Ask a Bible college Student

[ukatheist]

I was talking about adoption.

If adoption were a realistic option, then the US fostering system woudn't be overwhelmed with children nobody wants to adopt.

Of course general anti-abort policy is to claim that if women were forced to carry to term this would cause the world to magically become perfect.

Indeed, they also don't realise that adoption isn't always the wonderful panacea they would like to believe, and I speak as someone with some experience of this.

[Catholic_Lady]

I hope you two aren't going to turn this whole thread into an abortion discussion.  I was kind of hoping to hear something about poop and circumcision as well.

errr....
Anal probably works better when you're circumcised.... less poop in skin folds.

Does that work?

Oh that was just way too much lol. Even for me.

[Catholic_Lady]

But yeah... less abortion, more Emzap, since this IS his thread which I kind of hijacked.

[Minimalist]

Killing is against our religion. But you don't have to be religious to think that killing is wrong. It's not an exclusively religious position, as I'm sure you agree.

Yeah...we noticed how against killing catholicks were with the Crusades, the Albigensians, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the Wars of the Reformation.

You're against "killing" when it suits you, C/L. Stop being so holier-than-thou.  The church has murdered far more than its fair share.

[Catholic_Lady]

Killing is against our religion. But you don't have to be religious to think that killing is wrong. It's not an exclusively religious position, as I'm sure you agree.

Yeah...we noticed how against killing catholicks were with the Crusades, the Albigensians, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the Wars of the Reformation.

You're against "killing" when it suits you, C/L. Stop being so holier-than-thou.  The church has murdered far more than its fair share.

That's like saying America/Americans are pro slavery because we owned slaves a couple hundred years ago. 

Sorry you think I'm being "holier-than-thou." That is not my intent.

[downbeatplumb]

What's the difference between studying the bible and reading it?

[Mister Agenda]

And that applies to human chimeras too.  Regardless of the multi-DNA, there would be a single, unique immortal soul occupying the body.

Yeah, but how would they reconcile that with the 'unique DNA' argument?

[Mister Agenda]

Then you're not talking about genetic uniqueness at all, you're referring to the potential to develop into a human being. You should go with that, you'll be on much firmer footing and it serves your purpose just as well. That still leaves the clone issue open though, since a shed human cell CAN develop into a human being, with some help.

Again, I'm talking about the genetic uniqueness between a mom and her unborn baby and showing that it's a separate set of DNA from her and is therefore not part of her body or part of anyone else's body, and is different from our own cells that naturally shed off. When we shed cells, that's part of our cells coming off... that's not the entirety of them being destroyed like what happens in abortion.   

And I'm definitely not talking about the "potential to develop into a human being". It makes no sense for there to ever be a point in time where we were anything other than human and then magically became human at some arbitrary point. My existence began at conception, and I have been a human since that time.   

So if a woman, for some reason (like it turns out natural parthenogenic birth is possible in humans after all), had a fetus with DNA identical to hers, you would consider it part of her body and be okay with her deciding to terminate her pregnancy?

As for cloning a cell that sheds off our body, I don't know what needs to be done to it in a lab to make it "come alive" if you will, and start growing and multiplying. But I'd say at the exact point that it starts to do that is the point that you have another live human being right there. At that point it ceases from being a dead skin cell and has a life of its own.

So what does genetic uniqueness have to do with the issue? In every instance where genetic uniqueness is eliminated as a factor, you just move on as though you never said it was important.

[Mister Agenda]

They were part of their mom's body originally and also partly their father's sperm originally.

Are they completely separate DNA? Yes.... but the DNA in the left side of my body is also completely separate DNA to the DNA on the right side of my body... it's still all part of me... and originally we were all partly our mother's egg and partly our father's sperm.

It's not her dna. Meaning, it's not her. Also meaning it's not part of her.  

Let's say a woman's unborn baby came out of her uterus and committed and crime, and then went back inside her uterus. The detectives found the criminal's DNA at the scene. If they tested the mom, they would conclude that she was not the criminal. Because it was not her DNA they found. It was dna from another person. Person also being another key word here. They can differentiate between the dna of a human and of any other animals/species. 

Silly example, but I'm trying to make a point here lol.

If she's a genetic chimera and her left arm is no more genetically related to the rest of her than a brother or sister, is it not part of her body?

[Mister Agenda]

Ugh. It's tempting not to use the story of my son who died at 23 weeks gestation when I see comments like these....

I feel like I would be exploiting him and his situation if I did, but at the same time I feel like it's important testimony of how very precious and very human a little unborn baby is. I could not see him the day that I delivered him because I was careful to protect my heart that day. But my husband did see him and hold him and took pictures of him before we sent him off to be cremated. He took some pictures of him and I finally saw those pictures about a month later when I was ready. He had his dad's nose. We named him Joseph and I'm telling you that he is/was very much a person.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

23 weeks is much, much later than when the vast majority of abortions are performed. At six weeks, the fetus looks more like a tadpole than a human embryo. At eight weeks it still has a tail. If I wanted to be tricky, I could show photos of the embryo's of other animals and say 'gotcha' if you took my word that they were human based on appearance.

You've made a decent appeal to not have late term abortions (I would certainly hope they would only be performed if medically necessary); but you would not be able to make the same claims about a fetus in an earlier stage of development.

And nothing wrong with personalizing the issue when it's personal. Again, I'm sorry for your loss. No one should have to go through that.