Best argument against the abortion "clump of cells"?

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Not one prochoicer has ever provided tangible evidence I’m wrong beyond their own opinion when I say that personhood as well as life begins at conception. I suspect none ever will.

Not one prolifer has ever provided tangible evidence I’m wrong beyond their own opinion when I say that personhood begins well after conception. I suspect none ever will.

Don’t make it too easy for me.

That’s because most pro lifers know better than to bring nonsense like the personhood argument into this debate. And you just demonstrated why.

Right back at ya.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I definitely agree that the decision to have an abortion or not is an emotional one. And the point I have been trying to make is that the emotion involved in the termination of a baby a day before it is born is utterly different to that involved in taking a morning after pill the day after having conceived (whether you know it or not) - which amounts to the same thing.

I’m simply stating that while some murders are done from hate and some are done from other emotions, they are generally a bad thing. Same way with abortion- you could technically call murder emotional thing too, but that does not allow it. I simply view abortion as a bad thing that stops or prevents life (depends on definitions I guess). Emotions don’t justify killing human in early forms of his life anyway.

 

[goout]

You say that abortion is morally wrong because you are killing a person. If those with whom you are arguing do not consider it to be a person - at that time, then you are wasting your time using that argument.

You are in lock step with Nazi’s and slave owners in your arbitrary use of personhood.

 

[goout]

Sbee0:

Not one prochoicer has ever provided tangible evidence I’m wrong beyond their own opinion when I say that personhood as well as life begins at conception. I suspect none ever will.

Not one prolifer has ever provided tangible evidence I’m wrong beyond their own opinion when I say that personhood begins well after conception. I suspect none ever will.

Don’t make it too easy for me.

Science.
Are you a science denier?
The support for humanity is based on the objective value of human life.
Morality is based on the pursuit of an objective good.

You have no moral argument. You have arbitrary force. Arbitrary force oppresses people, causes chaos, results in murder.

 

[goout]

Here’s a basic primer for those with short memories and even shorter moral yardsticks, as to where this subjective view of humanity leads:

Introduction to the Holocaust: What was the Holocaust?

Learn about the Holocaust, the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

 

[francisca.chapter3]

a clump of cells becomes so precious because “life begins at conception”: meaning life begins even before a person is conceived, that person has been in the mind of God.

The problem with the “life begins at conception” is, if the process of conceiving is outside Gods Law: example unlawful sex or even crime (abuse, rape), then “life begins at conception” only hold true if there are humans still believe in it and willing and strong enough to uphold such believe (not merely prolife talk. rather, the person/ the system is willing to do it all to care for the baby and educate him/ her unto the person as God planned him/ her to be).

The same argument is used to argue “the innocence” of a fetus (a clump of cells if you like): human law cannot judge whether an unborn-human is innocent, only God can do that.

The term “innocent-because-one-didn’t-do-anything wrong” comes from human law. In Gods term of “innocent” is different. Even if we stick to human law, it is rather hard to judge an unborn person. one is wrongly deem as “innocent” because he has not been born, and therefore he cannot do anything at all.

Christian concept of “innocence” because one is forgiven by God, and in turn he/ she forgive his/her brothers/sisters. A prostitute may have many sins, but surely she has some good deeds too. an unborn human doesn’t have ANY deed whatsoever. which one is more innocent? well, human law simply incapable to judge the innocence of an unborn human.

human law insists that human cannot murder another human. human law also has to decide whether the clump of cells is a human.

Genesis 2
7 Then Yahweh God formed Man, dust drawn from the clay, and breathed into his nostrils a breath of life and Man became alive with breath.

I am no bible language expert, I wonder if the word “nostrils” is really there in the original ancient hebrew text. I quoted from christian community bible. and the word “breath” has to be interpreted by our science too: what does it mean for a fetus to breath? when it starts to breath? Some argue when a fetus has a heartbeat, that’s when it has started breathing.

 

[vz71]

The problem with the “life begins at conception” is, if the process of conceiving is outside Gods Law:

I do not understand why you would place such a human reasoned limit upon God.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Because our faith in Christ use reason.

We don’t worship God whom we do not know.
We worship God whom we know (John 4:22).

If the parents of the fetus do not care, then, by the Grace of God, is there anyone else who cares for the child unto adult person pleasing in God’s eye? If yes, then, yes: life begins at conception. If there is none care, then probaly not.

 

[goout]

Because our faith in Christ use reason.

We don’t worship God whom we do not know.
We worship God whom we know (John 4:22).

If the parents of the fetus do not care, then, by the Grace of God, is there anyone else who cares for the child unto adult person pleasing in God’s eye? If yes, then, yes: life begins at conception. If there is none care, then probaly not.

This is subjectivism.

You can misapply this subjectivism to any human being. The poor, the marginalized, the disabled, the gay, the straight, the “racially inferior”.

Is that really what you intend?

 

[jochoa]

Thank you for the arguments!!

What about someone who says these two things:

(1) Feeling of Pain is necessary for right to life
and
(2) Saying only humans deserve right to life is due to religious argument, because there is no reason why a human that feels pain should have a right to life over an animal that feels pain.

I happen to think these are bad arguments, but someone actually posed these two to me, and so I need to find a way to help this person in particular.

A few ideas to consider:

1. What is the log in your eye, and how will you remove it?
2. Is this person a meat eater, and if so, would s/he object to cannibalism?
3. In the cases of identical siblings, when did they become multiple humans?

 

[francisca.chapter3]

francisca.chapter3:

If the parents of the fetus do not care, then, by the Grace of God, is there anyone else who cares for the child unto adult person pleasing in God’s eye? If yes, then, yes: life begins at conception. If there is none care, then probaly not.

This is subjectivism.

You can misapply this subjectivism to any human being. The poor, the marginalized, the disabled, the gay, the straight, the “racially inferior”.

Is that really what you intend?

It would be terrible to use such thought for a born human, or even a fetus old enough to show the sign of its humanity.

Its a miserable attempt of a proud human being to understand God’s thoughts. Or, it’s a merely pragmatist approach to social problems impossible to solve :

IMHO,
Prolife + Pro porn society = Compromised Prolife (impossible for all idealistic prolife, because it will only create gender injustice or even gender & children slavery)

 

[goout]

goout:

francisca.chapter3:

If the parents of the fetus do not care, then, by the Grace of God, is there anyone else who cares for the child unto adult person pleasing in God’s eye? If yes, then, yes: life begins at conception. If there is none care, then probaly not.

This is subjectivism.

You can misapply this subjectivism to any human being. The poor, the marginalized, the disabled, the gay, the straight, the “racially inferior”.

Is that really what you intend?

Its a miserable attempt of a proud human being to understand God’s thoughts.

Yes.
Exactly. Which is why we give the benefit of the doubt to every human being created by God.
We are created “in His image”.

It is not our prerogative to subject human beings to our own determination of worth.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Yes.
Exactly. Which is why we give the benefit of the doubt to every human being created by God.
We are created “in His image”.

It is not our prerogative to subject human beings to our own determination of worth.

If it is a human being. But if it is a clump of cells, and the way it was conceived not as God wills it, and nobody cares too, then?

Why did God killed King David and Bathsheba’s first “innocent” baby, but chose the second one to become king (King Solomon)? Did life began at conception for that first pregnancy? King David murdered Bathsheba’s husband and got her pregnant. God was furious and He said as the punishment for King Davids action the child must die. So God KILLED the child.

After that, God forgave King David, so Bathsheba got pregnant again. This time God chose the child and He gave the Kingdom to this child. The second child was King Solomon.

The Question is:
Why didn’t God killed King David as punishment for murdering Bathsheba’s husband? Why killed the “innocent” child instead?

Isn’t it obvious the answer is because God had a plan for King David and his offsprings, but God did not include THAT child in His plan. Only after King David chose to repent, and his terrible sin was blot out by God, God then gave him a child from Bathsheba and include this child in His plan.

So life begins at conception for the second child, but not for the first one: the child conceived by crime act.

Btw the thread is discussing a clump of cells, not a born baby as in the King David story above.

 

[goout]

goout:

Yes.
Exactly. Which is why we give the benefit of the doubt to every human being created by God.
We are created “in His image”.

It is not our prerogative to subject human beings to our own determination of worth.

If it is a human being. But if it is a clump of cells, and the way it was conceived not as God wills it, and nobody cares too, then?

Why did God killed King David and Bathsheba’s first “innocent” baby, but chose the second one to become king (King Solomon)? Did life began at conception for that first pregnancy? King David murdered Bathsheba’s husband and got her pregnant. God was furious and He said as the punishment for King Davids action the child must die. So God KILLED the child.

After that, God forgave King David, so Bathsheba got pregnant again. This time God chose the child and He gave the Kingdom to this child. The second child was King Solomon.

The Question is:
Why didn’t God killed King David as punishment for murdering Bathsheba’s husband? Why killed the “innocent” child instead?

Isn’t it obvious the answer is because God had a plan for King David and his offsprings, but God did not include THAT child in His plan. Only after King David chose to repent, and his terrible sin was blot out by God, God then gave him a child from Bathsheba and include this child in His plan.

So life begins at conception for the second child, but not for the first one: the child conceived by crime act.

Btw the thread is discussing a clump of cells, not a born baby as in the King David story above.

What?
God killed a child?
Where?

 

[1cthlctrth]

The following is a poem I heard about on The Patrick Madrid Show:
I would have liked you to be small, so I could hug you.
I would have liked you to be big, so I could lean on you.
I would have liked you to be looking out the window in winter, watching the snow begin to fall.
I would have liked you to be lying under the covers during a storm, silent so you could hear the sound of the rainfall.
I would have liked you to be kind to dogs, so you could pet them,
and affectionate with the elderly, so you could love them.
I would have liked you to be handsome, so I could brag about you,
with big eyes, like your mother’s.
I would have liked to sing to you, to make you fall asleep, and continue the dream that woke you up.
I would have liked you to be shy, so I could see you blush,
and stubborn, so I could argue with you.
I would have liked you to be at my side, so the two of us could walk in silence,
trying to understand what the other was thinking inside and couldn’t manage to say.
I would have liked to teach you all the things I don’t know how to do.
I would have liked you to leave someday, so I could have the pleasure of seeing you come back home.
I would have liked you to experience your first love.
I would have liked you near me on the day I must leave this world.
I wish I had wanted you, that time when I didn’t want you …

The author of the above was a former playboy Italian actor, Andrea Roncato, who says his decision to abort his child was the worst mistake of his life.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

If it’s illegal to destroy the egg of endangered species (like eagle eggs) because it’s an animal egg, then why is it not illegal to destroy the fertilized egg of a human being? Also, from the moment of conception the human fertilized egg has different DNA than his or her mother, the blood type is often different, and 50% of the time the gender is different from his mother.

 

[Wozza]

Also, from the moment of conception the human fertilized egg has different DNA than his or her mother, the blood type is often different, and 50% of the time the gender is different from his mother.

Y’all keep saying this. And nobody is arguing against it.

I’ll repeat that so you don’t have to waste your time repeating yourself. Nobody is arguing against that.

 

[vz71]

And nobody is arguing against it.

So now that we have established the truth, that this is a human life separate and distinct from the mother, why would people argue a right to murder it?

 

[EZweber]

I’m curious, @Wozza . I still haven’t heard your answer to my claim that angels disprove your definition.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

And nobody is arguing against it.

So now that we have established the truth, that this is a human life separate and distinct from the mother, why would people argue a right to murder it?

Keep calling it murder and your arguments will fall on deaf ears.