Why is abortion harmful?

[JSAD]

So What is 'it ’ that is growing in the mothers belly then ? A human or not a human ?

 

[Freddy]

So What is 'it ’ that is growing in the mothers belly then ? A human or not a human ?

The semen is human. The egg is human. The fertilised egg is human. The zygote is human. Nobody is arguing anything to the contrary. Shall I repeat that in all caps so there’s no misunderstanding?

But many people, myself included, plus other mainstream religious groups, including Judaism, Islam and some Hindu theologians do not consider the early stages of a pregnancy to be a person.

Yeah, I know you don’t care what other religions think. Yeah, I know you don’t care what I think. But you should at least try to understand what a lot of women who have abortions think. Ignore their position and you will be talking past them when discussing abortion.

You have two choices when discussing how to reduce abortions when talking to the women who have them or are likely to have them.

1. I don’t understand your views at all. They’re nonsensical so you should just stop.
2. I understand your views but I want to explain the position of my faith in that regard and hope that you can agree with it.

Which do you prefer? From all the posts in this thread it would appear that number 1 is the choice most would make. Good luck with that approach…

 

[Billy76]

The semen is human. The egg is human. The fertilised egg is human. The zygote is human. Nobody is arguing anything to the contrary. Shall I repeat that in all caps so there’s no misunderstanding?

Semen and egg are not human. They only carry half of the genetic human information. It is NOT considered human in any biological sense.

But many people, myself included, plus other mainstream religious groups, including Judaism, Islam and some Hindu theologians do not consider the early stages of a pregnancy to be a person.

But you have no basis for that. Your reasoning is faulty. Human and person explicably linked.

Yeah, I know you don’t care what other religions think. Yeah, I know you don’t care what I think. But you should at least try to understand what a lot of women who have abortions think. Ignore their position and you will be talking past them when discussing abortion.

Whatever their position may be it always neglects that human being’s life is being killed. Women have hardships and those should not be ignored. Poor people, disabled people, mentally ill people also face hardships but do not murder them or others.

You have two choices when discussing how to reduce abortions when talking to the women who have them or are likely to have them.

1. I don’t understand your views at all. They’re nonsensical so you should just stop.
2. I understand your views but I want to explain the position of my faith in that regard and hope that you can agree with it.

Actually there is a third option, “I understand your views but they are faulty based on scientific understanding and logic. They also are not in line with Jesus Christ and his Church. You can either oppose the Truth, or continue to promote evil in the world”. Which unfortunately Freddy you seem to be doing . I also find it ironic how you think others in this thread think are scenario 1 when you have exemplified it more than everyone else. The projection is baffling.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The semen is human. The egg is human. The fertilised egg is human. The zygote is human. Nobody is arguing anything to the contrary. Shall I repeat that in all caps so there’s no misunderstanding?

Semen and egg are not human. They only carry half of the genetic human information. It is NOT considered human in any biological sense.

I think this is where part of your problem lies.

Semen and egg are definitely human. As is a zygote. Give an example of each to a lab and the results will come back: ‘The sample is human’.

‘Human’ is an adjective. As in ‘human tissue’. It can also be used as a noun as in ‘there is a human in the cave’. Which is being used as shorthand for human being. Human being denotes personhood. Human doesn’t.

So your second point is wrong and your third option is only partly correct. Your position (regarding personhood) is not scientific. But yes, it is not in line with your specific religious denomination. As I have noted, other religions take a different view. I hope that you would acknowledge that this is not simply an atheist view.

 

[Billy76]

I think this is where part of your problem lies.

Semen and egg are definitely human. As is a zygote. Give an example of each to a lab and the results will come back: ‘The sample is human’.

That simply is not true. The semen is of a human but is not actually a separate human being. This is a matter of biology.

‘Human’ is an adjective. As in ‘human tissue’. It can also be used as a noun as in ‘there is a human in the cave’. Which is being used as shorthand for human being. Human being denotes personhood. Human doesn’t.

That is not a good argument. Human is a noun. When used as adjective it is describing origin. “Human Tissue” = Tissue from a Human. The tissue does not exist without the human. A zygote is simply a human (noun) whereas a sperm or an egg are of a human (adjective). This because sperm and egg belong to a human whereas a zygote objectively is a human.

So your second point is wrong and your third option is only partly correct. Your position (regarding personhood) is not scientific. But yes, it is not in line with your specific religious denomination. As I have noted, other religions take a different view. I hope that you would acknowledge that this is not simply an atheist view.

All of my points are correct. If you want to say that a sperm can come from a human, in that sense it can be human in the sense of its origins but as a matter of being a human it is not. Personhood is scientific as you cannot logically separate personhood from a human and objectively humans begin as fertilized egg.

In regards to the other religions, it does not matter as they are wrong.

 

[Freddy]

In regards to the other religions, it does not matter as they are wrong.

I think that sums up your position adequately. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Billy. I appreciate it.

 

[Billy76]

I think that sums up your position adequately. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Billy. I appreciate it.

So because their faiths are wrong invalidates the other points I made? Is it not telling that the Catholic faith promotes what not only is True in the moral sense but also in a scientific sense? Freddy you need to wake up.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you have sources or links as to why abortion is wrong either for the child or women,

You don’t understand how it’s “harmful” to dismember or burn the skin off a baby in the womb? You don’t think that is painful to it?

You don’t get how the USA is supposed to stand up for the rights of the most vulnerable humans, that our Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of all people including the powerless, and in this case the USA totally failing to do that, because no one is more powerless under the law than that baby in the womb? And if you argue about standing up for the rights of women, remember, half those babies in the womb are female babies. They’re women too.

I would suggest maybe you think a little harder about the issue. Neither of the things I mentioned have anything whatsoever to do with belief in God btw, so they’re just as relevant for atheists.

 

[Raxus]

Zygote never had them in the first place.

If something exists, it has a deposition, even if it’s miniscule; others simply speak for them, the way we do with infants that are born. Why is an unborn human being’s deposition any less valuable than an adult’s?

 

[Raxus]

Yes but a brain dead person is effectively dead

That is an arbitrary judgement itself. An actual dead body can’t breathe or eliminate, for example.

 

[Raxus]

You can still feel that a zygote is nothing more than a few cells and is not a person and that personhood comes much later and still argue against abortion.

You might find that many Jewish people are in that position.

I suspect such people only argue against abortion after a certain point, then, which ultimately isn’t an argument against abortion at all.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You can still feel that a zygote is nothing more than a few cells and is not a person and that personhood comes much later and still argue against abortion.

You might find that many Jewish people are in that position.

I suspect such people only argue against abortion after a certain point, then, which ultimately isn’t an argument against abortion at all.

Do you mean that they argue that abortion is acceptable up to a point? If so, then yes. I’d agree.

 

[graciew]

If we come to dispute “human” here then , where will our “human rights” end?
We are human , members of the human race…
As naturally as it can possibly be.

 

[Freddy]

If we come to dispute “human” here then , where will our “human rights” end?
We are human , members of the human race…
As naturally as it can possibly be.

No slippery slope here, graciew.

 

[graciew]

There are inconsistencies. And that is quite obvious.

 

[whatistrue]

It’s not an argument. It’s an observation.

Well, then the observation is not as good as you think it is. Saving or not saving is a very different proposition than killing or not killing (referencing the fire and triage observations).

So does a piece of my finger nail. That’s not relevant.

A relatively small piece of your own body that is not necessary to your survival, function, or even comfort is a very different thing than the entire body of another human, no matter how many individual cells are involved.

 

[Raxus]

Do you mean that they argue that abortion is acceptable up to a point ? If so, then yes. I’d agree.

Yes, sorry, that’s what I meant.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s not an argument. It’s an observation.

Well, then the observation is not as good as you think it is. Saving or not saving is a very different proposition than killing or not killing (referencing the fire and triage observations).

You should talk to women who have had no problems in having an abortion and see what they say.

Freddy:

So does a piece of my finger nail. That’s not relevant.

A relatively small piece of your own body that is not necessary to your survival, function, or even comfort is a very different thing than the entire body of another human, no matter how many individual cells are involved.

The answer I gave was to correct a statement that was patently wrong. No more. You are now making a different point with which I completely agree.

 

[ciros2]

You must know that if you use terms like ‘murdered’ then anyone on the other side of the discussion will immediately turn off. But to continue anyway…

Well, it is so from the point of view of logic… If you think that killing a person is immoral, then you should be against abortion, if you do not think that killing is immoral, then it is not clear why you are hurt by it.

A young life is worth more than an old one.

I agree that it is possible to sort people by the value of their lives, I do not understand how it follows that it is possible to kill people in the first stage of their development…

It’s considered to be nothing more than a small group of cells.

I understand everything perfectly well, but it is an irrational position. It’s like telling a person he’s this size (big), and a baby he’s this size (small), that’s why the **** with him is the same argument in reality.

 

[ciros2]

You can still feel that a zygote is nothing more than a few cells and is not a person and that personhood comes much later and still argue against abortion.

What definition of personality is not invented I have not seen any definition of which would not be counter examples among the people of which it is customary not to kill. This means that it is only important that the zygote belongs to the same biological species as we do.