Abortion on Christian Grounds

[Wilber]

Can the freedom of one person be forced by the state to be subsumed to the needs of another?

The state does that all the time.

[cybercoma]

The state does that all the time.

It's not just the freedom of the person. That's too vague. Can the state legislate that your actual body be used for another person's needs. That's the moral question.

Edited July 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[betsy]

Its simple, Betsy. If Christians object to having abortions, they should not have them. But don't expect the rest of us to live by the arbitrary rules of your Magic Sky Pixie.

I don't expect atheists to follow the rules of God,that's why I made it clear this topic is for Christians.

Having said that, I do however hope that when we do invoke equality and human rights, we truly - and honestly - mean it.

[The_Squid]

I don't expect atheists to follow the rules of God,that's why I made it clear this topic is for Christians.

Having said that, I do however hope that when we do invoke equality and human rights, we truly - and honestly - mean it.

ummm.... if it is just for Christians, then why would Christians push for the laws to be changed for the entire country? Live by your laws (no abortions ever) and the rest, including many Christians who like the way the abortion laws are now, will live by the laws of Canada as they are.

The problem is that while you don't want to discuss ideas with non-Christians, you would happily push your beliefs upon others.

[Guest American Woman]

Many Christians are pro-choice, so it's not a matter of "Christians pushing their beliefs on others" but rather some Christians; at the same time, some atheists are not pro-choice, and they want to push their beliefs (ie: beliefs about abortion) on others, too.

Edited to add: an interesting read - Is Abortion Murder? Jews and Christians will Answer Differently

Edited July 26, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

ummm.... if it is just for Christians, then why would Christians push for the laws to be changed for the entire country? Live by your laws (no abortions ever) and the rest, including many Christians who like the way the abortion laws are now, will live by the laws of Canada as they are.

The problem is that while you don't want to discuss ideas with non-Christians, you would happily push your beliefs upon others.

This topic is for Christians - those who support abortion. I think it's been well-explained at the beginning of this thread.

I've discussed my anti-abortion ideas with non-Christians. Refer to the other thread on abortion and Nature of Evil.

Edited July 26, 2012 by betsy

[The_Squid]

This topic is for Christians - those who support abortion. I think it's been well-explained at the beginning of this thread.

I've discussed my anti-abortion ideas with non-Christians. Refer to the other thread on abortion and Nature of Evil.

I don't think that the rules of the forum allow a poster to discriminate as to who can post to which thread. You're stuck with us heathens refuting your crazy religious rhetoric!

[betsy]

I don't think that the rules of the forum allow a poster to discriminate as to who can post to which thread. You're stuck with us heathens refuting your crazy religious rhetoric!

????

[Melanie_]

I don't expect atheists to follow the rules of God,that's why I made it clear this topic is for Christians.

Having said that, I do however hope that when we do invoke equality and human rights, we truly - and honestly - mean it.

This forum is for discussing the topics that are presented. You can't start a topic and then try to limit who should and shouldn't read it, or limit the discussion to those who are already predisposed to accepting your view. I'm sure there are Christian forums out there that would be more appropriate for the type of discussion you want, but if you post it here you have to be open to responses from non-Christians.

[cybercoma]

Well, she doesn't have to be open to responses, but that shouldn't stop people from rightfully criticizing her for being closed-minded.

[betsy]

This forum is for discussing the topics that are presented. You can't start a topic and then try to limit who should and shouldn't read it, or limit the discussion to those who are already predisposed to accepting your view. I'm sure there are Christian forums out there that would be more appropriate for the type of discussion you want, but if you post it here you have to be open to responses from non-Christians.

Well I'm not trying to limit you guys. But I won't get into a heavy debate with atheists since this section is dealing heavily on gospel scriptures which I'm sure you wouldn't accept as an argument! This is mostly faith-based.

Squid already complained about the sermon-type of messages. His eyes glazed over right away early on in the very first page! And that was just the first bout of scripture verses as an introduction!

Posted 19 July 2012 - 04:07 PM

Thanks for the sermon padre....

Hence I posted that explanation below. This is what I've posted #25, I believe...

Posted 21 July 2012 - 12:57 PM

I welcome the non-believers’ input, however please keep in mind that this topic is reaching out to fellow-Christians (who think or are led to think that the Bible is silent on this issue), so naturally it’ll be like sitting before the pulpit, guys. Yep. Like a sermon.

Back to what I was saying....

I hope it's all clear now? You can give as much comment as you want, I'm not trying to stop you.

Edited July 28, 2012 by betsy

[Melanie_]

This topic is for Christians - those who support abortion. I think it's been well-explained at the beginning of this thread.

I've discussed my anti-abortion ideas with non-Christians. Refer to the other thread on abortion and Nature of Evil.

Hmmmm... confusion...

[cybercoma]

The thing that betsy isn't aware of is that Christians didn't believe a woman was pregnant until quickening in the past. Abortion was perfectly normal and considered a way of curing a woman when her menstruation unexpectedly stopped. It's modern medicine and technology that allows us to know fully the entire process of human development. The kicker is that a woman wasn't even considered pregnant until she could feel the child move and that's right around the last trimester. That is when it was considered to be a child in her womb. Abortion in the third trimester is a non-starter because it almost never happens for birth control reasons. So all of her scripture in the OP would almost certainly only pertain to the last trimester until 20th century knowledge changed that.

[Moonlight Graham]

That section applies as much to the mother as it does to the fetus. In fact, it is the fetus that is depriving the mother of liberty and security of the person by requiring the use of her body against her will. The government cannot enforce this because it is against the mother's charter rights. Once again, you cannot require a person to give up sovereignty of their own body in order to keep someone else alive.

Again, requiring complete abstinence is unreasonable. We have the tools to control fertility. It's a woman's right to decide whether or not she wants to have another human being incubating inside her and to deny it just the same. If you woke up one morning to find someone tapped into you to survive without your consent, you would have every right to demand that they be surgically removed. It's no different with a fetus. You're not morally required to submit to using your body for someone else's purposes without your consent.

Again, coming back to my point that other than cases of rape, the woman is consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex. Women have tools to control fertility 99% of the time, if they use them. If she doesn't use them, uses them improperly, or it fails as it's well-known it can, she still made the choice to have sex. The creation of the baby inside her was 100% in her control. She had 100% control to prevent it. She chose the risk, she lost the odds.

So whose rights trump whose? The baby (who had ZERO choice in being created) having the right to life, or not being killed, or the mother having the right not to be severely inconvenienced for a year or whatever (in the case of adoption) even though she chose the risk of becoming pregnant in the first place. You're giving the mother an awful lot of choices & all the rights while giving the baby zero choices and zero rights. You're giving the mother all the rights with zero responsibilities.

In fact, it is the fetus that is depriving the mother of liberty and security of the person by requiring the use of her body against her will

It's not against her will. She either f'ed up or lost the dice roll, but it was always her choice, by her will, to have sex or not. If I go skydiving because it's pleasurable for me I can be assured a 99% chance or so my chute will open & I will land safely, but I know the risk that I could die. The chute tells me the risks it could get tangled, and if I die I'm still the one who chose to jump out of the plane or not while knowing the risks.

Once again, you cannot require a person to give up sovereignty of their own body in order to keep someone else alive.

If she's responsible for the creation of that life, why not?

Again, requiring complete abstinence is unreasonable.

Why? There's still lots of fun to be had without penile penetration of the vagina. Both partners can still achieve orgasm by the other partner via multiple ways.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

Again, coming back to my point that other than cases of rape, the woman is consenting to the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex. Women have tools to control fertility 99% of the time, if they use them. If she doesn't use them, uses them improperly, or it fails as it's well-known it can, she still made the choice to have sex. The creation of the baby inside her was 100% in her control. She had 100% control to prevent it. She chose the risk, she lost the odds.

So whose rights trump whose? The baby (who had ZERO choice in being created) having the right to life, or not being killed, or the mother having the right not to be severely inconvenienced for a year or whatever (in the case of adoption) even though she chose the risk of becoming pregnant in the first place.

Ummmm. Basically you are saying that unless women are willing to become pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. For women, sex is only a means to pregnancy.

The Middle Ages called - you've been missed.

You're giving the mother an awful lot of choices & all the rights while giving the baby zero choices and zero rights. You're giving the mother all the rights with zero responsibilities.

You don't think taking birth control is taking responsibility?

...it was always her choice, by her will, to have sex or not. If I go skydiving because it's pleasurable for me I can be assured a 99% chance or so my chute will open & I will land safely, but I know the risk that I could die. The chute tells me the risks it could get tangled, and if I die I'm still the one who chose to jump out of the plane or not while knowing the risks.

You're comparing sex to skydiving? - a life without sex to a life without skydiving?? As far as I know, the human race has no biological urge to skydive.

Why? There's still lots of fun to be had without penile penetration of the vagina.

And you know this - because you're a woman? Good God. Basically you are saying that until, unless, a woman is willing to risk pregnancy, she must remain a virgin.

[cybercoma]

Ummmm. Basically you are saying that unless women are willing to become pregnant, they shouldn't have sex. For women, sex is only a means to pregnancy.

The Middle Ages called - you've been missed.

I was going to reply, but then I read this and I just can't top it.

[cybercoma]

There's still lots of fun to be had without penile penetration of the vagina. Both partners can still achieve orgasm by the other partner via multiple ways.

I love how you want to dictate the ways people should be allowed to have sex. Insisting that vaginal penetration is only for procreation.

You know, everything you said in that full post (not just the part I quoted) would apply equally to an argument against the pill. Since these are the arguments that you're using am I to believe that you're also against women using the pill?

[Moonlight Graham]

Ummmm. Basically you are saying that unless women are willing to become pregnant, they shouldn't have sex.

Correct.

And you're saying that when a woman becomes pregnant she should be able to take a human life.

[note: I'd like to qualify my entire argument by saying this isn't necessarily what I personally believe in terms of abortion, I am just making the case for the argument, a side of the argument which I see as entirely legitimate, but since abortion is such a tricky issue I've never been able to make up my mind which side I'm on.]

For women, sex is only a means to pregnancy.

I never said that. I'm saying women can have sex and enjoy it, but must be willing to accept the risks and the consequences of those risks.

What you're telling me is that women should be able to have sex for fun, and then when they get unlucky or make a dumb mistake and become pregnant, they should be able to destroy that human life. This is a very selfish stance.

You don't think taking birth control is taking responsibility?

I do for sure. But it isn't 100% effective.

Now, what about those women/couples who don't use birth control all the time or at all? Do you think they should be able to get pregnant numerous times and abort the human life numerous times because they're foolish or lazy or want more pleasurable sex (ie: no condom)? Doing all the right things & getting pregnant by being unlucky is one degree, but wouldn't the above example be morally repugnant? Are you in favour of unlimited abortions? (just exploring the argument here)

You're comparing sex to skydiving? - a life without sex to a life without skydiving?? As far as I know, the human race has no biological urge to skydive.

That's not why I'm comparing the 2 activities. I'm comparing them based on known risk.

Basically you are saying that until, unless, a woman is willing to risk pregnancy, she must remain a virgin.

Yes. This is the way it's been for 99.9999% of human history, & is still the case in many low-tech societies, & is the same for all mammals (to my knowledge), but because humans now have the technology to perform relatively safe abortions, then women now have the right to have sex purely for pleasure and destroy a human life when it's inconvenient?

Does a fetus/embryo have any rights or not? If not, why not?

Edited July 29, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

Correct.

And you're saying that when a woman becomes pregnant she should be able to take a human life.

Wow. Just wow. And no, I'm not saying she should be able to take a human life. I'd be all for pressing charges if she kills the baby once it's born. I'm saying she should be able to end a pregnancy within the non-viable stage.

[note: I'd like to qualify my entire argument by saying this isn't necessarily what I personally believe in terms of abortion, I am just making the case for the argument, a side of the argument which I see as entirely legitimate, but since abortion is such a tricky issue I've never been able to make up my mind which side I'm on.]

Oh, really. You see women refraining from having sex unless they're willing to accept a pregnancy as "entirely legitimate." Seriously.

I never said that. I'm saying women can have sex and enjoy it, but must be willing to accept the risks and the consequences of those risks.

You think a woman can "enjoy" sex knowing that a pregnancy she absolutely doesn't want and can't do anything about could be the result? Seriously?

What you're telling me is that women should be able to have sex for fun, and then when they get unlucky or make a dumb mistake and become pregnant, they should be able to destroy that human life. This is a very selfish stance.

Ummmm. My stance is selfish? Your stance that women should either have to accept a pregnancy or remain a virgin for life isn't? How about the morning after pill - is that a selfish act too? What about birth control? And how do you feel about freezing embryos?

I do for sure. But it isn't 100% effective.

If you believe it's taking responsibility, then by your own viewpoint women can - and do - become pregnant in spite of taking responsibility.

Now, what about those women/couples who don't use birth control all the time or at all? Do you think they should be able to get pregnant numerous times and abort the human life numerous times because they're foolish or lazy or want more pleasurable sex (ie: no condom)?

I don't think women are out there using abortion as a method of birth control, much less "all the time." Furthermore, many a pregnancy has resulted with condom use. You seem to have a very archaic view of sex. But I'm wondering what you are getting at with your question - are you saying that there should be a limit of one abortion per person? How does that change what abortion is?

Doing all the right things & getting pregnant by being unlucky is one degree, but wouldn't the above example be morally repugnant? Are you in favour of unlimited abortions? (just exploring the argument here)

I think one should either support the choice - or completely not support it. How can it be morally ok to have x number of abortions, but not x+1?

That's not why I'm comparing the 2 activities. I'm comparing them based on known risk.

"Known risk" doesn't make them comparable.

Yes.

Wow. As I said, the Dark Ages.

This is the way it's been for 99.9999% of human history, & is still the case in many low-tech societies,

So you're against progress, are you? That's the only way one can take this 'argument.'

& is the same for all mammals (to my knowledge), but because humans now have the technology to perform relatively safe abortions, then women now have the right to have sex purely for pleasure

What a concept, eh? Women being able to have sex just for the pleasure of it.

and destroy a human life when it's inconvenient?

Nope. Prevent a human life from developing.

Does a fetus/embryo have any rights or not? If not, why not?

Because there is a conflict of rights, and they are not viable. It's impossible in such a situation to satisfy both the rights of the woman and the fetus/embryo, so until the fetus/embryo is viable, the woman's right trumps that of a non-viable fetus/embryo.

Edited July 29, 2012 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

Wow. Just wow. And no, I'm not saying she should be able to take a human life. I'd be all for pressing charges if she kills the baby once it's born. I'm saying she should be able to end a pregnancy within the non-viable stage.

It all depends on where a person thinks the moment is where human life begins.

How about the morning after pill - is that a selfish act too? What about birth control? And how do you feel about freezing embryos?

a) Probably, b. no, though I guess it depends on what type, c) Not sure yet, but to be consistent then I'm forced to say that freezing embryos is not right.

I think one should either support the choice - or completely not support it. How can it be morally ok to have x number of abortions, but not x+1?

Wow. As I said, the Dark Ages.

How is being concerned over the rights of an unborn child "from the Dark Ages". It's not like i'm saying the husband should be deciding the reproduction

So you're against progress, are you? That's the only way one can take this 'argument.'

Ridiculous way to twist my argument. My argument is that the unborn child should have the right to life, which should trump the woman's right to kill what she (and her male partner) created.

Nope. Prevent a human life from developing.

So you're arguing that an embryo, or a fetus at 4 months, is not a human life? You are arguing that a human life only begins when it is viable aka able to live outside the womb without the mother aka about 24 weeks (or ~6 months) after conception?

Because there is a conflict of rights, and they are not viable. It's impossible in such a situation to satisfy both the rights of the woman and the fetus/embryo, so until the fetus/embryo is viable, the woman's right trumps that of a non-viable fetus/embryo.

EXACTLY. We're simply talking about a conflict of rights, and these rights conflict and both can't be satisfied as you say. We simply disagree on which rights should be given more importance.

[again, my entire argument is not necessarily what I personally believe. If I had a hypothetical girlfriend who became hypothetically pregnant, I would humbly let her decide whatever she wanted to do since it's her body and would support her 100% in either decision (abort pre-3rd trimester or keep baby)].

Edited July 30, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

It all depends on where a person thinks the moment is where human life begins.

As I've pointed out numerous times in this thread already, no it doesn't.

You're also completely misunderstanding the arguments. Human life begins at conception. You're talking about when a person believes legal personhood begins, which is not necessarily the same thing as the beginning of human life.

Again, however, it doesn't matter. One human being does not get use of another's body against that person's will. Especially not through governmental decree. Full stop.

My argument is that the unborn child should have the right to life, which should trump the woman's right to kill what she (and her male partner) created.

I completely reject your notion that the woman is killing what she and her partner created. The woman chooses not to be pregnant. She's under no obligation to use her body against her will to keep another human being alive, especially forced through legislation. Otherwise, the government could make it mandatory for the authorities to show up at your home to take a kidney from you. Using your argument, you would be killing the person who needs it by not providing your body to them. Take it a step further, you caused a car accident. It was an accident, as it was never your intent to wreck your car or harm anyone. However, someone in the accident requires a kidney to survive. Again, using your argument, the state ought to be able to require you to give up your kidney. After all, you don't need two and you caused the accident even though it was completely unintentional. I think most people would rightfully be horrified by this kind of legislation that allows the state to violate your body. I think most people can also see that you have a moral obligation not to harm others or murder someone, while there is no such moral obligation to keep another person alive. It may be the kind thing to do, but there is absolutely no moral obligation to submit your body to another.

[Guest American Woman]

It all depends on where a person thinks the moment is where human life begins.

Not necessarily; there's developing life and developed life. A pregnancy is the development of a human life. An abortion prevents that development.

a) Probably, b. no, though I guess it depends on what type, c) Not sure yet, but to be consistent then I'm forced to say that freezing embryos is not right.

Probably? You sure don't seem to take too strong of a stand on any of this - "Probably, I guess, not sure ...." but you sure seem take a strong stand regarding a woman not having sex unless she's willing to be pregnant and you have no hesitation in saying that she's selfish if all of her precautions fail and she has an abortion to prevent the pregnancy she didn't want in the first place from developing full term.

How is being concerned over the rights of an unborn child "from the Dark Ages". It's not like i'm saying the husband should be deciding the reproduction

The belief that a woman should remain a virgin unless she's willing to be pregnant is totally, unbelievably, Dark Ages.

Ridiculous way to twist my argument.

I didn't twist anything. You said that 'this is the way it's been since the beginning of time.'

My argument is that the unborn child should have the right to life, which should trump the woman's right to kill what she (and her male partner) created.

They aren't "killing" it; they are preventing the full development from taking place.

So you're arguing that an embryo, or a fetus at 4 months, is not a human life?

I'm not arguing about the "human life" aspect; I see that as emtional hyperbole, a distraction, same as the reference to "killing" rather than "aborting." I'm speaking in terms of viability, and I think I've made that quite clear.

You are arguing that a human life only begins when it is viable aka able to live outside the womb without the mother aka about 24 weeks (or ~6 months) after conception?

I'm arguing that until a fetus/embryo is viable, it can't be "killed;" it can onl be prevented from developing into a viable human being. As long as it's dependent on another being for survival, I see it as in the developmental stage.

EXACTLY. We're simply talking about a conflict of rights, and these rights conflict and both can't be satisfied as you say. We simply disagree on which rights should be given more importance.

Yep, because when one can't exist without intruding on the other's rights, I put more value on the rights of the one who can, and does, exist independently.

[again, my entire argument is not necessarily what I personally believe. If I had a hypothetical girlfriend who became hypothetically pregnant, I would humbly let her decide whatever she wanted to do since it's her body and would support her 100% in either decision (abort pre-3rd trimester or keep baby)].

How can you argue something that you don't personally believe? It makes no sense. My God. You go through all this crap about women not having sex unless they accept the consequence of being pregnant, how women who abort are selfish, how those who take the morning after pill are probably selfish - only to recognize that if it affected someone you cared about personally, that "it's her body," her choice. It becomes a different matter when it affects you/someone you care about. You want to talk about selfish? That comes across as extremely selfish to me.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not necessarily; there's developing life and developed life. A pregnancy is the development of a human life. An abortion prevents that development.

Ok, so you're saying that a developed life is when the fetus is at the viable stage? A developed life is one that can exist independently from the mother's womb?

Probably? You sure don't seem to take too strong of a stand on any of this - "Probably, I guess, not sure ...." but you sure seem take a strong stand regarding a woman not having sex unless she's willing to be pregnant and you have no hesitation in saying that she's selfish if all of her precautions fail and she has an abortion to prevent the pregnancy she didn't want in the first place from developing full term.

I said probably etc. because I haven't thought about these issues enough, nor do I want to open those cans of worms right now since we're already debating a big issue.

So, as I've expected you were doing, you're accusing me of being sexist and making my argument on those grounds as well, which is absolute 100% horsecrap and I take great offense to the very notion. I didn't decide the evolutionary process of how human reproduction works. If males became pregnant instead of females I would be making 100% exact same argument because absolutely nothing changes. I'm a feminist, I am for women's rights, and I'm also for children's rights (& rights of the unborn child). Unfortunately the rights of the 2 groups collide here, and I've chosen a side to argue.

They aren't "killing" it; they are preventing the full development from taking place.

They are causing the death of the living organism. By definition is this killing.

I'm not arguing about the "human life" aspect; I see that as emtional hyperbole, a distraction, same as the reference to "killing" rather than "aborting." I'm speaking in terms of viability, and I think I've made that quite clear.

It's not hyperbole, "human life" and "killing" are accurate terms to describe a fetus/embryo and abortion. And yes I'm attempting to bring in an emotional element to this, because these terms "humanize" what we're talking about instead of just treating an embryo/fetus as an object or a sack of cells, and an abortion as just another medical procedure. You're specifically trying to dehumanize this argument. Once it's humanized, certain moral/ethical dilemmas become much clearer because we ARE dealing with living human organisms and matters of life & death.

I'm arguing that until a fetus/embryo is viable, it can't be "killed;" it can onl be prevented from developing into a viable human being.

Science says embryos and fetus' can be killed: My link

As long as it's dependent on another being for survival, I see it as in the developmental stage.

A newborn, infant, toddler etc. is still in the developmental stage. A 2-month year old baby is still "dependent on another being for survival", so by your definition it's still in the developmental stage, and I would agree, as would most medical doctors.

Yep, because when one can't exist without intruding on the other's rights, I put more value on the rights of the one who can, and does, exist independently.

Ok, so take a 2-month year old baby, which cannot exist independently. What if the mother/father and everyone else is unwilling to look after its survival? Does the baby have the right to life? Should someone be legally and/or ethically obliged to ensure its survival, or not?

I'm putting more value on the rights of the one who will suffer FAR more severe consequences if their rights aren't upheld. Life/death vs severe inconvenience.

How can you argue something that you don't personally believe? It makes no sense. My God. You go through all this crap about women not having sex unless they accept the consequence of being pregnant, how women who abort are selfish, how those who take the morning after pill are probably selfish - only to recognize that if it affected someone you cared about personally, that "it's her body," her choice. It becomes a different matter when it affects you/someone you care about. You want to talk about selfish? That comes across as extremely selfish to me.

Devil's advocate:

"In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process."

As I said, I'm undecided on the issue of abortion. The one i've been arguing is actually one of the arguments I see as valid on the "pro-life" side, so in a sense I guess I do believe it. I also see some "pro-choice" arguments as valid. Since I'm undecided, I accept the status quo & would defer to whatever choice my female partner would choose. By engaging in this debate, maybe I'll finally decide on which side I'm on.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

Obviously you cannot understand the intrusion of a human being growing inside you for 9 months, since you're trying to draw a parallel to providing for a 2 month old.

You know what a mother doesn't have to do? She doesn't have to give her blood if the baby requires a blood transfusion and they can't get it anywhere else. The government and courts can't order her to do it either.

Do you know why?

Because the government cannot intrude on your body. They don't pass legislation to harvest people's organs that they can do without (ie, kidneys) or force people to give their blood against their will. Nor can they create legislation dictating that a woman must use her body to incubate another human being if that is against her will.

Take Judith Jarvis Thomson's seed metaphor:

Fertilized human "seeds" float about in the air. A woman puts screens in her window, so these seeds will not get into her home. One day, a "seed" slips through a tear in the screen and embeds itself into the woman's carpet. If she removes the seed, the developing human will die.

Is she morally obligated to leave this stranger growing in her home, even though it is completely against her will to have him there? She doesn't want him there and she attempted to keep him out by other means. She knew it was a risk living where she did, but does that mean she's obliged to provide for this seed that's now growing in her home? Or is she morally permitted as the homeowner to evict this seed, even if it means certain death for the unwanted guest?

[Guest American Woman]

Ok, so you're saying that a developed life is when the fetus is at the viable stage? A developed life is one that can exist independently from the mother's womb?

I'm saying viable life is when the fetus can exist independently of the mother's womb.

I said probably etc. because I haven't thought about these issues enough, nor do I want to open those cans of worms right now since we're already debating a big issue.

They are all part of the issue, if you believe it's all about when life begins.

So, as I've expected you were doing, you're accusing me of being sexist and making my argument on those grounds as well, which is absolute 100% horsecrap and I take great offense to the very notion.

If I were accusing you of being sexist, I would have said you were sexist rather than point out that your views are from the Dark Ages.

They are causing the death of the living organism. By definition is this killing.

There are lots of living orgasms, including fungus; I don't generally associate "killing" with the end of all of them. A sperm is a living thing. Do you consider it "the death of a living orgasm" when it meets a fate other than procreation? Is that how you refer to it?

It's not hyperbole, "human life" and "killing" are accurate terms to describe a fetus/embryo and abortion.

"Abortion" and "fetus/embryo" are accurate terms to describe ending a non-viable pregnancy.

And yes I'm attempting to bring in an emotional element to this, because these terms "humanize" what we're talking about instead of just treating an embryo/fetus as an object or a sack of cells, and an abortion as just another medical procedure.

It is what it is. You can try to bring an emotional element into it, but that doesn't change what it is - preventing a pregnancy from going full term.

You're specifically trying to dehumanize this argument. Once it's humanized, certain moral/ethical dilemmas become much clearer because we ARE dealing with living human organisms and matters of life & death.

I'm not specifically trying to dehumanize it; I'm specifically trying to present it the way it is.

Science says embryos and fetus' can be killed: My link

I would wager that some scientists, not "science," say that.

A newborn, infant, toddler etc. is still in the developmental stage. A 2-month year old baby is still "dependent on another being for survival", so by your definition it's still in the developmental stage, and I would agree, as would most medical doctors.

They are viable. All of the examples you gave are viable. Furthermore, the development you speak of is development into adulthood; they are already a fully developed human being.

Ok, so take a 2-month year old baby, which cannot exist independently. What if the mother/father and everyone else is unwilling to look after its survival? Does the baby have the right to life? Should someone be legally and/or ethically obliged to ensure its survival, or not?

Oh, please. The baby can exist independently in the sense we are speaking of; it doesn't have to be attached to another human being in order to survive. It has needs that have to be fulfilled, but it will not instantly cease to exist if removed from the mother/father - and foster care can fulfill those needs as much as the mother/father could. The very fact that the father could speaks of the differences.

I'm putting more value on the rights of the one who will suffer FAR more severe consequences if their rights aren't upheld. Life/death vs severe inconvenience.

You keep trying to refer to unwanted pregnancy as nothing more than an "inconvenience." It can be much more than that - there are effects and risks involved with pregnancy. If you are unaware of that, I suggest you educate yourself.

As I said, I'm undecided on the issue of abortion.

Not when it comes your hypothetical GF. You've made it quite clear that it's her body, her decision. Now if you could only give all women that same respect - and lose the "selfish" judgement (which I'm guessing you wouldn't be bombarding her with).

Edited July 31, 2012 by American Woman