Abortion vs Your Religious Beliefs

[Syntho-sis]

Because you can't murder a non-person. You are assuming that the embryo is a person -- without explaining why, nor defining person. Anyone who does not hold that *baseless assumption will not consider abortion murder.

 

*I've yet to see any reasonable definition that has zygotes or embryos as a person but does not include or exclude the wrong things.

 

Well that's odd...Because you are acting based on the assumption that you do have a definition of what a human is.

 

I have a solution! Let's not do anything (abortion or otherwise) until we figure it out..

 

Sound good?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I

don't understand this analogy. You destroy what you destroy. You prevent everything that might have happened after that.

 

So if I destroy an embryo..I prevent it from becoming a human, right? Or was it never even an embryo in the first place because I destroyed it?

 

 

What?

 

Trust me on that one. Bad after-taste.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Syntho-sis
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Figure what out? "Person" is human-defined. It's not something that is "discovered." Definitions can only be consistent or contradictory.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So if I destroy an embryo..I prevent it from becoming a human, right?

 

You prevent it from becoming a person, I would say.

 

Or was it never even an embryo in the first place because I destroyed it?

 

What? Why would you suggest that? If you're being sarcastic I can't tell, so please don't.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Sisyphus
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well that's odd...Because you are acting based on the assumption that you do have a definition of what a human is.

 

I don't have a complete definition of a person, though I can work with a partial definition. I consider sentience and thinking prerequisites to being a person, and therefore things that can't think or aren't sentient aren't people. It's not the only prerequisite, but it is a good enough definition for excluding many things (early embryos, roaches, bacteria, cultured human cancer cells). Things get more complicated if I want to exclude puppies yet retain babies, but then again we also do grant some rights to puppies.

 

Incidentally, I don't really consider a "person" as a yes/no categorization; there are some things that are more personlike than others yet less personlike than yet others.

 

I have a solution! Let's not do anything (abortion or otherwise) until we figure it out..

 

Sound good?

 

Agreed. I shall neither condemn abortions nor condone them, nor make any laws, restrictions, or punishments either way. It shall be up to the individuals involved to sort it out.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'll have to say, because persons can be created and destroyed, at some point there is a transition from non-person to person and at some point can transition back again

[mooeypoo]

Well that's odd...Because you are acting based on the assumption that you do[/i'] have a definition of what a human is.

 

I have a solution! Let's not do anything (abortion or otherwise) until we figure it out..

GThat would include not going to the hospital, not taking prenatal vitamins and not assisting women in birth.

 

 

Good luck with that.

 

So if I destroy an embryo..I prevent it from becoming a human, right? Or was it never even an embryo in the first place because I destroyed it?

You conveniently skipped my post. I raised some issues that explain why your statement is inconsistent. Can you please relate to it?

[Syntho-sis]

I'm not sure I understand your questions. If the pack of cells is not alive, and it's not sentient, then it's not human.

 

Okay, here goes. In my opinion an embryo is a human life. Why do I think it is a human? For the same reason that I think you are a human. It has a mother and a father. I know this is open to debate, but it's counter intuitive to say otherwise imo.

It might be killing a "potential", but it's not killing a life, and it's not killing a human. It's not murder. When you kill off bacteria, you don't commit murder, do you? And bacteria *ARE* alive.

 

The potentials? Sounds like a good concept for a movie or something.. It just seems like you are though. Killing a person. Because if you didn't kill them they would probably go on to live a life. That's all anything is about isn't it? The potentiality? Why do you get up in the morning knowing that one day you will die? Because potentially you could have a happy life between then and now.

 

 

Now, about "potential" for life:

1. Are you supporting contraception? If you are, then by your own definition you are preventing the potential of life and are committing "murder".
   
2. Did you ever, in your life, ejaculate not while having coitus? Then by your own logic, you destroyed potential life, and are responsible of murder.
   
3. Did you ever use detergent? You actively kill life when you do.
   
4. Did you ever step on an ant? did you ever kill a roach? Murder murder murder.
   

 

Question 1: That doesn't apply because the process of life hasn't technically begun until the egg and sperm unite.

 

Question 2: See question number one.

 

Question 3: Life is just a chemical reaction. The only reason any of this is relevant is because people's Limbic system's get involved and they decide certain things are wrong. This is same reason you don't like it when people talk smack about your mamma.

 

Question 4: It doesn't have anything to do with ending life for the sake of ending life. It has everything to do with hypocrisy. Why punish the man who pushes a pregnant woman down the stairs when there are millions of sacks of cells that are thrown in the garbage everyday?

 

 

So, unless you're willing to explain the difference between the above (specifically the first two) and a pack of divided cells that aren't *YET* alive, there seems to be no difference. If one's murder, the other one's murder too. Is that what you support? I'm not sure I understand your position on these issues, and i don't see how this logic holds in being consistent.

 

~moo

 

Think about all the illogical things you do everyday..Now imagine a society built from the ground up based on fallacies.

 

It might be logical to use slaves to do our forced labor. Saves time training people and such, but would it be right?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, here goes. In my opinion an embryo is a human life. Why do I think it is a human? For the same reason that I think you are a human. It has a mother and a father. I know this is open to debate, but it's counter intuitive to say otherwise imo.

 

What if I make an embryo with only a mother? It's possible with the right equipment.

 

The potentials? Sounds like a good concept for a movie or something.. It just seems like you are though. Killing a person. Because if you didn't kill them they would probably go on to live a life. That's all anything is about isn't it? The potentiality? Why do you get up in the morning knowing that one day you will die? Because potentially you could have a happy life between then and now.

If I didn't use birth control, I'd probably have a kid who'd go on to live a life. If I had gone further that one night, there'd be a kid who'd probably go on to live a life.

 

Why do you draw the "probably" line at having an embryo instead of anywhere else?

 

Question 1: That doesn't apply because the process of life hasn't technically begun until the egg and sperm unite.

But why not? Both sperm and egg are alive; both contain their own DNA and so on. Both come from something that is alive. Why does the "life" begin only when they unite?

 

It might be logical to use slaves to do our forced labor. Saves time training people and such, but would it be right?

Morality can be based on logic.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Cap'n Refsmmat
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

Are we all not just "packs" of living cells?

Are we? Do you shave? Is that murder?

 

I think it's QUITE obvious that human beings are much MORE than just a pack of cells. They have sentience, intelligence (most) emotion, they are autonomous. The pack of cells that make up a zygote *does not* have any of those things.

 

Bad comparison. Your argument is STILL inconsistent. If a zygote is alive, then twins are each half-lives, and every month all the women in the world are responsible of mass murder.

 

Why are people convicted of a crime for harming one's own pet? If I starve a bunch of puppies to death I will probably go to jail and get a massive fine.

So now it's not human, it's pet? You still didn't answer me about the inconsistency of your claims. A pet is MORE than a bunch of cells too. It has sentience. The lump of cells in a woman's womb does NOT. It *will* (perhaps, maybe, if she's taking care of it well), but it doesn't yet in the beginning.

 

In fact, without modern medicine, there's a chance it *won't* either.

 

If you want to stop meddling with human reproduction, you need to *STOP * meddling with human reproduction. That means all hospitals, all contraception, anything and everything that is so-called "non natural". Take us back 500 years where a vast number of women died in childbirth and insane amt of babies died during birth and right after birth and during the pregnancy.

 

You can't claim that interference in the process is immoral on its own unless the interference yields the results you're comfortable with. That's inconsistent.

[Mr Skeptic]

What if I make an embryo with only a mother? It's possible with the right equipment.

 

However, you still need to activate the same systems that are activated upon fertilization. This is the purpose of the "zap it" step in cloning.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

However, you still need to activate the same systems that are activated upon fertilization. This is the purpose of the "zap it" step in cloning.

 

But there's no father required.

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay, here goes. In my opinion an embryo is a human life. Why do I think it is a human? For the same reason that I think you are a human. It has a mother and a father. I know this is open to debate, but it's counter intuitive to say otherwise imo.

 

Oh, we don't doubt that an embryo is human tissues (just like hair, cancer, toenails, and skin), but many of us don't consider it a person. We don't give rights to various human tissues, so why for the embryo?

 

I assume you mean to include human parents, otherwise kittens are human cause they have mothers and fathers.

 

Even so, I must point out that my skin cells have a human mother and father as well, not just me as a whole.

 

Question 1: That doesn't apply because the process of life hasn't technically begun until the egg and sperm unite.

 

And what of birth control pills, which allow fertilization to occur but do not allow the resultant zygote to attach to the womb? Mass murder?

 

Also, both the sperm and egg are alive before their union.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, here goes. In my opinion an embryo is a human life. Why do I think it is a human? For the same reason that I think you are a human. It has a mother and a father. I know this is open to debate, but it's counter intuitive to say otherwise imo.

This explanation isn't good neough. Notice: I'm not syaing your REASON isn't good enough (that would be an opinion), I am saying the REASONING you're giving is not good enough. IT's very simple: The comparison between me, a walking talking self-aware individual human being and a lump of cells that are not all the above is inconsistent.

 

IF you believe I'm human, you need to first show that this lump of cells is EQUIVALENT TO ME, if you want to compare it to me. That is, saying you cnsider it a life because something completely different is a life is not a good logical argument.

 

Second, it doesn't have to have a mother and a father. An embryo can be cloned, too, and grow inside a uterus. Is a cloned embryo not life? If not, are the only conditions for life for it to have parents? IF so, corcroaches fit this definition, which would make all of us murderers every time we stp on one.

 

Consistency.

 

The potentials? Sounds like a good concept for a movie or something.. It just seems like you are though. Killing a person. Because if you didn't kill them they would probably go on to live a life. That's all anything is about isn't it? The potentiality? Why do you get up in the morning knowing that one day you will die? Because potentially you could have a happy life between then and now.

It's nice that it "sounds like" to you, but it "sounds like not" to me. However, I seem to have a consistent set of rules that define what I see as life and what I don't. Those rules stay consistent no matter what example you give me, and I act on them and set my morality on them.

 

You don't have a set of consistent rules so far. It doesn't mean my morality is superior, it just means my explanation is. And if that's so, then my morality has more basis.

 

That's why I'm trying to figure out what you mean. So far, your claims are inconsistent; the fit 1 scenario but not the rest. If that's the case, then your morality is arbitrary; you go by what 'sounds right' instead of what might actually be right. Is that it?

 

 

Question 1: That doesn't apply because the process of life hasn't technically begun until the egg and sperm unite.

Question 2: See question number one.

Fair enough, although if you consider life to begin in fertilization, you have to explain what happens to twins. Do they each share a split life?

 

HOWEVER, that's not quite working though. You gave out examples where you PREVENTED a person from existing, and you asked if that's not murder. What I gave you are examples of the same issue. By ejaculating a man is *preventing* life from existing, because those sperm cells could have met a nice egg, fertilize it, and produce a lovely baby.

 

Is that murder?

 

Think about all the illogical things you do everyday..Now imagine a society built from the ground up based on fallacies.

I don't need to, those societies exist. See Saudi Arabia, with their uber-religious tendency to demean women; a woman can't leave the house wihtout a man, cannot walk in the street without a burka and god help her if she opens her mouth.

 

And this is in the 21st century.

 

Sadly, we all know how societies built on fallacious thinking LOOK LIKE. We sometimes fail to recognize the less extreme versions, though.

 

It might be logical to use slaves to do our forced labor. Saves time training people and such, but would it be right?

If you don't have consistent rules to decide what is moral and what isn't, how can you tell?

[pioneer]

If you look at the way science defines life; (wikipedia);

 

In biology, the science of living organisms, "life" is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, functional activity and the continual change preceding death.

 

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those that do not[1][2]–either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as "inanimate."[

 

The religious view is actually closer to the science definition, since at conception all the conditions above are met. The political science view of abortion is true only after we terminate the science definition with an abortion. The abortionists seem to have cause and effect backwards, which happens in the irrational world of political science.

[CharonY]

First of all there is no scientific consensus on what is life. There are notions that the dichotomy between life and non-life is purely artificial. Whatever it may be, it has no real impact on this discussion as the question is not what is life, but what constitutes a person. There is no doubt that a cancer cell is alive according to all possible notions and definitions, but it is clearly not a person.

[pioneer]

Regardless, abortion will terminate life using the above definitions. We will also try to terminate the life of cancer, because killing the cancer saves more life then we destroy. Abortion does not add up quite the same way since it is a net loss of life.

 

Here are some more definitions from a dictionary;

 

1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

 

2.the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

 

3.the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.

 

4.a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.

 

The first two are from science to mean physical life. The second two are more from metaphorical, philosophical and religious. Abortion violates all the science definitions by terminating life, but may not violate philosophy and/or atheist religion. But we have separation of church and state so we can not use religious arguments.

[mooeypoo]

The religious view is actually closer to the science definition, since at conception all the conditions above are met. The political science view of abortion is true only after we terminate the science definition with an abortion. The abortionists seem to have cause and effect backwards, which happens in the irrational world of political science.

Life isn't enough in this case, though. As I (and others) mentioned before, we're killing 'lesser' life forms ALL THE TIME, knowingly, by either spraying bug-spray, brushing our teeth or using detergent.

 

All of the above are ending life.

 

And yet, none of them are moral issues, are they?

 

So in the case of abortion there's more than just 'life'. It's about either human life, or conscious life, or a potential life. All of these were shown to be inconsistent.

 

So.. I'm waiting for a consistent argument, still.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Regardless, abortion will terminate life using the above definitions. We will also try to terminate the life of cancer, because killing the cancer saves more life then we destroy. Abortion does not add up quite the same way since it is a net loss of life.

I don't understand what a 'net loss of life' is, or how is it different from 'preventing copulation' in the means of ejaculating outside of a woman's vagina, hence preventing the sperm cells from forming a baby?

 

Also, the statement that abortion does not save life is also inconsistent. If a woman was raped, aborting the baby can save her life psychologically. If you think that's not good enough, I challenge your moral statements. If a woman was

 

I can't help but wonder if this statement would remain if the people who make this statements and seem to think that "pro choice" people think abortion is 'simple decision', or the 'quick decision', or think that carrying out a pregnancy and an unwanted child (for a variety of reasons) is 'better' for either the child *or the mother* -- I wonder if those statements would remain in the discussion if the people saying them were women.

 

The first two are from science to mean physical life. The second two are more from metaphorical, philosophical and religious. Abortion violates all the science definitions by terminating life, but may not violate philosophy and/or atheist religion. But we have separation of church and state so we can not use religious arguments.

*again*: It's not about life, it's obviously about something 'more'. You are in need of defining this "more" so it includes early-stages pregnancy but DOES NOT include anything else we *do* kill, regularly, like bugs, bacteria and cancer cells.

 

You didn't do that. You seem to claim that the bunch of cells are arbitrarily more important than a bunch of bacteria because it sounds better.

 

We already went over the idea of these cells being a "potential person" (read up) and found it to be an inconsistent argument.

We already went through the argument of these cells being alive (read up) and found that we kill, easily, all kinds of living creatures that aren't necessarily hurting us at all, all the time, and this argument is inconsistent.

 

 

So, right now we should be waiting for this: what separates a fertilized cell from all those "life forms that it's okay to 'kill" that makes it immoral to stop its development? And then we can examine to see if it's a consistent argument.

 

~moo

 

P.S:

Abortion violates all the science definitions by terminating life, but may not violate philosophy and/or atheist religion

If abortion violates the scientific definitions because it terminates life, and you find that unethical, then you should be consistent and stop using detergent, brushing your teeth, taking showers, take any form of medication, or spray your house against bugs, as ALL of these terminate life.

 

All of them.

Edited March 5, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

So in the case of abortion there's more than just 'life'. It's about either human life, or conscious life, or a potential life. All of these were shown to be inconsistent.

 

I think "human being" is what we are looking for. I've started a thread, What is a Human Being? Rather than starting straight off with attempted definitions, I first put a list of things that might potentially qualify.

[mooeypoo]

I think "human being" is what we are looking for. I've started a thread, What is a Human Being? Rather than starting straight off with attempted definitions, I first put a list of things that might potentially qualify.

I'll gladly debate what a human being is, but I disagree that this is the definition we're lacking here. I think "sentient life" is what we're looking for, in my opinion, to be moral. But morality is subjective, and since unlike the topic of the current thread (which does, directly, affect my life as a woman, and the control I have [or not] over my own body), this disagreement will not affect mine or your life, and we can agree to disagree

 

~moo

[waitforufo]

I prevent a human life from becoming a person every time I take contraception or have my period, and a man prevents a human life form becoming a person every time he ejaculates, either intentionally for pleasure or unintentionally as a teenager.

 

The above may be true, but I’m not talking about preventing a human life. Within a pregnant woman at least one human life exists, perhaps more in the case of twins, triplets and so no. I see a significant difference in preventing something, and destroying something.

 

The reason I set my first goal post as “not all human life represents a person” was to encourage debate on two issues.

 

1) At what point does one or more human lives exist within a pregnant woman?

2) At what point does that human life become a person?

 

I think these are critical questions in this debate.

 

To my goal post three “The human life terminated in an abortion would likely continue to live and properly develop without an act of will by other persons” you respond…

 

How do you know that? Are you sure?

 

We intervene in pregnancies all the time with modern medicine, which is why in our current day and age most pregnancies actually do result in healthy babies. Count only 150 years backwards, when medicine was much less advanced, and the statistics are different. Count 500 years and it's even worse.

 

I see a significant moral difference in intervening to improve the outcome of development within the womb to terminating development within the womb. So for example encouraging a pregnant woman to take prenatal vitamins would be a good thing where encouraging a woman to take Thalidomide would be a bad thing.

 

Let me ask you this, then: At which point does the pack of cells become "human life"? "Potential life" is inconsistent claim for reasons I explained in this post and others explained in other posts throughout this thread.

First, I have never use the term “Potential life.” I think this term is nonsensical. Life either exists or it does not. I have questioned when a human life represents a person so by inference I have been discussing “Potential Persons.” So when do I think the pack of cells becomes “human life?” I think that happens at conception. I appreciate that there are a lot of things that might happen by chance along the way that might impede the development of this human life in becoming a person, but I think there is a moral difference between willful acts and chance.

 

By the way I do think there is a significant moral difference between terminating a human life and terminating a person. I think there are many instances where terminating a human life would be justified. In fact at times it may be a good thing. I think there are very few instances where terminating a person is justified. I don’t think I would ever call it a good thing.

 

And if you claim that it's human life from conception, you have a problem with twins, among other things.

 

I still don’t understand this issue with twins. How does this represent a problem? When a lump of cells representing a human life becomes two lumps of cells now we have two human lives where only one previously existed. Each new life deserves the same respect as the previous one.

[Mr Skeptic]

I still don’t understand this issue with twins. How does this represent a problem? When a lump of cells representing a human life becomes two lumps of cells now we have two human lives where only one previously existed. Each new life deserves the same respect as the previous one.

 

This is not an issue for you because you don't claim that a fertilized egg is a person (presumably with a soul if such things exist, the sort of thing that if you kill you're a murderer). For those who do, it's a problem because they can't answer how many lives that zygote is, which demonstrates that they have a faulty definition.

 

When you cut off an infant's umbilical cord, you now have two separate chunks of living human cells. Do they each deserve the same respect?

[waitforufo]

When you cut off an infant's umbilical cord, you now have two separate chunks of living human cells. Do they each deserve the same respect?

 

No, because one of those chunks is not a person and never will be.

[Mr Skeptic]

Which one, and how can you tell?

[npts2020]

Well that might work if you didn't flush billions of cells out of your body everyday. If hundreds of thousands didn't just fall off of your skin to become dust.

 

In no way is that humanly practical, nor is it possible to "save" every single human cell. I do not believe that this is murder though. IMO abortion is murder for the simple fact that we go thru a complex, sterilized process in order to eradicate a mass of human cells that will in due time become a human being, it is already a "human life." This is all a matter of opinion and subjective observation though. I know most of you would contend otherwise.

 

Firstly, I would not call ingesting an abortifacient a complex or sterile process. Secondly, how is a blastocyst any more a human life than is a more highly developed organ like a heart or kidney? The only difference is that a blastocyst is not yet differentiated into its constituent parts. Even then the real argument is about what is considered to be a "person". Is a blastocyst a person?

 

IMO the only part of the process where a line can be clearly drawn is in giving birth. I would not argue that abortions a week before the baby is due would be a good thing because it seems like a choice should have been made a long time before that point. However, it seems that there is no clear line before that time anyone can point to which will be consistent without granting personhood to a fertilized but not yet divided egg. That is why I believe that it should be up to the woman to decide for herself and not the government or anyone else.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, because one of those chunks is not a person and never will be.

 

I could harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord and make it into a person.

[mooeypoo]

No, because one of those chunks is not a person and never will be.

Then you *are* talking about a potential person. In that case, we've dealt with 'potential people' a lot in this thread, showing the argument to be inconsistent.

 

You just present it in a different manner, but the argument is the same.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First, I have never use the term “Potential life.” I think this term is nonsensical. Life either exists or it does not. I have questioned when a human life represents a person so by inference I have been discussing “Potential Persons.” So when do I think the pack of cells becomes “human life?” I think that happens at conception. I appreciate that there are a lot of things that might happen by chance along the way that might impede the development of this human life in becoming a person, but I think there is a moral difference between willful acts and chance.

waitforufo, stop moving the goal post. We've already established that "life" is not enough. We are terminating life all the time in the form of detergent (killing bacteria, which is absolutely alive) and pesticide, and we have no moral problem with it.

 

It's not about life, then, it's about either 'human life', 'sentient life' or *SOMETHING MORE*. You seem to argue that point and then revert back to 'life' in the followup discussion.

 

That's called moving the goal post, and it's a logical fallacy, and is making the debate pointless.

 

By the way I do think there is a significant moral difference between terminating a human life and terminating a person. I think there are many instances where terminating a human life would be justified. In fact at times it may be a good thing. I think there are very few instances where terminating a person is justified. I don’t think I would ever call it a good thing.

For your argument that abortion is immoral, then, you need to explain the differences between the times such 'termination' is moral and times where it isn't, and show that the instance of abortion belongs to the immoral part.

 

You can't just claim it and expect things to fit arbitrarily. Arguments need to be consistent.

 

 

 

I still don’t understand this issue with twins. How does this represent a problem? When a lump of cells representing a human life becomes two lumps of cells now we have two human lives where only one previously existed. Each new life deserves the same respect as the previous one.

Again moving the goal post; we said we're not dealing with 'life' only. If we were, then cancer cells are alive too, under some definitions, and you would be immoral from using detergent, etc etc (I'm getting a bit tired of repeating this).

 

The issue is about human life. A PERSON. If you claim that a person exists from the moment of conception -- a time where it's not yet decided whether the divided cell(s) will become ONE person or *TWO* persons (twins) or more, then *if* the cell eventually splits to be more than one person, these two entities now share a 'life'? a 'soul'? they are each a 'split person'?

 

If being a person starts before the split of twins, then they are each half a person. Otherwise, the 'person' begins after they split, which is considerately later.

 

That's the problem.

[pioneer]

There is life, that is harmful to other life, such as cancer and bacteria. When we kill this, this is defensive killing. If such life posed no harm, we would live and let live. There are bacteria in our gut that are welcome to stay.

 

With abortion, the unborn is not usually harmful to life. In this case, this is not defensive killing, like with cancer, but offensive killing.

 

Although, most women would call it defensive, since an unwanted child may adversely impact their social life. But that is more of a metaphorical life being defended by killing actual life as defined by science. Real life (unborn) is a threat to mystical life of hopes and dreams; religion of sorts?