birth. It can die before its first breath, or be still-born.

I disagree that preventing abortion equates to saving its life.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it may live a short life filled with suffering, but the statement in the OP is beyond facile.

It's not a baby until it is born, it remains insentient in the womb, so it cannot experience emotional pain, the neural connections to the developing brain don't start to develop before 24 weeks, so it cannot suffer physical pain, unlike the woman whose body it is a part of for most of its development.

The OP also completely ignores the suffering of any woman whose bodily autonomy is forcibly taken away, and focus entirely on the insentient balstocyst they think should have more rights than the woman it is developing in. I could go on of course, but this will do for now, at least it sets the argument on a more even footing, than the facile false dichotomy of the yes / no in the OP.
 
Last edited:
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
KW said:
If you save a person from drowning then they are later hit by a car, you still saved a human life.
Click to expand...
An embryo blastocyst and foetus are not a person, by definition. You've gone from a false dichotomy to a false equivalence. Instead of using facile analogies that present inaccurate arguments, why not address all the real issues.

Like abortion rates being higher in most countries where there are laws preventing them, and the much higher risks to the women who are forced to seeks them under such circumstances?

Do you care at all about real suffering, or just your own emotional distress at the thought of a termination?
 
Last edited:
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
KW said:
If you don't abort them they will breathe and live a life.

If you prevent an abortion you save a life.
Click to expand...

Or destroyed one, or maybe even two. There are also no guarantees a developing foetus will survive to full term and be born, this is an assumption. However you are taking away women's bodily autonomy, effectively enslaving them to your own beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top