Scientific Proof Abortion Is Killing

[BlightWyvern]

She serves as the “incubator, broodmare, etc”
Uh…men don’t have a uterus nor have to deal with being pregnant.
What about children?
Anyone?
Ah. I think I see I think you’re asking why no one should be forced to do anything they don’t want to do yeas? Well of course not No one should be forced to do something against their will that’s what I’m saying.

Depends on what you mean. Bible ethics clash with secular ones…obviously.
Then you have a cat fight.
How women should be treated? Like they have rights and the ability to chose for themselves?
Lol better start learning to walk.

f you think human life REALLY IS more precious than anything else… why does the baby trump the mother. Tell me that. Tell me why the WOMAN is nothing more than a broodmare, nothing more than an incubator? Because no one seems to be paying attention to how she could feel.

If anything, the best solution for this is to increase the amount of cheap and readily available birth control (This being the case with those that aren’t Catholic, not everyone is so, therefore they do not abide by the same code). And to educate young people about the subject. It would completely eliminate the amount of abortions but, hopefully, it will lower the need for them.
You want to stop the destruction of innocents? Then adopt a kid–an older kid, a troubled kid, and give THEM the loving home they may have never had.

And just wondering… Why not kill the child to save the mother? What’s the point if the child AND the mother die? Why let two lives end when only one needed to be prevented from beginning?

Stopping a life from starting isn’t the same as ending a life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

Having unique DNA may not imply life to someone who has no concept of what “life” means, but biologically speaking life means “the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” Since all of those depend upon DNA, having unique DNA is what life essentially depends upon.

So… yes DNA does “imply” life.

 

[BlightWyvern]

Having unique DNA may not imply life to someone who has no concept of what “life” means, but biologically speaking life means “the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” Since all of those depend upon DNA, having unique DNA is what life essentially depends upon.

So… yes DNA does “imply” life.

Blink .. I have no idea why I put it doesn’t imply life I do agree with that factor. Sorry about that, I can see where that would confuse. ><

 

[Peter_Plato]

She serves as the “incubator, broodmare, etc”
Uh…men don’t have a uterus nor have to deal with being pregnant.
What about children?
Anyone?
Ah. I think I see I think you’re asking why no one should be forced to do anything they don’t want to do yeas? Well of course not No one should be forced to do something against their will that’s what I’m saying.

Oh, boy

No one should be forced to do something against their will, eh?

Hitler had a very interesting will.

No one?

Rapists with a will to rape? Murderers with a will to kill the innocent?

Child molesters?

No one? Really?

Think about your statement for a minute:

**No one should be forced to do something against their will that’s what I’m saying. **

Teenager, right?

Depends on what you mean. Bible ethics clash with secular ones…obviously.
Then you have a cat fight.
How women should be treated? Like they have rights and the ability to chose for themselves?
Lol better start learning to walk.

f you think human life REALLY IS more precious than anything else… why does the baby trump the mother. Tell me that. Tell me why the WOMAN is nothing more than a broodmare, nothing more than an incubator? Because no one seems to be paying attention to how she could feel.

If anything, the best solution for this is to increase the amount of cheap and readily available birth control (This being the case with those that aren’t Catholic, not everyone is so, therefore they do not abide by the same code). And to educate young people about the subject. It would completely eliminate the amount of abortions but, hopefully, it will lower the need for them.
You want to stop the destruction of innocents? Then adopt a kid–an older kid, a troubled kid, and give THEM the loving home they may have never had.

And just wondering… Why not kill the child to save the mother? What’s the point if the child AND the mother die? Why let two lives end when only one needed to be prevented from beginning?

Stopping a life from starting isn’t the same as ending a life.

Do you really think that the logical debate concerning women’s rights to abortions has not progressed beyond your cage rattling?

Take my suggestion and listen thoughtfully to Trent Horn’s presentations before writing another word.

 

[BlightWyvern]

27, so I’m a big teenager…lol I’m a guy as well. I’m half dazed, I was going to work on a paper.

And things within reason. Guess I have to be really detailed with things as such.

 

[BlightWyvern]

What I don’t understand is why people think it’s their business to interfere with the life of a potential child that’s not even theirs .___. I would understand if it was a child that was born hence why we have child services. Or in killing of people the ones that have been born people we have jail, death penalty and the like.

It does not affect the person not involved in any way. Nor do I think it’s any of their business to get involved.

I could argue that abortion would be self-defense-- protecting the right to exist as a person, not an object, and a right to live, as well as a right to maintain health. A pregnancy would compromise some peoples health in a way that could potentially be psychologically irreversibly, and perhaps ultimately fatal. In that case, striking first under the reasonable assumption that the fetus would jeopardize the health–much like you would shoot an intruder in your home if you could reasonably be certain they were armed and intended you harm.

To me, the fetus is the intruder and a body is a home. It’s unwanted, it doesn’t have permission to be there, it is potentially jeopardizing some peoples health, and it is stealing resources. So, if I should have the right to shoot another person who breaks into my home, why don’t women have the right to kill a clump of cells that’s invaded their body?

Some may say that “someone has to speak for the unborn child”. If anybody has to, that would be the closest thing to the unborn, which is the mother. A completely uninvolved person would be the furthest thing from it.

Anyway, again I ask, why stick your nose into something where it doesn’t belong? Especially beings that not everyone agrees with the same morals/religion.

 

[DaveH1]

I could argue that abortion would be self-defense-- protecting the right to exist as a person, not an object, and a right to live, as well as a right to maintain health. A pregnancy would compromise some peoples health in a way that could potentially be psychologically irreversibly, and perhaps ultimately fatal. In that case, striking first under the reasonable assumption that the fetus would jeopardize the health–much like you would shoot an intruder in your home if you could reasonably be certain they were armed and intended you harm.

Back then they didn’t have this mindset of going for whatever was convenient, yet pregnancy was more risky, and the conditions worse. If you had an ectopic pregnancy, it was basically a death sentence. Neither would they have wanted to accidentally abort the Messiah or break the line of the descendants of David.

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.

It’s clear you wanted to start something on here, but I’ll answer.

Satan was also in his plan, and he won’t be going to a wonderful place. If you choose the path of sin, then you’ll have to answer to God. Before Christ, they didn’t have a chance at salvation, since he didn’t die for our sins at that point in time. Life doesn’t always seem fair, but God has his reasons for what is done.

So, if I should have the right to shoot another person who breaks into my home, why don’t women have the right to kill a clump of cells that’s invaded their body?

Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

What I don’t understand is why people think it’s their business to interfere with the life of a potential child that’s not even theirs .___. I

How is that relevant? I can point out if something is ethically wrong even if it has nothing to do with me or anyone I know. The baby isn’t theirs either. Everyone answers to God.

 

[BlightWyvern]

1. alright, well, society has gotten more secular
2. Not really, I just ask from others perspectives on things to see what results.
   3)Again, society has gotten more secular, women have more rights…and are more independent and are free to make choices that they weren’t allowed to before (they aren’t “property” anymore) and technological advances increased and the women that wanted certain things do be accommodated got it.
   4)It’s relevant because people feel the need to get involved in a women’s choice to abort if they so chose. They protest, tell them how evil they are, how they are murderers, etc. Actually, they judge. They look down on, think the woman is evil/wrong/sinning and tell/scream at her this. And you even said it yourself If you choose the path of sin, then you’ll have to answer to God. Before Christ, they didn’t have a chance at salvation, since he didn’t die for our sins at that point in time. Life doesn’t always seem fair, but God has his reasons for what is done.
   God is the final judge. Our Creator is the one that has the right to punish her. After, in the end, the woman will, if she does not see the error of her ways, be cast into the lake of fire. So what I am asking is why do we, people, believe in judging and trying to involve themselves when God will take care of it in the end?

 

[Peter_Plato]

What I don’t understand is why people think it’s their business to interfere with the life of a potential child that’s not even theirs .___. I would understand if it was a child that was born hence why we have child services. Or in killing of people the ones that have been born people we have jail, death penalty and the like.

What is a “potential” child? At what stage does potential become actual?

The issue you are having is created by viewing being “human” as a kind of achievement that only occurs at a certain stage of development rather than seeing a human being as the identical but changing entity that remains human from conception to death, despite the changing stages.

You were once a zygote that became a fetus, a child, a teenager and adult. You were a human being through all those stages because those stages are all necessary aspects of what it means to be a human being. You didn’t suddenly become “human” at some point after a fetal existence. You were a human fetus, a human being at a fetal stage.

If you didn’t successfully go through the fetal stage you would never have attained infancy, but you would have been a human being, nonetheless.

Your worth as a human being today is only possible because you were conceived and became human at that moment. If your mother had aborted you, it would have been you, not something else, that she aborted.

Your value now depends upon your value then. If someone killed you then, they would have, in effect, killed the you that exists today. They would have killed you. Think about it.

The reason people think it is their business to interfere is because actual human beings are being harmed. Aborted babies are human beings like you or me who are being killed by other human beings. Don’t you find that to be an important reason for someone to interfere?
Would you not interfere if you saw a small child being cut apart with a sharp blade? Or would you say it was none of your business?

 

[mikekle]

Ive always wondered why in cases when a pregnant women is murdered, the police are very quick to charge the killer with 2 counts of murder, no matter how long into the pregnancy she was at the time, yet when it comes to abortion, anything goes…? LOL

Is it just me, or does it seem they only consider it killing when it suits them?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

I’ve got a Catholic friend that is trying to make a decision. She’s of poor health due to the lack of a compatible bone marrow donor. She’s been unemployed for a year because of not being mobile enough to work the types of jobs she used to be eligible for. She has doubts of her ability to sustain her own life for more than a few years and has heavy concerns that trying to carry a baby should kill her. The father of the child (also Catholic) is not aware of the pregnancy and is uninvolved in what ever the decision will be. Her mother is excited at the possibility of having a grandchild, but she is literally scared for her life. She is supposed to be confirming whether or not she’s really pregnant in the next week (that at home test have all been positive) and making a decision shortly after that. I think that she may see the Pro-Life stance as condemning her to death, while the Pro-choice stance might allowed her a slightly longer life, and that the fetus can’t be carried to term either way.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve got a Catholic friend that is trying to make a decision. She’s of poor health due to the lack of a compatible bone marrow donor. She’s been unemployed for a year because of not being mobile enough to work the types of jobs she used to be eligible for. She has doubts of her ability to sustain her own life for more than a few years and has heavy concerns that trying to carry a baby should kill her. The father of the child (also Catholic) is not aware of the pregnancy and is uninvolved in what ever the decision will be. Her mother is excited at the possibility of having a grandchild, but she is literally scared for her life. She is supposed to be confirming whether or not she’s really pregnant in the next week (that at home test have all been positive) and making a decision shortly after that. I think that she may see the Pro-Life stance as condemning her to death, while the Pro-choice stance might allowed her a slightly longer life, and that the fetus can’t be carried to term either way.

These are extenuating circumstances.

This article may shed some light on how those circumstances ought to be taken into account.

unmaskingchoice.ca/training/classroom/circumstances/danger

 

[ThinkingSapien]

These are extenuating circumstances.

This article may shed some light on how those circumstances ought to be taken into account.

unmaskingchoice.ca/training/classroom/circumstances/danger

I’ve seen the principal of double-effect invoked in these forums before. Usually for ectopic pregnancies. As I understand the principal and what I gather from reading the page it seems the suggested guidance would be for her to not abort the pregnancy and take on the risk. Between some other factors that include but are not limited to no change in smoking habits and drinking habits I don’t think she’s planning to try to carry the child to full term. Whether or not she actually does attempt to carry it to term is something that will only be known with time. But like you said, these are extenuating circumstances. I think some support the Pro-Choice stance to have options in such circumstances.

 

[marymary1975]

Ive always wondered why in cases when a pregnant women is murdered, the police are very quick to charge the killer with 2 counts of murder, no matter how long into the pregnancy she was at the time, yet when it comes to abortion, anything goes…? LOL

Is it just me, or does it seem they only consider it killing when it suits them?

Yep you are right, abortion is killing only by convenience. If it suits you then is a woman’s right and is not killing but when it doesn’t suit you then is Murder. Very convenient.

 

[lutheran_farmer]

Look at the stages of development in a college level embryology book. Notochord is the name for a primitive nervous system. It is present very early on. While it’s hard to argue from the “life” stand point, try looking at it from the Hippocratic Oath, as in “causing no harm” (pain).

Since I have a strong biology/biochemistry background, this is where I got hung up on the issues with abortion while in my college ethics class.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

One does not have to be religious to be against abortion. Seem to remember seeing excellent secular arguments against abortion many years ago, but am not remembering that particular writer’s name. The writer was herself religious, don’t remember if Catholic or not, but noticed that if she addressed others on religious grounds, they would shut her off. So her secular essays were born out of the attempt to find ways to get through to those who supported abortion without bringing God or other religion into it. Got to put my thinking cap on, try to remember where I found that, it would be very useful as another tool to talk to the pro-abortion crowd (I refuse to call them pro-choice, have to name the sin they support!).

Have always liked the way the Church stands: against both abortion and the death penalty. That is the only logically consistent stand possible under God. Those who support abortion but oppose the death penalty are the worst sorts of hypocrites.

 

[Cariethra]

I don’t have a source, but I was told this in my college Biology class.

“There are only two organic things on this planet that aren’t considered alive, viruses and sperm. Both only survive from mitochondrial energy and do not have a nucleus. One holds DNA the other RNA. Both invade cells and transform them.”

By that statement alone you infer that yes a fertilized egg is human and is alive. It is completely and genetically human even if it doesn’t look like one, yet.

 

[mikekle]

Even non-religious people recognize and accept killing is wrong!

To even try to justify abortion means that person is also OK with ANY type of killing, its that simple, killing is killing, you cannot be FOR abortion and AGAINST people who kill other adults in crimes…its the SAME exact thing.

Cannot have it both ways, either murder is illegal or murder is legal…

I cannot understand why someone would think otherwise.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Even non-religious people recognize and accept killing is wrong!

…recognize and accept some killing is morally wrong. One that isn’t an ethical vegan or vegetarian may not necessarily see killing as wrong in all situations.

To even try to justify abortion means that person is also OK with ANY type of killing,

Nope, it doesnt. See situational ethics.

Cannot have it both ways, either murder is illegal or murder is legal…

Note that “killing” and “murdering” don’t mean the same thing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…recognize and accept some killing is morally wrong. One that isn’t an ethical vegan or vegetarian may not necessarily see killing as wrong in all situations.

Nope, it doesnt. See situational ethics.

Note that “killing” and “murdering” don’t mean the same thing.

Murder is premeditated and unjust killing, so murder is a subset of killing. In those cases murder and killing do mean the same thing. Some killing is not premeditated nor unjust, in which case it may be permissible, i.e., for self-defense. However, killing that is not considered murder may still involve moral wrong and culpability, i.e. negligent homicide.

Abortion would appear premeditated given how abortions are procured and would appear unjust; in particular, in cases where the abortion is a matter of convenience. Justice would never weigh the life of one human being as having less value, morally speaking, than the convenience of another. For example, I couldn’t kill my five year old because I view them as a financial burden or because they negatively impact my lifestyle, which do count towards accessing an abortion. That would appear to make these abortions the unjust and premeditated killing of a human being, aka murder.

One person’s situational ethics are another person’s poor excuse. It is not a “catch-all” justification. You would need to make a case, not cite a meaningless phrase.