Jillian Lowe
New Member
If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. I do not define a foetus with no EEG activity in the brain to be a living organism. A heartbeat isn't a sure-fire indicator of life.If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
Is there any reason she thought nobody would notice?Is there any reason why you have to make so many different accounts?
I do recognize that some human beings are too young to have a heartbeat. And that the majority of elective abortions are committed at that early stage.If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
If you're against abortion, do you still recognize that a pregnant person has a beating heart and is a human being?If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
1. A pig has a beating heart, but that won't stop me eating pork tonight.If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
It depends. A one hour embryo is a bunch of cells that you would have problem to distinguish from the equivalent bunch of cells of an amoeba.
So, we have two cases
1) you are in general opposed to abortion. But then you should make a case for embryos without any heart. Like that bunch of cells. I know it is less dramatic and emotional, but you will have to do it
2) you are just against aborting advanced embryos. But in this case, you would not be in general against abortion, only to abortion after a certain age of the embryo
So, what are you?
Ciao
- viole
If you're against abortion, do you still recognize that a pregnant person has a beating heart and is a human being?
I think Roman Catholic religion presumes that Catholics will die out if they are allowed any relief from reproduction, so it has little to do with any spiritual properties in the unborn. There is all kinds of evidence of this, such as the prohibition against birth control.If you are for abortion, do you still recognize that the child has a beating heart and is a human being?
I am against justifying an abortion at any stage by saying that it doesn't have some quality (like brain waves or heart beat) that it WILL HAVE if it is not aborted.
I've never understood that reasoning, frankly. It struck me as disingenuous and flawed the first time I ever heard it, and it hasn't improved in the years since.
It's sophistry and circular reasoning taken to the ridiculous.
My own opinion is that abortion is the killing of a human, no matter what stage of development it happens to be in, just as infanticide is the killing of a human, even though the infant is not an adult.
The point is, that if...left to develop on its own, a human WOULD BE a human adult eventually, then it is specious to argue that it's permissible to kill him/her BECAUSE it doesn't have certain qualities YET.
It's....like saying that it is OK to kill the heir to a fortune before he can claim it BECAUSE he hasn't claimed it yet. Lousy logic. Lousy reasoning.
There are, IMO, of course, times when aborting a pregnancy is ...not OK...never "OK," but permissible/required/ a tragic necessity. When the mother's life/health is at risk. When there is no chance for the fetus to survive outside the womb...and those decisions should be between the mother and the doctor. The rules for this should be about the same as when one must make any choice between two lives; when it is, for instance, a choice between saving one or losing both...triage. But 'convenience?" or "I changed my mind about being pregnant," or "oops..." ? No.
But when an abortion is required; when it is done, one IS ending a human life that might well have reached human adulthood...unless it is killed first.
My views on abortion are actually a bit stricter than those taught by my religion, for ME. I would not, for instance, abort a baby conceived as the result of rape. I would consider that child the only good thing to come of the experience. I also understand that I'm fairly rare in that view, and don't fault women who wouldn't feel that way.
But I had five kids. that might make a difference in how I feel about that.
Did Ms. Rowe reference the Catholic Church somewhere?I think Roman Catholic religion presumes that Catholics will die out if they are allowed any relief from reproduction, so it has little to do with any spiritual properties in the unborn. There is all kinds of evidence of this, such as the prohibition against birth control.
Do you recognize that the pregnant person usually chose the procreation?If you're against abortion, do you still recognize that a pregnant person has a beating heart and is a human being?
A heartbeat isn't a sure-fire indicator of life.
Well, yes. Fair enough, but then they should not insist on showing little embryos looking like little babies to make a point. For that is only an advanced stage.
By the way, the argument is going to defuse in a few years, at least in the western european world. There are effctive pills you can take the day after, so that you will never know if you killed someone or not
Ciao
- viole
That's the point I was making, actually; doesn't matter what the fetus looks like at any point in its development. It WILL BE that 'little baby' if it isn't killed first. It WILL BE that human adult...if it isn't killed first. I find it a deceptive and fallacious argument to say that it is just fine and dandy to kill it BECAUSE it doesn't have some quality it would have if it is left to live for a bit longer.
I really do believe that if abortion is contemplated, then it should be done so in the full knowledge that it is a fully human life that one is thinking about ending...just as completely as if one is aiming a gun at someone in front of one. Stop kidding ourselves...that is exactly what is happening here.
....and this is an improvement?
That's like saying that it's just fine and dandy to drive into a group of pedestrians with your car as long as you close your eyes first so that you don't KNOW you are going to kill anybody.
I am of the firm opinion that human life begins when the sperm interacts with the egg and blocks all other genetic 'input.' Conception, in other words.
That means that men and women need to take responsibility for their own procreations BEFORE they start a new life. It's possible. The vast majority of pregnancies are the result of willing choices made by adults who know exactly how babies are made. They need to figure out just how much they don't want to be pregnant BEFORE they do those things that make them that way.
And then deal with the consequences ethically and reasonably, in the full knowledge that if they get pregnant, it's not just them in the equation any more. There is another human, one who did not ask to be made and has no say in anything, to be considered.
...................and this, believe it or not, is not about religion. In fact, I think, if I were to become an atheist, I would be even more vocal about this. I mean...religion gives some alternative to the 'soul,' or 'spirit' of the unborn. There is no such comfort if there is no afterlife.
The point is, that if...left to develop on its own, a human WOULD BE a human adult eventually, then it is specious to argue that it's permissible to kill him/her BECAUSE it doesn't have certain qualities YET.
No, that analogy is wrong. The relevant thing for determining whether someone is a legal person is not whether they have claimed an inheritance. It *is* whether they have the capacity for consciousness. If that heir never had the capacity to think, emote, etc, then there is no moral issue.It's....like saying that it is OK to kill the heir to a fortune before he can claim it BECAUSE he hasn't claimed it yet. Lousy logic. Lousy reasoning.
There are, IMO, of course, times when aborting a pregnancy is ...not OK...never "OK," but permissible/required/ a tragic necessity. When the mother's life/health is at risk. When there is no chance for the fetus to survive outside the womb...and those decisions should be between the mother and the doctor. The rules for this should be about the same as when one must make any choice between two lives; when it is, for instance, a choice between saving one or losing both...triage. But 'convenience?" or "I changed my mind about being pregnant," or "oops..." ? No.
But when an abortion is required; when it is done, one IS ending a human life that might well have reached human adulthood...unless it is killed first.
You are a bunch of duplicating cells.Well, i am the opinion that a bunch or a couple of duplicating cells is not a human being. Not in the slightest.