each year many unborn babies are deliberately aborted.

Prestor John said:

Thank you sharing your opinion, but I can never agree with it.

Click to expand...

It's not an opinion though: I make no claims regarding the superiority of another kind of life over others. You make such a claim. It's up to you to show it with evidence.

In post #110 I clarified what I meant by "potential" human life.

Then I said, "As soon as the sperm and egg meld, becoming an individual cell of 46 chromosomes, that "ball of cells" is human."

Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment and logic. Firstly, potential life is not life at all. It's something made up to moralize people. Second, you have no evidence that the "ball of cells" counts as human. I make the claim that being human requires experience. You are not your body.

Again, thank you for sharing your opinion, but I will never be able to agree with it.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with that as long as you understand that if you keep calling all my points opinions, then by all logic and reason your entire stance should be taken as such as well.

Darkstorn said:

It's not an opinion though: I make no claims regarding the superiority of another kind of life over others.

Click to expand...

Claiming that one kind of life is not superior to another is an opinion.

Darkstorn said:

You make such a claim. It's up to you to show it with evidence.

Click to expand...

I need evidence in order to have an opinion?

I never stated that your opinion was wrong or in error. I only said that I could never agree with it.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

I believe that there is ample scriptural evidence for the idea that human beings are superior to all other forms of life on our planet.

They teach that we are the literal children of God.

Darkstorn said:

I disagree with your assessment and logic. Firstly, potential life is not life at all.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I said "potential human life", not "potential life." I never said that there was a moment of "non-life" during the development of a human baby.

However, as I clarified in post #110, I said "potential" human life to include the idea that not all pregnancies come to term. They all have potential to be born, but not all of them are born.

That is what I meant by "potential." I never meant to say that the combination of an egg and sperm is not alive.

Darkstorn said:

It's something made up to moralize people.

Click to expand...

People have always been and will forever be moralized.

Either it's alive or it is not.

Either it is a human or it is not.

If finding a bacteria on Mars is the discovery of "life", then I don't think there should be any question about if what is growing in a woman's uterus is "life" or not.

Also, since no human female has ever given birth to anything other than another human being, I don't see how there could be any doubt about what is growing inside a woman's uterus.

This idea that people are "moralizing" this issue is an attempt to muddy the waters.

People without access to the same medical knowledge and technology do not question whether an unborn baby is alive or human. Yours is an argument of convenience, really.

Darkstorn said:

Second, you have no evidence that the "ball of cells" counts as human.

Click to expand...

Simple science and logic dictates the the combination of the 23 chromosomes from a human sperm and the 23 chromosomes from a human egg make an individual human being with 46 chromosomes.

The combination of a human sperm and a human egg has never made a football. Or a goose. Or anything other than another human being.

A simple DNA test would prove that it is indeed human.

Darkstorn said:

I make the claim that being human requires experience.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion, which I reject.

My two-month old son is just as human as I am. It does not matter if I have more experience than he does.

He was just as much a human baby when he was kicking my wife's bladder while in the womb than he is now.

Darkstorn said:

You are not your body.

Click to expand...

I am first a child of God and He has given me a physical body.

I am now as much a child of God as I am a human male.

You cannot separate the two. They are components of who I am.

Water is not independent of either hydrogen or oxygen. A person is not independent of their body.

Darkstorn said:

I'm fine with that as long as you understand that if you keep calling all my points opinions, then by all logic and reason your entire stance should be taken as such as well.

Click to expand...

Obviously.

Prestor John said:

The combination of a human sperm and a human egg has never made a football. Or a goose. Or anything other than another human being.

Click to expand...

This is one of the more obvious facts that feticide rights people carefully avoid.
If anybody thought that they were gestating a puppy or a gold brick they wouldn't need an abortion. But everyone knows that fetus is a human being and is utterly dependent for the broad range of needs human beings have when very young. It's a big responsibility.

If a fetus could be anything but a human being there would be no elective abortions.
Tom

Magic Man said:

This is usually due to an inability to empathize. Read up on individual cases of abortions; read about why women do it and what their situations are. If you truly try to see things through their eyes, I'm confident your opinion will change.

Click to expand...

The baby did not asked to be called into existence. Are your really that comfortable telling women that they can kill a 6-month old fetus because it's inconvenient to carry to term?

I understand you want to generalize and speak for all women, but who speaks for the unborn?

Grumpuss said:

The baby did not asked to be called into existence. Are your really that comfortable telling women that they can kill a 6-month old fetus because it's inconvenient to carry to term?

I understand you want to generalize and speak for all women, but who speaks for the unborn?

Click to expand...

I must be missing something. Which states allow an abortion at 6 months?

Well... not excluding the negligible number of abortions done very late due to medical complications:

Massachusetts, Iowa, Virginia, California, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Washington, Tennessee, Ohio, Delaware, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Idaho and the District of Columbia.

Why can't we say that an unborn baby is just a part of the mother. If a woman wants to cut off a finger, she can do that. If she wants to abort an unborn baby, Why is that different? The baby cannot live on its own prior to being born. It is not a separate person. This only occurs after it is born.. So the mother should be able to do what she wants with it.

Grumpuss said:

Well... not excluding the negligible number of abortions done very late due to medical complications:

Massachusetts, Iowa, Virginia, California, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Maine, Utah, Arizona, Georgia, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, Washington, Tennessee, Ohio, Delaware, Kentucky, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Idaho and the District of Columbia.

Click to expand...

Here is what I found, but it dates to 2015: Seems not so cut and dried.

Milton Platt said:

Here is what I found, but it dates to 2015: Seems not so cut and dried.

Click to expand...

Nah, it really is. The list I gave is for standard access abortion procedures. The reality is that every state permits abortion even into the ninth month of pregnancy (in some cases):

https://www.liveaction.org/news/the...ecting-the-preborn-from-abortion-at-any-time/

Now, some states do impose certain other restrictions which complicate easy access to abortion. The balance is explained in the landmark Roe v Wade decision.

We are arguing from guiding principles here.

Often the principles on either side of the abortion debate are not that bad, its just they can be (wrongly) treated as absolutely certain axioms where in real life they're more like fuzzy axioms, 80% or 90% valid and useful.

Recognising this, we ought to expect irresolvable conflicts and valid counter arguments galore. As well as a warranted degree of inter-personal respect.

Maybe the "value human life" and the "value political freedom" principles are domain specific, like a law of quantum mechanics and a law of evolution, they belong to different areas of science???

So there's a chance of language going on holiday, in that the "petri dish" the principles grew in is in each contains a different substance or "growth medium" for the genesis of thought.
Growth medium - Wikipedia

The Lord gave the right to bear children to the woman and as long as that unborn child is in the womb of the mother she alone has the right to decide is she wants to bring this unborn into this world. It is her choice and none other.

In my view -

james dixon said:

The Lord gave the right to bear children to the woman and as long as that unborn child is in the womb of the mother she alone has the right to decide is she wants to bring this unborn into this world. It is her choice and none other.

In my view -

Click to expand...

Not at all Scriptural, though.

One of the ironies of this issue is the utter lack of Scripture on the subject of abortion, but people who oppose feticides are commonly people who claim that their ethics and world view are based on the Bible. But by biblical standards there is nothing wrong with abortion, especially when the father is good with it.
The people who wrote the 10 Commandments would not have considered a fetus alive, because they equated living with breathing. A child became "alive" when s/he drew a breath. Before that, not alive so you can't actually kill them, much less murder them. Which is what the commandment is referring to.
Tom

columbus said:

Not at all Scriptural, though.

One of the ironies of this issue is the utter lack of Scripture on the subject of abortion, but people who oppose feticides are commonly people who claim that their ethics and world view are based on the Bible. But by biblical standards there is nothing wrong with abortion, especially when the father is good with it.
The people who wrote the 10 Commandments would not have considered a fetus alive, because they equated living with breathing. A child became "alive" when s/he drew a breath. Before that, not alive so you can't actually kill them, much less murder them. Which is what the commandment is referring to.
Tom

Click to expand...

And this doesn't even touch on the sheer number of unborn Yahweh is said to have personally aborted or born babies he's said to have murdered within the book's pages.

natasha levchenko said:

a personal choice or a question of morality?

Click to expand...

It's both.

There are more important questions for you to ask:

Is it justified for society and government to impose their will upon women's reproductive freedoms? (I recommend watching the Handmaid's Tale.)

What does science and statistical data tell us?

Abortion is painted by pro-life movements as the termination of term pregnancies, which, is illegal in most of the United States. The majority of abortions in the US are performed in the first trimester. The number of early term miscarriages rival that of abortions.

The bible isn't fussed with abortion. Just read Hosea 13:16 where it's actively urged in Yahweh's name.

Just read Judges 11 for a filicide dedicated to Yahweh.

As for morality, I guess it depends whether you regard women as possessions like breeding cows, or whether you think their autonomy is equal to the autonomy of males.

natasha levchenko said:

I have been mother for many years and I am strongly convinced that abortion is the worst decision ever made

Click to expand...

I respect your point of view.

I'd simply ask you to respect the point of view of others who are no less sincere than you.
.

blü 2 said:

I respect your point of view.

I'd simply ask you to respect the point of view of others who are no less sincere than you.
.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are all very happy about her CHOICE. No choice, no pro-life NOR pro-choice.

Grumpuss said:

The baby did not asked to be called into existence. Are your really that comfortable telling women that they can kill a 6-month old fetus because it's inconvenient to carry to term?

I understand you want to generalize and speak for all women, but who speaks for the unborn?

Click to expand...

1) Women don't get abortions at 6 months because it's inconvenient to carry to term.

2) We don't allow abortions at that point, unless there are extenuating circumstances.

When talking about abortion, the vast majority of the time you're talking about the first 10 weeks. Yes, I'm comfortable allowing women the right to control their own bodies.

natasha levchenko said:

a personal choice or a question of morality?

Click to expand...

I believe that abortion is a choice. It is the woman who is pregnant who has a choice. Men say that women should not have an abortion but they don't know what pregnancy is like. And some women will need to have an abortion for medical reasons.

natasha levchenko said:

a personal choice or a question of morality?

Click to expand...

Who is responsible for the thousands more that abort naturally?