I have been questioning my friends over on facebook about their suppositions on abortion. Most of these folks will say that abortion should be rare, and shouldn’t be used as birth control. My question was why? If abortion is just a removal of cells, why should it be rare? From there they argue that the fetus is a potential life, and that should not be taken lightly. I’m not quite sure how to get at the root of this issue. I could ask when the “potential” life comes to fruition, but everyone is going to have a different opinion on that. Or I could ask why is “potential” life more valuable that non potential life? Not really sure where to go from here in examining their presuppositions.
One might say that a fetus is a potential infant, that an infant is a potential toddler, that a toddler is a potential pre-schooler, that a pre-schooler is a potential adolescent, that an adolescent is a potential adult, that an adult is a potential senior citizen. At which potential stage do we kill them, since all are merely stages of growth of actual human beings?
That’s good. Thanks
Well, I guess I can follow the logic if they continue by saying a child is a potential adult.
In the Old Testament laws, what is the penalty for assaulting a pregnant woman and killing her fetus? What is the penalty for murdering a child?
If the penalty for murder is greater than the penalty for killing a fetus, then I think God values a child more than a fetus. That doesn’t mean abortion is okay. A fetus is more than medical waste. It’s still wrong and I’d consider it a very serious sin but I don’t think it is on the same level as murder. Any thoughts on this?
Also, there is no “potential” life. Cells are already dividing and multiplying from conception–that’s life.
They will then say “But it’s not human life” to which I would ask them what kind of life it is.
Yeah I would ask what about the unborn child is not “alive”, and what about he/she is not “human”. From conception you have a separate human life, period.
Also, I’m potentially a pile of dust after a certain number of years after I die. Does that mean I should be treated like a pile of dust?
Very simple. Are they opposed to abortificient (probably spelled that wrong) contraceptives?
If they’re not, and I highly doubt they are, their whole position is a total sham.
Name any other “constitutional right” that should be rarely exercised. Rights apply equally to all. Where is a man’s right to abortion?
Ask them what happens to “potential human life” if it is not aborted. Ask them how you can obtain human life except via a fetus.
Actually, if you’re thinking of the story of two guys having fisty cuffs and one knocks a woman, the ancient Hebrew doesn’t say “miscarry” it says “bring fourth prematurely”, the text doesn’t state whether the child came out alive or dead.
Therefore, the fine for the “bringing fourth prematurely” is so the family can have the baby cared for sooner rather than later.
Therefore whatever the penalty in the OT for killing a human being would be levelled against someone who killed a foetus.
To the OP: they’re knocking down strawman. People need to stop with terms like “baby”, “foetus”, “person”, all that should matter is that the unborn is a human being. To say its a potential life is a misuse of semantics. A potential life would be a sperm or an ovum. Once conception has taken place, that zygote is now fully human, and fully human at that stage of development.
All of us on this planet right now were once a two celled zygote floating down the fallopoian tube towards the uterus. We were the same organism then that we are now, we’re just in a different stage of development. I’m 31, 32 years ago I was in that gestational stage of development, then 10 years after that I was in a different stage of development, 10 years from now I’ll be in a different stage of development again.
To say the unborn isn’t alive, really just shows poor understanding of basic biology.
Seriously, what has happened to the education system? :rolleyes:
One might say that all these are potential corpses, and on that basis it is ok to kill any of them. There is no logic here.
Utterly simple. At conception, a person’s unique DNA is formed. There is no life before conception, and the person’s DNA at their funeral will be identical to that formed at the moment of conception. What is so confusing about this? It’s pure science, and religion backs it up.
Ummm - what are the sperm and ovum if they are not alive? Dead? Life does not begin at conception. It is present before. It is arguable that human beings begin at cnception, but not life. That is there before.
Huh? I am speaking of complete human DNA, which occurs once, and for all time (in any given individual) at conception.
It’s simple. Why complicate it?
Well, if you are speaking of complete human DNA, why do you call it ‘life’? Why complicate it? Life is not the same thing as ‘complete human DNA’. "Life’ does not begin at conception. I am alive, my father’s sperm was alive, my mother’s ovum was alive, they were alive, their parents’ sperms and ova were alive, and their grandparents’ and so on, all the way back ast our hon-human ancestors, to the beginning of life.
Life is a process that begins with complete human DNA. There is no other way to obtain human life. If you - exactly as you are - were inevitable, then something or someone knew you before you were born.
I am sure that I am not inevitable, but rather a result of contingent variables. Life most certainly did not begin with a complete human DNA. Human DNA varies between individuals, and is the result of our evolution from other species. We share, for example, half our DNA with plants, because of our common ancestry.
Yes, sperm and ovum are living cells. What begins at conception is a new and distinct individual of the human species–a new human being, which is continuous in its identity from conception to death.
Well, some of us certainly do!