Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

jgh7

Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #1

Post by jgh7 »

Many Christians take the stance that from the moment of conception an embryo/zygote/whatever has become a human life and has "human life value". Aborting it would be wrong because its "human life value" outweighs the issues of the woman who has to go through the pregnancy.

Is this logical? Can you be an atheist and still place "human life value" on an embryo? Can you be an atheist and be pro-life?

(pro-life is the politically neutral term for being against abortion in all or most cases).

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #21

Post by JP Cusick »

Bust Nak wrote: The point is if it is legalized then it is not technically murder.
The laws of the USA declare that an abortion is legal and thereby "technically" it is not murder of a baby.

So if we took out the "technicality" then it would be murder of the baby.

As such when a woman goes into an abortion facility then the abortion provider only "technically" murders the baby - which is thereby legalized murder.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #22

Post by Bust Nak »

JP Cusick wrote: The laws of the USA declare that an abortion is legal and thereby "technically" it is not murder of a baby.

So if we took out the "technicality" then it would be murder of the baby.

As such when a woman goes into an abortion facility then the abortion provider only "technically" murders the baby - which is thereby legalized murder.
No, that does not follow. You said "technically" abortion is not murder of a baby in your first sentence than contradicted yourself by saying abortion "technically" murders the baby in your last sentence. My advice, as before, is stop going into technicalities.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #23

Post by JP Cusick »

Bust Nak wrote: No, that does not follow. You said "technically" abortion is not murder of a baby in your first sentence than contradicted yourself by saying abortion "technically" murders the baby in your last sentence. My advice, as before, is stop going into technicalities.
It was you who introduced the technicality.

You said that technically an abortion is not murder because the government makes it legal.

I still hold as true that abortion is murder regardless of any technicality.

And the abortion provider is the murderer regardless of any technicality.

As such I agree that we really need to stop hiding behind technicalities.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #24

Post by McCulloch »

JP Cusick wrote:It is important to understand that abortions are a policy of government to slow down the over population of undesirable people.
Sexual education and contraception are government policies that slow down overpopulation. These are promoted by tha government as good things. Abortion is a medical procedure provided only to those who request it. Our government does nothing to promote abortion, other than to make it available.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #25

Post by Bust Nak »

JP Cusick wrote: It was you who introduced the technicality.
I introduced the word, it was you who introduced the concept into the discussion when you mentioned legality.
You said that technically an abortion is not murder because the government makes it legal.
Which is 100% factually true.
I still hold as true that abortion is murder regardless of any technicality.

And the abortion provider is the murderer regardless of any technicality.
Which are blatantly false, given the technicality that an abortion is legal. Instead you could be arguing that colloquially abortion is murder; colloquially abortion provider is the murderer.

Was that what you meant to say? There is a difference between, "disregarding any technicality" and "regardless of technicality" you know.
As such I agree that we really need to stop hiding behind technicalities.
So leave technicality out of it and don't stop talking about legality.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #26

Post by JP Cusick »

McCulloch wrote: Sexual education and contraception are government policies that slow down overpopulation.
The abortion industry is just another part of the overpopulation policy in the USA.

For those who do not follow the brainwashing of sex education and contraception - then they face the abortion industry as the final solution.
McCulloch wrote: These are promoted by tha government as good things.
I have tried before to explain why judging things as "good or bad" is just poisoned knowledge which thereby proves the validity of "the J source", and here again the poison goes onward.

You do not judge abortion as right or wrong because that is simply cut-and-dry morality, so instead people judge it as "good or bad" because abortions might be wrong but they see it as good to be rid of the baby and a bad thing to have the baby, and thereby the true morality is brushed away and out of view.

Abortions are neither good nor bad - they are just plain wrong.
McCulloch wrote: Abortion is a medical procedure provided only to those who request it. Our government does nothing to promote abortion, other than to make it available.
That is not true, but Politicians do try to wash their hands of it.

The abortion policy really targets the poorest citizens, and of course targets the black population.

As such the Social Services (the branches of Welfare) will deny gov benefits to those who have additional children, and the gov forces citizens into work-for-welfare programs to discourage pregnancies, and the so called liberation of women is totally based on their choice to not have babies.

So it can be argued that the government first promotes contraception or even abstinence but in the end the final solution is to murder as many of the babies as can be done through the abortion industry.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #27

Post by KenRU »

JP Cusick wrote:
KenRU wrote: Pro-choice ... does not preclude one from loving babies.
It is important to understand that abortions are a policy of government to slow down the over population of undesirable people.
In some cases (China) yes, in others, no, it is the will of the people (USA).
In China they made the infamous "one-child" policy, and in the USA we created the abortion industry.
In the USA the people wanted/demanded the right to choose. It is not something that was forced on them.

Imagine what would happen if that right were taken away.
In China they love the one baby, but they do not love any second baby.
So you say.
In the USA we love the babies born into rich families, but they prefer an abortion primarily for poorer people and particularly for the black babies.
Since abortions are open to every woman, regardless of color or financial situations (and are often utilized by people of all persuasions) I find your generalizations not relevant to the subject at hand.
So you say pro-choice is loving of those babies that get born, and that is fine, but to murder the other babies is not fine and it is not love.
So you say that requiring a victim of rape to carry the rapist's baby to term is loving the baby, and that is fine, but forcing the mother to undergo such trauma, pain and hardships is not fine and it is not love.

Seems like this is a no win situation, doesn’t it?

Maybe we should stop judging and let people decide for themselves.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #28

Post by JP Cusick »

KenRU wrote: In the USA the people wanted/demanded the right to choose. It is not something that was forced on them.
Abortions were ordered by the US Supreme Court.

Abortions were not voted upon, and the people did not choose to legalize the baby-murder-industry.
KenRU wrote: So you say that requiring a victim of rape to carry the rapist's baby to term is loving the baby, and that is fine, but forcing the mother to undergo such trauma, pain and hardships is not fine and it is not love.
You (and others) describe pregnancy as a trauma and hardship which I see as projecting your prejudice against women and against motherhood.

I (and others like me) view pregnancy and childbirth as being a great and wonderful blessing and a gift from our Father God.

You define it as a rapist's baby, and that is your own negative projection.
KenRU wrote: Maybe we should stop judging and let people decide for themselves.
We all have a duty to judge right from wrong.

Plus we have another duty to protect and defend the innocent babies.

And there is a duty to defy the abortion providers by any means.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #29

Post by KenRU »

JP Cusick wrote:
KenRU wrote: In the USA the people wanted/demanded the right to choose. It is not something that was forced on them.
Abortions were ordered by the US Supreme Court.
False and inflammatory. The option to have an abortion was ordered by the Supreme Court. Huge difference. Clearly your bias is showing.
Abortions were not voted upon, and the people did not choose to legalize the baby-murder-industry.
It was brought before the supreme court BECAUSE people wanted the right.

Are you purposefully ignoring the obvious here?
KenRU wrote: So you say that requiring a victim of rape to carry the rapist's baby to term is loving the baby, and that is fine, but forcing the mother to undergo such trauma, pain and hardships is not fine and it is not love.
You (and others) describe pregnancy as a trauma and hardship which I see as projecting your prejudice against women and against motherhood.
LOL! Are you truly asserting that many women who give birth do not have a difficult, strenuous and painful experience? And, to make my point crystal clear, are you suggesting that a woman who is forced to carry a rapist’s baby to term would not find it traumatic emotionally?
I (and others like me) view pregnancy and childbirth as being a great and wonderful blessing and a gift from our Father God.
It can be a great and wonderful thing, I agree. But to say there is no pain or suffering is a pretty ridiculous thing to assert.
You define it as a rapist's baby, and that is your own negative projection.
No, it is the accurate way to describe the situation. It is (of course) also the mother’s baby, but it is also the rapist’s.

If you want to accuse me of not loving babies because I am pro-choice, then it is only 100% completely fair for me to accuse you of not loving rape victims.

You made the rules. I’m only playing by them.
KenRU wrote: Maybe we should stop judging and let people decide for themselves.
We all have a duty to judge right from wrong.

Plus we have another duty to protect and defend the innocent babies.
We also have a duty to protect rape victims.
And there is a duty to defy the abortion providers by any means.
And a duty to protect rape victims.

When you start accounting for this part of the equation, I will begin to see your point better.

Until them, I’m left thinking you simply wish to assert your morals on another – regardless of consequence.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Placing Human-Life Value on an Embryo. Is it logical?

Post #30

Post by JP Cusick »

KenRU wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: Abortions were not voted upon, and the people did not choose to legalize the baby-murder-industry.
It was brought before the supreme court BECAUSE people wanted the right.

Are you purposefully ignoring the obvious here?
I hope that I never ever ignore the obvious here nor anywhere.

So yes a few people took the abortion cases before the Supreme Court and as such only a relatively few people including the SCOTUS started that evil abortion industry into the USA.

To claim that the American people brought abortion because the people wanted that right = that is a hugely exaggerated claim when only a few persons did this immoral harm to the entire population of the USA and beyond.

I even believe very firmly that those who support that evil baby-murder industry do not ever want that to be put onto any ballot for the people to vote on it - because they fear loosing the vote.
KenRU wrote: LOL! Are you truly asserting that many women who give birth do not have a difficult, strenuous and painful experience? And, to make my point crystal clear, are you suggesting that a woman who is forced to carry a rapist’s baby to term would not find it traumatic emotionally?

It can be a great and wonderful thing, I agree. But to say there is no pain or suffering is a pretty ridiculous thing to assert.
I just see calling pregnancy and childbirth as a "trauma" is excessive and that word is just unnecessarily negative terminology.

Call a rape as a trauma yes - but not the pregnancy nor the childbirth.

Medically childbirth is a trauma to the mother's body, but so too an abortion is a type of medical trauma, but it is excessive to call the emotional or mental aspect of childbirth as a trauma.

Having the baby after a rape is not force, and it is not force by restricting or deny access to an abortion, because to have the baby is normal and natural and those do not count as force. As like stopping some person from committing suicide would be forcing the person to die naturally - it does not work that way.

To have the baby after a rape is the greatest retaliation against the rapist, because it forces the rapist to come back to see the child and to face their wrongdoing, and thereby to expose their self for the rape and for their sin. The baby is always a gift from God.
KenRU wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: You define it as a rapist's baby, and that is your own negative projection.
No, it is the accurate way to describe the situation. It is (of course) also the mother’s baby, but it is also the rapist’s.
Being accurate is not the criteria - because it is just being hateful and negative and unhelpful to be so accurate in such a case.

People have been known to keep calling both the mother and the baby nasty names throughout their lives, which is just being cruel, and then calling their cruelty as accurate.

There are just so many evil and hateful names to call people in this world, and so many ways to justify the horrible language.
KenRU wrote: We also have a duty to protect rape victims.

And a duty to protect rape victims.

When you start accounting for this part of the equation, I will begin to see your point better.

Until them, I’m left thinking you simply wish to assert your morals on another – regardless of consequence.
I agree that we need to protect and defend the victims of rape, but killing the baby is not protecting nor defending anyone.

Plus the baby is a second victim of the rape, and to kill the baby by abortion is to victimize both the baby and the mother a second time.

I do believe that asserting our morals over every person is the point and purpose of decent society.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

Post Reply