Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe, as the law doesn't, that abortion is murder.
Why? You haven't yet explained that.
You can agree with the law, certainly, but even you would agree that laws can be unjust. So ignore the law for a minute. Ignore religious arguments. Ignore privacy issues, etc. Get to the very heart of the matter: Why do you not think that abortion is killing a human life?
Actually Marks, "Christian left", would be an oxymoron, but make no mistake there is definitely a religious left , they worship at the alter of the federal bureaucracy, abortion rights, animal rights, homosexual rights, anti war, anti christianity, anti gun, anti america, these are the fundamentalist of the religious left!
"Left" is a completely subjective term. I am a Christian, and I am pretty far Left on many issues. The picture you paint is one of the far radical left in this country, very few of whom would call themselves Christian or even religious.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,299 posts, read 54,213,280 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Why? You haven't yet explained that.
You can agree with the law, certainly, but even you would agree that laws can be unjust. So ignore the law for a minute. Ignore religious arguments. Ignore privacy issues, etc. Get to the very heart of the matter: Why do you not think that abortion is killing a human life?
Because I don't believe that the mass of cells that exists during the time that abortion is allowed is a viable human life, it's a POTENTIAL human life, there is a vast difference.
Because I don't believe that the mass of cells that exists during the time that abortion is allowed is a viable human life, it's a POTENTIAL human life, there is a vast difference.
First of all, let's get our terms straight. We often confusing the issue by asking when life begins, and that is the wrong question. Scientifically, not only is a fertilized egg "alive," but so is an egg, so is a sperm. So are the cells in your skin. So are lettuce and strawberries. So are various microbes you are breathing in right now. They meet every scientific definition of "life." However, ending those lives would not necessarily amount to murder.
The question we must ask is: What is a human being, and when does that begin?
Claiming it begins at birth is at variance with all scientific and medical fact, since lots and lots of pre-term babies have not only survived outside the womb, but lived very healthy lives afterward. Advances in modern medicine are pushing this back farther and farther each year.
Your argument seems to be that an embryo or fetus is "just a mass of cells." You know, under the microscope, you are "just a mass of cells" right now. It doesn't make you any less human.
The fact is that left in its environment to live out its life cycle, an egg will never be anything more than an egg. Left in its environment to live out its life cycle, a sperm will never be anything more than a sperm. But when those two join, when their chromosomes combine, you have the beginnings of a human being. A fully realized human being? Certainly not. But just because a child is not an adult, an infant is not a child, or a fetus is not an infant does not make them any less human. Just because an embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own does not make it any less human. Not by any scientific or medical definition. Purposefully ending that life is destroying a human being. That is immoral.
Talk to me about the need for better pre-natal care, about crisis pregnancies, about women in dangerous home situations, and let's find some solutions to help those women. But don't tell those women that killing their unborn child is their best or only solution. Women deserve better than that.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,299 posts, read 54,213,280 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
The fact is that left in its environment to live out its life cycle, an egg will never be anything more than an egg. Left in its environment to live out its life cycle, a sperm will never be anything more than a sperm. But when those two join, when their chromosomes combine, you have the beginnings of a human being. A fully realized human being? Certainly not. But just because a child is not an adult, an infant is not a child, or a fetus is not an infant does not make them any less human. Just because an embryo or fetus cannot survive on its own does not make it any less human. Not by any scientific or medical definition. Purposefully ending that life is destroying a human being. That is immoral.
This is where our basic disagreement lies and I don't see either one of us changing. There is a HUGE difference between beng human and being a viable human life. A red blood cell is human in that it came from a human being, a lung cell is human in a similar way and they are in a constant state of change, growing, dividing, and yes dying. By scientific or medical definition an embryo is surely not less human but in my view it is also NOT a viable human life. I respect your views, I just don't believe the government shows any sign of being a good judge of the moral path and should stay out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Talk to me about the need for better pre-natal care, about crisis pregnancies, about women in dangerous home situations, and let's find some solutions to help those women. But don't tell those women that killing their unborn child is their best or only solution. Women deserve better than that.
While I agree whole heartedly it still doesn't resolve the issues of putting a woman through no fault of her own nine months of potentially serious health/stress issues. If they can be helped and carry in a healthful way I'm all for it, I just don't believe in the government making it their only option.
A red blood cell is human in that it came from a human being, a lung cell is human in a similar way and they are in a constant state of change, growing, dividing, and yes dying. By scientific or medical definition an embryo is surely not less human but in my view it is also NOT a viable human life.
Yes, blood cells, lung cells, and many cells are certainly alive.
But you’re missing a crucial point.
No matter how hard you try, a blood cells, a lung cell, a skin cell, a bone cell will NEVER become a human being. Ever. Just won’t happen.
But a human embryo will.
We’re talking in terms of development here, not humanity. A bone cell will never develop into anything but a bone cell. Ever. An embryo will develop into a fetus, which will develop into an infant, which will develop into a child, which will develop into an adult. The stage of our development, be it biological or cognitive, is not what defines us as humans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell
I just don't believe the government shows any sign of being a good judge of the moral path and should stay out of it.
The government is certainly an imperfect thing, but I presume you support laws banning murder, theft, assault, etc. Right?
To be completely honest I don't think I can exactly
Then it is more of a feeling than a rational explanation, right?
I don't fault you for that. We're all that way in many things. But when it comes to legislation -- especially legislation (or lack thereof) guarding human life -- we've got to be rational about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.