When is abortion wrong?

[Famine]

I believe that abortion in this situation is knowing before having sex that you can delete your mistake. Adults who decide to do this have no respect for life in general.

I don't think ANYONE has sex with the thought "If I get pregnant, I can have an abortion." foremost in their head.

Abortion is part of a panoply of safety nets for sex. We have prophylaxis (contraception) in the form of barrier methods (condom, diaphragm, "femidom") and chemical methods (The Pill and spermicides), which can be used in conjunction with one another. Then we have the IUD and Morning After Pill which can be used not to avoid fertilisation but to prevent implantation. Last and most desperate - and remember that... Most desperate - is abortion, surgical intervention to avoid a serious medical condition.

People who go for an abortion always go as a last resort. If someone wants to enjoy frankly the best experience a human can have (hey, it's always good for me) and engages in multiple prophylatic methods to avoid the potential consequences then fair play to them. If the prophylaxis doesn't work then they are entitled to whatever method they choose to avoid inflicting the world upon a child they have no desire to have.


People who jump out of planes know that it might kill them. Nevertheless, they do it anyway because they enjoy it. They have a parachute (which, coincidentally, the femidom resembles quite closely) to avoid the potential consequences but occasionally this fails. Their last and most desperate resource to avoid the potential consequences is their reserve 'chute - without it they'll meet thier consequences head on (literally).

Skydiving = Having sex - Participation by choice in an activity with potentially fatal consequences.
Parachute = Contraception - External device to avoid the potentially fatal consequences.
Reserve = Abortion - Last ditch method to avoid potentially fatal consequences.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think ANYONE has sex with the thought "If I get pregnant, I can have an abortion." foremost in their head.

I don't think so either, but I don't see why it's a problem even if this is the case.

I mean, unless you believe that the fetus has a soul, I don't see why aborting it is negative in any way whatsoever (other than the obvious costs and risks). It's the responsible thing to do if you aren't sure you want the child.

I literally don't see the moral difference between abortion and abstinence.

 

[Swift]

I literally don't see the moral difference between abortion and abstinence.

Because you believe life begins at birth.

 

[Famine]

No - YOU "believe" that life begins at conception, whereas biological life doesn't start until ~16 weeks after and legal life doesn't start until birth.

When do YOU celebrate your birthday?

 

[Arwin]

What part of "before" do you not get?

I'm not making things up, I'm just quoting scripture and intepreting scripture with scripture. That's all.

Interpreting doesn't mean you're not making things up. What part of "Soul" don't you get? What part of the concept of Body and Soul being two completely different entities don't you get? That's a key part here. Show me where the Book says that the Soul is infused into the body at conception, rather than just before birth, when the body is fully formed, albeit in miniature form.

 

[Swift]

These circles are getting old. Famine, you dont' have belief you just have what you think can be proven.

As far as life being at 16 weeks, what was going on the other 15 weeks? Cancer?

Arwin, if you don't read it the same way that I do, then I can't help that.

 

[Famine]

The unabated growth and development of a parasitical mass of human-derived cells.

A foetus has no brain until ~16 weeks. It has no heartbeat until ~13 weeks. It doesn't breathe until it pops out. It is not a distinct, living entity until at the very least it has its own circulatory system and, without a brain, it most certainly doesn't have any thoughts, feelings, mind or capacity to feel pain.

You believe that life begins at fertilisation - which does still beg the question as to whether it's the sperm or the egg which carries the "soul" and why you don't class either of these living, independant human cells as "life".

Medical science states that a foetus is incapable of supporting itself in the outside world until at least the 21st week and so cannot be considered a separate lifeform - it would not be born in a "living" state.

Law states that you are not alive until you are born - and still the question stands. When do YOU celebrate your birthday, Swift? The day you were born or the day YOU think your life started, <= 9 months earlier?

 

[Arwin]

These circles are getting old. Famine, you dont' have belief you just have what you think can be proven.

As far as life being at 16 weeks, what was going on the other 15 weeks? Cancer?

Arwin, if you don't read it the same way that I do, then I can't help that.

Yeah well, I've made my point. It is far more likely that the (Author/authors of the) Bible considers the infusion of the Soul taking place just before birth. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they considered it the impulse that started labor. Your interpretation is the far less likely of the two possible interpretations. If you're determined to read the Bible that way, then I maintain that you're just picking whichever interpretation suits your own incredibly subjective feelings on the subject best.

I questioned your sincerity in relying on religious texts as a basis for your self-appointed piousness before in the context of gay marriage, and here you've lost my confidence in that regard completely. You feel a certain way and use 'the Text' creatively to support your feelings just as some feel that they want to own their neighbours piece of land and then creatively read that they ought to be owning it in the first place in whatever religious text suits them.

Your position is so far supported neither by Theology nor Science, and I therefore strongly question any moral right or even superiority you claim over others in these regards.

 

[TheCracker]

Of course thats the problem with all religious texts, they are so ambiguous in their teachings that they can just about be interpreted to suit whatever you want them to interpret. They are, at the end of the day, just a book of stories (the christian bible anyhow) not a book of rules.

 

[Swift]

Law states that you are not alive until you are born - and still the question stands. When do YOU celebrate your birthday, Swift? The day you were born or the day YOU think your life started, <= 9 months earlier?

Well, let's thing about it for a second. I was alive at conception, though my independent life didn't begin until I was born. Wow, that was tough.

 

[TheCracker]

 

[Swift]

Yeah well, I've made my point. It is far more likely that the (Author/authors of the) Bible considers the infusion of the Soul taking place just before birth. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they considered it the impulse that started labor. Your interpretation is the far less likely of the two possible interpretations. If you're determined to read the Bible that way, then I maintain that you're just picking whichever interpretation suits your own incredibly subjective feelings on the subject best.

I questioned your sincerity in relying on religious texts as a basis for your self-appointed piousness before in the context of gay marriage, and here you've lost my confidence in that regard completely. You feel a certain way and use 'the Text' creatively to support your feelings just as some feel that they want to own their neighbours piece of land and then creatively read that they ought to be owning it in the first place in whatever religious text suits them.

Your position is so far supported neither by Theology nor Science, and I therefore strongly question any moral right or even superiority you claim over others in these regards.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

IT says BEFORE he formed him in the belly. Before he had form, God knew him. Not at the time of birth, not at 16 weeks, before he was even formed. I'm trying to figure out how there is a challenge with that.

 

[Arwin]

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

IT says BEFORE he formed him in the belly. Before he had form, God knew him. Not at the time of birth, not at 16 weeks, before he was even formed. I'm trying to figure out how there is a challenge with that.

I already said that this would logically be taken that God knew his Soul, and those Souls have been around since before the creation of the Earth (as you've quoted from the Bible yourself the previous time you posted Jer 1:5).

The challenge therefore has to do with the point at which the body receives the Soul. You've assumed so far that this would naturally be at the point of conception, but I believe that in the context of the Bible itself, the more likely interpretation is that God first forms the body, then infuses the Soul, and then Conception takes place.

(You first build a house, then the family moves in, so to speak.)

 

[Swift]

I already said that this would logically be taken that God knew his Soul, and those Souls have been around since before the creation of the Earth (as you've quoted from the Bible yourself the previous time you posted Jer 1:5).

The challenge therefore has to do with the point at which the body receives the Soul. You've assumed so far that this would naturally be at the point of conception, but I believe that in the context of the Bible itself, the more likely interpretation is that God first forms the body, then infuses the Soul, and then Conception takes place.

(You first build a house, then the family moves in, so to speak.)

Let's look at it from a different point of view. Let's assume there is a soul. And that there is a new conception. Now, if there is a soul for that new person, is it possible for them to be without that soul at any time?

 

[Arwin]

Let's look at it from a different point of view. Let's assume there is a soul. And that there is a new conception. Now, if there is a soul for that new person, is it possible for them to be without that soul at any time?

There is no person without a soul. A person is the sum total of Body and Soul. God created the Body as a Temple for the Soul. One cell is not a fit temple, it is the first sand particle of the first brick.

 

[Swift]

There is no person without a soul. A person is the sum total of Body and Soul. God created the Body as a Temple for the Soul. One cell is not a fit temple, it is the first sand particle of the first brick.

First, I really like the way you said that, until the last sentnce

Is 4 cells a fit temple? Or how about 8? maybe 16? or 2^20 cells? See what I'm getting at?

 

[Arwin]

First, I really like the way you said that, until the last sentnce

Is 4 cells a fit temple? Or how about 8? maybe 16? or 2^20 cells? See what I'm getting at?

Yes. But again, I already answered that. A fully formed, albeit minitiature, Body, is a fit temple for the Soul. It has historically been believed that it takes place at the moment the Baby starts breathing, that the Soul is blown into the child. Hence the word inspire, from the Latin inspirare.

 

[Swift]

Yes. But again, I already answered that. A fully formed, albeit minitiature, Body, is a fit temple for the Soul. It has historically been believed that it takes place at the moment the Baby starts breathing, that the Soul is blown into the child. Hence the word inspire, from the Latin inspirare.

Or from Genesis Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That's great for Adam, but he wasn't born of woman like you and I.

 

[Arwin]

Or from Genesis Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

That's great for Adam, but he wasn't born of woman like you and I.

No, he wasn't. If you even pay half attention when you read my posts, then you'd have known this one of yours was totally pointless. Much more relevant is that God created Adam and then breathed life into him.

I think you are a hairbredth away from telling me that a sperm and an egg each contain half a soul.

 

[Swift]

No, he wasn't. If you even pay half attention when you read my posts, then you'd have known this one of yours was totally pointless. Much more relevant is that God created Adam and then breathed life into him.

I think you are a hairbredth away from telling me that a sperm and an egg each contain half a soul.

Actually, I just wanted to get your reaction to that. It didn't really have a point, just thought I would throw it in for extra.

There is not a time a child is without a soul. What about the babies that die during birth? You mean to tell me that they don't have a soul?

 

[Famine]

Is the soul carried in the sperm or the egg?

 

[Swift]

Is the soul carried in the sperm or the egg?

Nope, just the genes and chromosomes.

 

[Famine]

Interesting.

Got any particular loci in mind?

If souls are genetic in nature, can a good person arise from a line of bad people? What proportion of the genetic soul is carried in the sperm and what proportion is carried in the egg?

 

[Swift]

Interesting.

Got any particular loci in mind?

If souls are genetic in nature, can a good person arise from a line of bad people? What proportion of the genetic soul is carried in the sperm and what proportion is carried in the egg?

Hmmm...souls genetic in nature. Nope, souls are spiritual in nature. You can't see a soul or see a spirit. But you can see the manifestation of both in the body.

 

[Famine]

Ah, sorry - I thought you said the soul was carried in "the genes and chromosomes". My bad.

Nevertheless, if the magic soul-moment occurs at the exact same point in time as the moment of conception - which is a direct interaction between the nucleii of the sperm and egg - it seems reasonable to conclude that either the egg or the sperm carry the soul, or both of them carry a fraction of it.

If not, WHERE does it come from?

 

[ledhed]

It comes from God silly .

 

[Arwin]

Actually, I just wanted to get your reaction to that. It didn't really have a point, just thought I would throw it in for extra.

There is not a time a child is without a soul. What about the babies that die during birth? You mean to tell me that they don't have a soul?

Depends whether they are stillborn or die crying, I suppose. You see, your problem is that the Book and scientific observation and scrutiny don't match.

The world has changed too much for the Laws of the Book. It is understandable that in such a complex world, you want a simple answer. There isn't. The human body has been formed to strive to satisfy simple needs. But the human mind has allowed it to manipulate the world to satisfy those needs in incredibly complicated ways.

One of the effects of that change is that survival increasinly depends not on quantity (number of children) but on quality (of care and education). But the human body isn't so flexible - its DNA structure doesn't change overnight, or hardly even over 100.000 years. Therefore, the complexity of the world needs to integrate and reconcile the basic urges of primitive man with the demands of a highly evolved Western society.

One recognition of that quality is that the value of a single individual is a lot higher than previously. It is understandable that some take that to the extreme of protecting a life as fully and early as they think can and should be done, but in the context of the overal quality of life that isn't a wise decision.

In short, screw as much as you can and like, be careful not to get pregnant, but only take upon you the responsibility of raising a child to live in our complicated world when you're truly ready.

 

[Pako]

The age of an unborn "child" is 0.

So, why can't a 12 year old have a beer in the pub but I can? What's the difference? After all, it's only the age of the child. It's just points on a graph.



Ah, but where do you draw the line?

If child-killing is illegal, then late-term abortion must be illegal.
If late-term abortion is illegal then early-term abortion must be illegal.
If early-term abortion is illegal, why is sperm-murder legal? Egg murder is also legal, so we should neuter all men to stop natural sperm production (and destruction) all women to stop them having periods. Reproduction must only occur by cloning.

Okay, so that's all a bit facetious, but you get the gist. Where do you draw the line? At some point during pregnancy it's legal and people don't want it to be - so why are they fine with killing of sperm and eggs?

(and to anyone who wishes to reply "Well that's obvious", spell it out)

Well that's obvious.

Being Day 0 old means that we (as a society) have decided to not acknowledge that baby as part of our social community until it is born. When that custom was first adopted, it was the only accurate means possible to determine someone's age. This social custom is not likely to change even as science and technology has progressed to the point when we can guess pretty accurately when the child was conceived.

Why is murder wrong? It is wrong because we are taking away a right to live without consent. That is why abortion is wrong. Even in sex crimes, it's not the baby's fault that it's dad was a rapist. It still has a right to live. As far as sperm or egg murder? An egg will N-E-V-E-R become a human without the aid of a sperm. A sperm will N-E-V-E-R become a human without the aid of a egg. This is what distinguishes sperm/egg murder (your words) from fetus murder, a huge difference in my estimation. A human fetus will become nothing except a human. There is no way that we can measure when a fetus is conscience but we can determine when a fetus can or can’t ‘feel’ pain based on where the brain is in it’s development process. We try to be a civilized society but feel no remorse when we have to hack and brake apart a human fetus just because the mother doesn’t want it? It’s appalling really, but of course this is just my opinion.

 

[Famine]

Why is murder wrong? It is wrong because we are taking away a right to live without consent. That is why abortion is wrong. Even in sex crimes, it's not the baby's fault that it's dad was a rapist. It still has a right to live. As far as sperm or egg murder? An egg will N-E-V-E-R become a human without the aid of a sperm. A sperm will N-E-V-E-R become a human without the aid of a egg. This is what distinguishes sperm/egg murder (your words) from fetus murder, a huge difference in my estimation. A human fetus will become nothing except a human. There is no way that we can measure when a fetus is conscience but we can determine when a fetus can or can’t ‘feel’ pain based on where the brain is in it’s development process. We try to be a civilized society but feel no remorse when we have to hack and brake apart a human fetus just because the mother doesn’t want it? It’s appalling really, but of course this is just my opinion.

A foetus can N-E-V-E-R become a human without a womb. So the distinction is somewhat blurry. Sperm needs egg. Egg needs sperm. Embryo needs womb. If you don't believe me, catch some menstruation from a woman who's had the morning after pill (which has no effect on the fertilised egg, but breaks down the endometrium it requires to embed in) and try to grow the perfectly healthy fertilised egg into a human. There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

Up until ~16 weeks a foetus has no brain. It cannot possibly be conscious as it has nowhere to store the consciousness and it cannot feel pain as there is no pain centre of the brain (because there is no brain).

So on those grounds is a pre-16 week abortion fine, in your opinion?

 

[Swift]

It comes from God silly .

YOu couldn't be more right

Arwin, so you're saying that your body controls what you do. You have no will or control over what your own body does?