Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[BobaTheFett]

This is a shaky topic for sure. I believe that once the sperm and the egg are joined (or rather when the sperm forces itself into the egg) that life is created. It is human, necessarily? Well this is where it gets a little fuzzy. In its simplest form... No, I don't believe it is. But it is a potential human being. And who is to say that interupting the process isn't wrong? Where do we draw the line? When you haver to cave in an organism's skull before removing it from a woman's body isn't that just thinly disguised Infanticide?

At what point do we start throwing our daughters into the sea? I know it's already done in some cultures.

[Halofan48]

Look, many things have the potential for life. A seed in a peach is one example. We commonly throw those out without a second thought.

Also, when is it alright to invade a persons life and direct them what to do.

[BobaTheFett]

Well I guess that opens another debate then... Do you value a seed more than a human life? Or vice versa? Or are we equal to a nonsentient organism (or potential organism?)? Does sentience matter in the grand scheme of things?

And determining whether or not the act itself is wrong will determine your second point.

[Derach]

Quote by: BobaTheFett Well I guess that opens another debate then... Do you value a seed more than a human life? Or vice versa?

A human life is more valuable than a peach seed.
The right of individuals in America to determine their own fate is more valuable than human life.

Quote by: BobaTheFett Or are we equal to a nonsentient organism (or potential organism?)? Does sentience matter in the grand scheme of things?

In the eyes of the law, sentience and maturity matter tremendously as to the rights it affords you. A dog has more rights than a flea. An infant has more rights than a dog. A toddler has more rights than an infant. A child has more rights than a toddler. A young adult has more rights than a child. The government grants rights and imposes responsibilities to people based on age right up until they actually pay you for being a senior citizen.

Quote by: BobaTheFett And determining whether or not the act itself is wrong will determine your second point.

Something that is morally wrong should not necessarily be illegal.

[bombmaniac]

Quote by: wolf_22 a fetus can't think or feel, it isn't alive. and its not a woman's responcibilty to let her body be invaded for almost a year and then go through excruciating pain. until you have a uterus, you can't have an opinion on this issue. you will never be in this situation.

whoa!!! what kind of garbage is that?!? first of all, the word is spelled responsibility! and second, she wasnt invaded, if the sex was consensual, then she has no right to kill that innocent future brilliant life, that most wonderful creation of god given as a gift to that woman! if she doesnt wast to get pregnant, she should use contraception! however if she is raped and it really was an invasion, i have no problem with abortion.

[Derach]

Quote by: bombmaniac if she doesnt wast to get pregnant, she should use contraception! however if she is raped and it really was an invasion, i have no problem with abortion.

No contraception is 100%. Women get pregnant using the pill, a rubber, IUD's, even in very rare cases after a vascectomy. We also don't want women to start claiming being raped to justify aborting an unwanted fetus. That's why we can't let the government set the moral standard. It should be treated as a medical procedure ... if your of legal age and can afford it, you should be able to get one. It's up to the family and friends of women who need abortions to show her the moral problems with irresponsible sex if that is the cause of the pregnancy, not the government.

[pikatore]

Quote by: bombmaniac she has no right to kill that innocent future brilliant life, that most wonderful creation of god given as a gift to that woman!

I want you to realise that not everyone believes in a god, and not everyone thinks that we have souls, thus saying things like that mean absolutely nothing to me.

Quote by: bombmaniac if she doesnt wast to get pregnant, she should use contraception! however if she is raped and it really was an invasion, i have no problem with abortion.

Problem is, many girls don't have the foresight to use contraception, usually by not taking the whole pregnancy thing seriously. It's just another manifestation of typical teen ignorance and risk-taking. However, who are you to prevent them from aborting? Why on earth would you think that the choice to keep a foetus in one's womb rests on any other shoulders but the owner of the womb?

You would strip away the 'god-given' liberty that all women have, just to make yourself feel a bit more comfortable?

[wolf_22]

Quote by: bombmaniac whoa!!! what kind of garbage is that?!? first of all, the word is spelled responsibility! and second, she wasnt invaded, if the sex was consensual, then she has no right to kill that innocent future brilliant life, that most wonderful creation of god given as a gift to that woman! if she doesnt wast to get pregnant, she should use contraception! however if she is raped and it really was an invasion, i have no problem with abortion.

everyone has a typing error here and there.

sometimes contriception fails. why should she be forced to carry something she doesn't want in her?

a fetus isn't alive. its exisistance has no quality.it is pre-life.

I'm not touching the morality or theological part of the issue. that varyies person to person.

from a legal prospective- the fetus isn't alive but the woman is and she owns her body.

[Morality Games]

whoa!!! what kind of garbage is that?!? first of all, the word is spelled responsibility! and second, she wasnt invaded, if the sex was consensual, then she has no right to kill that innocent future brilliant life, that most wonderful creation of god given as a gift to that woman! if she doesnt wast to get pregnant, she should use contraception! however if she is raped and it really was an invasion, i have no problem with abortion.

The premises here seems to be that killing fetuses is wrong because it destroys potential life, which itself is wrong because potential life is a gift from God and he desires it to grow into a functional life form. An important implication is that God's authority transcends all others and that this is his take on the matter.

I don't even have to go into why this is a bad reason to discredit this post, because the argument already defeats itself due to incoherency -- if God's authority transcends all others and his decision is that killing potential life is wrong, then why would non-consensual sex be a significant negation of his will? The authority of the non-consenting women doesn't strike me as rising above his take on the matter anymore than the authority of consenting women, as he is too "above and beyond" and his directives are too "absolute."

So, to be consistant with your ethics, it seems like you can't think that it is alright for a raped woman to get an abortion. Otherwise, you are contradicting the reason behind your morals.

Additionally, why are you criticizing other people's spelling when you are not capitalizing or using commas?

[MariKine]

This is true. Going along with the logic, you would think God would be against all forms of abortion. Either way, the woman was fertilized.. Rape, or not.. with his "creation."

At the same time, continuing life with a living, breathing representation of how your body was violated would be so hard.


Anyway, I'm the type of person that hates being told what to do.. and I'd never pressure someone to have, or not have an abortion. At the end of the day, the woman is in charge, and it's her choice. If they outlawed abortion, except for "special" cases, women all over the world would be crying rape, just to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. :/

[Halofan48]

One of the arguments against abortion is " there is always adoption". We know that many foster hoes aren't good places and that not all of them will get adopted. To increase the number that won't or those that will live a hard life is just foolish.

[WakeTFU]

Quote by: Gorgo Why don't I have a right to destroy that life?

because you don't want to be killed yourself. Duh.

[LOGAN]

Sense this is posted in the religious section, I assume that evidence found in the Holy Scriptures does hold bearing, if one considers him/herself as professing to be a follower of that religion. And clearly the evidence found in the scriptures point only in the direction that Life begins before birth.

When does life begin, according to the scriptures? Does it begin at conception, at a certain time in the stage of development after conception but before birth, or at birth? As observed, many contend that life begins at birth (with the first natural breath of air). Thus, "induced abortion" in not considered murder. However, the Bible presents life being present before birth (Lk. 1:41, Ps. 139:16, Jere. 1:5, Ps. 139:13, 15). The Bible does not speak of the embryonic state as lifeless but as being a living entity. Exodus 21:22-25 is a pertinent passage in establishing the point in time of life. Submitted as evidence is "and if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give LIFE for LIFE." The language in this passage is "ambiguous" for a reason (meaning mother or child). Since we cannot exclude from the context of language either the mother or the child, the language must be considered pertaining to both. If God had meant to limit the language to the mother, he would have done so, for He is not the author of confusion ( 1 Cor 14:33 ). To cause or precipitate the death of the aborting mother or the aborted child necessitated capital punishment because such an act was considered murder ( Ex. 21: 23,24, 20:13). The only "reasonable" conclusion, then is to conclude that life begins before birth and at the point of conception (if not at conception, where do we demarcate just where in the developmental progression life begins, as God does not "specify"?).
And we are told in Deut. 29:29 is that what God has revealed to us belongs to us so that we might follow His Laws, and what is not revealed belongs to God. Are we to "assume" the position of God's intent of just when the spirit of Life enters the fetus? If not, we must go to the point of conception. But what is clear, is that God thinks that it is an "abomination" to spill the blood of the innocent (Prov. 6:17), and after but 2 wks, there is human blood flowing in the fetus, and it would be rare indeed for someone to demand a abortion before they even knew if they were with child. Logan

[JaneDoe321]

"life" begins at conception (actually, life begins all the time all the way along the spectrum". However, I don't think the little shrimp-oid is a human being until quite a ways along the developmental brick road.

Lots of miscarriages are due to developmental abnormalities that don't lead to anything remotely resembling the chubby baby portrayed on a lot of pro-life picket signs.

JMO

[Court463]

Here is what i think, you can't consider the fetus an actual living human being until it can live on its own outside of its mother's womb. Until then it is virtually a parasite (but kinda of in a good way) that lives in side the mother living off of her energy. So without the mother the fetus would die any way.

So until the fetus is mature enough to survive outside the womb it is the woman's choice to end her pregnancy, after that i'm not totattly sure because partial birth abortion kind of freaks me out but i still believe all women have the right to choose.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Court463 Here is what i think, you can't consider the fetus an actual living human being until it can live on its own outside of its mother's womb. Until then it is virtually a parasite (but kinda of in a good way) that lives in side the mother living off of her energy. So without the mother the fetus would die any way. So until the fetus is mature enough to survive outside the womb it is the woman's choice to end her pregnancy, after that i'm not totattly sure because partial birth abortion kind of freaks me out but i still believe all women have the right to choose.

Partial birth abortions freak me out, too. I can't ever envision a case where they'd be necessary. IN the event that that procedure is the only way to save a woman's life, though, I'd prefer not to criminalize it. Sometimes there are no "good" options in a decision, and a doctor should not go to jail for doing the best he/she can with a horrible situation.

[LOGAN]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 "life" begins at conception (actually, life begins all the time all the way along the spectrum". However, I don't think the little shrimp-oid is a human being until quite a ways along the developmental brick road. Lots of miscarriages are due to developmental abnormalities that don't lead to anything remotely resembling the chubby baby portrayed on a lot of pro-life picket signs. JMO

But an act of nature, as in a natural abortion, can not be compared to an act of "premeditation" in planning to take this innocent life. That would be like comparing someone that died of natural causes with someone carrying out a plan of murder, there is no difference. Morally, murder is murder in the eyes of God, despite what the laws of man declares. Logan

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: LOGAN But an act of nature, as in a natural abortion, can not be compared to an act of "premeditation" in planning to take this innocent life. That would be like comparing someone that died of natural causes with someone carrying out a plan of murder, there is no difference. Morally, murder is murder in the eyes of God, despite what the laws of man declares. Logan

I respect your right to that perspective. I do not recognize any "god", however, so from my perspective your argument makes no sense from a moral or legal standpoint.

I know people who have had pregnancies end in full term prenatal death for various reasons (cord accidents, maternal illness, injuries, etc). Now, obviously you can't predict that any given pregnancy will end in a prenatal death. However, it is also a fallacy to presuppose that every act of conception leads to the birth of a viable human infant.

Too, I am somewhat amazed (and this is not directed at Logan) that medical intervention into "God's workings" is frowned upon at the beginning of the life cycle, but is perfectly acceptable to prolong life anywhere else along that timeline. What's the difference? I can't justify those extremes (especially when espoused by the same individual).

[Court463]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by prolong life in that context, I'm assuming you mean to save a life our genetically modify something to live longer.

But I don't think you can consider medical intervention as messing with god because without medicine people would die every day from preventable things and we would be right back to the days when all the physicians did was bleed the patients and rub goat poop on cuts.

And to comment on an earlier post. I agree with JaneDoe on the part that sometimes there is no "good" option and people shouldn't be critizized or criminalized for abortions especially in life threating sitiuations.

[JaneDoe321]

By prolong life I mean just that.

I think medical intervention in the life cycle is viewed in a very cafeteria mindset by most folks.

Abortion is wrong, but it's ok to go to extreme measures to save a preemie, or a severely disabled child who will life his/her entire life in pain and with the assistance of machines, but it's wrong to allow people to die with dignity via assisted suicide but it's ok to use another form of medical intervention to keep somebody's body nominally alive even against their will (granted living wills, advance directives, etc have helped address this), etc etc etc. It's very contradictory, IMO.

If one believes it's "god's will", perhaps one should just let the chips fall where they may (and I know there are some religious sects who do just that.)