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

[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).

[KenRU]

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.

The facts and statistics simply don’t back up your claim: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... oe-v-wade/

The headline: About seven-in-ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade

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.

Fair enough, I can concede there was probably a better word for me to use (I still say it is accurate, but perhaps a better word was warranted).

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

Medically childbirth is a trauma to the mother's body,

Which was why I used it in the first place.

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.

I’m not sure I agree, but, another word may have better suited the conversation.

Having the baby after a rape is not force,

If she has the means to abort an unwanted pregnancy and that option is denied to her, then IT IS 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.

In this case, the baby was forced upon her.

As like stopping some person from committing suicide would be forcing the person to die naturally - it does not work that way.

Great analogy, and it works in the favor of my argument and not yours. If the patient were terminal and in pain, and had the option to end his or her own life, and that option were denied then yes, that person would be FORCED to suffer. Unnecessarily.

Neither scenario (rape victim, terminal patient) is experiencing any form of compassion from your side of the argument.

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.

That is not your, nor my, call to make. It should be the rape victim’s choice.

The baby is always a gift from God.

Children are a gift, I agree. As the father of an adopted child (my son), I can appreciate the pro-life stance. Without adoptions, I would never have a son. But I can still recognize the need for choice. To me, any other option is selfish and cruel, and certainly does not exhibit compassion.

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.

Absolutely not. It is being honest. And the only way to discuss such topics is to speak honestly.

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.

You’ve lost me here. I do not understand your point.

There are just so many evil and hateful names to call people in this world, and so many ways to justify the horrible language.

It is not pejorative to accurately cite the fatherhood of the baby.

Clarity and precision of language is important. Let’s be clear about the baggage each of us defends when we make these arguments.

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.

Again, let’s be clear, it is a potential baby. You wish to remove the right of choice (to eliminate any chance of the fetus coming to term) from the rape victim. I do not.

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

Fair point, and in principle, I agree. To me, when possible, we should allow people to make important choices for themselves. Pregnancy (and all the physiological, and emotional complications that come with it) included.

-all the best

[JP Cusick]

The facts and statistics simply don’t back up your claim: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... oe-v-wade/

The headline: About seven-in-ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade

It is peculiar how they can take any kind of survey and twist the results into any thing they want.

I seem to remember that all the surveys expected Hillary to win the Presidency, but it is possible that the surveys failed to take into consideration that Hillary wanted more abortions and Donald Trump was anti abortion - so maybe that aspect is what made the surveys wrong.

As like asking about "Roe v Wade" is not the same as asking about the murder of babies.

I read the "Roe v Wade" decision and it is well written as the Justices tried to be diplomatic and considerate, and they legalized limited abortion under State control, and yet that sensible decision produced the huge abortion industry of murdering babies for convenience and for no reason at all.

One part of "Roe v Wade" that struck me is that they specifically declared that the final decision about any abortion was that of the Doctor (the abortion provider) and yet no one ever talks about that simple truth, because it is the provider who murders the babies and not the parents.

The real question is = Does the Doctor have any right to murder a baby? - but instead they just talk about a woman's right which is not independent so it is another lie.

In cases of euthanasia where a Doctor kills a sick or elderly person as assisted suicide then it is the Doctors who are targeted for the crime, as like Kevorkian went to prison for murder, but in abortions they ignore the Doctors and focus on the women, and yet it could be called an assisted abortion because the mother could not do it without the provider who murders the baby.

There is a reason for that distinction which is that for assisted suicide the people can speak out for their self and directly ask to die - but in an abortion the baby can not speak up for itself.

The abortion providers murder a helpless and defenseless victim and then lay the blame onto the mothers who are thereby victimized too.

[McCulloch]

I seem to remember that all the surveys expected Hillary to win the Presidency, but it is possible that the surveys failed to take into consideration that Hillary wanted more abortions and Donald Trump was anti abortion - so maybe that aspect is what made the surveys wrong.

I was unaware that Hillary Clinton wanted more abortions. When she ran for president she said abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I mean rare.�

[JP Cusick]

I was unaware that Hillary Clinton wanted more abortions. When she ran for president she said abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare, I mean rare.�

I know that Hillary tried to play politics but she was just not as slick as her hubby.

The politics is to stop the babies by any means, and by every means.

And most people will say that they want abortions to be rare, but that is based on the other side of the coin of wanting more contraceptives, because if the young Ladies do not get pregnant in the first place then there will be fewer abortions in the second place - and thereby rare, rare, rare - but still terminate the babies.

Wanting more contraception and less abortions is still anti-baby, so they want to stop the birth of babies by every means possible.

The abortions cost more, and the funding for abortions is expensive, so the more the people use contraception then the less money spent on free abortions to the very poor and to kill the black babies.

Hillary wanted more funding to go to "Planned Parenthood" to do that task.

The point and purpose of abortions is to murder the babies, so it is never really just pro abortion as it is anti-babies by every means.

[KenRU]

The facts and statistics simply don’t back up your claim: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... oe-v-wade/

The headline: About seven-in-ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade

It is peculiar how they can take any kind of survey and twist the results into any thing they want.

What a convenient response when the facts do not support your argument.

I seem to remember that all the surveys expected Hillary to win the Presidency, but it is possible that the surveys failed to take into consideration that Hillary wanted more abortions and Donald Trump was anti abortion - so maybe that aspect is what made the surveys wrong.

Or, and here’s a thought, maybe you are wrong. Can you even find one unbiased survey that supports your assertion that most people in the USA want to overturn Roe v Wade?

As like asking about "Roe v Wade" is not the same as asking about the murder of babies.

Well, that is true, as words do have meanings and all.

I read the "Roe v Wade" decision and it is well written as the Justices tried to be diplomatic and considerate, and they legalized limited abortion under State control, and yet that sensible decision produced the huge abortion industry of murdering babies for convenience and for no reason at all.

Unless you are asserting all abortions are performed “for convenience and for no reason at all�, then your point makes no sense.

One part of "Roe v Wade" that struck me is that they specifically declared that the final decision about any abortion was that of the Doctor (the abortion provider) and yet no one ever talks about that simple truth, because it is the provider who murders the babies and not the parents.

Unless you are arguing that the doctor can perform an abortion despite the mother’s refusal, once again, your assertion makes no sense.

The real question is = Does the Doctor have any right to murder a baby?

In my opinion, the real question is, should the mother have the choice?

- but instead they just talk about a woman's right which is not independent so it is another lie.

Your opinion is noted.

In cases of euthanasia where a Doctor kills a sick or elderly person as assisted suicide then it is the Doctors who are targeted for the crime, as like Kevorkian went to prison for murder, but in abortions they ignore the Doctors and focus on the women, and yet it could be called an assisted abortion because the mother could not do it without the provider who murders the baby.

I believe terminally ill patients (who are in pain) should have the right to end their suffering. If you are interested, here is thread on this very topic: viewtopic.php?t=32943&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

There is a reason for that distinction which is that for assisted suicide the people can speak out for their self and directly ask to die - but in an abortion the baby can not speak up for itself.

That is because the philosophical question of when does life begin and where does the woman’s right to control her body begin and end are very complex questions. Scenarios of potential harm exist on either side. Which is why it should, imo, remain the woman’s right to choose.

The abortion providers murder a helpless and defenseless victim and then lay the blame onto the mothers who are thereby victimized too.

The doctor’s do not perform abortions without consent. If there was no demand for abortions, they would be out of a job. As has been mentioned to you in the past, if the termination is morally wrong, then the hit man and the person hiring the hitman are both wrong. Giving the parents a pass makes no logical sense.

[JP Cusick]

Unless you are asserting all abortions are performed “for convenience and for no reason at all�, then your point makes no sense.

My true assertion is that abortions are done for the political motivation of slowing the population growth, and particularly for getting rid of the babies from the black community, and getting rid of white trash through abortions is just an extra benefit.

As such the true reasons for the abortion industry is from the immorality of those in power in the USA.

The parents (both the mothers and fathers) are victims of the abortion industry.

[KenRU]

Unless you are asserting all abortions are performed “for convenience and for no reason at all�, then your point makes no sense.

My true assertion is that abortions are done for the political motivation of slowing the population growth, and particularly for getting rid of the babies from the black community, and getting rid of white trash through abortions is just an extra benefit.

As such the true reasons for the abortion industry is from the immorality of those in power in the USA.

Doyou have any evidence to back up such a claim?

The parents (both the mothers and fathers) are victims of the abortion industry.

True or false, if birth mothers stopped having abortions, would there be an abortion industry?

[JP Cusick]

Do you have any evidence to back up such a claim?

Look up the racist origin of "Planned Parenthood" because that covers the topic rather decisively.

Link here = A collection of quotes by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

True or false, if birth mothers stopped having abortions, would there be an abortion industry?

That might be theoretically true, but that is dumping the blame and responsibility onto the victims, while ignoring the gigantic pressure on poor people to murder their babies in service to the dominating society.

The mothers do not have a fair choice and they do not have a free choice, and so it is unjust to make them into more of a victim of the evil that is being done to them.

The abortion industry is like a clever lion roaming around seeking whom it may devour.

[Bust Nak]

Wanting more contraception and less abortions is still anti-baby, so they want to stop the birth of babies by every means possible.

That's a good thing given the babies are unwanted.

The abortions cost more, and the funding for abortions is expensive, so the more the people use contraception then the less money spent on free abortions to the very poor and to kill the black babies.

You say that like only blacks get abortion.

Look up the racist origin of "Planned Parenthood" because that covers the topic rather decisively...

Do not mistake eugenics with racism. Eugenics, while unpalatable, is selection based on fitness, not on skin color.

[JP Cusick]

That's a good thing given the babies are unwanted.

This is another example of how the poisoned knowledge of "good and bad" does harm to people, see Genesis 3:3-7

People are playing like God by judging "good and bad" and that is just the poisoned mentality of death.

Judging it as right from wrong gives a morally upright view, instead of an opinionated view based on the twisted perception of quality.

You may be blessed that you as a baby were not deemed to be unwanted, and then to be executed as unwanted.

My parents did not want me as another mouth to feed, but they were Catholics who did not believe in having an abortion, so I did not get executed.

Yet here you judge a baby being unwanted as a good thing, and to murder the baby by abortion to be a good thing too.

I view abortion as like loosing a tooth, because I lost one of my teeth getting it pulled out, and the dental procedure hurt and I paid the Dentist well to pull out my tooth, and I thanked the Dentist for doing that job, but I still regret loosing my tooth as I lost a part of my body and that is sad.

So too if the life of the mother is in danger and the baby is medically necessary to be aborted - then still why do we not see this as a loss? as a sad event? that the baby died so the Mom can live - so can not we at least view the aborted babies as a sad and unhappy thing to do - instead of pretending that the abortion industry is doing some wonderful service by murdering the babies.

I mourn my lost tooth - but people celebrate the abortion (the loss) of the babies.

The abortions cost more, and the funding for abortions is expensive, so the more the people use contraception then the less money spent on free abortions to the very poor and to kill the black babies.

You say that like only blacks get abortion.

White people have more money and more options, so even if abortions were illegal then the whites still have the option to seek out an abortion by various avenues, and it has always been that way.

The political arguments about abortion are always based on funding because the poorer people need to have the abortions funded by tax dollars or else the poor people will just have the baby which the government does not want.

And the black population just happens to dominate the lower classes of the USA and so the arguments about funding or health insurance for the poor is an argument about funding the abortions of black babies, along with poor whites as a side effect.

Look up the racist origin of "Planned Parenthood" because that covers the topic rather decisively.
Link here = A collection of quotes by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

Do not mistake eugenics with racism. Eugenics, while unpalatable, is selection based on fitness, not on skin color.

Of course eugenics is based on race and skin color, and on so much more.

The blue eyed and blond haired white baby is always the specialty of the eugenics.