Originally posted by MonelDo you like chocolate or vanilla better? That is this entire question
is abortion even a tiny bit ethical? i saw a bumper sticker that said" aboritionists wacking babies since 1972"
simply put, it is a personal taste question on what is more important
nothing more, a woman’s right to choose, or the life within the
woman. Depending on the flavor you like, what is inside a woman
gets killed with every successful abortion or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHmmm, seems like you are saying one of these flavors is bad, the way you worded the end.
Do you like chocolate or vanilla better? That is this entire question
simply put, it is a personal taste question on what is more important
nothing more, a woman’s right to choose, or the life within the
woman. Depending on the flavor you like, what is inside a woman
gets killed with every successful abortion or not.
Kelly
P-
Originally posted by KellyJayas a christian KJ, do you think there is a 'right' flavor? what would jesus say on abortion in your opinion?
Do you like chocolate or vanilla better? That is this entire question
simply put, it is a personal taste question on what is more important
nothing more, a woman’s right to choose, or the life within the
woman. Depending on the flavor you like, what is inside a woman
gets killed with every successful abortion or not.
Kelly
i disagree that the abortion issue is about personal taste. some nights i crave chocolate; some nights i crave vanilla. my personal tastes are fleeting, fluctuating, and flippy. somehow i think abortion is more cut and dried. the right to choose is a sketchy concept in some contexts. do i have the right to choose to kill my next door neighbor? of course not. therefore i think the only question is at what point does 'life' begin?
The Bible clearly associates life with breath. So, the anti-abortion position must rest its ethical statements on some other grounds.
If you fail to ejaculate, your sperm dies. If your egg is not fertilized, it dies. If a fertilized egg is not properly implanted, it dies. Life dies. The only real question concerns the boundaries that determine when life is sufficiently viable that to end its existence is tantamount to killing.
Most Americans who would protect an immature embryo have few qualms about killing, when the victim is a foreign enemy, a serial rapist, or a common housefly.
admittedly, i think the question is very difficult. i don't think i have enough medical knowledge to be able to profess to know when 'life' begins. maybe with rigorous study i could fashion a working theory. that aside, it seems to me that if there exists considerable unrest and discord between experts and otherwise interested parties on the subject, then the prudent thing would be to preferentially lean in the direction of preservation of life (or of that which may well be life according to the informed observer), under the safe premise that one does not possess the right to choose to commit murder. in the extreme case that said discord is overwhelming, this view collapses to the pro-life stance.
translation: i have no idea. here i claim ignorance, but not apathy.
Medical Science clearly proves that from the moment of conception, the zygote and finally the fetus is entirely a new human being. The fetus has completely original DNA. All that fetus will need from the point of conception till birth is oxygen and nutrition. Basically it is a very immature human.
Conception is the only cut off date that is really viable for the formation of a new human.
Originally posted by HalitoseHave you considered the full implications of biochemistry defining life where the Sacred Scriptures remain silent?
Medical Science clearly proves that from the moment of conception, the zygote and finally the fetus is entirely a new human being. The fetus has completely original DNA. All that fetus will need from the point of conception till birth is oxygen and nutrition. Basically it is a very immature human.
Conception is the only cut off date that is really viable for the formation of a new human.