Abortion

[Texan Christian]

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless

[Monta]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

That was well said. Life is.

It is not a matter of criticism; the western societies have lost the respect for life and for the living. Christian churches are good example. While preaching peace and love of the neighbor, they will follow their governmet's decisions to go and kill others. A child in Syria or Iraq or somewhere is not the same as a child in a western country.

Abortion or war, killing is new normal.

[jgh7]

Life starts in womb. So when a baby is kicking inside belly, that baby is dead? No.

When a sperm is swimming towards an egg, is that sperm dead? No. Neither is the egg for that matter. At no point does any life begin as a discrete event. Why should one arbitrary point on a continuum be preferred over another arbitrary point?

I like the moment of conception. At that point, I consider a human to be growing. A sperm by itself is not a human because by itself it is already grown to its final form. The same goes for an egg by itself.

When united, they become one new entity: a human. The human is then what is growing.

[Clownboat]

Life starts in womb. So when a baby is kicking inside belly, that baby is dead? No.

When a sperm is swimming towards an egg, is that sperm dead? No. Neither is the egg for that matter. At no point does any life begin as a discrete event. Why should one arbitrary point on a continuum be preferred over another arbitrary point?

I like the moment of conception. At that point, I consider a human to be growing. A sperm by itself is not a human because by itself it is already grown to its final form. The same goes for an egg by itself.

When united, they become one new entity: a human. The human is then what is growing.

If we go by this definition, about half of 'humans' die naturally before birth. I understand your reasoning for wanting to place the line here, but I personally have a hard time with it due to the fact that human reproduction is so ineffective.

An embryo has a 50% chance to make it to the birthing stage.
Calling it a human while acknowledging this seems to be a stretch IMO. Especially since I know what a blastocyst and embryo look like.

https://www.google.com/search?q=blastoc ... UQ_AUIBigB
Not what I would consider human anyway.

[jgh7]

If we go by this definition, about half of 'humans' die naturally before birth. I understand your reasoning for wanting to place the line here, but I personally have a hard time with it due to the fact that human reproduction is so ineffective.

An embryo has a 50% chance to make it to the birthing stage.
Calling it a human while acknowledging this seems to be a stretch IMO. Especially since I know what a blastocyst and embryo look like.

https://www.google.com/search?q=blastoc ... UQ_AUIBigB
Not what I would consider human anyway.

I have no issue whatsoever with the high percentage of embryo deaths. What does that have to do at all with distinguishing a human? If we lived in a world where 75% of humans didn't make it to the age of 1, would we therefore say that a true human only occurs after the age of 1?

Your second objection seems to be that a human must look a certain way for it to be human. If so, there must be a certain aesthetic point at which this "look" is attained. Is it when you can notice fingers? An eyeball? I have a hard time understanding that human life depends on it looking a certain way.

[Clownboat]

If we go by this definition, about half of 'humans' die naturally before birth. I understand your reasoning for wanting to place the line here, but I personally have a hard time with it due to the fact that human reproduction is so ineffective.

An embryo has a 50% chance to make it to the birthing stage.
Calling it a human while acknowledging this seems to be a stretch IMO. Especially since I know what a blastocyst and embryo look like.

https://www.google.com/search?q=blastoc ... UQ_AUIBigB
Not what I would consider human anyway.

I have no issue whatsoever with the high percentage of embryo deaths. What does that have to do at all with distinguishing a human? If we lived in a world where 75% of humans didn't make it to the age of 1, would we therefore say that a true human only occurs after the age of 1?

Your second objection seems to be that a human must look a certain way for it to be human. If so, there must be a certain aesthetic point at which this "look" is attained. Is it when you can notice fingers? An eyeball? I have a hard time understanding that human life depends on it looking a certain way.

I just can't consider an embryo or a blastocyst human, unless we are talking about origins of course.
An embryo/blastocyst just doesn't have the same 'value' as an actual human does.

I would be devastated to lose one of my children. Losing an embryo is half expected. To consider something to be equal to a human that has a 50% chance of never being actualized seems odd to me.

Could you look a child in the eyes and tell them that they are just as valued as an embryo/blastocyst is?

I couldn't, because they are not equal. Therefore, to compare the removal of an unwanted blastocyst/embryo to the removal/killing of an actual human life seem nonsensical to me.

Could we pick an arbitrary point sometime after conception to not allow abortions? Sure I suppose. I'm all ears, but let's not pretend (not that you have) that all abortions are late term. We should acknowledge that an unwanted embryo/blastocyst is what is generally being removed. Calling it human or not does not change the unwanted thing being removed, nor does it change its value.

Saying I value a humans life more than a blastocyst has meaning. If we did it your way, I would have to say that I value a human life more than a human life, which doesn't make much sense because they are not the same and they don't have the same value.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 25 by Clownboat]

In my opinion a human life does not depend on how you value it. I understand valuing the life of a baby more than an embryo. I do the same. But this does not therefore necessitate that an embryo/blastocyst is not a human life. If human life depended on how we value it, then human is not even an objective term. It's completely dependent on one's values. If someone didn't value a born baby, then therefore that baby is not human?

People can have different values for a human depending on its stage in life. Purposely killing a human at whatever stage is an extremely serious act that involves actively destroying that human's entire future on this planet. This holds true for an embryo just the same as for anytime after a human is born. I just wish people would have a deep respect for the life of unborn humans. Maybe not as deep as that of born humans, but still deep enough to accept that abortion does constitute as killing a human.

[Closingaccountreadgmailna]

[Replying to post 13 by rosary]

Life starts in womb. So when a baby is kicking inside belly, that baby is dead? No.

No. That fetus is in Limbo.

You are wrong. Life is there and that "fetus" you call it, could be you, murdered. Thank God you and me are still breathing. Say a thank you mom today for bearing the pain she had to go through to have you. I am grateful I am alive, I thank God and my mom for having me.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 25 by Clownboat]

In my opinion a human life does not depend on how you value it. I understand valuing the life of a baby more than an embryo. I do the same. But this does not therefore necessitate that an embryo/blastocyst is not a human life. If human life depended on how we value it, then human is not even an objective term. It's completely dependent on one's values. If someone didn't value a born baby, then therefore that baby is not human?

People can have different values for a human depending on its stage in life. Purposely killing a human at whatever stage is an extremely serious act that involves actively destroying that human's entire future on this planet. This holds true for an embryo just the same as for anytime after a human is born. I just wish people would have a deep respect for the life of unborn humans. Maybe not as deep as that of born humans, but still deep enough to accept that abortion does constitute as killing a human.

Words have meanings though.
You defy embryo and blastocyst by insisting on calling those clumps of cells 'humans'. I have seen many a human in my day, but never one that resembles either of those things. Not only are they different, but we both agree they don't have the same value either, which makes them even less human.

You do a disservice to the un-thinkers around IMO by calling these cells that have a 50% chance of being born 'humans'. In there mind they envision near fully formed babies being brutally ripped from the womb as evidence by some of the posts here already. They get too emotionally involved to understand that what is being aborted the large majority of the time is just unwanted clumps of human cells.

Some people it seems need their hands held more than others, thus using accurate terms should be preferred to avoid illogical emotional thinking.

But you are free to do so of course, as I am free to call them what they actually are.

Jgh7, what harm is done if an unwanted blastocyst is removed from a women that would have been naturally aborted on its own even if the mother wanted it?
What harm is done if an unwanted human is removed from a women that would have been naturally aborted on its own even if the mother wanted it?

I argue zero harm, and it doesn't even matter if you call it what it is or if you call it a human. Therefore to condemn and compare the removal of something that might naturally be removed to an actualized, living, breathing human being seems off to me.

Remove a human from this world and harm is done. 50% of what you want to call humans will naturally abort, so it could be said that 50% of abortions aren't even harmful, but you would still call those cells human?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 13 by rosary]

Life starts in womb. So when a baby is kicking inside belly, that baby is dead? No.

No. That fetus is in Limbo.

You are wrong.

What a compelling argument!

Life is there and that "fetus" you call it, could be you, murdered.

When I scratch my butt, life is there in my finger nails. Is it murder to wash my hands after?

Jgh7, see here for an example of why it is important to use words accurately.

Thank God you and me are still breathing.

Show that a god is involved and I will do so. Continue to offer empty, un-evidenced claims and you lose credibility.

Say a thank you mom today for bearing the pain she had to go through to have you.

I am thankful that my mom wanted to have a baby when she got pregnant with me. If I was unwanted, I'm guessing I might not have much to be thankful to my mom for. Do you think mothers that are forced to raise their embryos that they don't want tend to make for good mothers? Is it smart to force mothers to raise children that they by definition DON'T WANT? Perhaps we should be thankful that 50% of conceptions naturally abort? At least those unwanted embryos are not being raised by a mother that doesn't want it.

I am grateful I am alive, I thank God and my mom for having me.

What does a god have to do with you being born? How old are you? You do know how babies are made don't you?

[jgh7]

Words have meanings though.
You defy embryo and blastocyst by insisting on calling those clumps of cells 'humans'. I have seen many a human in my day, but never one that resembles either of those things.

You appeal again to aesthetics to classify a human. I asked you earlier so I'll ask again. What arbitrary "look" passes the threshold of an embryo being human? Is it when it develops eyeballs? Fingers? Legs? If a baby was born without limbs, is it any less of a human? I mean, it doesn't "look" like a complete human according to your rules. It therefore must be less human.

Judging a human by its looks is the most arbitrary subjective judgment for human life possible.

Not only are they different, but we both agree they don't have the same value either, which makes them even less human.

I literally just explained how a human life is independent of what value we place on it. So I'll reiterate word for word what was in my previous post: If human life depended on how we value it, then human is not even an objective term. It's completely dependent on one's values. If someone didn't value a born baby, then therefore that baby is not human? This is absurd.

You do a disservice to the un-thinkers around IMO by calling these cells that have a 50% chance of being born 'humans'. In there mind they envision near fully formed babies being brutally ripped from the womb as evidence by some of the posts here already.

I don't know what you mean by un-thinker, and I don't know what disservice I do. I have not tried to trick people into imagining what you say they imagine. None of my arguments appeal to an embryo looking a certain way and therefore being human. Arbitrary aesthetics are your shtick not mine. And once again you mention survival chances as being linked to what is human. I demonstrated how this is nonsensical in previous posts. Whats the point anymore if you're just going to ignore it?

Jgh7, what harm is done if an unwanted blastocyst is removed from a women that would have been naturally aborted on its own even if the mother wanted it?
What harm is done if an unwanted human is removed from a women that would have been naturally aborted on its own even if the mother wanted it?

I argue zero harm, and it doesn't even matter if you call it what it is or if you call it a human. Therefore to condemn and compare the removal of something that might naturally be removed to an actualized, living, breathing human being seems off to me.

There's no such thing as naturally aborted, so I assume you meant naturally died. So basically your hypothetical is "We somehow know this blastocyst will die in the near future, and we don't want it, so there's no harm in killing it." But the thing is you don't know its definite future. All you have argued previously is that they have roughly a 50% chance of natural survival. So your hypothetical is dishonest to begin with in pretending we actually know the future.

Remove a human from this world and harm is done. 50% of what you want to call humans will naturally abort, so it could be said that 50% of abortions aren't even harmful, but you would still call those cells human?

You continue to insist that chance of survival has something to do with being human. So i'll requote what I said previously that shows the absurdity of this: "I have no issue whatsoever with the high percentage of embryo deaths. What does that have to do at all with distinguishing a human? If we lived in a world where 75% of humans didn't make it to the age of 1, would we therefore say that a true human only occurs after the age of 1?"

I did a lot of reiterating throughout this post of what I previously said in earlier posts. That means I have already posted arguments equating your views to be illogical. And all you have done is ignore these arguments.

When I scratch my butt, life is there in my finger nails. Is it murder to wash my hands after?

Jgh7, see here for an example of why it is important to use words accurately.

The future of the life in your finger nails is different from your own future, because you and the life in your fingernails are seperate entities in this case. Put simply, killing that life is not the equivalent of killing your own life.

I'll pose the core of my stance as it relates to this: When a healthy baby is born, we can all agree that it's wrong to kill it. The primary reason I argue that it's wrong is that by killing it, you are destroying its entire future. The exact same holds true for when that baby was in its earlier stages of life as a blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Killing it during those stages would entail destroying the exact same future as that of the baby's. They are not seperate entities. They are the same entity at different stages of their life.