Keep abortion out of Ireland

muppeteer

Sin City wrote: »

A brain dead person will never regain brain function so a coma patient would.be more apt , that is a coma patient that will make a full recovery over time

With the coma patient the recovery will bring back their past memories and personality. So killing the coma patient would be destroying a person with a personality/memories(temporally missing) who can regain those memories. The Fetus never has those memories or personality to begin with so they cannot be destroyed.

A better thought experiment(who doesn't love those:)) might be a coma patient who will be completely wiped clean of all past memories and personality who will slowly recover to the point of first being capable of basic sentience, before gaining the capability to become an independent person with brand new memories/personality.

A little contrived but this situation more closely matches the abortion scenario(Without of course this new coma patient being located inside another human person, affecting their physical and mental well-being)

As I would see it turning off life support for this particular coma patient would not be killing a person as none exists currently, only the potential for a person to exist. I don't see removing potential here as harmful as there is no personality to appreciate that a future has been removed from them.

Wh1stler

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Naturally on their own they can't. Put them together and both cease to exist and a new person is created in the form a unique DNA in a Zygote.

Naturally.

Or, to put it another way:

At conception, a 'blueprint' is created. This 'blueprint' contains all the information required to 'build' a new and unique organism. In this regard, the zygote can be thought of as an instruction manual that come with Ikea furniture; the instructions contain information about the 'tools' and 'materials' required to successfully complete the job. (Or not in the case of a 'faulty' blueprint.)

The main difference between the zygote and an Ikea flat-pack is that the zygote does not come with the materials required for the project and so must obtain resources from the mother in order to create the 'toolkit' and all the components necessary to build a person.

But the main similarity is that in the same way that a wardrobe is not a wardrobe until the last panel-pin is hammered home, a person is not a person until all the structures have been completed and this does not occur until sometime after the baby is born.

The development of a baby in the womb is not the whole story and interaction with and stimulation from outside the womb is required to facilitate the forming of personhood.

A bit like when the last panel-pin is hammered home to complete the wardrobe, it does not function as a wardrobe until it is stood up and put in situ.

The final processes that occur in order to form a fully functioning person are not completed until perhaps a year after the child is born.

Do you see now?

Wh1stler

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Abortion is not turning off the machine of a brain dead person, its killing a living person.

Actually, it is and the person you are referring to does not exist.

qrrgprgua

Wh1stler wrote: »

The final processes that occur in order to form a fully functioning person are not completed until perhaps a year after the child is born.

There is a lot of debate in Catholic circles around this. As a Catholic we beleive ensoulment states at conception. We believe Human life is sacred from its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.

Other religions might have different views, I am just stating the Catholic view.

Since we are debating in a Christian forum. The debate is within the realms of Christian beliefs. Majority of Christians hold that life is sacred from conception, that a "Person"is conceived not a blue print.



Leaving aside what Christians belief. Naturally mothers know they are having a child, its not a cell, its not a blue print,its a child. Just because society dictates that "problem pregnancies" can be "resolved" does not take away that thousands of mothers end up regretting abortion. Because they know they ended their child's life.

qrrgprgua

Wh1stler wrote: »

Actually, it is and the person you are referring to does not exist.

Then take the debate to the atheist forum.. you will find a willing host to your ideas

doctoremma

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Leaving aside what Christians belief. Naturally mothers know they are having a child, its not a cell, its not a blue print,its a child.

This is simply not true for all women. You might not be able to understand it but, for some women, there is quite simply no emotional attachment, no feeling that the embryo is your child, no feelings of regret afterwards.

I do not believe an early embryo in any way constitutes a 'person' and that means there will be other women who feel the same. To blithely state that 'mothers know they are having a child' is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la'. Not all women feel like that, as hard as it might be for you to understand.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Just because society dictates that "problem pregnancies" can be "resolved" does not take away that thousands of mothers end up regretting abortion. Because they know they ended their child's life.

Actually, many studies find that the vast majority of women do not regret their abortion, either immediately afterwards or in long-term follow-up. 'Post-abortion stress syndrome' appears to be exaggerated and infrequent and most often apparent in girls who had emotional difficulties prior to abortion. There might be scope to counsel vulnerable girls in a differ manner?

GarIT

The way I look at it is. There has never been any evidence of a soul found by anyone ever. Thoughts come from chemicals and tissue in the brain. If there's no brain there's no thoughts, if there's no thoughts there's no person.

Wh1stler

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Since we are debating in a Christian forum. The debate is within the realms of Christian beliefs. Majority of Christians hold that life is sacred from conception, that a "Person"is conceived not a blue print.

I see, it is your wish to debate only with those who agree with you.

'Majority of Christians hold that life is sacred from conception,' - which means there is at least a minority of Christians who don't; are they welcome in the debate? If I was a Christian, would my views be more valid?

Take your fingers out of your ears and get a grip.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

Take your fingers out of your ears and get a grip.

Mod Warning
Please address the post rather than attacking the poster.

Wh1stler

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Then take the debate to the atheist forum.. you will find a willing host to your ideas

Or else?

Way to evangelise and take Jesus' message to all nations; 'Go away!'

Since you hold no view of your own on this subject, why don't you just assume that I understand the Catholic view of abortion and save yourself a lot of typing by vacating this thread yourself.

This discussion would be raised to a higher standard if you were to do so.

Wh1stler

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Then take the debate to the atheist forum.. you will find a willing host to your ideas

I think that you will find that there are many atheists who hold views similar to your church albeit for reasons of agnosticism rather than doctrine.

eviltwin

Its only a matter of time before its made legal...maybe in limited circumstances at first but thats going to eventually open the floodgates. It will be not before time as well.

You see you are arguing about keeping abortion out of Ireland but nowhere do I see anyone saying we should stop abortion...you all seem very happy to allow it to go on just in another country where you can pretend its not happening.

Its probably a lot more common than any of you know. And the reason why women don't talk? Well many reasons, fear, shame, lack of places to talk, maybe they just don't think its anyone's business.

A lot of women do regret abortion but for many its a relief. I don't regret my abortion at all....it was the right decision and I am very glad I was able to avail of it.

The problem is that with abortion not available here women are rushed into a decision, they cannot get adequate pregnancy counselling, sometimes they end up doing something they don't want to do. Having abortion in Ireland will give women more time to explore their options and make an informed decision.

But its so patronising to assume that you know better than a woman herself what is right for her and her situation.

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

You see you are arguing about keeping abortion out of Ireland but nowhere do I see anyone saying we should stop abortion...you all seem very happy to allow it to go on just in another country where you can pretend its not happening.

Most posters on here are Irish, so obviously the context into which they have at least some democratic input is that of Ireland.

Just because posters aren't advocating that we invade the US and force it to repeal Roe Vs Wade it doesn't follow that they are 'very happy' that babies are being aborted across the Atlantic.

eviltwin

PDN wrote: »

Most posters on here are Irish, so obviously the context into which they have at least some democratic input is that of Ireland.

Just because posters aren't advocating that we invade the US and force it to repeal Roe Vs Wade it doesn't follow that they are 'very happy' that babies are being aborted across the Atlantic.

If thats true why not look at the situations that make people choose abortion? Instead of just a blanket lumping of all women into one group who are evil or bad why not take the time to explore with an open mind and no judgement what was happening in their lives at that time that it was the choice they made? Then work towards changing those circumstances perhaps?

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

If thats true why not look at the situations that make people choose abortion? Instead of just a blanket lumping of all women into one group who are evil or bad why not take the time to explore with an open mind and no judgement what was happening in their lives at that time that it was the choice they made? Then work towards changing those circumstances perhaps?

Why not actually interact with what Christians believe?

I certainly am not lumping anyone into a group where they are classed as evil or bad. I'm not sure that anyone else here is either (although I wouldn't put it past a couple of nutcase extremists).

The position you are seeing here from most Christians is a belief that abortion is wrong. That is a moral evaluation of an act.

For example, I would approach the subject of infanticide (where women kill their kids at some point in time after giving birth) in a similar way. I would certainly affirm that killing such kids is wrong, and I would not just nod happily in agreement if someone argued that such infanticide should be legalised.

Now, none of that means that I am saying mothers who may be suffering from post-partum depression etc. are necessarily evil. But the act of killing a child remains morally wrong - and a society that changes its laws to facilitate the killing of children is profoundly depraved.

One last point. I know for a fact that some of the posters on here are actively involved in working very hard to address social injustices and to help those who find themselves in such desperation that they resort to abortion. So maybe you should avoid making value judgements about the lives of others when you know nothing about the people you are in a discussion with other than that they disagree with you on an issue? After all, when you do that then you are the one who is being judgemental and lumping a group together, aren't you?

Wh1stler

eviltwin wrote: »

Its only a matter of time before its made legal...maybe in limited circumstances at first but thats going to eventually open the floodgates. It will be not before time as well.

I think it would be undesirable to 'open the floodgates'. It would be better to push contraceptive measures than to use abortion as a form of contraception.

To some extent, I sympathise with the anti-abortion position in that the modern way of life has had the effect of eroding social values and to 'open the floodgates' would convey a message that would tend to undermine the preciousness of life.

But, even though it might be considered selfish for a woman to avail of an abortion because pregnancy could ruin her life, it might be considered selfish for anti-abortionists to insist that she ruins the life of an unwanted child too by having it brought into a world where it is not really welcome.

As I have said before, there are some problems for which the best solution is abortion.

And, I might note, if God intended for all pregnancies to be successful, why is there a problem with , for example, over-fishing? The sea is becoming depleted; did God intend for the population to grow to the extent that mass starvation will become inevitable? Like in Africa?

I mean, could a lack of resources for those who are alive justify cutting down the birth-rate? Is it fair to insist that babies are born with AIDS for example, into a world where malnutrition is the norm?

All I'm saying is that abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

eviltwin

PDN wrote: »

Why not actually interact with what Christians believe?

I certainly am not lumping anyone into a group where they are classed as evil or bad. I'm not sure that anyone else here is either (although I wouldn't put it past a couple of nutcase extremists).

The position you are seeing here from most Christians is a belief that abortion is wrong. That is a moral evaluation of an act.

For example, I would approach the subject of infanticide (where women kill their kids at some point in time after giving birth) in a similar way. I would certainly affirm that killing such kids is wrong, and I would not just nod happily in agreement if someone argued that such infanticide should be legalised.

Now, none of that means that I am saying mothers who may be suffering from post-partum depression etc. are necessarily evil. But the act of killing a child remains morally wrong - and a society that changes its laws to facilitate the killing of children is profoundly depraved.

One last point. I know for a fact that some of the posters on here are actively involved in working very hard to address social injustices and to help those who find themselves in such desperation that they resort to abortion. So maybe you should avoid making value judgements about the lives of others when you know nothing about the people you are in a discussion with other than that they disagree with you on an issue? After all, when you do that then you are the one who is being judgemental and lumping a group together, aren't you?

Well sadly I have seen very little of that on this thread. I find it quite hostile. And yes I know its Christian thread so there is a clue in that but I think you can be anti abortion while at the same time being respectful of the person and their choice.

muppeteer

PDN wrote: »

The position you are seeing here from most Christians is a belief that abortion is wrong. That is a moral evaluation of an act.

Would you think that the justification for your evaluation should be put into secular terms, when Christians seek to legislate for all people who want this act legal in this country?
While it may be interesting to find out why Christians see abortion as wrong within their own framework (embryos have souls etc.) it doesn't translate into the secular language and justifications used in legislation.
I would see this as a major drawback to those Christians who want abortion illegal for everyone.

PDN

muppeteer wrote: »

Would you think that the justification for your evaluation should be put into secular terms, when Christians seek to legislate for all people who want this act legal in this country?
While it may be interesting to find out why Christians see abortion as wrong within their own framework (embryos have souls etc.) it doesn't translate into the secular language and justifications used in legislation.
I would see this as a major drawback to those Christians who want abortion illegal for everyone.

I have never used the concept of the soul to argue against abortion. I was opposed to abortion when I was an atheist. My opposition was, and is, based on the principle that human life is valuable - a principle that I hope is not just religious.

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

Well sadly I have seen very little of that on this thread. I find it quite hostile. And yes I know its Christian thread so there is a clue in that but I think you can be anti abortion while at the same time being respectful of the person and their choice.

I think it cuts both ways. When you post something like:
"its so patronising to assume that you know better than a woman herself what is right for her and her situation" then that comes across as hostile, judgemental, and, ironically enough, extremely patronising.

eviltwin

PDN wrote: »

I think it cuts both ways. When you post something like:
"its so patronising to assume that you know better than a woman herself what is right for her and her situation" then that comes across as hostile, judgemental, and, ironically enough, extremely patronising.

It is patronising PDN. No one here knows the first thing about me yet I have been told that I have no right to make a decision about my own body. :eek:

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

It is patronising PDN. No one here knows the first thing about me yet I have been told that I have no right to make a decision about my own body. :eek:

No, you have the right to do what you want with your body. It's what you do to the body of another human being that is the issue. And trying to tell other people that is none of their business is patronising.

Now, it is certainly valid to discuss whether the unborm child within you is a human being - and such a discussion would generate more light than heat if you were less patronising about the right of others to hold and express a different opinion to your own.

eviltwin

PDN wrote: »

No, you have the right to do what you want with your body. It's what you do to the body of another human being that is the issue. And trying to tell other people that is none of their business is patronising.

Now, it is certainly valid to discuss whether the unborm child within you is a human being - and such a discussion would generate more light than heat if you were less patronising about the right of others to hold and express a different opinion to your own.

But isn't that the point PDN? Most people who would be pro choice will argue that its not a life at all, in fact medicine doesn't recognise the unborn as an individual until quite late in the pregnancy which is why a miscarried baby doesn't get a death cert.

So if I can have a miscarriage at 16 weeks and its a non person why on earth should I be denied an abortion at 4/5 weeks? It makes no sense.

Why is a woman who smokes , drinks or takes drugs during pregnancy not charged with child abuse? Because its not a individual until birth! Where is your concern there?

muppeteer

PDN wrote: »

I have never used the concept of the soul to argue against abortion. I was opposed to abortion when I was an atheist. My opposition was, and is, based on the principle that human life is valuable - a principle that I hope is not just religious.

I assume your evaluation that human life is valuable would be just as secular. If so then I would think you, and those like you, would be the Christians who would have the best chance of having your views listened to and being convincing to those who oppose you.

Out of curiosity would you see the Christians who do use a soul in their evaluation as damaging to the anti abortion side?

Fanny Cradock

eviltwin wrote: »

Because its not a individual until birth!

What do you mean by "an individual"?

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

But isn't that the point PDN? Most people who would be pro choice will argue that its not a life at all, in fact medicine doesn't recognise the unborn as an individual until quite late in the pregnancy which is why a miscarried baby doesn't get a death cert.

So are you arguing that an unborn baby that dies five minutes before it is delivered and so is stillborn was not an individual or a life at all because it doesn't get a death certificate? You really want to follow that line of reasoning?

Why is a woman who smokes , drinks or takes drugs during pregnancy not charged with child abuse? Because its not a individual until birth! Where is your concern there?

In the US 15 states consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse under civil child-welfare statutes, and that makes sense to me.

Where is my concern there? It is very great. I think there are few images that convey selfishness more than a pregnant woman smoking. Makes my blood boil tbh.

PDN

muppeteer wrote: »

I assume your evaluation that human life is valuable would be just as secular. If so then I would think you, and those like you, would be the Christians who would have the best chance of having your views listened to and being convincing to those who oppose you.

Out of curiosity would you see the Christians who do use a soul in their evaluation as damaging to the anti abortion side?

Yes, I think they are damaging, particularly when they just quote their church's dogma as if that settles any debate. Such people IMHO are the ones who are most likely to pave the way for abortion.

eviltwin

PDN wrote: »

So are you arguing that an unborn baby that dies five minutes before it is delivered and so is stillborn was not an individual or a life at all because it doesn't get a death certificate? You really want to follow that line of reasoning?


In the US 15 states consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse under civil child-welfare statutes, and that makes sense to me.

Where is my concern there? It is very great. I think there are few images that convey selfishness more than a pregnant woman smoking. Makes my blood boil tbh.

Depends on what stage of pregnancy it occurs. If its not able to survive on its own in my mind its not a life.

Everyday pregnant women do things that put their babies at risk. The state does nothing. Everyday children are abused by parents. Again the state does nothing.

Its pretty clear as a society we have a terrible record on looking after our children. We should probably worry about the ones that are here today rather than the ones who haven't even been born yet.

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

Depends on what stage of pregnancy it occurs. If its not able to survive on its own in my mind its not a life.

Everyday pregnant women do things that put their babies at risk. The state does nothing. Everyday children are abused by parents. Again the state does nothing.

Its pretty clear as a society we have a terrible record on looking after our children. We should probably worry about the ones that are here today rather than the ones who haven't even been born yet.

So that's your argument? So long as one group of people is being abused then you don't have to worry about another group of people that is being abused.

I find such reasoning to be absolutely abhorrent. A civilised and compassionate approach would be to oppose all abuse and to work to see it ended.

Fanny Cradock

eviltwin wrote: »

If its not able to survive on its own in my mind its not a life.

Unless you want to propose that we rewrite the definition of what life is then a foetus clearly is a life.

Tell me, how many 1 year old children do you think could be self sufficient? I'll make it easier, how many 2, 3 or 4 year old children do you think could be self-sufficient if left to their own devices?

eviltwin wrote: »

Its pretty clear as a society we have a terrible record on looking after our children. We should probably worry about the ones that are here today rather than the ones who haven't even been born yet.

That is a preposterous dichotomy. You conflate two separate issues and offer us an either/ or choice. "Either look after children outside the womb or look after them inside the womb".

eviltwin

PDN wrote: »

So that's your argument? So long as one group of people is being abused then you don't have to worry about another group of people that is being abused.

I find such reasoning to be absolutely abhorrent. A civilised and compassionate approach would be to oppose all abuse and to work to see it ended.

PDN I don't consider abortion abuse...thats the crux of it. I see it as nothing more than a procedure. I think its an abuse however to force a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. And that would of course be shocking to someone who believes life starts at conception but that is how I feel.

muppeteer

PDN wrote: »

In the US 15 states consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse under civil child-welfare statutes, and that makes sense to me.

Substance_Abuse_Reporting_and_Pregnancy_The_Role_of_the_Obstetrician_Gynecologist
While the intent may be to protect the fetus the actual effect of this type of legislation has come in for criticism for driving women away from prenatal care.

Substance abuse while pregnant is a very tricky subject that covers personal liberty, addiction, child abuse in later trimesters, intentional damage to non sentient foetuses who will eventually develop into sentient foetuses. An ethical minefield very dependent on each individual case and time frame.

Actually it might be better to leave this tangent for another thread maybe?

yammycat

Zombrex wrote: »

This starts to form at about 26 weeks into pregnancy. It really only makes sense to start talking about the "person" from that point onwards. Until then you just have a shell, clumps of cells. And I don't think anyone genuinely consideres that as valuable as a person.

A person in a coma is just a shell, a big clump of cells, and they could stay that way for many years, and waste a lot of money trying to support their life, possibly with no possitive outcome, I'd consider anyone in a coma of over a year less valuable than an embryo and with less chance of enjoying life again, thats just my opinion though.

MrPudding

yammycat wrote: »

A person in a coma is just a shell, a big clump of cells, and they could stay that way for many years, and waste a lot of money trying to support their life, possibly with no possitive outcome, I'd consider anyone in a coma of over a year less valuable than an embryo and with less chance of enjoying life again, thats just my opinion though.

I think it tends to be the opinion of the medical community as well... Beyond a year improvement is very unlikely. Clearly there are freakish exceptions, but they are rare.

MrP

marienbad

I watched a documentary from the USA last night -Lake Of Fire made in 2006, about this whole question. Tough going and includes very graphic scenes.No editorialising in that it lets the participants speak for themselves.

Well worth a watch.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Does a Sperm become a person?

Yes. Could you name a single person on Earth who did not start out as a sperm.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Per se. Sperm can't become a person. Same with an Egg.

If that was the case none of us would exist. So again blatantly false.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Naturally on their own they can't.

"Naturally on their own" neither can a zygote.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Put them together and both cease to exist and a new person is created in the form a unique DNA in a Zygote.

The unique DNA already exists. The DNA shuffling does not take place at the moment of conception, it takes place when the egg and sperm are created.

Or to put it another way, the unique DNA exists 3 seconds before conception and is the same as it will be 3 seconds after conception.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Havene't we had this argument before.

Yes, apparently you weren't listening the last time.

Zombrex

yammycat wrote: »

A person in a coma is just a shell, a big clump of cells, and they could stay that way for many years, and waste a lot of money trying to support their life, possibly with no possitive outcome, I'd consider anyone in a coma of over a year less valuable than an embryo and with less chance of enjoying life again, thats just my opinion though.

That depends on whether they still are maintaining their neural connections and whether they still have the ability to produce consciousness.

An embryo has no person to sustain, the "person" does not exist yet, where as in the case of the coma patient the person does exist and if they can do all the above, continues to exist.

GarIT

PDN wrote: »

So that's your argument? So long as one group of people is being abused then you don't have to worry about another group of people that is being abused.

I find such reasoning to be absolutely abhorrent. A civilised and compassionate approach would be to oppose all abuse and to work to see it ended.

How is it abuse in any way? If I stand on a flower is that abuse? All a flower has the ability to do is to take nutrients and grow, the the exact same as a feotus.

Just for anyone that says that a sperm and egg do not have the potential of life but a feotus does, get a dictionary and look up potential. Both the sperm and egg have potential, so if you don't feel the same way about them as you do a feotus your arguement is invalad.

A lot of people have said a feotys can become a child on its own but a sperm needs an egg, you seem to be forgetting that a feotus needs a mother, it won't become a child on its own.

Medicine333

GarIT wrote: »

How is it abuse in any way? If I stand on a flower is that abuse? All a flower has the ability to do is to take nutrients and grow, the the exact same as a feotus.

Just for anyone that says that a sperm and egg do not have the potential of life but a feotus does, get a dictionary and look up potential. Both the sperm and egg have potential, so if you don't feel the same way about them as you do a feotus your arguement is invalad.

A lot of people have said a feotys can become a child on its own but a sperm needs an egg, you seem to be forgetting that a feotus needs a mother, it won't become a child on its own.

Exactly. Therefore, the mother should care for her child and not go out and kill him/her. It is the mother's job to protect her child. Regardless of whether you believe the child is a life or not, the potential for life is always there. Hence, by terminating the life of her unborn child, the mother is terminating the life of a human being, who would have grown into a baby, toddler, child, teenager and finally an adult, having so many life experiences on the way.

I often wonder how a mother who ended her baby's life would react if she could see her child grown up, speak to her child and watch him/her celebrate their birthday, open presents at Christmas and everything special that a child would normally experience.

If the terminated child had an option, do you think they would choose death?

qrrgprgua

GarIT wrote: »

A lot of people have said a feotys can become a child on its own but a sperm needs an egg, you seem to be forgetting that a feotus needs a mother, it won't become a child on its own.

Baby wil always need a mother.. Nobody is forgetting this.. Just because she does not want her baby does not mean the baby has any less value.

muppeteer

Medicine333 wrote: »

Exactly. Therefore, the mother should care for her child and not go out and kill him/her. It is the mother's job to protect her child. Regardless of whether you believe the child is a life or not, the potential for life is always there. Hence, by terminating the life of her unborn child, the mother is terminating the life of a human being, who would have grown into a baby, toddler, child, teenager and finally an adult, having so many life experiences on the way.

I often wonder how a mother who ended her baby's life would react if she could see her child grown up, speak to her child and watch him/her celebrate their birthday, open presents at Christmas and everything special that a child would normally experience.

If the terminated child had an option, do you think they would choose death?

Why should a mother protect the potential for a human being in the form of a zygote over the potential for a human being in the form of a sperm and egg? Both need the mother to develop that potential into an actual human person.

How would you react of you could see the tens or hundreds of potential children that have been naturally flushed out of your or your partners body? Doesn't quite seem a reasonable to ask question does it?

Medicine333

muppeteer wrote: »

Why should a mother protect the potential for a human being in the form of a zygote over the potential for a human being in the form of a sperm and egg? Both need the mother to develop that potential into an actual human person.

How would you react of you could see the tens or hundreds of potential children that have been naturally flushed out of your or your partners body? Doesn't quite seem a reasonable to ask question does it?

Your argument is flawed and rather incoherent. Conception occurs when an egg if fertilised by the sperm. Then, a zygote is formed, which is living.

If a woman was to have hundreds of children, she would find it difficult to do so, considering that gestation is 9 months, and if she was to have 100 children, she would be pregnant for 900 months, which equates to 75 years.

Can you see now why your argument shows discrepancies? It is hard to logically infer what you are saying.

GarIT

Medicine333 wrote: »

Your argument is flawed and rather incoherent. Conception occurs when an egg if fertilised by the sperm. Then, a zygote is formed, which is living.

If a woman was to have hundreds of children, she would find it difficult to do so, considering that gestation is 9 months, and if she was to have 100 children, she would be pregnant for 900 months, which equates to 75 years.

Can you see now why your argument shows discrepancies? It is hard to logically infer what you are saying.

Sceintifically a zygote has the exact same ammount of life in it as the egg. It is just an egg with some of the DNA characteristics of the sperm/father.

Medicine333

GarIT wrote: »

Sceintifically a zygote has the exact same ammount of life in it as the egg. It is just an egg with some of the DNA characteristics of the sperm/father.

An egg is not a zygote. According to science, a zygote isn't a zygote until an egg and sperm fuse.

GarIT

Medicine333 wrote: »

Exactly. Therefore, the mother should care for her child and not go out and kill him/her. It is the mother's job to protect her child. Regardless of whether you believe the child is a life or not, the potential for life is always there. Hence, by terminating the life of her unborn child, the mother is terminating the life of a human being, who would have grown into a baby, toddler, child, teenager and finally an adult, having so many life experiences on the way.

I often wonder how a mother who ended her baby's life would react if she could see her child grown up, speak to her child and watch him/her celebrate their birthday, open presents at Christmas and everything special that a child would normally experience.

If the terminated child had an option, do you think they would choose death?

Maybe that's your way of looking at it, but everyday when I walk home I have to stand on some flowers to save about 10 mins, I really would give as little consideration for the flowers as I would for an unwanted pregnancy.

Medicine333

GarIT wrote: »

Maybe that's your way of looking at it, but everyday when I walk home I have to stand on some flowers to save about 10 mins, I really would give as little consideration for the flowers as I would for an unwanted pregnancy.

I know. That is how pro-abortion advocates view life, which is sad. Abortion is out-lawed for a reason in this country, and it is because the overwhelming vast majority of this country believe abortion to be a crime against humanity, which it is.

JimiTime

Medicine333 wrote: »

I know. That is how pro-abortion advocates view life, which is sad. Abortion is out-lawed for a reason in this country, and it is because the overwhelming vast majority of this country believe abortion to be a crime against humanity, which it is.

To be fair, as much as I am against abortion, there are many (including on this thread) that would not advocate something as stupid as GarIT's point in their "reasoning".

GarIT

Medicine333 wrote: »

An egg is not a zygote. According to science, a zygote isn't a zygote until an egg and sperm fuse.

That's why I said a zygote is an egg with some of the DNA properties of the sperm. The difference is like the difference of when someone does a complete makeover. It has not developed at all from the way it was when it was an egg it has just addapeted to have half the developmental characteristics of the sperm, it is no more advanced than an egg.

muppeteer

Medicine333 wrote: »

Your argument is flawed and rather incoherent. Conception occurs when an egg if fertilised by the sperm. Then, a zygote is formed, which is living.

If a woman was to have hundreds of children, she would find it difficult to do so, considering that gestation is 9 months, and if she was to have 100 children, she would be pregnant for 900 months, which equates to 75 years.

Can you see now why your argument shows discrepancies? It is hard to logically infer what you are saying.

No argument over when conception occurs, you have missed the point I was trying to make entirely.
Your original argument was based on your view that a potential for human life is always there and so should be protected. I was pointing out that the potential for a human life is also contained within a sperm and egg before they meet so under your logic they should be protected also.

I attempted also show, using this logic, your further question of what it would be like for a mother to meet her aborted zygote as an adult, could be also asked of anyone who has brought sperm or eggs even close together. A woman who has never even been pregnant, let alone had an abortion, could have flushed out hundreds of eggs or even unemplanted zygotes over her life time. Should she have mourned the loss of potential life every time she had her period?

GarIT

JimiTime wrote: »

To be fair, as much as I am against abortion, there are many (including on this thread) that would not advocate something as stupid as GarIT's point in their "reasoning".

And how is it stupid, up untill 6 weeks a flower is more advanced than a foetus. A zygote is similar to a bulb. An egg is like a bulb that just isn't sure what flower it is going to be yet.