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

[Clownboat]

We all start out as embryos – human life coded with DNA. They are human beings just at a different stage of development.

You can attempt to argue that an embryo is human, but to no avail since the value of an embryo is not the same value as an actual human life. Not even close I would argue and that is not even taking into account that almost half of all fertilizations naturally abort (just to put an embryo into perspective).

It is a diservice to actual humans to call an embryo human IMO. Works OK I guess if your attempting to make an emotional argument over a factual one though I suppose. While you are at it, I suggest you use the term 'murder' as much as you can fit it in.

Question for you:
If abortion were deemed illegal and when some women were to get them performed anyway, those caught, do they deserve the same penalty as those the have committed murder? (Death penalty in some states)

[jgh7]

So, to answer your question, “Can fertilized eggs exercise their natural rights?� my response is they needn’t have to. They Have rights simply by being human beings. But one could argue that they exercise their natural rights by existing, by growing, and by developing. Unless you do something to actively destroy them, they will continue to exercise their natural rights by naturally continuing to develop and grow.

What about the right to die? If embryos have rights, don't they have the right to die. And don't we violate their right to die by having them live, the same as we violate their right to live by having them die?

My point--and I do have a point--is that you can't have a right to do something without having a desire to do that thing. Embryos aren't people. They don't have desires. They don't have rights.

If we pretended they had rights, we'd have to pretend that we violated some right no matter what we did. Don't people have the right to travel? Don't we violate that right every time a pregnant woman stays home? It's better not to pretend.

I think you should refine that further. I doubt newborn babies have desire let alone consciousness outside the most simplest of reflexes and instincts. Also, does someone with stronger desire have more right than someone with less desire? It just seems nonsensical to base rights off desire.

[myth-one.com]

Others make decisions for those incapable of making decisions on their own. This includes fertilized eggs.

Yes, and those decisions cannot take away their right to life.

Natural, unalienable, or inalienable rights are those people are created with, and cannot be justly taken away without consent -- as they come from nature or God.

You consider abortion as murder.

But today abortion is legal and just under the laws of many communities.

Fetuses are incapable of consenting to their own abortion; thus consent to abort falls to legal guardians -- typically the pregnant female.

As with any decision, some of these are probably wrong.

But I doubt that all are wrong.

One member of society does not get to decide/pick and choose whether another innocent member of society can be murdered.

Every day people choose to murder other people. Even mass murders are becoming routine.

And no one should want to live in a society where they can.

It occurs in all human societies. It's inescapable.

I can make decisions for my children, but I am not allowed to decide to end their life – that is ridiculous.

Not allowed by whom?

A decision indicates a choice can be made. If there are only two choices, and one is not allowed, then there is no decision to be made. Good for you!

But I live twenty miles from where a mother decided to murder her five children while in their "innocent" years to send them to heaven for all eternity, thus avoiding their possibly burning in the fires of hell eternally.

She based her decision on church teachings.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 90 by Clownboat]

RightReason wrote:
We all start out as embryos – human life coded with DNA. They are human beings just at a different stage of development.

You can attempt to argue that an embryo is human, but to no avail since the value of an embryo is not the same value as an actual human life.

Thank you for your opinion, but I disagree.

Not even close I would argue and that is not even taking into account that almost half of all fertilizations naturally abort (just to put an embryo into perspective).

What does that have to do with anything? Ask any women who knew she was pregnant and experienced a miscarriage if her developing baby had value even though she may only have been pregnant for a matter of weeks.

It is a diservice to actual humans to call an embryo human IMO.

It is actually the opposite. To devalue a human life just because he/she can’t speak for him/herself yet is what is the disservice. To take advantage or ignore the most vulnerable among us.

Works OK I guess if your attempting to make an emotional argument over a factual one

I’d say you have that reversed. I am the one arguing from science, biology, facts. You appear to be the one making an emotional appeal – claiming a human being is only a human being when another human being decides or chooses to give that human being value. We ran into similar arguments in slavery debates and during the Holocaust. They were both attempts to dehumanize – to say their actions were ok because we weren’t really talking about human beings after all. If we can define someone as not fully human, then we can justify the most horrific actions.

Question for you:
If abortion were deemed illegal and when some women were to get them performed anyway, those caught, do they deserve the same penalty as those the have committed murder? (Death penalty in some states)

There are many things that are immoral – that doesn’t mean I want to see the death penalty applied or even extreme punishment. I would be much more interested in changing hearts, in trying to understand how we can help and prevent women from feeling like they have no choice to do such a horrible thing. No woman wants to kill her baby. If society is pressuring her to do so, that is something we need to look at. I see women as often the victim themselves in these situations.

We have though convicted abortion providers of murder and rightly so. See the story of Gosnell.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 92 by myth-one.com]

Myth-one.com wrote:
Others make decisions for those incapable of making decisions on their own. This includes fertilized eggs.


Then, RightReason wrote:
Yes, and those decisions cannot take away their right to life.

Natural, unalienable, or inalienable rights are those people are created with, and cannot be justly taken away without consent -- as they come from nature or God.

You consider abortion as murder.

But today abortion is legal and just under the laws of many communities.

Slavery use to be legal – doesn’t mean it was ever right or good.

Fetuses are incapable of consenting to their own abortion

Nor should they have to. They have a right to live regardless if their mother, father, or anyone else thinks they don’t.

Then, RightReason wrote:
One member of society does not get to decide/pick and choose whether another innocent member of society can be murdered.

Every day people choose to murder other people. Even mass murders are becoming routine.

Yes AND that would be WRONG!

Then, RightReason wrote:
And no one should want to live in a society where they can.

It occurs in all human societies. It's inescapable.

AND why we try to do something about it! We don’t shrug and say meh human sex trafficking is going to exist – nothing I can do about it.

Then, RightReason wrote:
I can make decisions for my children, but I am not allowed to decide to end their life – that is ridiculous.

Not allowed by whom?

Natural law. The world we live in. All human beings have the right to life by simply being human beings!

A decision indicates a choice can be made. If there are only two choices, and one is not allowed, then there is no decision to be made. Good for you!

No idea what you are talking about above.

But I live twenty miles from where a mother decided to murder her five children while in their "innocent" years to send them to heaven for all eternity, thus avoiding their possibly burning in the fires of hell eternally.

She based her decision on church teachings.

If it is the story I am thinking of it was noted that she was mentally ill (schizophrenic and hearing voices) or on meth or both. So, clearly anti-religious are barking up the wrong tree to try to suggest the Bible made her do it. Also, not sure what kind of argument for abortion you are trying to make. What that it would have been better if she aborted her five children to prevent her killing them years later? Kind of a tough sell.

[myth-one.com]

Fetuses are incapable of consenting to their own abortion

Nor should they have to. They have a right to live regardless if their mother, father, or anyone else thinks they don’t.

Suppose it is known that a fetus faces a lifetime of disability and pain. Would you condemn that fetus to that miserable lifetime?

I live twenty miles from where a mother decided to murder her five children while in their "innocent" years to send them to heaven for all eternity, thus avoiding their possibly burning in the fires of hell eternally.

She based her decision on church teachings.

If it is the story I am thinking of it was noted that she was mentally ill (schizophrenic and hearing voices) or on meth or both. So, clearly anti-religious are barking up the wrong tree to try to suggest the Bible made her do it.

The Bible did not make her do it.

She claimed that she was failing as a mother and believed she had to kill the children to keep them from going to hell. "These were their innocent years. God would take them up."

Are these beliefs a side affect of mental illness and drug abuse?

Don't most Christians teach that deceased innocent children go immediately to heaven at their death?

[Clownboat]

You can attempt to argue that an embryo is human, but to no avail since the value of an embryo is not the same value as an actual human life.

Thank you for your opinion, but I disagree.

Actually, I don't think you have given this enough thought as I'm sure you actually do agree with me. You have to say this, otherwise you are conceding my argument.

Not even close I would argue and that is not even taking into account that almost half of all fertilizations naturally abort (just to put an embryo into perspective).

What does that have to do with anything?

Just perspective and for evaluation. Do nearly 50% of 3 year olds die naturally? No, they don't you say, unlike a fertilization event in a human? Hmm... differences then huh?

Ask any women who knew she was pregnant and experienced a miscarriage if her developing baby had value even though she may only have been pregnant for a matter of weeks.

Why would I do that? Do you think I have argued that a fetus has zero value, because I have not?

It is actually the opposite. To devalue a human life just because he/she can’t speak for him/herself yet is what is the disservice. To take advantage or ignore the most vulnerable among us.

I am not devaluing. Please keep up.
I'm pointing out that there is a value difference. If you don't see it, I can explain it to you if you are willing to participate.

Works OK I guess if your attempting to make an emotional argument over a factual one

I’d say you have that reversed. I am the one arguing from science, biology, facts.

You're using words like baby and murder instead of making an actual argument.

You appear to be the one making an emotional appeal – claiming a human being is only a human being when another human being decides or chooses to give that human being value.

Copy/paste where I said this or please retract.

Question for you:
If abortion were deemed illegal and when some women were to get them performed anyway, those caught, do they deserve the same penalty as those the have committed murder? (Death penalty in some states)

There are many things that are immoral – that doesn’t mean I want to see the death penalty applied or even extreme punishment.

You called it murder! Are you back tracking now? I want to know if you would hand out the same punishment in this scenario as you would for an actual murderer. Would you?

[jgh7]

We all start out as embryos – human life coded with DNA. They are human beings just at a different stage of development.

You can attempt to argue that an embryo is human, but to no avail since the value of an embryo is not the same value as an actual human life. Not even close I would argue and that is not even taking into account that almost half of all fertilizations naturally abort (just to put an embryo into perspective).

It is a diservice to actual humans to call an embryo human IMO. Works OK I guess if your attempting to make an emotional argument over a factual one though I suppose. While you are at it, I suggest you use the term 'murder' as much as you can fit it in.

Question for you:
If abortion were deemed illegal and when some women were to get them performed anyway, those caught, do they deserve the same penalty as those the have committed murder? (Death penalty in some states)

What is your actual argument that relates human life to the value we assign to it? The value of human lives differ among all humans. If you had the choice to save a terminally ill 98 year old with a few months left to live or a perfectly healthy 5 year old, who would you choose? Most likely the 5 year old because you assign more value to his life.

Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses may not have the same value as newborns and onwards, but so what? Is there a certain threshold of value that must be subjectively assigned in order to receive the label of human?

[Clownboat]

What is your actual argument that relates human life to the value we assign to it?

The removal of an unwanted blastocyst/fetus is not like murdering a baby. The value of an unwanted blastocyst/fetus is not the same value that we assign to a baby. Therefore removing an unwanted blastocyst/fetus is not the same as the murder of a baby.

The value of human lives differ among all humans. If you had the choice to save a terminally ill 98 year old with a few months left to live or a perfectly healthy 5 year old, who would you choose? Most likely the 5 year old because you assign more value to his life.

Yes, you are starting to get it.
I would also argue that a 98 year old has more value than an unwanted blastocyst/fetus. Some grandchild I would imagine desires their grandparent to be around.

Who is it that wants the unwanted blastocysts? What is the value of something that has been deemed unwanted?

How many unwanted blastocysts would you be willing to take on yourself?

Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses may not have the same value as newborns and onwards, but so what?

So what!?!
Your head has more value than a rock. It's OK for me to bash a rock against the ground or to skip it across a lake, but I cannot do the same with your head. Value comes into play.

Is there a certain threshold of value that must be subjectively assigned in order to receive the label of human?

No. Gold has much value, but is not considered human for example.

Personally, I see greiving parents all over the place trying to conceive, often without luck. Those are the fetuses we should be giving our attention to saving, not the ones that are by definition 'unwanted'.

Personally, I'm not a fan of abortions though.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 98 by Clownboat]

Well it seems we are similar in that I assign less value to a zygote/embryo/fetus (zef for short) then to born humans. And yet we are completely different in that I still assign major value to it while you don't seem to assign much.

Who is it that wants the unwanted blastocysts? What is the value of something that has been deemed unwanted?

How many unwanted blastocysts would you be willing to take on yourself?

Children can be deemed unwanted by irresponsible parents. Back in the day and still to this day people of certain race, gender, and color can and were deemed unwanted in certain societies. But we recognize that their value is inherent and not dependent on others preference. As to your question, I'm unwilling to take any blastocysts just the same as I'm unwilling to foster any children at the moment. That should not detract from their value.

Personally, I see greiving parents all over the place trying to conceive, often without luck. Those are the fetuses we should be giving our attention to saving, not the ones that are by definition 'unwanted'.

Personally, I'm not a fan of abortions though.

If I'm interpreting correctly, it seems you view fetuses more as a material possession. By that I mean: if the owner wants it then it has value, but if not then it has very little value?

I assign them inherent value for the same reason as a human in any other stage of its life has inherent value. I look at it this way: Let's say in scenario 1 I was actively aborted as a fetus. Society for the most part cares little. Now in scenario 2 I was actively aborted as a newborn. And by that I mean that my Mom dropped me off a building as a newborn because she decided she didn't want me. Society is absolutely horrified by this. But is there any real difference from my own perspective? Either way, I simply died before I was ever really conscious or experienced anything.

So your option that I see is to assign similar weight to aborting a fetus as to killing a newborn, or to assign practically no weight to killing a newborn as you do to aborting a fetus.