Abortion - Irish have done it. Consequences ?

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:
I was talking about the general attitude towards abortion. It is becoming less of a taboo.
Yes, I don't see an issue with abortion because I don't consider it killing/murdering a human being.

That seems strange to me, coming from someone that holds science in such high regard. I really can't see how anyone with half a brain, much less anyone as obviously intelligent as you, could see an unborn human as anything but human.

I do think it is a matter of personal choice. That being said, I see the issue you have and empathize with the idea but I feel it's misplaced - to think that every human embryo and later fetus, is the same as a human baby come to term - is misleading at best. Is it potential human being? yes; but it is not a human being per se - the same as you and me.

An unborn baby is as fully human as a 100 year old man. It just puzzles me to hear you say that.
Anyone who's has ever felt a baby move or kick, inside its mother, can clearly see that it's alive, and not "potential" life.

As for born-again Christians, do you see this as something that affects their salvation?
What are the spiritual side effects of abortion in your opinion?

Are you asking me if one's belief, whether pro-life, pro-choice, or pro abortion, affects salvation?

No, of course you know I don't believe that. I don't even believe any doctor that murders the unborn can't be saved.

Spiritual effects of abortion? The same as spiritual effects of any sin, I guess.

It is in fact science that says that the embryo is not a baby nor a fetus is. It is just that a fetus. Biologically dependant on the mother. Is it life? Sure I don't deny that. But is it a human being? No it's not. Not until it comes to term.

Can you show me how an embryo is the same as a 100 year old person? It's really not. No science book says so. If you are going to appeal to dna then technically chimps are almost human and onions amd bananas are not far behind. Unborn baby is a very vast term. There are great number of stages in which the embryo goes through to get to full term.

I guessed you believe that about salvation but I just needed to confirm. However if the baby is harming the mother do you see still see it as murder or justified murder or sin? And if not then what do you think it is?

Neo,

What you addressed here, to me, is the entire discussion in a nutshell. If the unborn aren't human, than anything is permissible. But if they are human, then they have the inherent right to not be killed.

So, you said that the unborn aren't human beings until they come to full term. What do you base this on?

And to answer your questions...

An unborn and a 100 year old are both human beings, in different stages of life. They are the same in that they are both human. But different in that they are in different stages. But you wouldn't say that a 100 year old isn't human would you? What if that 100 year old couldn't survive on his own without help from somebody else? Isn't that the argument you used for the unborn?

Second question. If the baby is harming the mother, is aborting that baby murder? I would say that in the extremely rare cases that the baby is endangering the mother's life, then we would get into a discussion regarding situational ethics. But like I said, the cases where the unborn baby is a genuine threat to the mother, are rare. Doctors would try to save both lives, as best they could.

That is not the argument, Rick. A 100 year old is not biologically dependant on any person, unlike a fetus. A day 1 conception is not a human being it is a potential human being. A 100 year old man is not a potential human being.

The link you cited to ed is Quite conservative. No one is saying that the nature of life of a zygote is not human. Of course it is. I said the same before. But it is not a human being. Cherry picking sources Rick?

I suppose your argument works logically. I can see that. However biologically it is not that simple. In that if taken to extreme then even a sperm is a human being. The bible makes this case as well. Especially in the epistle to Hebrews where paul the author proposes that levi, one of Abraham's descendants paid a tithe even though he had not been born yet and was still in his father.

7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the [a]spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Do you agree with this biblical perspective?

Imo, In that sense even Masturbating can be considered mass murder. After all, your descendants are in your body.

Infact the Bible doesn't mention levi coming from his father and mother but only from his father. Why do you think that is? This is just a side note?

[edwardmurphy]

Exodus 21:22-25 King James Version (KJV)
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Here the Bible is clearly saying that if you kill an unborn, the person who killed the child must be in turn killed. It seems that God holds that life in very high esteem even if you don't.

You consider that clear?

To me it says that if a guy attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries as a result then he'll be punished. If an abortion consisted of a man leaping from the shadows and kicking a pregnant woman in the belly without stopping to inquire whether or not she planned to take her pregnancy to term then yeah, I guess you'd have a slam dunk. But abortion is nothing at all like that, so your snippet doesn't really seem like it has anything at all to do with abortion.

Got anything more specific?

[LittleHamster]

Here is something to consider. What if a dictator suddenly takes over the world and decrees that all pregnant women must abort their pregnancies from this day forward - now and forever?

If you are gonna argue that abortion is not murder, then this dictator just ended the human race......and got away with it (and without sin).

[neo-x]

Here is something to consider. What if a dictator suddenly takes over the world and decrees that all pregnant women must abort their pregnancies from this day forward - now and forever?

If you are gonna argue that abortion is not murder, then this dictator just ended the human race......and got away with it.

What?
Its about choice in the first place

[LittleHamster]

Here is something to consider. What if a dictator suddenly takes over the world and decrees that all pregnant women must abort their pregnancies from this day forward - now and forever?

If you are gonna argue that abortion is not murder, then this dictator just ended the human race......and got away with it.

What?
Its about choice in the first place

Oh yeah, I forgot about the choice. But I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Hitler - where he convinced the people of his country to do things - regardless of whether they were right or wrong.

This brings up the point that if someone decides to abort their own fetus - you say its not murder? But If someone else decides for you, then its murder ? I don't think you can have it both ways like that.

If it's not murder, then the dictator wins

Neo-x, this argument it making my moral compass is starting to spin a little weirdly

[Stu]

Neo wrote:
I was talking about the general attitude towards abortion. It is becoming less of a taboo.
Yes, I don't see an issue with abortion because I don't consider it killing/murdering a human being.

That seems strange to me, coming from someone that holds science in such high regard. I really can't see how anyone with half a brain, much less anyone as obviously intelligent as you, could see an unborn human as anything but human.

I do think it is a matter of personal choice. That being said, I see the issue you have and empathize with the idea but I feel it's misplaced - to think that every human embryo and later fetus, is the same as a human baby come to term - is misleading at best. Is it potential human being? yes; but it is not a human being per se - the same as you and me.

An unborn baby is as fully human as a 100 year old man. It just puzzles me to hear you say that.
Anyone who's has ever felt a baby move or kick, inside its mother, can clearly see that it's alive, and not "potential" life.

As for born-again Christians, do you see this as something that affects their salvation?
What are the spiritual side effects of abortion in your opinion?

Are you asking me if one's belief, whether pro-life, pro-choice, or pro abortion, affects salvation?

No, of course you know I don't believe that. I don't even believe any doctor that murders the unborn can't be saved.

Spiritual effects of abortion? The same as spiritual effects of any sin, I guess.

It is in fact science that says that the embryo is not a baby nor a fetus is. It is just that a fetus. Biologically dependant on the mother. Is it life? Sure I don't deny that. But is it a human being? No it's not. Not until it comes to term.

Can you show me how an embryo is the same as a 100 year old person? It's really not. No science book says so. If you are going to appeal to dna then technically chimps are almost human and onions amd bananas are not far behind. Unborn baby is a very vast term. There are great number of stages in which the embryo goes through to get to full term.

I guessed you believe that about salvation but I just needed to confirm. However if the baby is harming the mother do you see still see it as murder or justified murder or sin? And if not then what do you think it is?

Neo,

What you addressed here, to me, is the entire discussion in a nutshell. If the unborn aren't human, than anything is permissible. But if they are human, then they have the inherent right to not be killed.

So, you said that the unborn aren't human beings until they come to full term. What do you base this on?

And to answer your questions...

An unborn and a 100 year old are both human beings, in different stages of life. They are the same in that they are both human. But different in that they are in different stages. But you wouldn't say that a 100 year old isn't human would you? What if that 100 year old couldn't survive on his own without help from somebody else? Isn't that the argument you used for the unborn?

Second question. If the baby is harming the mother, is aborting that baby murder? I would say that in the extremely rare cases that the baby is endangering the mother's life, then we would get into a discussion regarding situational ethics. But like I said, the cases where the unborn baby is a genuine threat to the mother, are rare. Doctors would try to save both lives, as best they could.

That is not the argument, Rick. A 100 year old is not biologically dependant on any person, unlike a fetus. A day 1 conception is not a human being it is a potential human being. A 100 year old man is not a potential human being.

That's not true. Some very old people are dependent on others to survive. They can't feed themselves and need to be fed, have their clothes changed, etc.

A baby in the womb is no different to a newborn who depends on their mothers breast milk to survive. They can't make a sandwich for themselves or even pour a glass of water. Are newborns therefore only potential human beings?

And you missed this:

Exodus 21:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Here the Bible is clearly saying that if you kill an unborn, the person who killed the child must be in turn killed. It seems that God holds that life in very high esteem even if you don't.

[neo-x]

Here is something to consider. What if a dictator suddenly takes over the world and decrees that all pregnant women must abort their pregnancies from this day forward - now and forever?

If you are gonna argue that abortion is not murder, then this dictator just ended the human race......and got away with it.

What?
Its about choice in the first place

Oh yeah, I forgot about the choice. But I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Hitler - where he convinced the people of his country to do things - regardless of whether they were right or wrong.

This brings up the point that if someone decides to abort their own fetus - you say its not murder? But If someone else decides for you, then its murder ? I don't think you can have it both ways like that.

If it's not murder, then the dictator wins

Neo-x, this argument it making my moral compass is starting to spin a little weirdly

Its simpler than that. The whole "someone decides for you" is wrong to begin with. What follows is irrelevant.

A violation of rights is wrong to begin with. If a dictator does that then it violates rights, what follow is wrongful consequence because it stems from the wrong action. It doesn't matter if I kill you after I kidnap you. The kidnapping is wrong to begin with.

To take the alternative, If a dictator decides that no one can have an abortion. Then it is wrong again equally because it violates your rights.

[neo-x]

That seems strange to me, coming from someone that holds science in such high regard. I really can't see how anyone with half a brain, much less anyone as obviously intelligent as you, could see an unborn human as anything but human.



An unborn baby is as fully human as a 100 year old man. It just puzzles me to hear you say that.
Anyone who's has ever felt a baby move or kick, inside its mother, can clearly see that it's alive, and not "potential" life.


Are you asking me if one's belief, whether pro-life, pro-choice, or pro abortion, affects salvation?

No, of course you know I don't believe that. I don't even believe any doctor that murders the unborn can't be saved.

Spiritual effects of abortion? The same as spiritual effects of any sin, I guess.

It is in fact science that says that the embryo is not a baby nor a fetus is. It is just that a fetus. Biologically dependant on the mother. Is it life? Sure I don't deny that. But is it a human being? No it's not. Not until it comes to term.

Can you show me how an embryo is the same as a 100 year old person? It's really not. No science book says so. If you are going to appeal to dna then technically chimps are almost human and onions amd bananas are not far behind. Unborn baby is a very vast term. There are great number of stages in which the embryo goes through to get to full term.

I guessed you believe that about salvation but I just needed to confirm. However if the baby is harming the mother do you see still see it as murder or justified murder or sin? And if not then what do you think it is?

Neo,

What you addressed here, to me, is the entire discussion in a nutshell. If the unborn aren't human, than anything is permissible. But if they are human, then they have the inherent right to not be killed.

So, you said that the unborn aren't human beings until they come to full term. What do you base this on?

And to answer your questions...

An unborn and a 100 year old are both human beings, in different stages of life. They are the same in that they are both human. But different in that they are in different stages. But you wouldn't say that a 100 year old isn't human would you? What if that 100 year old couldn't survive on his own without help from somebody else? Isn't that the argument you used for the unborn?

Second question. If the baby is harming the mother, is aborting that baby murder? I would say that in the extremely rare cases that the baby is endangering the mother's life, then we would get into a discussion regarding situational ethics. But like I said, the cases where the unborn baby is a genuine threat to the mother, are rare. Doctors would try to save both lives, as best they could.

That is not the argument, Rick. A 100 year old is not biologically dependant on any person, unlike a fetus. A day 1 conception is not a human being it is a potential human being. A 100 year old man is not a potential human being.

That's not true. Some very old people are dependent on others to survive. They can't feed themselves and need to be fed, have their clothes changed, etc.

A baby in the womb is no different to a newborn who depends on their mothers breast milk to survive. They can't make a sandwich for themselves or even pour a glass of water. Are newborns therefore only potential human beings?

And you missed this:

Exodus 21:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Here the Bible is clearly saying that if you kill an unborn, the person who killed the child must be in turn killed. It seems that God holds that life in very high esteem even if you don't.

Shouldn't we then kill the perpetrators? Why don't you?

[Stu]

It is in fact science that says that the embryo is not a baby nor a fetus is. It is just that a fetus. Biologically dependant on the mother. Is it life? Sure I don't deny that. But is it a human being? No it's not. Not until it comes to term.

Can you show me how an embryo is the same as a 100 year old person? It's really not. No science book says so. If you are going to appeal to dna then technically chimps are almost human and onions amd bananas are not far behind. Unborn baby is a very vast term. There are great number of stages in which the embryo goes through to get to full term.

I guessed you believe that about salvation but I just needed to confirm. However if the baby is harming the mother do you see still see it as murder or justified murder or sin? And if not then what do you think it is?

Neo,

What you addressed here, to me, is the entire discussion in a nutshell. If the unborn aren't human, than anything is permissible. But if they are human, then they have the inherent right to not be killed.

So, you said that the unborn aren't human beings until they come to full term. What do you base this on?

And to answer your questions...

An unborn and a 100 year old are both human beings, in different stages of life. They are the same in that they are both human. But different in that they are in different stages. But you wouldn't say that a 100 year old isn't human would you? What if that 100 year old couldn't survive on his own without help from somebody else? Isn't that the argument you used for the unborn?

Second question. If the baby is harming the mother, is aborting that baby murder? I would say that in the extremely rare cases that the baby is endangering the mother's life, then we would get into a discussion regarding situational ethics. But like I said, the cases where the unborn baby is a genuine threat to the mother, are rare. Doctors would try to save both lives, as best they could.

That is not the argument, Rick. A 100 year old is not biologically dependant on any person, unlike a fetus. A day 1 conception is not a human being it is a potential human being. A 100 year old man is not a potential human being.

That's not true. Some very old people are dependent on others to survive. They can't feed themselves and need to be fed, have their clothes changed, etc.

A baby in the womb is no different to a newborn who depends on their mothers breast milk to survive. They can't make a sandwich for themselves or even pour a glass of water. Are newborns therefore only potential human beings?

And you missed this:

Exodus 21:22-25 New International Version (NIV)
22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Here the Bible is clearly saying that if you kill an unborn, the person who killed the child must be in turn killed. It seems that God holds that life in very high esteem even if you don't.

Shouldn't we then kill the perpetrators? Why don't you?

You are shifting the goal posts now and ignoring everything I said in favour of a different debate entirely. In other words you have no answer so you change the debate. Devious.

[Stu]

Exodus 21:22-25 King James Version (KJV)
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Here the Bible is clearly saying that if you kill an unborn, the person who killed the child must be in turn killed. It seems that God holds that life in very high esteem even if you don't.

You consider that clear?

To me it says that if a guy attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries as a result then he'll be punished. If an abortion consisted of a man leaping from the shadows and kicking a pregnant woman in the belly without stopping to inquire whether or not she planned to take her pregnancy to term then yeah, I guess you'd have a slam dunk. But abortion is nothing at all like that, so your snippet doesn't really seem like it has anything at all to do with abortion.

Got anything more specific?

The God of the Bible is all about family. The Bible even gives the family trees of certain people.
And I do think it is clear - the consequences for killing an unborn baby is death. In other words, high value is placed on the life of an unborn baby.

[RickD]

Neo,

You were the one arguing that an unborn baby isn't a human being because it is biologically dependent on its mother. And in the same way, a 100 year old may be biologically dependent on somebody else. And you wouldn't say that a 100 year old isn't a human being, so your argument fails.

And you also said that the unborn is human, but not a human being. How can you justify a distinction. A human is the same as a human being.

For the life of me, I'm trying to figure out why you are arguing to justify killing unborn humans is ok. The only people that I've heard that attempt to justify this, are those who have had an abortion themselves, or have taken part in one.

Is this the reason you are arguing against the unborn being human beings? To justify to yourself, that it's not murder?

[neo-x]

Rick.im sorry an old person is dependent on machines or other people for help. It is not biological dependancy which means that the person is biologically connected to another human being to live. That is not the case so that argument doesn't fail.

[neo-x]

Neo,

You were the one arguing that an unborn baby isn't a human being because it is biologically dependent on its mother. And in the same way, a 100 year old may be biologically dependent on somebody else. And you wouldn't say that a 100 year old isn't a human being, so your argument fails.

And you also said that the unborn is human, but not a human being. How can you justify a distinction. A human is the same as a human being.

For the life of me, I'm trying to figure out why you are arguing to justify killing unborn humans is ok. The only people that I've heard that attempt to justify this, are those who have had an abortion themselves, or have taken part in one.

Is this the reason you are arguing against the unborn being human beings? To justify to yourself, that it's not murder?

No Rick. Its just the way I understand it. I have no agenda to push one way or the other. As I told you before this isn't a debate where I live. I think its rhetoric in my opinion to say it murder. Perhaps it is just something American? The same way about same sex marriage, evolution vs creation, America seems to be a really divided nation on almost everything.

[edwardmurphy]

Stu...

Ok, so first off this seems one of those instances where the Old Testament counts. I've never quite grasped the sporadic acceptance of OT law, but I've come to accept that sometimes it counts and sometimes it doesn't, there's a good reason for that, and it's definitely not just cherry-picking. Fine.

But...

The intent of the man who causes the miscarriage, the wishes of the parents, and the health of the mother are completely irrelevant?

And if the assailant gives the woman a serious beating but she doesn't miscarry then the whole "eye of an eye" thing can be skipped in favor of a fine? Do women's "eyes" not count as "eyes"? Does it then follow that God values women less then men? And perhaps that beating a woman until she miscarries is more a property crime committed against the husband than a violent crime committed against the wife?

And the the word "man" means "anybody" in this instance? It definitely doesn't always mean "anybody," so it's important to be clear.

And the word "hurt" is defined broadly enough that its meaning ranges from "attack with intent to do bodily harm" to "provide a requested service while trying not to harm the mother"?

And "mischief" means "miscarriage"? I suppose that it probably does, but if God really wanted to hammer the anti-abortion point home then why didn't he use more precise terms? Why leave any ambiguity or uncertainty at all? For that matter, if it's such a big deal then why didn't Jesus flatly state that life begins at conception and abortion was murder?

Honestly, Stu, I think that it's clear to you that that passage is a denunciation of abortion because that's what you want it to say.

[Nicki]

Neo wrote:
I was talking about the general attitude towards abortion. It is becoming less of a taboo.
Yes, I don't see an issue with abortion because I don't consider it killing/murdering a human being.

That seems strange to me, coming from someone that holds science in such high regard. I really can't see how anyone with half a brain, much less anyone as obviously intelligent as you, could see an unborn human as anything but human.

I do think it is a matter of personal choice. That being said, I see the issue you have and empathize with the idea but I feel it's misplaced - to think that every human embryo and later fetus, is the same as a human baby come to term - is misleading at best. Is it potential human being? yes; but it is not a human being per se - the same as you and me.

An unborn baby is as fully human as a 100 year old man. It just puzzles me to hear you say that.
Anyone who's has ever felt a baby move or kick, inside its mother, can clearly see that it's alive, and not "potential" life.

As for born-again Christians, do you see this as something that affects their salvation?
What are the spiritual side effects of abortion in your opinion?

Are you asking me if one's belief, whether pro-life, pro-choice, or pro abortion, affects salvation?

No, of course you know I don't believe that. I don't even believe any doctor that murders the unborn can't be saved.

Spiritual effects of abortion? The same as spiritual effects of any sin, I guess.

It is in fact science that says that the embryo is not a baby nor a fetus is. It is just that a fetus. Biologically dependant on the mother. Is it life? Sure I don't deny that. But is it a human being? No it's not. Not until it comes to term.

Can you show me how an embryo is the same as a 100 year old person? It's really not. No science book says so. If you are going to appeal to dna then technically chimps are almost human and onions amd bananas are not far behind. Unborn baby is a very vast term. There are great number of stages in which the embryo goes through to get to full term.

I guessed you believe that about salvation but I just needed to confirm. However if the baby is harming the mother do you see still see it as murder or justified murder or sin? And if not then what do you think it is?

You yourself just referred to the unborn as a baby in the last paragraph. That's the obvious way to see it - the embryo just gets more and more like a full-term baby until it's ready to come out. What's the difference between a baby the day before it's born and the day after? Nothing except that in the uterus it can receive its oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood; once it's born it has to start using its lungs and drawing attention to itself so it can be fed milk.

You made a comparison somewhere with sperm - sperm are simple cells which will stay exactly as they are until united with an ovum. Once an ovum is fertilised it immediately starts dividing into the many different cells necessary to make a baby. It's already a human being; it's just very early in its development. It should be seen as a very serious and sad thing if a baby has to be aborted to save the mother's life.