Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[steen]

My point here is that there are other perfectly viable options to birth control. I'm not protecting the "main anti-abortion position". I'm protecting my own views after my own consideration of the facts presented. I believe that there no problem with stopping conception from even happening,

58-75% of all abortions come after failure of birth control per the CDC surveillance data.

but once it does happen and there is essentially a human being in the making developing inside the womb,

There is no "being" until their is individual existence.

then human rights apply,

At birth, when there is a person.

there in the genetic code is all the zygote will need to become a fully grown human being,

That genetic code is also in a cell in your hair shaft. So?

who are we to say that this human being does not get to live?

There is no being. And who are you to say that the woman's body should be enslaved for this non-being?

Then those opinions are not based on logic and reason but on emotion.

You must live in a very cold world buddy,

That would be realistic world, not a hysterical one where emotional fervor is seen as a substitute for facts.

if i see a baby die i have an emotional reaction first, and ask questions later.

But then, "baby" is a developmental stage beginning at birth, not before.

Call me irrational i don't care, once there is a baby in there,

There never is. There is no baby until after birth.

the mom is sharing whether she likes it or not, It's not part of her body, its not her DNA, it is someone else.

That would also be true for a hydatidiform mole. Should they be protected?

[steen]

You cannot say that people have a "right" to life since everyone dies in the end. Eggs and sperms are every bit as alive and human as we are. If a newly fertilized egg has some right to be born, don't all the other eggs and sperm (and their possible embryos) also have this right?

Individual sperm and egg are only half of the necissary genetic code. Once they are combined they produce one complete human genome. They are definately not the same.

Are you denying they are live cells?

Is it logical and reasonable to equate DNA with a birthed human baby? That's like saying a building blueprint is equivalent to a building. If a zygote is all you need for a human, so is a single sperm and egg pair.

A blue print is essential for the builing just as much as the bricks and concrete right?

But it isn't the building itself.

So DNA is essential to human life, it is the foundation, taking that away is taking the human out of a human,

Nonsense. This is sophistry.

taking away what is essential to it's existence. That is just as bad if not worse than taking away the nutrients needed to survive. Once there is a genome that is formed and developing into a full fledged human being, who are we to stop it?

So what about the genome of a hydatidiform mole?

It's a waste on the same degree as murder is a waste,

more nonsense. The 75% of fertilized eggs that flush into the sewer by themselves is nothing like murder. Please cease such cheap parlor tricks and revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

theres no need for it. I believe this is our emotionally apathetic society induldging in its own abilities to destroy human life for one's own benifit.

"emotionally apathetic"? Oh, you mean not hysterical and emotionally imbalanced and fanatic?

[steen]

A miscarriage is nobody's fault, there is no one to blame for it. It is nature taking it's course. An abortion is the mother's decision. It's the difference between murder, and death by natural causes.

So you are saying that this is not about being prolife, but rather about being pro-blame, pro-guilttripping? Well, now the arguments from your side makes a lot more sense.

[steen]

We're talking facts here, not emotions.

The emotions seem to be raised to a fever pitch when Christians introduce scientific proof that life begins at conception and/or challenge this intellectually. This is a Christian versus non-Christian issue so there is little hope for resolution.

More claptrap nonsense. I am a Christian, and I vehemently disagree with the prolife fundie misogynists.

[Cephus]

We're talking facts here, not emotions.

The emotions seem to be raised to a fever pitch when Christians introduce scientific proof that life begins at conception and/or challenge this intellectually. This is a Christian versus non-Christian issue so there is little hope for resolution. Christians should have their children and anti-Christians and non-Christians should be allowed to traet their children anyway they see fit.

Just because it's alive doesn't mean it has, or deserves, legal protection. Your appendix is alive, it's 100% genetically human, but you have no problem cutting it out if it causes you problems.

No one denies that a fetus is alive. No one denies that a fetus is genetically human. But no one grants a fetus any rights whatsoever until the moment it is born.

[Nirvana-Eld]

58-75% of all abortions come after failure of birth control per the CDC surveillance data.

Correct, and to elaborate, According to the Guttmacher Institute

54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.[

So most of these people aren't consistently using this method of birth control. No one's fault but their own.

There is no being. And who are you to say that the woman's body should be enslaved for this non-being?

I'm not saying it, mother nature is. I thought that was common sense.

That would be realistic world, not a hysterical one where emotional fervor is seen as a substitute for facts.

First I would appreciate it if you quoted me in full context. Second, The American Heritage Dictionary calls emotion "The part of the conciousness that involves feeling; sensibility." I know I'm glad to have feeling and sensibility. I'm not sure how you guys live without it. My point is that to look at certain situations without emotion, such as post tsunami images from the Indian Ocean would read like this. Villages were destroyed there were over 200,000 people who died and many injuries. Aid is needed. Those are facts. Yet the one problem with facts in relation to human response and reaction is that it does not contain anything more than the cold hard facts which are vitally useful, but none the less heartless. The Dalai Lama says that "Love and Compassion are necesities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive." I believe the Dalai Lama to be a very credible source. Emotion is not denial of factual evidence, it is applying them to your feelings. That was way more than needed to clear up something so basic as emotion.

That would also be true for a hydatidiform mole. Should they be protected?

I hope you, my friend, understand the difference between a hydatidiform mole and a human fetus. After all,

A complete mole contains no fetal tissue

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1047.htm

In creating a fetus there is a direct cause which the woman can control. That would be sex. The mole is

Recurrent molar pregnancies of this type are familial and appear to be inherited as an autosomal recessive trait.

(genetic) and cannot be helped. So there is a bigtime flaw in this Hydatidiform model.

One of my main points here is that if you can control the cause, then you should except the consequences. Wouldn't you think so? I can control wether or not I steal from a store for instance. So if I do, aren't I held accountable? Or should I be let off the hook simply because I didn't like the inherent consequences?

And fine we'll call it a fetus, but its still human in nature. Just because a baby isn't an adult doesn't make it any less human does it? Just because the baby isn't born yet doesn't make it any less human does it?

[snappyanswer]

It is logical to believe that people will murder children they do not want. It happens all of the time. It is also logical to oppose it.

[Cephus]

It is logical to believe that people will murder children they do not want. It happens all of the time. It is also logical to oppose it.

Which, of course, is a complete lie. Abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term denoting killing not permitted by law. Abortion is legal. Therefore, it is a complete and total LIE to refer to abortion as murder.

So, are you going to keep lying?

[juliod]

Which, of course, is a complete lie.

I think Snappy was taking the pro-abortion position. It is true that people murder children that they don't want. It's called infanticide, and is more common in less developed countries, particularly to girls.

To oppose the murder (or neglect) of unwanted children it is quite logical to increase support for and availability of safe and legal abortion.

DanZ

[steen]

There is no being. And who are you to say that the woman's body should be enslaved for this non-being?

I'm not saying it, mother nature is.

Nope.

I thought that was common sense.

No, it merely is your personal belief.

I know I'm glad to have feeling and sensibility. I'm not sure how you guys live without it.

We have them as well, but we don't let emotional fervor cloud facts.

My point is that to look at certain situations without emotion, such as post tsunami images from the Indian Ocean would read like this....

Irrelevant. How would it read with emotion only? " Oh, god punished us" because I feel this is what happened?

Yet the one problem with facts in relation to human response and reaction is that it does not contain anything more than the cold hard facts which are vitally useful, but none the less heartless. The Dalai Lama says that "Love and Compassion are necesities, not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive." I believe the Dalai Lama to be a very credible source.

But would he accept emotional beliefs that are contrary to facts? "The Earth is flat because I emotionally feel it is"?

Emotion is not denial of factual evidence, it is applying them to your feelings.

So you agree that when people get so wrapped up in their emotions that they start confusing what the want to believe with what the actual facts are, then these people are being carried away by emotional fervor, contrary to facts?

That was way more than needed to clear up something so basic as emotion.

But enough to show that we agree.

That would also be true for a hydatidiform mole. Should they be protected?

I hope you, my friend, understand the difference between a hydatidiform mole and a human fetus. After all,

A complete mole contains no fetal tissue

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1047.htm

Indeed. But it DOES contain DNA just like you insisted. Did you forget your very own words: "the mom is sharing whether she likes it or not, It's not part of her body, its not her DNA, it is someone else."

So I certainly was correct in noting that this is also true for the hydatidiform mole. Please don't blame me for your invented definitions not taking reality into account.

In creating a fetus there is a direct cause which the woman can control. That would be sex.

And in creating a hydatidiform mole there is a direct cause which the woman can control. That would be sex.

What a surprise, they are both conceived the same way. So now your argument says that hydatidiform moles should have the same status as the fetus, right?

The mole is

Recurrent molar pregnancies of this type are familial and appear to be inherited as an autosomal recessive trait.

(genetic) and cannot be helped. So there is a bigtime flaw in this Hydatidiform model.

In the hydatidiform mole, but not in my example. Do you KNOW how hydatidiform moles come into existence? A human sperm is ejaculated into the vagina and travels through the cervix up into the fallopian tube where it penetrates an ovum.
Now, do you know how a fetus originally was conceived? Exactly the same way. So what is it in your argument that separates the two? Both contain human DNA, both are conceived.

One of my main points here is that if you can control the cause, then you should except the consequences. Wouldn't you think so?

So accepting the consequence of a hydatidiform mole is the same as accepting the consequence of an embryo. SO what is different? Why should they be treated different? certainly NONE of your arguments here make ANY difference between the two. Are you saying that the woman should be forced to carry the hydatidiform mole rather than having it removed?

I can control wether or not I steal from a store for instance. So if I do, aren't I held accountable? Or should I be let off the hook simply because I didn't like the inherent consequences?

So you should receive NO treatment for hydatidiform moles, lung tumors from smoking, unwanted pregnancies or head injuries from traffic accidents. ALL of which you to some extend can control by avoiding the causating activity.

The inherent consequence to driving is that you may have an accident. Obviously, you feel that receiving medical treatment to fix the unwanted outcome of your own choice is just plain wrong, that people should live with the consequences of their own actions. It generally looks like you want to completely eliminate medical care. The logic of your argument is far removed from mainstream thoughts.

And fine we'll call it a fetus, but its still human in nature.

Sure. Nobody have denied its species designation.

Just because a baby isn't an adult doesn't make it any less human does it?[/qyuote]Agreed.

Just because the baby isn't born yet doesn't make it any less human does it?

There you go again, making misrepresentative claims. The FETUS (it is not a baby until it is born) is human, yes.