15 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEvery time a woman says "Not tonight dear, I have a headache," she is denying a potential human a right to life. Call it a "pre-conception abortion" as opposed to a "post-conception" abortion. Your logic, such as it is, must frame either choice as equally sinful, since the outcome of each is the same: denial of a life which "could have been".
They were denied the right to life, a right which begun at their conception.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastThe human life in Robbie's example has already started. It hasn't started in your example. One is a matter of preventing a potential life, the other is a matter of terminating an existing one.
Every time a woman says "Not tonight dear, I have a headache," she is denying a potential human a right to life. Call it a "pre-conception abortion" as opposed to a "post-conception" abortion. Your logic, such as it is, must frame either choice as equally sinful, since the outcome of each is the same: denial of a life which "could have been".
World of difference.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by vivifySo exactly where does this life start? When the sperm and egg are 1 mm apart? Just at the point the sperm touches the surface of the egg? When the first division takes place? Is there consciousness at that point?
The human life in Robbie's example has already started. It hasn't started in your example. One is a matter of preventing a potential life, the other is a matter of terminating an existing one.
World of difference.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by Soothfastwhat? call it a pre conception abortion? are you in your senses?
Every time a woman says "Not tonight dear, I have a headache," she is denying a potential human a right to life. Call it a "pre-conception abortion" as opposed to a "post-conception" abortion. Your logic, such as it is, must frame either choice as equally sinful, since the outcome of each is the same: denial of a life which "could have been".
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI think the matter is quite clear, perhaps you need to read the statement again, at
So exactly where does this life start? When the sperm and egg are 1 mm apart? Just at the point the sperm touches the surface of the egg? When the first division takes place? Is there consciousness at that point?
conception, do you have conception when the sperm is 1mm away from the surface of
the egg? No, well what are you havering about and whether consciousness is present or
not is irrelevant, that fact of the matter is, you have no right to deny life, once it has
been conceived.
15 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by vivifySurely our lack of ability to see into the future to determine whether a sexual encounter will result in a fertilized egg is no excuse!
The human life in Robbie's example has already started. It hasn't started in your example. One is a matter of preventing a potential life, the other is a matter of terminating an existing one.
World of difference.
The timeline is irrelevant. We're talking about potentialities only, right? The horizontal mambo opens up the possibility of a "potential" human. A fertilized egg likewise offers the possibility of a "potential" human. We cannot be sure the egg will actually make it to birth, however. We play only with probabilities, some closer to 1, some closer to 0.
If it all seems absurd to you and robbie, well, that's what happens when you examine the calculus of absolutist morality.
Originally posted by Soothfastwell, that's what happens when you examine the calculus of absolutist morality,
Surely our lack of ability to see into the future to determine whether a sexual encounter will result in a fertilized egg is no excuse!
The timeline is irrelevant. We're talking about potentialities only, right? The horizontal mambo opens up the possibility of a "potential" human. A fertilized egg likewise offers the possibility of a "potential" huma ...[text shortened]... nd robbie, well, that's what happens when you examine the calculus of absolutist morality.
as opposed to the shifting sands of moral relativism the basis of which is nothing more
than social conventions and convenience!
Originally posted by sonhouseWho knows. Does it start it at conception? Does it when it divides? When it's an embryo? Zygote? Fetus? When it's been in the womb three months? Five months? Nine months? Does life only start when it's born? How about when the mother's in labor?
So exactly where does this life start? When the sperm and egg are 1 mm apart? Just at the point the sperm touches the surface of the egg? When the first division takes place? Is there consciousness at that point?
Attaching a precise moment when it's a human life futile, since all human life needs to start somewhere, and no one will ever agree where that point is (actually, scratch that; it's only pro-abortionists that can't agree on when it starts; pro-lifers all believe it's at conception). I believe that when the sperm and egg fuse, that's a legit starting point.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think the point that is being missed here is this. God is the one and the one only that starts the process of all life. Nothing in the universe comes to life without God's spirit giving it that spark of being a living human, plant, animal, etc.
So exactly where does this life start? When the sperm and egg are 1 mm apart? Just at the point the sperm touches the surface of the egg? When the first division takes place? Is there consciousness at that point?
No different then having gasoline and oxygen together in an engine, but the life of that engine will not start until the spark is activated.
God is the only being that starts that spark of life once for instance the sperm and egg are together in the right conditions.
If God did not start that spark himself, the life between those two elements would never begin.
Many refer to this as the "myrical of life" and that is a true fact. Nothing man can do will ever trigger this life to start, only God does.
So the life of that embryo starts the second God's spirit starts it. Man has no right at anytime after this to termenate the life that he alone started.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by SoothfastAn embryo isn't "potential" for human life, it IS a human life. So your argument is irrelevant.
Surely our lack of ability to see into the future to determine whether a sexual encounter will result in a fertilized egg is no excuse!
The timeline is irrelevant. We're talking about potentialities only, right? The horizontal mambo opens up the possibility of a "potential" human. A fertilized egg likewise offers the possibility of a "potential" huma ...[text shortened]... nd robbie, well, that's what happens when you examine the calculus of absolutist morality.
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by galveston75So if God started the life at conception and it's an ectopic pregnancy, we still have no right to terminate that life?
I think the point that is being missed here is this. God is the one and the one only that starts the process of all life. Nothing in the universe comes to life without God's spirit giving it that spark of being a living human, plant, animal, etc.
No different then having gasoline and oxygen together in an engine, but the life of that engine will not st ...[text shortened]... arts it. Man has no right at anytime after this to termenate the life that he alone started.
About 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic and if the embryo doesn't die on its own it risks the woman's life and has 0% chance of the embryo surviving.
Are you going to tell me that in this case we have no right at all to kill the embryo that will kill the mother (and then die itself) if allowed to live?
Are we interfering with god's will when we save the mother's life in this instance?
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI have noted that the fundamentalists claim to know an awful lot about God's will. If God exists and I were He, I think I would find that two parts annoying and three parts arrogant.
Are we interfering with god's will when we save the mother's life in this instance?
15 Nov 12
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhat if a doctor informs a pregnant woman that carrying her child full term may put her life in danger?
So if God started the life at conception and it's an ectopic pregnancy, we still have no right to terminate that life?
About 1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic and if the embryo doesn't die on its own it risks the woman's life and has 0% chance of the embryo surviving.
Are you going to tell me that in this case we have no right at all to kill the emb ...[text shortened]... ve?
Are we interfering with god's will when we save the mother's life in this instance?
Dr. Alan Guttmacher stated: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life.” The Encyclopedia Americana states: “Since most women can be brought safely through pregnancy even with serious medical problems, few abortions need to be performed to protect the mother’s health. Most abortions are sought to avoid having a child.” So such situations are quite rare. However, if it does occur at the time of delivery, then the parents must make a choice between the life of the mother and that of the child. It is their decision. 1993 Awake 5/22 page 11.
So lets get the correct understanding. One should never take the life of an unborn child especially if it is out of not wanting that child for selfish reasons. Even if the fetus is from the result of a rape. The fetus is not at fault for that rape.
But as this article brings out concerning your question, it would ultimately be ones own decision.
BUT one should go to God in prayer, serious prayer for guidance on this. And if one does decide to have the abortion one must accept God's laws and be willing to accept the possible consequences.