For the logic impaired...

[YahwehIsTheWay]

[fr0d0]

So very sorry for your loss. Obviously abortions, natural or otherwise are complicated and sad. However, I fully support the right of the person in whose body the would-be person is growing to choose what is right and what they can endure.

Thanks (everyone). I support anyone's right to choose too. I think it's a choice of taking life though. I think people should face up to that.

Remember I've been pro choice up until last year. My own circumstances have no bearing on my thoughts about this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Every now and again I see glimmers of why certain folks like you Frodo..lol.

[Violet]

Every now and again I see glimmers of why certain folks like you Frodo..lol.

It's because he's blue

And have you seen his hair? Awesome stuff

[Mystical]

That’s interesting, only a potential life? Which of the functions of life does a fetus not meet? I am not aware of any defensible way to argue that a fetus is not alive or not human.

Well, Jesus was Jewish no? Do you disagree with the Jewish biblical stance on the matter?


Exodus 21:22‑23, where Scripture states: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

The Talmud explains that the embryo is part of the mother’s body and has no identity of its own, since it is dependent for its life upon the body of the woman. However, as soon as it starts to move from the womb, it is considered an autonomous being (nefesh) and thus unaffected by the mother’s state.

Mishnah, explains that the fetus is not considered a nefesh until it has egressed into the air of the world and, therefore, one is permitted to destroy it to save the mother’s life. In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.”


How are we going to come to a consensus? We must define when a human life becomes a person.

What we all agree upon?

In reality, there exists many broad agreements by the two opposing sides:

*A common belief among pro-lifers and pro-choicers is that an ovum is alive. Thus, because it contains human DNA, they consider it to be a form of human life. According to some scientists' extremely restrictive definition of "life," an ovum is not actually alive. But the public almost universally agrees that they are a form of human life.

*An ovum is not considered a human person.

*Similarly a spermatozoon is considered a form of human life by almost everyone.

*A spermatozoon is not viewed to be a human person. A man produces thousands every second between puberty and death. All but perhaps one or two die produced during his lifetime without fertilizing an ovum. We have never found anyone who worries about that.

*There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four strictest criteria needed to establish biological life:
metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction."

Its reproductive ability is only demonstrated in about one in 60 births, when it reproduces itself through twinning. This can happen at any time up to about 14 days after conception. This is how mono-zygotic (identical) twins are caused.

*An embryo is also a form of human life.

*A fetus is still another, more developed, form of human life.

*A newborn baby is both a form of human life and a human person.

*During the entire nine months between:

*The meeting of an ovum and one very lucky spermatozoon at conception, and


*The birth of a newborn baby, human life has continuously existed.

*Pro-choicers and pro-lifers generally believe that at some time between conception and birth human life becomes a human person. The new person has rights including the right to continue to live.

*After human personhood is present, both sides agree that an abortion should not be allowed, except under very unusual circumstances, such as:

*To save the life of the woman,

*Perhaps to avoid serious long-term injury or permanent disability to the woman,

*Perhaps if the pregnancy had been initiated by rape or incest.

*Perhaps if the fetus is determined to suffer from a major genetic defect.


Most pro-lifers would probably agree that if we are unsure, we should err on the side of life. A visitor to this web site wrote:

"If we are killing 3,000 fetuses a day that at least have the possibility of being human persons, shouldn’t we protect them just to be sure? If a hunter sees something moving in a bush, he just doesn’t shoot it because it sounds like it could be a deer. He makes absolutely sure it is a deer before he kills it. Just like we should be absolutely sure that human fetuses are not human persons deserving all rights in society before we kill them. Since we probably will never be absolutely sure, we should not allow any fetuses to be killed. What if society is wrong and they are in fact human persons deserving all rights in society. Then we would have to accept that we have killed off over 43 million people."

In reality, 90% of all abortions are performed during the first three months of gestation. An embryo becomes a fetus only after about the 3rd month of gestation. Thus a large percentage of the 3,000 abortions terminate the life of an embryo, not a fetus.

So, when do you think human life becomes a human person?





.

[The Grand Nudger]

I like how the pro-lifer started out with how we should protect them until we're sure - with the caveat immediately following "since we'll probably never be absolutely sure"...lol. I'd wager that said pro-lifer is incapable of considering the one without the other. It's a package deal. Wouldn't offer our surety as a pro-choice argument if they thought there was even a chance that we might possess it.

[Statler Waldorf]

First of all, cite me chapter and verse where the Holey Babble has anything to say about life beginning at conception. Don't waste your time. It aint there.

Perhaps life beginning at conception is so self-evident and ridiculously clear that scripture didn’t waste it’s time affirming it. Biologically we know that life begins at conception. Logically, any argument trying to suggest it doesn’t begin at conception can be reduced to absurdity, you cannot win this debate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Life began long before conception. Conception is just one (of many) points that life tosses out some spores.

[Kitan Etos]

Biologically we know that life begins at conception.

The question is not When does life begin?, but rather When does that life obtain personhood?

[Cato]

Perhaps life beginning at conception is so self-evident and ridiculously clear that scripture didn’t waste it’s time affirming it.

Yet scripture was required to tell men that fucking animals was bad.