toldailytopic: Were you for or against your mother's right to terminate you?

[gcthomas]

What would you think of your mother if the choice were you or a new car?

Two options:

A. She chose to have a child. Child unaware of choice. Moot.
B. She chose to have a car. No child exists to ponder choice. Moot.

 

[gcthomas]

Why has conception been chosen to be the point at which a new 'person' is created?

It has varied over the centuries, and has variously been placed by religious authorities and saints at conception, the 'quickening' when foetal movements can be felt, the point of 'ensoulment' (whenever that is) ... , so whether it is 'murder' must depend on when the soul is deemed to be associated with the foetus?

Conception is problematical because of the potential of the foetal cell bundle to spontaneously split into twins, and because of the large proportion of fertilised eggs which fail to progress to pregnancy, and which are neither mourned nor helped to survive.

So when?

 

[chrysostom]

Why has conception been chosen to be the point at which a new 'person' is created?

so you can continue to talk about abortion
and
no one will notice that you are doing nothing about it

 

[exminister]

Miscarriages are not uncommon and the possibility was high in my personal life recently, but thankfully, I think we are past that.

I never gave it a thought before. I assume this must have been considered in some thread somewhere in TOL. If someone wants to point me to such a thread or two I would appreciate it so as not to derail this one.

However, my questions. As far as I know the Bible doesn't speak of miscarriages. Right? Is it God that brings some or all of those about? If so, why was conception allowed in the first place?

 

[gcthomas]

so you can continue to talk about abortion
and
no one will notice that you are doing nothing about it

Or you might want to discuss a serious issue that has had different conclusions at different times over history, all well reasoned.

So, the question still stands- why pick conception as the critical point?

 

[resurrected]

It is the first point at which a new creation (unique DNA) is created

 

[CabinetMaker]

What would you think of your mother if the choice were you or a new car?

That really changes nothing about what I said.

 

[Nick M]

A negative can NEVER be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Stupid liberal... I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt I am not a female. Lots of neg rep handed out in this thread....reloading for tomorow.

 

[Stripe]

Why has conception been chosen to be the point at which a new 'person' is created?

Because before the fusion of the two parts, there is nothing that could reasonably be called a person. Afterward, however, there is. :up:

It has varied over the centuries, and has variously been placed by religious authorities and saints at conception, the 'quickening' when foetal movements can be felt, the point of 'ensoulment' (whenever that is) ... , so whether it is 'murder' must depend on when the soul is deemed to be associated with the foetus?

Let's just say you cannot murder a non-person.

Conception is problematical because of the potential of the foetal cell bundle to spontaneously split into twins

Why is that a problem? People are capable of splitting into two people. Didn't you know they had that ability?

and because of the large proportion of fertilised eggs which fail to progress to pregnancy

And people die in car accidents. Tragic, isn't it?

and which are neither mourned nor helped to survive.

People die un-noticed and unclaimed in cities all over the world without any aid offered.

What point were you trying to make?

 

[vegascowboy]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 21st, 2013 06:00 AM

toldailytopic: Were you for or against your mother's right to terminate you?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

What a great question! Thank you for asking it.

There are so many who are caught up in the FIGHT FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS that never consider that their own opinion may have resulted in their own execution.

I cannot imagine a more heinous offence to God than abortion. To utterly embrace evil and reject God's love in this manner is to spit in His face. It makes me sick to even consider.

There are those who think they are being "modern" and "enlightened" by telling women (or men) that it is their RIGHT to murder babies, but they are wrong.

As a humble and simple man, I urge those who feel this way to reconsider. God is real and He loves you. Please, please do not put "convenience" before life.

 

[Lighthouse]

Two options:

A. She chose to have a child. Child unaware of choice. Moot.
B. She chose to have a car. No child exists to ponder choice. Moot.

If A the child could become aware at a later date.

However, the question [which you seem too dishonest to answer] is what do you think of a woman who chooses a car over her own child?

 

[gcthomas]

However, the question [which you seem too dishonest to answer] is what do you think of a woman who chooses a car over her own child?

I was not asked that question, but what I would think of MY mother. A bit rich rich of you to call me dishonest for not answering a question which you just edited to mean something different!

For YOUR question:

There seems to be two separate arguments against early abortion here. 1. It is against Gods plan for procreation. This would put it on a par with the use of contraceptives. And 2. It is murder. This depends on when you decide a single fertilised cell is a person (pick and date from day one to birth, then seek vaguely worded Biblical quotes that might seem to agree with you. Other methods are available.)

1. As I am not a Christian, I am not directly concerned with God's plan for procreation. Knowing that women are having sex for reasons other than for the intention to get pregnant does not offend me.

2. Picking fertilisation for person-hood is arbitrary, with the only benefit being that it is easy to define. It is more likely that there is a gradual change from an unimportant bundle of cells to the final state of a born human, with the change in moral status being gradual an ambiguous. Ease of definition is only a good criterion for someone who prefers simple, black and white issues. Rejecting shades of grey saves having to justify your position.

For reasons given before, I'd hesitantly pick the 18-20 week time-frame, with some leeway if the woman's health was at serious risk from the pregnancy. If a pregnancy is terminated (murdered, in the local language) then I would not necessarily feel badly towards such a woman, and I would certainly not call her or the physician murderers.

 

[gcthomas]

Ta Nick-M, for the neg rep. It makes me feel all warm inside and included!

Repent? For what? For believing that a functioning nervous system is a necessary part of a person? No pain, no thoughts, no fear, no wants, no existence as a person. Death is determined when the brain ceases to function. Why not determine life to start at the beginning of the functioning of that same system?

Give a reason, and I may change my mind (which is more than can be said of you).

 

[Stripe]

For reasons given before, I'd hesitantly pick the 18-20 week time-frame, with some leeway if the woman's health was at serious risk from the pregnancy.

The personhood of a child depends upon how healthy the mother is? :AMR:

It is more likely that there is a gradual change from an unimportant bundle of cells to the final state of a born human

Unimportant? How about you show a little compassion you ignorant barbarian! :madmad:

 

[gcthomas]

Unimportant? How about you show a little compassion you ignorant barbarian! :madmad:

Hmm. 'Unimportant' was a poor word choice. Point taken. Although the point of the comment was that I don't believe compassion can be applied to a such a bundle of cells. Compassion is the virtue of empathy for the suffering of others, and I don't think that suffering is possible here.

The personhood of a child depends upon how healthy the mother is?

I don't think a firm line can be drawn, and that 'personhood' arrives but gradually. When there is suffering in the mother due to the pregnancy, the suffering of the foetus should be weighed against the suffering of the mother.

How you weigh that will depend on personal factors, but lawmakers will come to a position on what will be legal and will satisfy a maximum number of people. Extreme views either way (no abortion ever, even when the mother's life is in danger, and partial birth abortions at the other end) will never hold sway unless the bulk of the population adopts that view.

 

[Lighthouse]

I was not asked that question, but what I would think of MY mother. A bit rich rich of you to call me dishonest for not answering a question which you just edited to mean something different!

If you weren't being dishonest then you're low on CSF. The intent of the question was clear to anyone with their faculties at full attention.

For YOUR question:

There seems to be two separate arguments against early abortion here. 1. It is against Gods plan for procreation. This would put it on a par with the use of contraceptives. And 2. It is murder. This depends on when you decide a single fertilised cell is a person (pick and date from day one to birth, then seek vaguely worded Biblical quotes that might seem to agree with you. Other methods are available.)

1. As I am not a Christian, I am not directly concerned with God's plan for procreation. Knowing that women are having sex for reasons other than for the intention to get pregnant does not offend me.

2. Picking fertilisation for person-hood is arbitrary, with the only benefit being that it is easy to define. It is more likely that there is a gradual change from an unimportant bundle of cells to the final state of a born human, with the change in moral status being gradual an ambiguous. Ease of definition is only a good criterion for someone who prefers simple, black and white issues. Rejecting shades of grey saves having to justify your position.

Women aren't the only ones having sex for reasons other than procreation, and I'm not offended by that either. It's the intentionally preventing it that is the issue.

And how is fertilization arbitrary? It's the definitive moment new DNA comes into existence.

For reasons given before, I'd hesitantly pick the 18-20 week time-frame, with some leeway if the woman's health was at serious risk from the pregnancy. If a pregnancy is terminated (murdered, in the local language) then I would not necessarily feel badly towards such a woman, and I would certainly not call her or the physician murderers.

What if they just stuck a knife through her belly into the womb? What if she uses a coat hanger, or throws herself down a flight of stairs?

What if she wants the baby and someone else pushes her down a flight of stairs? Would they be a murderer?

 

[Angel4Truth]

What if she wants the baby and someone else pushes her down a flight of stairs? Would they be a murderer?

Of course that is a good point, its only murder when the baby is wanted. When its not wanted its a fetus without life and the murderer should be celebrated for exercising the rights to her own body.

 

[Stripe]

Hmm. 'Unimportant' was a poor word choice. Point taken.

Which point was that?

Although the point of the comment was that I don't believe compassion can be applied to a such a bundle of cells.

:doh: Repeating the same insensitive idea isn't helping.

Compassion is the virtue of empathy for the suffering of others, and I don't think that suffering is possible here.

Well, clearly you've shown zero ability to think rationally on the subject. So I'm just going to ignore what you think and stick with the truth. :up:

I don't think a firm line can be drawn, and that 'personhood' arrives but gradually.

And thus you feel justified in allowing people to murder their unborn children for practically any reason.

When there is suffering in the mother due to the pregnancy, the suffering of the foetus should be weighed against the suffering of the mother.

"Life is pain, sweetheat. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."

How you weigh that will depend on personal factors, but lawmakers will come to a position on what will be legal and will satisfy a maximum number of people.

Laws made to satisfy people are stupid laws.

Extreme views either way (no abortion ever, even when the mother's life is in danger, and partial birth abortions at the other end) will never hold sway unless the bulk of the population adopts that view.

There is never a need, when the mother's life is threatened, to murder the child.

 

[gcthomas]

And how is fertilization arbitrary? It's the definitive moment new DNA comes into existence.

Here you go changing what I said and then criticising the fiction ...

What I said was " Picking fertilisation for person-hood is arbitrary, with the only benefit being that it is easy to define." Did you really interpret that as saying "fertilisation is arbitrary"?

What if they just stuck a knife through her belly into the womb? What if she uses a coat hanger, or throws herself down a flight of stairs?

Same principle. It the foetus is not old enough to qualify as a person, then it is not murder. If it IS old enough, then it IS murder. Simple.

What if she wants the baby and someone else pushes her down a flight of stairs? Would they be a murderer?

See above.

The point is that you have to PICK A DATE at which the foetus counts as a person. You have picked fertilisation. That might be the best date, but saying that it is SELF EVIDENTLY the best date is to avoid THINKING about the issue. I know some people pick birth as the key time, and I would disagree with them also.

Insisting on black and white when there are shades of grey is intellectually easy, but such an argument will never be convincing for those who appreciate that there is some nuance to the issue. And it is those people making the laws, so you should consider the reasons if only because it is the best route to getting the law changes that you want.

 

[Lighthouse]

Here you go changing what I said and then criticising the fiction ...

What I said was " Picking fertilisation for person-hood is arbitrary, with the only benefit being that it is easy to define." Did you really interpret that as saying "fertilisation is arbitrary"?

I used a truncated phrasing; I didn't change what you said. Anyone with the capacity for reason can tell that I meant the same thing you said.

So, stop being disingenuous and answer the question.

Same principle. It the foetus is not old enough to qualify as a person, then it is not murder. If it IS old enough, then it IS murder. Simple.

It's old enough from the moment it exists as its own being, which is when new DNA comes into existence. Do you know when that is?

See above.

The law disagrees with you.

The point is that you have to PICK A DATE at which the foetus counts as a person. You have picked fertilisation. That might be the best date, but saying that it is SELF EVIDENTLY the best date is to avoid THINKING about the issue. I know some people pick birth as the key time, and I would disagree with them also.

How is the existence of brand new DNA not self evident?

And why are you so foolish to admit it might be correct and still not err on the side of caution?

Insisting on black and white when there are shades of grey is intellectually easy, but such an argument will never be convincing for those who appreciate that there is some nuance to the issue. And it is those people making the laws, so you should consider the reasons if only because it is the best route to getting the law changes that you want.

Insisting there are shades of grey is intellectually dishonest.

And if you want to claim there are nuances you better start laying them out or you'll be remembered as nothing more than a troll.