Scientific Proof Abortion Is Killing

[the2112]

I know it’s provable by science that life begins at conception and killing a fetus is really no different than killing a “born” person. However, could someone here give me some links to some “official” (as in medical websites that are neutral) sources that state this? Basically I need a website (or websites) that I could use as a source to refute any pro-abortion Atheist’s claims that being against abortion is just a religious belief and shouldn’t be forced on anyone. .

Thanks

 

[Least]

That a book reference is needed is still a little disconcerting.

Try logic. If it wasn’t “alive” and going to “continue to be so” it wouldn’t need to be eradicated for the purposes of abortion. The eradication is what stops this “state” and “continuance” of the thing supposedly needing eradication, so it is killing.

Re: Abortion. If you live in a “blue” state you are part of the problem, if you have a “D” after your name, the problem is part of you.

 

[ExGratia]

I really hope someone answers your post to your satisfaction. I really do!

In my experience, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. I mean this on any subject. We all have our own prejudices, motives, and beliefs. However, a source that is well respected can go far in an argument.

I do not consider the opinions of well respected medical proponents very useful in most cases, particularly morality.

 

[Elizabeth_John]

Well, my friend, I have been involved in the pro-life movement for years and I can say that without the action of the Holy Spirit, it is very hard to intellectually convince someone that what is happening in an abortion is taking a life. Most pro-abortion folks have an incredible resistance to hearing the truth.

The science, of course, affirms that from the moment of conception you have a separate life. That life goes on to develop a completely different physiology from the mother. In fact, it is not uncommon for the baby to have a different blood type. The issue is not whether the embryo or fetus is alive… the issue for most pro-abortion folks is whether that life constitutes a human person. Their position is very difficult to support, of course, so they come up with arbitrary demarcation points. Many, for example, believe in abortion up to the point where the fetus can live outside the womb. (generally 23 or 24 weeks at this point.) Other, more strident pro-abortion folks believe in up to full term, with no restrictions at all.

As for your proof, here is an article that describes how to kill the fetus in a first trimester abortion. Obviously there is no need to kill a fetus or embryo if it isn’t alive.

It is written by the Society for Family Planning, which is definitely a pro-abortion organization.

societyfp.org/_documents/resources/InductionofFetalDemise.pdf

Note: The article is pretty upsetting to read.

For more on ways to have conversations about this, you might check out this article by Scott Klusendorf.

prolifetraining.com/fiveminute1.asp

I will pray for you that God will soften the heart of your friend. Remember St. Paul when speaking to the Greeks. Try to use words that your friend will understand. And don’t ever despair if it doesn’t seem like you are making progress. I myself was pro-abortion and now run a pregnancy center. God has done wonderful things for me… and can for your friend,too. In my case, my conversion to Christianity came AFTER becoming pro-life, so your conversations with your friend may very well plant the seed of his or her salvation.

I pray that it is so.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

You can’t scientifically prove that something is wrong. Science doesn’t treat ethics, but only empirical facts. This cuts both ways. The abortionist also has first principles and ideas outside the domain of science that shape his beliefs. If you want to engage him on ethics, I think you’ll have to go to that level.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"the2112:

I know it’s provable by science that life begins at conception and killing a fetus is really no different than killing a “born” person…

It’s provable by science that life ends at abortion.

You can’t scientifically prove that something is wrong…

More accurately, you can’t prove scientifically that something is moral. There is such a thing as ‘bad’ science and therefore wrong.
Ad Orientem:

…If you want to engage him on ethics, I think you’ll have to go to that level.

 

[bzkoss236]

I know it’s provable by science that life begins at conception and killing a fetus is really no different than killing a “born” person. However, could someone here give me some links to some “official” (as in medical websites that are neutral) sources that state this? Basically I need a website (or websites) that I could use as a source to refute any pro-abortion Atheist’s claims that being against abortion is just a religious belief and shouldn’t be forced on anyone. .

Thanks

You can prove it by looking at any science book. Heck, I learned it in grade school.
The definition of ‘life’ should not be different for varying things because it is something outside of humans alone. Scientists consider not just animals to be living, but bacteria, plants, viruses, and Jelly Fish! These things have no hearts, so they can’t say life begins at the first heart beat, and some of these things have no brains, so they can’t say that life begins at the first brain activity. Life must begin before any of this, otherwise plants would not be considered alive, bacteria would not be alive, and nor would viruses and other walks of life.

They claim that death happens at the loss of a heart beat, but this is incorrect. That is merely clinical death; a point where it is certain that actual death will occur.

Actual death (end of life) compares to conception (beginning of life) in this way:
Death occurs after organs have all shut down and cells no longer divide and start to decay. In the opposite manner, life then must begin when cells of an individual being start to divide and grow. This happens at conception.

Find any biology book and look up reproduction.

 

[Debora123]

You really don’t need any “official medical sources.” When sperm meets egg, a band new set of HUMAN dna is formed that exists nowhere else in the world and is unique to that particular individual.

Everyone knows that, and I highly doubt anyone is gonna be like “Oh yeah? That’s not true. I need proof of that!”

And that’s all you need, really. It’s human DNA. It’s a human being that begins to exist as soon as that DNA is formed. To take away the life of an innocent human being is unjust, regardless of what the number of cells is that they have or whether or not they have left the womb.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

IBasically I need a website (or websites) that I could use as a source to refute any pro-abortion Atheist’s claims that being against abortion is just a religious belief and shouldn’t be forced on anyone. .

While there are positions against abortion that are motivated by religion it’s not something that is necessarily the result of religion. You can find quite a number of people that will in general see abortion as a sad or negative event that are not necessarily motivated by religion.

If you were to try to support this in the same way that one supports a “proof by contradiction” all you would need to do is find a single non-religious person that is against abortion. I use the term “proof” loosely here. Since we don’t have access to each other’s mind such evidence can easily be dismissed by saying “that’s what the person says, not what she thinks.”

That being said choose your battles. Is it worth your time to argue with this person on this issue? I ask considering that the discussion could be a distraction from other constructive things that you could be doing.

 

[bzkoss236]

While there are positions against abortion that are motivated by religion it’s not something that is necessarily the result of religion. You can find quite a number of people that will in general see abortion as a sad or negative event that are not necessarily motivated by religion.

If you were to try to support this in the same way that one supports a “proof by contradiction” all you would need to do is find a single non-religious person that is against abortion. I use the term “proof” loosely here. Since we don’t have access to each other’s mind such evidence can easily be dismissed by saying “that’s what the person says, not what she thinks.”

That being said choose your battles. Is it worth your time to argue with this person on this issue? I ask considering that the discussion could be a distraction from other constructive things that you could be doing.

During my time of doubt in my early to mid teens, I still thought abortion as immoral on ethical grounds of killing innocents is wrong. This was also why I was against the death penalty, because innocent men have been killed in the past for the crimes of another, which I found to be ethically wrong (and now morally).

I also found this website: secularprolife.org/

 

[edwest2]

I really hope someone answers your post to your satisfaction. I really do!

In my experience, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. I mean this on any subject. We all have our own prejudices, motives, and beliefs. However, a source that is well respected can go far in an argument.

I do not consider the opinions of well respected medical proponents very useful in most cases, particularly morality.

That’s incredible. The thing all doctors must uphold is the following principle: “First, do no harm.” The doctor is responsible. He is committed to fixing or treating an illness, broken bone, or removing a diseased part of the body, especially in cases where death is likely if he does not.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ExGratia]

That’s incredible. The thing all doctors must uphold is the following principle: “First, do no harm.” The doctor is responsible. He is committed to fixing or treating an illness, broken bone, or removing a diseased part of the body, especially in cases where death is likely if he does not.

Peace,
Ed

Must uphold? That actually isn’t even in the Hippocratic oath (the “do no harm”). Nor is the Oath required today. They should “do no harm”, but in the day of assisted suicide and abortion, we know that some do indeed cause harm. And if you add to that lesser evils of over prescribing of drugs and surgical births being more likely to take place at certain times of day (4 pm, to get dr. out for evening plans), doctors can be unprincipled. Like any other human being. We tend, in this culture, to put doctors on a pedestal, which can lead to us allowing them to make decisions for us.

But that is not what this thread is about! Just wanted to clarify what you thought was incredible!

God love you!

 

[edwest2]

From a secular source:

"Abortion is an emotionally complex issue, stacked with distressing circumstances that elicit our sympathy and compassion, but abortion is not morally complex: If the preborn are not human beings equally worthy of our compassion and support, no justification for abortion is required. Women should maintain full autonomy over their bodies and make their own decisions about their pregnancies. However, if the preborn are human beings, no justification for abortion is morally adequate, if such a reason cannot justify ending the life of a toddler or any born human in similar circumstances.

"Would we kill a two year-old whose father suddenly abandons his unemployed mother, in order to ease the mother’s budget or prevent the child from growing up in poverty? Would we dismember a young preschooler if there were indications she might grow up in an abusive home? If the preborn are indeed human beings, we have a social duty to find compassionate ways to support women, that do not require the death of one in order to solve the problems of the other.

"Science vs Pseudoscience

"While some abortion advocates have accused pro-lifers of using “pseudoscience”, in fact scientific evidence strongly backs the pro-life claim that the human embryo and fetus are biological members of the human species. Dr. Keith L. Moore’s “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,” used in medical schools worldwide, is but one scientific resource confirming this knowledge. It states:

“Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” [end quote]

“Unlike other cells containing human DNA – sperm, ovum and skin cells, for instance – the newly fertilized embryo has complete inherent capacity to propel itself through all stages of human development, providing adequate nutrition and protection is maintained. Conversely, sperm and ovum are differentiated parts of other human organisms, each having their own specified function. Upon merging, both cease to exist in their current states, and the result is a new and whole entity with unique behavior toward human maturity.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[BlightWyvern]

Well I’ve never heard of pro-abortion but I’ve heard of pro-choice (eg. the choice to let the women chose what she wants to do with it) as in; “That is your choice, and I will defend you being able to make that choice until my breath leaves my body, but if another decides that your choice is not right for them I will defend their right to make my choice. your religion provides us rules in which we live by, but not everyone belongs to our religion, and this country (if you are in the US; if not this may not work ) was founded on human rights including the right to decide your own religion.” Calling someone pro-abortion is like calling pro-life people pro-forced birth.

So, out of curiosity, then, what if:

-It’s for financial reasons (the person/couple is not in a state where they can afford any option except abortion)
-The person isn’t ready to begin a family (and likely knows they can’t handle adoption)
-The person just doesn’t want to be pregnant (they may not be as bad as some of us who would kill ourselves, but they know they don’t want to be pregnant)

All kinds of things can happen. BC can fail, an abusive partner may mess with contraception, perhaps there are health reasons for which the couple is avoiding contraception, financial reasons have prevented getting good contraception, or their education isn’t as good as yours was and they think they can’t get pregnant (too old, too young, they had sex according to one of the dozens of myths on how you can’t get pregnant if you do sex x way, etc.). Or even a mix of any of the above.

No one should ever, EVER force a woman to do something she does not want to, whether it’s birth or abortion if she doesn’t want to then don’t make her. The whole thing, though, is that not many people are forcing woman to have abortions but waaaaaaay too many people are forcing women to give birth. That’s probably why it might seem like people here are pro-abortion, because the choice problem is that woman are not being allowed to get abortions when they want them and not so much women not being allowed to keep a wanted fetus. Because who in their right mind would force a woman to abort when she really wants to keep it?

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm Science. Needst I say more?

There are other situations like this, sometimes the fetus becomes a tumor, sometimes it becomes a calcified mass, sometimes the fetus(baby) has no brain, or is missing a cruical part which is needed for the fetus(baby) to live to term or to live after its born.

Some people say it is good to experience life rather than have no life at all. My response is think of a life where you can’t breathe at all, think of the pain and the confusion as you tried to survive, before succumbing to death by asphyxiation. Imagine a life where you can never fully appreciate it, being hooked up to machines and never to be able to open your eyes. Imagine a life where you can’t learn because your body is so deformed or frail that you are already starting the shutdown process before you took your first breath. Think about that life then tell me why that life is worth living.

 

[pensmama87]

Well I’ve never heard of pro-abortion but I’ve heard of pro-choice (eg. the choice to let the women chose what she wants to do with it) as in; “That is your choice, and I will defend you being able to make that choice until my breath leaves my body, but if another decides that your choice is not right for them I will defend their right to make my choice. your religion provides us rules in which we live by, but not everyone belongs to our religion, and this country (if you are in the US; if not this may not work ) was founded on human rights including the right to decide your own religion.” Calling someone pro-abortion is like calling pro-life people pro-forced birth.

A person can be pro-life without being religious. From the moment of conception a unique individual is formed with its own DNA that will never be duplicated. That is scientific fact, not an appeal to religion.

In the vast majority of pregnancies, the choice was made when the sex occurred. In the very tragic cases where sex was coerced or forced, killing an innocent child just adds to the violence.

So, out of curiosity, then, what if:

-It’s for financial reasons (the person/couple is not in a state where they can afford any option except abortion)
-The person isn’t ready to begin a family (and likely knows they can’t handle adoption)
-The person just doesn’t want to be pregnant (they may not be as bad as some of us who would kill ourselves, but they know they don’t want to be pregnant)

All kinds of things can happen. BC can fail, an abusive partner may mess with contraception, perhaps there are health reasons for which the couple is avoiding contraception, financial reasons have prevented getting good contraception, or their education isn’t as good as yours was and they think they can’t get pregnant (too old, too young, they had sex according to one of the dozens of myths on how you can’t get pregnant if you do sex x way, etc.). Or even a mix of any of the above.

All very good reasons to not have sex unless you are prepared for children. After all, that is the purpose of sex.

No one should ever, EVER force a woman to do something she does not want to, whether it’s birth or abortion if she doesn’t want to then don’t make her. The whole thing, though, is that not many people are forcing woman to have abortions but waaaaaaay too many people are forcing women to give birth. That’s probably why it might seem like people here are pro-abortion, because the choice problem is that woman are not being allowed to get abortions when they want them and not so much women not being allowed to keep a wanted fetus. Because who in their right mind would force a woman to abort when she really wants to keep it?

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm Science. Needst I say more?

I know of many women who were pressured to abort by boyfriends, parents, and in some cases their rapists. They perpetuate violence against the mother in an effort to pretend that nothing happened. Both the mother and child suffer.

There are other situations like this, sometimes the fetus becomes a tumor, sometimes it becomes a calcified mass, sometimes the fetus(baby) has no brain, or is missing a cruical part which is needed for the fetus(baby) to live to term or to live after its born.

Some people say it is good to experience life rather than have no life at all. My response is think of a life where you can’t breathe at all, think of the pain and the confusion as you tried to survive, before succumbing to death by asphyxiation. Imagine a life where you can never fully appreciate it, being hooked up to machines and never to be able to open your eyes. Imagine a life where you can’t learn because your body is so deformed or frail that you are already starting the shutdown process before you took your first breath. Think about that life then tell me why that life is worth living.

So, out of compassion, should we take it upon ourselves to kill disabled people who are already born?

 

[BlightWyvern]

Well. From the moment of conception a unique individual is formed with its own DNA that will never be duplicated doesnt imply life.

Now before you start firing off ‘Well you must think everyone who is disabled shoud be aborted’ I’m going to clear something up: there are many genetic conditions that are not compatible with life, and others that are. Someone with down syndrom should not be aborted because they have down syndrom BUT, if that person also is developing with its organs outside of its skin the parents should be able to decide if the family as a unit can handle the extra stress if the child does not survive the life saving surgery, or if they, as a family unit, can even afford it. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21122771

I think something a lot of people have as a misconception is that sex is only for reproduction. As a self-aware species, we recognise that sexuality feels good to us and therefore would like to do it often without the consequences of pregnancy/childbirth, so we have developed birth control for that very reason. So to the crowd that says “don’t have sex until you can support a child” or that “birth control is unnatural”, take a good hard look at nature and realise that not all species have intercourse with the intent to reproduce. That being said, not everyone follows the same religion that says only sex to reproduce.
I don’t believe at all that a fetus, which is only potential for life, has any rights over the person carrying it. Even if it was a human being, it’s taking advantage of someone’s body with or without their consent, and that is not at all fair. And even if the mother is forced/gives birth by choice/etc. because of emotional manipulation, those who pressured her should support her and her child. If the mother is mentally ill, offer to take care of her child whenever she struggles. Help her with groceries and paying bills. Until one can support the child that they so desperately believe DESERVES to be born, don’t tell a stranger she’s a murderer and a sinner for making a choice she is entitled to.

 

[DaveH1]

No one should ever, EVER force a woman to do something she does not want to, whether it’s birth or abortion if she doesn’t want to then don’t make her.

Do you allow women to murder people? That makes no sense. Look at the punishments as a result of original sin. You have no right to end a life for your own convenience or any perceived notion that the child would be better off dead. It’s not biblical; it’s not right.

Genesis 3:16 Commentary

“We have here the sentence past upon the woman; she is condemned to a state of sorrow and a state of subjection: proper punishments of a sin in which she had gratified her pleasure and her pride. She is here put into a state of sorrow; one particular of which only is instanced in, that in bringing forth children, but it includes all those impressions of grief and fear which the mind of that tender sex is most apt to receive, and all the common calamities which they are liable to. It is God that multiplies our sorrows, I will do it: God, as a righteous Judge, doth it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God as a tender Father doth it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from it. She is here put into a state of subjection: the whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is for sin made inferior.”

 

[BlightWyvern]

Well your basic logic still depends on life at conception. But then the mother also has that right to life that cannot be infringed, right? So… What happens when carrying the fetus to term could compromise that right? Or WILL compromise it, and carrying to term will kill the mother–and most likely the fetus? Would abortion then be considered justifiable homicide because you are preserving one life when two would more likely have been lost?

Or is it that the mother doesn’t have a right to life and an unborn potential life has more rights than a person that has memories, a past, an established family, and aspirations that she can know and make herself. It can almost equate that a corpse has more rights than a woman, at least you can CHOSE to not get your organs donated and people don’t infringe that right.

not everyone believes in your God. Second off, if God has a plan for everyone, then wouldn’t he know from way beforehand that that person was never going to be a “person”? God is in control of everything, and everything is part of his plan, so then it must have been in the plans for that person to have an abortion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No one should ever, EVER force a woman to do something she does not want to,

Why is it that women have this privilege?

Why not men, then?

Why not children?

Why not anyone?

Why not just one big free for all?

Do you understand what the word “ethical” means and why it might be necessary?

What happens when two women each want the other to do what each does not want to do?

We have a logical problem there with your proposed law on how women should be treated, no?

On the plus side, women’s prisons would not exist.

On the other hand, driving will become a nightmare.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well your basic logic still depends on life at conception. But then the mother also has that right to life that cannot be infringed, right? So… What happens when carrying the fetus to term could compromise that right? Or WILL compromise it, and carrying to term will kill the mother–and most likely the fetus? Would abortion then be considered justifiable homicide because you are preserving one life when two would more likely have been lost?

Or is it that the mother doesn’t have a right to life and an unborn potential life has more rights than a person that has memories, a past, an established family, and aspirations that she can know and make herself. It can almost equate that a corpse has more rights than a woman, at least you can CHOSE to not get your organs donated and people don’t infringe that right.

not everyone believes in your God. Second off, if God has a plan for everyone, then wouldn’t he know from way beforehand that that person was never going to be a “person”? God is in control of everything, and everything is part of his plan, so then it must have been in the plans for that person to have an abortion.

There is so much here that sober second thought would quickly show to be naive and superficial, but I’ll resist the temptation to respond.

If you are interested in “basic logic,” I suggest that you spend some time thoughtfully listening to Trent Horn discuss the logical fallacies embedded in pro choice arguments on the following website:

prolifepodcast.net/tag/trent-horn/