Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

La Fenetre

Delirium wrote: »

It's a pity you don't absorb what I post before suggesting I'm okay with things I already said I'm uncomfortable with.

I chose 26 weeks as the final stage where I would have problems with an abortion due to it being >90% viability. I also stated that the weeks before would also be problematic for me as it closer to viable than conception. Did I say I was okay/comfortable with 25 week abortions? No.

So if your conscience about abortion bothers you on at least some level, why are you advocating for abortion ?

And you haven't answered :
- How did you decide that a human life should only be respected at 26.0 weeks but not 25 weeks ?
- Regarding the child who was successfully born at 25 weeks, after being given 30% viability, why she have been aborted ?

Delirium wrote: »

Actually, I didn't say that. I said that the majority of abortions are at 13 weeks or before. That means it's double the length of time before the foetus is at a stage that I have difficulty with the idea of performing an abortion.

So you mistakenly presumed I see a difference between 12 and 13 week abortions, I don't.

So how does human life suddenly exist at 13 weeks but not 12 weeks, or 26 weeks but not 25 weeks ?

And you haven't answered on what grounds you're allowing abortion of human life for any reason up to 13 weeks ?

Delirium wrote: »

Actually, I said in principle I support the choice of any woman to have an abortion, which would include my mother.
Because they have an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption doesn't stop a woman carrying on with a pregnancy.

Why is it necessary to terminate someone's life because they are the result of an unwanted pregnancy, and advocate for their abortion ? You haven't answered : why taking another innocent human life a better option than allowing them to live ?

Delirium wrote: »

No, as that would be stupid. You can't "abort" any 20 year old, regardless of mental or physical status.

So why advocate for terminating someone when they are up to 26 weeks instead ?, or whatever arbitrary week you feel like ? Why is a human life "worth less" at certain ages ?

Delirium

La Fenetre wrote: »

So if your conscience about abortion bothers you on at least some level, why are you advocating for abortion ?

Because 90%+ of abortions happen at a time that I'm okay with. And I'm advocating for choice not abortion. It'd be pretty stupid to advocate for abortion for all pregnant women.

And you haven't answered :
- How did you decide that a human life should only be respected at 26.0 weeks but not 25 weeks ?
- Regarding the child who was successfully born at 25 weeks, after being given 30% viability, why she have been aborted ?

Are you going to continually repeat back questions that show you are not reading/understanding what I post.

Where did I say that the child that was delivered at 25 weeks should have been aborted?

Again, I've merely said that as 26 weeks approaches, that performing an abortion on a healthy foetus is somewhat troubling for me.

So how does human life suddenly exist at 13 weeks but not 12 weeks, or 26 weeks but not 25 weeks ?

How does a person exist without a brain? Do you suggest that all frozen embryos should be forcibly implanted into wombs given that they are "human lifes" by your definition?

And you haven't answered on what grounds you're allowing abortion of human life for any reason up to 13 weeks ?

Actually, I did. I said that I'd allow for abortion up to 13 weeks without restriction.

Why is it necessary to terminate someone's life because they are the result of an unwanted pregnancy, and advocate for their abortion ? You haven't answered : why taking another innocent human life a better option than allowing them to live ?

Because at the early stages of pregnancy, there is no "they". A 1 day old foetus has no organs of any kind. How can you be taking a human life prior to formation of the brain. Is turning off life support on a brain-dead patient taking a human life?

And I haven't said it's necessary to abort all unwanted pregnancies. I've merely said that women, no matter how they got pregnant, should at least be able to decide to carry the pregnancy to term or not.

So why advocate for terminating someone when they are up to 26 weeks instead ?, or whatever arbitrary week you feel like ? Why is a human life "worth less" at certain ages ?

Answered above.

frag420

This thing about aborting innocent children got me thinking as this is a Christianity forum and I remember from those days when Christianity was forced on us at school that everyone is born with sin, original sin! there is no innocence at birth according to Christianity. I know this is the sin of others being passed onto the unborn but they are a sinner all the same!!THE UNBORN ARE SINNERS!!

So there are no innocent children as we are all sinners from fertilisation.....right?

Is it a sin to create a sinner? Surely the world does not need more sinners so maybe abortion can be justified eh?

But of course im just going by what Christianity has taught me...

PopePalpatine

I still haven't had an answer as to why the morning after pill should be banned, if personhood begins at fertilisation.

frag420

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I still haven't had an answer as to why the morning after pill should be banned, if personhood begins at fertilisation.

I wouldnt hold your breath on that one......as you will die and suicude is a sin ya know!!

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I still haven't had an answer as to why the morning after pill should be banned, if personhood begins at fertilisation.

The 'morning after pill' and abortion inducing drugs are all grossly immoral as their purpose is the termination of a Human life.
Whether they are legal or not 'over the counter' depends on how much society respects the Human right to life for everybody.
At present it looks like many societies have decided to only extend the right to life to Humans depending on their age ... it's actually ageism of the most pernicious kind.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

At present it looks like many societies have decided to only extend the right to life to Humans depending on their age ... it's actually ageism of the most pernicious kind.

No, it's actually just a mushy definition of what is considered life/human life.

J C

frag420 wrote: »

This thing about aborting innocent children got me thinking as this is a Christianity forum and I remember from those days when Christianity was forced on us at school that everyone is born with sin, original sin! there is no innocence at birth according to Christianity. I know this is the sin of others being passed onto the unborn but they are a sinner all the same!!THE UNBORN ARE SINNERS!!

So there are no innocent children as we are all sinners from fertilisation.....right?

Is it a sin to create a sinner? Surely the world does not need more sinners so maybe abortion can be justified eh?

But of course im just going by what Christianity has taught me...

I don't know what kind of 'Christianity' taught you that you had the right to kill sinners ... the Christianity that I know teaches us to love all sinners ... and treat Human Beings of all ages from conception until natural death as we would wish to be treated ourselves.;)

... and unborn children are 'innocent' in the sense that they have committed no crime deserving of capital punishment (or indeed any punishment) nor are they threatening anybody else's life directly (including the overwhelming majority of their mothers).

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

The 'morning after pill' and abortion inducing drugs are all grossly immoral as their purpose is the termination of a Human life.
Whether they are legal or not 'over the counter' depends on how much society respects the Human right to life for everybody.
At present it looks like many societies have decided to only extend the right to life to Humans depending on their age ... it's actually ageism of the most pernicious kind.

So, would you make them illegal or not?

J C

robdonn wrote: »

No, it's actually just a mushy definition of what is considered life/human life.

The objectively correct and scientifically validated start of Human life is at fertilisation ... the 'mushy' definitions all come from those who wish to salve their consciences by arbitrarily defining what Human life is, so that they can kill Human life with legal impunity when they perceive it to be a burden on themselves or others.
These 'mushy' definitions of what constitutes Human Life are used both pre-birth by the pro-abortionists and after birth by the pro-euthanasia lobby.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, would you make them illegal or not?

I would make them illegal ... except where a mother's life is objectively threatened by the pregnancy.

Using chemical or medical abortion as a means of contraception is grossly immoral ... and total disrespect for Human life of the most vulnerable form IMO.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The objectively correct and scientifically validated start of Human life is at fertilisation ... the 'mushy' definitions all come from those who wish to salve their consciences by arbitrarily defining what Human life is, so that they can kill Human life with legal impunity when they perceive it to be a burden on themselves or others.
These 'mushy' definitions of what constitutes Human Life are used both pre-birth by the pro-abortionists and after birth by the pro-euthanasia lobby.

what do you mean by 'human life', the species, an organism with human DNA, a person?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I would make them illegal ... except where a mother's life is objectively threatened by the pregnancy.

Using chemical or medical abortion as a means of contraception is grossly immoral IMO.

Contraceptives are used to avoid becoming pregnant, so how can one use abortion as a contraceptive since you have to be pregnant to have an abortion?

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

I would make them illegal ... except where a mother's life is objectively threatened by the pregnancy.

Using chemical or medical abortion as a means of contraception is grossly immoral ... and total disrespect for Human life of the most vulnerable form IMO.

Do you think it's immoral for sexual assault treatment to include the MAP as standard?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

.
Because at the early stages of pregnancy, there is no "they". A 1 day old foetus has no organs of any kind. How can you be taking a human life prior to formation of the brain. Is turning off life support on a brain-dead patient taking a human life?

I shouldn't have to tell you the obvious ... but I obviously do ... the difference between a brain dead person and an unborn child is that the brain dead person is dead ... and cannot be brought back to life (despite the 'aping of God' that some medics engage in) ... and the unborn child is alive ... and will eventually grow up to be an adult Human Being , if given the chance, by not being killed

Delirium wrote: »

.And I haven't said it's necessary to abort all unwanted pregnancies. I've merely said that women, no matter how they got pregnant, should at least be able to decide to carry the pregnancy to term or not.

Nobody (woman of doctor) has the moral right to kill another Human life where that life isn't directly threatening another Human life.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

The objectively correct and scientifically validated start of Human life is at fertilisation ...

Objective and scientifically validated? I'd love to see that!

Ricki Lewis, author of the college biology textbooks 'Life', 'Beginnings of Life', and 'Human Genetics', gave a list on the PLOS blog on different stages at which biologists might argue that life begins:

1. Life is a continuum. Gametes (sperm and oocyte) link generations.

2. The germline. As oocytes and sperm form, their imprints – epigenetic changes from the parents’ genomes – are lifted.

3. The fertilized ovum. Of the hundreds of sperm surviving the swim upstream to the oocyte, one jettisons its tail and nuzzles inside the much larger cell, which obligingly becomes an ovum, completing its own meisosis. A fertilized ovum = conception.

4. Pronuclei merge, within 12 hours. After fertilization, the packets of DNA from male and female — the pronuclei — approach, merge, and the intermingling chromosomes pair and part, as the first mitotic division looms. A new human genome forms. Following that first division, some genes from the new genome are accessed to make proteins, but maternal transcripts still dominate development.

5. Cleavage. Divisions ensue. The cells of an 8-celled embryo (day 3) have not yet committed to becoming part of the embryo “proper” (one with layers) or the supportive membranes. Such a cell can still, on its own, develop. An 8-celled embryo whose cells are teased apart could lead to an octomom situation.

6. Day 5. The new genome takes over as maternal transcripts are depleted. The inner cell mass (icm) separates from the hollow ball of cells and takes up residence on the interior surface. It will become the embryo proper, distinguishing itself from the remaining part of the ball fated to become the extra-embryonic membranes. The icm is what all the fuss about human embryonic stem (hES) cells is about — the stem cells aren’t the icm cells, but are cultured from them.

7. End of the first week. The embryo implants in the uterine lining.

8. Day 16. The gastrula. Tissue layers form, first the ectoderm and endoderm, then the sandwich filling, the mesoderm. Each layer gives rise to specific body parts.

9. Day 14. The primitive streak forms, classically the first sign of a nervous system and when some nations set the deadline for no longer using human embryos in experiments.

10. Day 18. The heart beats.

11. Day 28. The neural tube closes, within which the notochord, preliminary to the spinal cord, will form, while the bulge at the top will come to house the brain. If the tube doesn’t close completely, a neural tube defect (anencephaly, spina bifida, and a few others) results.

12. End of week 8. The embryo becomes a fetus, all structures present in rudimentary form.

13. Week 14 or thereabouts. “Quickening,” the flutter a woman feels in her abdomen that will progress to squirms and kicks from within.

14. Week 22. A fetus has a chance of becoming a premature baby if delivered.

15. Birth.

16. Puberty. The Darwinian definition of what matters on a population and species level, when reproduction becomes possible.

17. Acceptance into medical school. I don’t know where this came from, a joke about Jewish mothers, but in some circles it might now apply to acceptance into preschool. Or when one’s grown offspring leave home.

Her personal opinion is #14, which I partly agree with (I'm also partial to the 'life is a continuum' view).

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I shouldn't have to tell you the obvious ... but I obviously do ... the difference between a brain dead person and an unborn child is that the brain dead person is dead ... and cannot be brought back to life (despite the 'aping of God' that some medics engage in) ... and the unborn child is alive ... and will eventually grow up to be an adult Human Being , if given the chance, by not being killed

So the foetus will develop into a human being, meaning that for some of the pregnancy it isn't a human being. Yet it is somehow immoral to abort the foetus before it develops into a human being?

Nobody (woman of doctor) has the moral right to kill another Human life where that life isn't directly threatening another Human life.

what do you mean by 'human life'? Usually taking of a human life refers to the killing of person, yet a 1 day old foetus clearly isn't a person. So how can it be taking of a human life?

The Randy Riverbeast

J C wrote: »

I shouldn't have to tell you the obvious ... but I obviously do ... the difference between a brain dead person and an unborn child is that the brain dead person is dead ... and cannot be brought back to life (despite the 'aping of God' that some medics engage in) ... and the unborn child is alive ... and will eventually grow up to be an adult Human Being , if given the chance, by not being killed

The doctors could be wrong.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9223408/Miracle-recovery-of-teen-declared-brain-dead-by-four-doctors.html

To be equal a foetus with FFA and a brain dead person should be treated the same.

robdonn

J C wrote: »

... and will eventually grow up to be an adult Human Being , if given the chance, by not being killed.

Or falls on the wrong side of the 50/50 chance of a spontaneous miscarriage.

frag420

J C wrote: »

I don't know what kind of 'Christianity' taught you that you had the right to kill sinners ... the Christianity that I know teaches us to love all sinners ... and treat Human Beings of all ages from conception until natural death as we would wish to be treated ourselves.;)

... and unborn children are 'innocent' in the sense that they have committed no crime deserving of capital punishment (or indeed any punishment) nor are they threatening anybody else's life directly (including the overwhelming majority of their mothers).

Where did I say i had the right to kill sinners. Again you repent with nonsense, again can you please have an adult read over your posts before you hit the send button as it would save us a lot of time!!

Now am I correct in stating we are all born sinners? I believe I am, it's called original sin and anyone with a basic knowledge of Christisnity would know this. So there is no such thing as an innocent fetus/child as you keep referring to as we are all sinners from the moment of fertilisation right?

The Randy Riverbeast

I was talking about this to my girlfriend before. If something was to happen and one of us became brain dead nobody would have something against deciding to turn off the life support and letting us die. If she was pregnant and no brain developed so the doctors saw it as good as brain dead then the right to life gets brought in and nothing can be done.

Why don't adults get the same right to life?

Overheal

J C wrote:

The objectively correct and scientifically validated start of Human life is at fertilisation

Prove it. If its scientifically validated the proof is empirically reproducible. Produce it.

La Fenetre

Delirium wrote: »

Because 90%+ of abortions happen at a time that I'm okay with. And I'm advocating for choice not abortion. It'd be pretty stupid to advocate for abortion for all pregnant women.
Are you going to continually repeat back questions that show you are not reading/understanding what I post.

Where did I say that the child that was delivered at 25 weeks should have been aborted?

Again, I've merely said that as 26 weeks approaches, that performing an abortion on a healthy foetus is somewhat troubling for me.

How does a person exist without a brain? Do you suggest that all frozen embryos should be forcibly implanted into wombs given that they are "human lifes" by your definition?
Actually, I did. I said that I'd allow for abortion up to 13 weeks without restriction.
Because at the early stages of pregnancy, there is no "they". A 1 day old foetus has no organs of any kind. How can you be taking a human life prior to formation of the brain. Is turning off life support on a brain-dead patient taking a human life?

If brain development is your cut off point, brain development begins at 5 weeks and continues until adulthood. And even prior to 5 weeks, exactly what right have you to prevent another human developing their brain ?

Delirium wrote: »

And I haven't said it's necessary to abort all unwanted pregnancies. I've merely said that women, no matter how they got pregnant, should at least be able to decide to carry the pregnancy to term or not.

Even if it involves taking another human life ?

La Fenetre

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I still haven't had an answer as to why the morning after pill should be banned, if personhood begins at fertilisation.

Because it's obvious. Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as the "morning-after pill"—are drugs intended to disrupt or delay ovulation and prevent fertilisation, which are necessary for pregnancy. EC is not used by doctors for a woman with a known or suspected pregnancy, because it is not effective in women who are already pregnant.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

if personhood begins at fertilisation.

If you're going to use "Personhood" as a cut off point for abortion :
What is personhood ? and when does it begin according to you ?

Overheal

La Fenetre wrote: »

If you're going to use "Personhood" as a cut off point for abortion :
What is personhood ? and when does it begin according to you ?

In most jurisdictions its at birth. Once you define personhood during pregnancy/fertilization/conception you get into situations where a tourist flies into Ireland, goes to a nightclub, and flies back home with an Irish citizen bun in the oven.

Delirium

La Fenetre wrote: »

If brain development is your cut off point, brain development begins at 5 weeks and continues until adulthood. And even prior to 5 weeks, exactly what right have you to prevent another human developing their brain ?

The brain isn't developed enough to regulate the organs, so I really couldn't consider it another human being at that stage.

Even if it involves taking another human life ?

That would be in the minority as most abortions before the foetus has developed that far.

Overheal

My take is a human life is a life that can nominally sustain itself in an atmosphere of 9.81m/s^2 gravitational acceleration, 21% Oxygen by volume, 78% Nitrogen by volume, and other trace elements, in the ambient temperature range of 50 - 100 F or so, barring case by case abnormalities, outside of a womb. Will a zygote survive outside the womb? Will an embryo?

frag420

Overheal wrote: »

In most jurisdictions its at birth. Once you define personhood during pregnancy/fertilization/conception you get into situations where a tourist flies into Ireland, goes to a nightclub, and flies back home with an Irish citizen bun in the oven.

You can blame me for that, I seem to meet a lot of foreign women that love my dulcet tones, charm and cheeky smile!!

La Fenetre

Overheal wrote: »

In most jurisdictions its at birth. Once you define personhood during pregnancy/fertilization/conception you get into situations where a tourist flies into Ireland, goes to a nightclub, and flies back home with an Irish citizen bun in the oven.

So you define "personhood" as citizenship ?

If that is the case, how can any law protect any unborn child ?

La Fenetre

Delirium wrote: »

The brain isn't developed enough to regulate the organs, so I really couldn't consider it another human being at that stage.

That would be in the minority as most abortions before the foetus has developed that far.

What right has anyone to prevent already existing human life from further brain development, never mind terminating it ?