Topic: Solid argument against abortion (Read 5091 times)

David · « **on:** May 08, 2006, 01:26:06 PM »

1. All persons, unless duly convicted, have the right to life.
2. An embryo is a person.
3. Therefore, an embryo has the right to life.

Responses welcome.

Deep Thought · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2006, 02:15:05 PM »

Now we get to debate whether or not an embryo is a person! JOY TO THE WORLD! $\:D/$

SML · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2006, 01:55:58 AM »

I view an embryo as a person on religious grounds. The scriptures declare 1. The unborn are sinful from conception (please don't ask me what the sin of an unborn child is - I assume it's original sin, but assuming makes an a...), 2. The unborn can express faith (as John the Baptist did), 3. You cannot express either faith or sin without a soul, 4. The soul is what gives human beings their special worth to God - it is what sets us apart from all other creatures, 5. The unborn, having a soul, are valued by God as much as the born (indeed, there are a number of scripture verses regarding God's involvement with the unborn), 6. Therefore, the unborn are protected under "Thou shalt not commit murder" (the killing of someone without due process and just cause - No one shall be put to death without the testimony of two or three witnesses [of the sinful behavior warranting death of the accused] and whatever an unborn's sin might be (if I'm wrong about its nature) it definitely was NOT witnessed...

Because of this, I oppose abortion strongly (but within legal bounds and under the direction of scriptural constraints (speak the truth in love as opposed to in attack). Abortion is the murder of a person and very sad. I hope someday that we recognize the personhood of the unborn and choose to protect them as a society.

That being said, I understand the viewpoint of those who don't believe the scriptures. If I did not believe in God, why on earth would I believe what He tells me about the nature of humanity and its worth? Why would I bother to view humanity as more important than an ant? Why would I bother to follow any of His guidelines for human life?

Were it not for the fact that abortion murders an innocent (legally) life, I would not bother to argue about abortion at all.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2006, 04:44:43 PM »

Is an embryo a "person" from conception or from some other point?

David · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2006, 07:15:36 PM »

Conception. This is biologically when a person becomes a person.

Bdean · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2006, 07:36:57 PM »

David - What is your definition of "person"?

David · « **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2006, 07:41:38 PM »

I think the scientific name is homo sapien.

Bdean · « **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2006, 08:04:21 PM »

Just to clarify, are you comfortable interchanging person and homo sapien in your argument?

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2006, 11:29:49 PM »

Quote from: David

Conception. This is biologically when a person becomes a person.

What about socially? Should miscarriages be given names and issued birth and death certificates? Should doctors and pregnant women be tried for murder because they aborted a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy? Is this the kind of society that we want to live in?

SML · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2006, 01:53:56 AM »

I see nothing wrong with naming unborns who die. I have at least one set of friends who did just that. Birth certificates would be a bit much, since the child was dead before the miscarriage started and birth certificates refer (I'm pretty sure) to live births. Death certificates? Maybe, but what time would you give? It seems like an unnecessary complication.

Now, the other part of your comment is two-fold -
what do we do when the mother's life is in danger

I guess I think that's up to the mother. For instance, a tubal pregnancy. Neither the mother, nor the baby can live through a tubal. Now, if she wants to maintain the pregnancy and die, fine. Her choice. If she wants to end it - great, we get to keep at least one of two otherwise dead people around. There is no scenario to keep the baby alive. What's hard to understand about that? Other scenarios start to get a little gray. Someone who has a major health problem that can be exacerbated by the pregnancy. Well, if it becomes unclear as to whether or not she will survive, then she's got a hard decision to make. Me, I'd almost certainly fight to keep the baby. I bet my husband would argue against me, to assure my continued presence in our family. Hard decision... I think that should be within the realm of legal options.

what do we do when the baby is unwanted

I don't see abortion as a reasonable solution to personal discomfort, embarrassment, etc. This is specifically because we are talking, I believe, about putting another (innocent) person to death for the sake of another person's happiness and/or convenience. Would I like to see that stopped, even prosecuted? Absolutely... but only because I believe it is murder. (For instance, that I believe certain behaviors are against God's will, like unmarried sex of any sort, does not mean I am at all interested in policing them. They are not infringing on anyone's rights. Not my place to judge.) Because it is murder, I have a responsibility to protect the helpless - within legal and Godly bounds.

Bdean · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2006, 08:07:22 AM »

Quote

Should miscarriages be given names and issued birth and death certificates?

My miscarried son was given a name, death certificate, and funeral.

JustLiz · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2006, 11:53:19 AM »

My daughter was named and we had a funeral. The hospital issued a death certificate with her footprints on it.

My employer fired me a week after returning from my maternity leave. They tried stating that, because I was only in the second trimester, it wasn't a "real" baby and I didn't qualify for maternity leave. I sued them for violating the family and medical leave law. I won the case.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2006, 12:50:31 PM »

Quote from: David

Conception. This is biologically when a person becomes a person.

I disagree. A person does not biologically gain personhood (which I would define as "being an individual human being") until sometimes as late as 15 days after conception. Before that they zygote can split and become a multiple birth, it can split and later come back together or it can not change. In the first two cases it is certain that an individual is not yet present, less clear in the final scenario. Do you define "person" in such a way that covers just human genes and does not reference individuals? If not you ought to consider chaning your position to be logically consistent.

SML · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2006, 11:33:12 PM »

Why can't both souls be present before the actual split? ... I don't really understand the actual connection between a body and soul in the first place. How do I know that both souls are not already there? How can a person be "sinful from the time my mother conceived me" without the soul being there from conception?

SML · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2006, 11:37:37 PM »

My apologies on the miscarriages... what a horrible experience. I am mistaken, then, about the meaning of a birth certificate. I'm very glad you had funerals - what you lost were people, with souls, now with God, never having had to struggle through this world. Someday we will all meet together in Christ's presence. I look forward to it.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2006, 10:05:33 PM »

Quote from: Maj73

Why can't both souls be present before the actual split? ... I don't really understand the actual connection between a body and soul in the first place. How do I know that both souls are not already there? How can a person be "sinful from the time my mother conceived me" without the soul being there from conception?

So if a zygote splits and then combines back into one, where is the soul? Are there two souls, and then one magically vanishes? How can two souls be present in one cell?

I guess you can't know if both souls are there or not, as this whole soul/body concept is about as well defined as personhood, meaning it really isn't. It's quite hard to apply something from the theoretical realm if you don't know what your theory says. Do you know that being "sinful from the time my mother conceived me" literally, especially considering the mother doesn't do the conceiving (it happens in her, and she takes part, but that statement, taken literally, would not be true).

SML · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2006, 12:04:46 AM »

There are a lot of things I don't know. That's a fact.

What I do know is that scripture teaches that our souls exist prior to birth, otherwise they could not respond in faith as John the baptist did in utero at about 6 months in the presence of the then pregnant Mary. I further believe that verse I quoted before identifies that they exist from the moment of conception. Suppose for a moment that the soul comes at some other point - or at least that it might. Scripture does not give any other information besides the conception thing (which accurately depicts the way they thought of conception in their culture - the garden concept). So where does that leave us? When do you say it's okay to abort, when not? What if the soul comes on the second day, what if the third, what if the 15th? What if the 30th? What if the 90th? How do you decide? Based on what in scripture? So, then, it's okay to abort prior to that date?

No. God knew well when He inspired that to be written that one day we would actually be having this conversation and that we would be wrestling with this issue as a nation and a world. I believe He inspired that verse purposely to keep us from thinking we had the right to stand before Him and justify the killing of our offspring. Even our unborn are sacred to Him.

Twins are actually much more common than previously thought, but one twin often dies in the womb and is absorbed. Sometimes a shadow or imprint of the twin is left on the placenta. This is one reason they do not like to do ultrasounds in the first trimester - to avoid parents discovering they have suffered a loss. I suppose that this would mean the soul of that child would go to God, just as in any miscarriage or stillbirth. In your case with the split, then reabsorbed, I suppose the same thing... there were two, then one died and is in the presence of God. How can two souls be present in one cell? How can Jesus be both man and God? How can He die and then rise alive? I don't believe a soul is mere biology, but a miracle of God. Why couldn't He make two souls present in one cell? God is not limited by my capacity to fathom His works.

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2006, 05:29:02 PM »

You position on that on passage of Scripture stems from faulty logic. You take "Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me" and conclude that every zygote has a soul. We could even throw John the Baptist responding at 6 months as supporting evidence. The problem is you have individual cases. Here is your logic simplified:

A. Individual A was conceived in sin
B. If sin is present a soul is present
Therefore
C. All human zygotes have souls.

You're missing an important premise, one that would generalize from "Individual A (David)" to all of humanity. Without that you're using an unproven assumption (the generalizability of premise A) to show your opponents are wrong. That doesn't pass muster. God is All-knowing and would therefore certainly know that the zygote would die before birth. He could, based on that knowledge, not give it a soul. Nothing you have provided disproves that possibility, and as long as that (or some similar) possiblity is present your argument fails.

The question would then be, on what side do we err? Morally many would choose to err on the side of safety and not abort. They, however, would not be required to.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #18 on:** May 16, 2006, 06:53:37 PM »

Abortion is murder. period

Deep Thought · « **Reply #19 on:** May 16, 2006, 08:16:14 PM »

Quote from: TheAtheistHeratic

Abortion is murder. period

Why?

Author Topic: Solid argument against abortion (Read 5091 times)

David

David

David