A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

Post #1

Post by Aetixintro »

There are basically two views on abortions, the pro and the con.

Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.

Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.

So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!

Like it? Your view?

(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #31

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 30 by JJ50]

Some more science for you . . .


Every few months brings a technological advancement or scientific breakthrough that more fully reveals the unborn child as a living, feeling human being.


We now know that at the moment of fertilization, a new, unique human embryo with unique DNA is created. We now know that even at that early stage, an individual human life exists. We now know that the unborn baby’s heart begins to beat at three weeks, that brain waves can be detected as early as five weeks, and that all of the unborn baby’s organs are fully formed by 24 weeks.

Advancements in fetal medicine now make it possible for unborn babies to survive outside the womb as early as 22 weeks.

Science has exposed the lie that a first-trimester baby is merely a clump of cells or a blob of tissue — or anything other than a human being. As Harvard Medical School’s Micheline Matthews-Roth has put it: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life.�

Science also reveals that a third trimester baby is not substantially different from a newborn baby. She looks, moves, feels, and responds just like a newborn.

In the abortion debate, the science deniers are those who decry the taking of an innocent human life while somehow also celebrating the right to take an innocent unborn human life.

Science isn’t the only consideration in matters that carry profound moral and ethical significance. But on abortion, it can no longer be argued that science and faith are at odds.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... ro-science

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #32

Post by bjs »

[Replying to post 30 by JJ50]


Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #33

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Actually, everything I said is fact. It is based on science.
Not all of it, "no human being should get to take the life of another innocent human being. Once another human being has been created, there is a 3rd person involved. It is no longer just about the woman’s body" is not a fact: science doesn't decide personhood nor what one should or should not do.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #34

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]
Not all of it, "no human being should get to take the life of another innocent human being. Once another human being has been created, there is a 3rd person involved. It is no longer just about the woman’s body" is not a fact: science doesn't decide personhood nor what one should or should not do.
Again, my comments are saying inside the woman is human life. That is an indisputable fact of the scientific community. So, like I said, what I am talking about is based on science/fact.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #35

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Again, my comments are saying inside the woman is human life. That is an indisputable fact of the scientific community. So, like I said, what I am talking about is based on science/fact.
You aren't saying much as "we should be allowed to kill human life inside the woman if she wishes so" is also based on science/fact.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #36

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 35 by Bust Nak]
You aren't saying much as "we should be allowed to kill human life inside the woman if she wishes so" is also based on science/fact.
Well, I commend you for at least admitting it is a human life we are talking about. The pro aborts got to hide behind their anti-science “clump of cells�/�tissue�/�parasite� mantra for awhile until improvements in technology and medical consensus finally called them out. So, now if they remain pro abort, they have to at least admit they know there is a human life growing inside the woman, but admit they just don’t think that innocent life is worthy of protection and should be able to be killed if another human being deems it unworthy.

So, if that is the position you would like to hold, I’m glad you’re willing to own it. I think it is abhorrent, but at least it isn’t denying science.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #37

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 36 by RightReason]

Doesn't matter what we call it, clump of cells or baby, it doesn't change how much I value it. Nor should a label change how much we value it. I mean, a human sperm is also an innocent human life, and presumably you don't care much about a single sperm.

As for denying science, it's not inaccurate to point out that it is indeed a clump of cells or tissue. I will grant you that parasite is inaccurate though.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #38

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 37 by Bust Nak]
a human sperm is also an innocent human life, and presumably you don't care much about a single sperm.
False. That is just bad science. Sperm is not a human life. It takes a sperm and an egg to create human life.

That is the kind of junk science the pro aborts disseminate. It doesn't hold up in a Biology 101 course.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #39

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: False. That is just bad science. Sperm is not a human life. It takes a sperm and an egg to create human life.
Woah there, which of the following scientific facts are you denying? That a sperm is alive, or that a human sperm is of the human species?

The only difference between what you call a human life and a sperm is a bunch of chromosomes.

That is the kind of junk science the anti-choice disseminate. It's human life when they feel like it's human life.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #40

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Bust Nak]
Woah there, which of the following scientific facts are you denying? That a sperm is alive, or that a human sperm is of the human species?

The only difference between what you call a human life and a sperm is a bunch of chromosomes.

That is the kind of junk science the anti-choice disseminate. It's human life when they feel like it's human life.
Nice try. Not what you said. Here it is and I quote:
a human sperm is also an innocent human life
End quote.

It is a common tactic from the pro aborts and like I said just plain bad science.

*********

Biology tells us that the human embryo is a whole, living human organism with his/her own DNA, whereas the sperm cell is not a whole organism; rather, gametes are part of a human organism, like skin cells. Sperm cells are not morally equivalent to embryos, then, because they are not whole organisms. So, the pro-life movement is not equating the death of sperm cells to the death of embryos, as it would be the same as equating the death of skin cells to the death of a toddler.

The human embryo, from fertilization, is on a self-projected path towards adulthood. She will continue to grow and mature through her natural biological life cycle unless she is killed by something before then. This is an undisputed biological distinction, by both pro-life and pro-choice experts. Here is a link to some helpful
sources: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/sources.

The real debate about the life of human embryos when it comes to the abortion issue is over philosophical claims—in other words, whether or not this biological human life is valuable and has the same level of dignity as you and I do.

https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/r ... ice-memes/

It isn’t a matter of science. The science is settled. It is now a question about human rights and what evils we will argue is acceptable.

Post Reply