When does life begin?

[mrsx]

No, I said you were using liberal jew arguments. Got a problem?

Not any more! Congratulations! You're the first Nazi on my ignore list.

 

[no1tovote4]

How about scientific research to cure diseases that now kill millions?

Life should not be created specifically to be destroyed for this research, however life that will be destroyed regardless that was created for another purpose should have more use than as firewood, this would be acceptable to me, but clearly not to all Buddhists.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/143/story_14399_1.html

The 12-year-old girl raped by her father should carry the baby to term because it won't kill her?

The progeny should receive the death sentence solely because the father is a criminal? The crime of the father does not necessitate the death sentence for the progeny.

 

[mrsx]

The progeny should receive the death sentence solely because the father is a criminal? The crime of the father does not necessitate the death sentence for the progeny.

It's a great theory. May no one you love ever find herself in such a predicament.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's a great theory. May no one you love ever find herself in such a predicament.

Well they won't, my children do not have a rapist for a father.

However, this is the determination of the emotionalist over the rationalist. Always attempting to personalize it to make emotion rather than reason the center of the argument.

Were my daughter raped, I would not want her to kill my grandchild because she was a victim of a crime.

This is also based on personal experience...

My sister had an abortion at 16, she felt huge guilt about it. Later she was raped, she became pregnant. She could not bring herself to abort the child, the guilt laid too heavily upon her from the first abortion.

For what became a temporary time, but what I thought was permanent at the time, I adopted and cared for my nephew. After about two years of his life (actually slightly longer) my sister came to see that the innocent and funny kid was not at fault for the crime committed upon her and was able to take back and raise her son herself. She thanks me on a huge level, and I am thankful I was able to know my nephew on such a level.

Sometimes you may be wrong on every level, including the emotional one. Especially if you only think in immediate terms.

 

[mrsx]

Well they won't, my children do not have a rapist for a father.

However, this is the determination of the emotionalist over the rationalist. Always attempting to personalize it to make emotion rather than reason the center of the argument.

Were my daughter raped, I would not want her to kill my grandchild because she was a victim of a crime.

This is also based on personal experience...

My sister had an abortion at 16, she felt huge guilt about it. Later she was raped, she became pregnant. She could not bring herself to abort the child, the guilt laid too heavily upon her from the first abortion.

For what became a temporary time, but what I thought was permanent at the time, I adopted and cared for my nephew. After about two years of his life (actually slightly longer) my sister came to see that the innocent and funny kid was not at fault for the crime committed upon her and was able to take back and raise her son herself. She thanks me on a huge level, and I am thankful I was able to know my nephew on such a level.

Sometimes you may be wrong on every level, including the emotional one. Especially if you only think in immediate terms.

This is a very touching story. You have my deepest respect for the way in which you affirmed life and strengthened the life of your sister and your nephew. I truly wish there were more people in the world like you. It is crucial to my beliefs that your sister made the choices, and that you made your noble choice yourself.

If neither you nor you sister had felt the way you did, would you want the government to force her to bear the child and then force you to raise it? Would that be good for her, for you, for the child?

 

[no1tovote4]

This is a very touching story. You have my deepest respect for the way in which you affirmed life and strengthened the life of your sister and your nephew. I truly wish there were more people in the world like you. It is crucial to my beliefs that your sister made the choices, and that you made your noble choice yourself.

If neither you nor you sister had felt the way you did, would you want the government to force her to bear the child and then force you to raise it? Would that be good for her, for you, for the child?

If one believes that every abortion is killing a child then there can be no valid defense for allowing others to keep killing them.

This tends to rest on more on how one views abortion than otherwise, if you see abortion as killing children there is no other choice than to make laws against it. Nobody here would argue that it should be okay to kill an infant because they do not yet have permanent memories, but in some cultures that was exactly okay.

The idea of relative morality is not a new one, but it should not be used to make laws.

I personally would advocate stronger laws against abortion, but do realize that they are unlikely to come about in any real way and therefore my only choice is to teach my children a strong respect for life...

 

[mrsx]

If one believes that every abortion is killing a child then there can be no valid defense for allowing others to keep killing them.

This tends to rest on more on how one views abortion than otherwise, if you see abortion as killing children there is no other choice than to make laws against it. Nobody here would argue that it should be okay to kill an infant because they do not yet have permanent memories, but in some cultures that was exactly okay.

The idea of relative morality is not a new one, but it should not be used to make laws.

I personally would advocate stronger laws against abortion, but do realize that they are unlikely to come about in any real way and therefore my only choice is to teach my children a strong respect for life...

I'm with you on teaching children a strong respect for life.

I'm not sure about this argument - what do you think of it? The U.S. government can regulate fetal development (or non-development) only by violating the rights of the woman within whom the fetus exists. It is as if the woman's body were a soverign country where she is Queen (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that). If a criminal takes refuge in a foreign embassy, the U.S. government has no jurisdiction. It doesn't seem right to give the government power over our insides as well as our outsides. Just a thought...

 

[007]

Not any more! Congratulations! You're the first Nazi on my ignore list.

Your "defeatist" attitude attaches nicely to you being a liberal. Congratulations to you too.

 

[Bonnie]

If one believes that every abortion is killing a child then there can be no valid defense for allowing others to keep killing them.

This tends to rest on more on how one views abortion than otherwise, if you see abortion as killing children there is no other choice than to make laws against it. Nobody here would argue that it should be okay to kill an infant because they do not yet have permanent memories, but in some cultures that was exactly okay.

The idea of relative morality is not a new one, but it should not be used to make laws.

I personally would advocate stronger laws against abortion, but do realize that they are unlikely to come about in any real way and therefore my only choice is to teach my children a strong respect for life...

True you can certainly teach your kids to respect life as I will someday, and some can and do actually work to change the laws. Don't give up hope, it may take time.

Here's an article that may interest you


The filibuster and Roe v. Wade
Star Parker


May 30, 2005

Polling on abortion reveals the complexities of the American psyche. On the one hand, the majority of Americans feel that abortion is morally wrong. Yet, at the same time, the majority of Americans poll in support of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion a legal procedure nationwide.

According to polling done over the past month by Gallup, 51 percent of Americans say that abortion is "morally wrong." Yet, according to a current poll done by Quinnipiac University, 63 percent of Americans support Roe v. Wade.

Support of Roe v. Wade, however, is by no means unequivocal. Further polling by Gallup shows support for legal abortion "under any circumstances" at only 23 percent. The majority of those who support abortion feel it should be legal "only in a few circumstances."

What this polling data tells me is that most Americans are not supportive of the spirit of Roe v. Wade. The legalization of abortion under this decision was under the rationale of a principle _ a so-called "right to privacy." However, if most Americans agreed that legal abortion emerges as result of a fundamental right to do it, they would not respond in polls saying that it is immoral and should be legal "only in a few circumstances."

It's also sharp and clear from the Gallup poll that Americans are not happy about the moral state of our country. Only 19 percent feel that the current state of moral values in the country is "excellent/good", and 39 percent see it as "poor." With regard to the direction of our state of morals, 16 percent responded that things are "getting better" and 77 percent responded that things are getting worse.

I think the group of so-called moderate senators who cut the recent deal to defuse the nuclear device, which would have formally purged the Senate of the filibuster option on confirmation of judges, should pay attention to this information. That is, they should pay attention if they care about their political future.

It is crystal clear that Americans are unhappy and concerned with the moral state of affairs of our country. The central aspect of that concern, as it concerns our judiciary, is legal abortion, as defined by Roe v. Wade. This is what this fight over judge appointments is about.

The fact that most of our citizens see abortion as immoral, and that support for legal abortion is highly qualified, shows that there is underlying discomfort nationwide with today's legal regime governing abortion. Americans want change.

These sentiments were expressed when we elected a conservative Republican president and a Republican congress.

Yet a handful of senators who call themselves moderates want to thwart the leadership of the president and mute the sentiments of the American electorate. On the verge of losing the filibuster tool to prevent straightforward up or down votes to confirm judges, these handful of so-called moderates went into the backroom and came up with a band-aid that will allow a few votes, but leaves the core problem in place. As happens too often today, our politicians use every opportunity to avoid leadership and responsibility.

The Roe v. Wade decision was allegedly made in the spirit of American freedom. However, time has shown that this was mistaken and ill advised. The president is showing needed leadership in the judges he is nominating. We need to make clear that these handful of obstructionist senators are not moderates but elitists and feel that they know better than our president and our voters what America needs.

Americans are both a moral people and a freedom loving people. George Washington, in his famous farewell address, said that being a moral people is a necessary condition for being a free people. At times, when it appears that moral principle impinges on our freedom, our tendency is to yield to the latter. The test of time, however, reveals whether such concessions in what appear to be in the direction of freedom really, to the point of Washington, make us less free.

We learned that lesson with slavery. We became a greater and freer people by banning it.

Americans know today that Roe v. Wade has pushed that envelope. We live daily with wholesale abuse of human life that devalues America and Americans. This loss of value and perspective has weakened us and made us less free. Far and away the worse toll is taken in the most vulnerable community, the African American community, where black women are three times more likely to have an abortion than their white counterparts.

Our nation is entering a new era of global challenge and competition. We need to be physically and morally strong to meet these challenges. Americans know what needs to be done. Let's not allow a handful of senators, who pretend to be working in our interest, keep us from the challenges we need to meet.

Link
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/printsp20050530.shtml

 

[-Cp]

When does life begin?
Human life began when God created Adam and it has continued in an unbroken chain ever since. Life does not begin at conception; life continues through conception. Sperm are living organisms; eggs are living cells. Babies do not come from inert or dead materials, they receive life from the living materials from which they are made.

Is human life sacred?
Human life is no more sacred than goldfish life. All life is life. All life is God’s creation. Human beings are part of God’s natural creation.

So we are nothing special?
On the contrary, we are unique because, unlike any other material creature, we are each given an immortal soul by God. That is the part of us that, once created, lives forever. It goes to heaven or hell for all eternity. The only other creatures with immortal souls have no physical dimension. They are angels. It is our souls that make us unique in the world, not the fact that we are alive.

So what?
Because it our souls that are sacred, not our bodies, it is the destruction of a human embryo to whom God has given an immortal soul that is a sin of murder. Ending the life of an embryo before God has given it a soul is an ethical decision; it may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. Killing any living thing may be right or wrong depending on the circumstances.

Since God gives the embryo a human soul at the moment of conception, doesn’t all this theory come down to the same thing?
It would if that is when God gives the embryo an eternal, human soul. The fact is, we don’t know from science (which can say nothing on the matter) or explicitly from the Bible when God creates a human soul.

Gen 2:7 offers a starting point: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Some teachers have pointed out that God formed the body before the soul, not at the same time. Others have suggested that the soul is infused when the fetus develops recognizable features such a nose – this school prefers the “quickening,” the time, usually late in the second trimester when the baby begins to move. Many have interpreted the creation of Adam with emphasis on the breath of life and fixed the point at which the baby breathes on its own as the sacred moment. The theory that the soul is infused when the sperm enters the egg is a recent, minority view and one that doesn't fit well with Genesis.

The first breath has been enshrined in the legal codes of many Christian countries for centuries. Christians do not customarily baptize or administer the last rites to a stillborn child, much less to a spontaneously aborted fetus. We do not hold a funeral for the menstrual emission of a woman who has had intercourse during the previous 28 days, although we know that a significant percentage of fertilized ova do not attach to the wall of the uterus.

It may be that the soul is infused at the moment of conception despite traditional belief or the common sense difficulties that this theory gives rise to. Everyone agrees that the soul is formed by the time the baby is born and breathing. No one can say when the miracle of the creation of a living soul occurs. Perhaps that is for the best.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your "defeatist" attitude attaches nicely to you being a liberal. Congratulations to you too.

Look on the bright side, pale; you can call her a tripe bucket and she won't even know.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not any more! Congratulations! You're the first Nazi on my ignore list.

Gosh you're touchy.

Is anyone who uses the word 'jew' a nazi? Jews eat matzoh. Jews wear beanies to church. Am I a thought crimiminal?

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm with you on teaching children a strong respect for life.

I'm not sure about this argument - what do you think of it? The U.S. government can regulate fetal development (or non-development) only by violating the rights of the woman within whom the fetus exists. It is as if the woman's body were a soverign country where she is Queen (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that). If a criminal takes refuge in a foreign embassy, the U.S. government has no jurisdiction. It doesn't seem right to give the government power over our insides as well as our outsides. Just a thought...

Unfortunately, only if you simply give no rights to the living being inside. Simply by being alive the zygote, fetus, embryo, infant has rights. To deny the right to life because of the stage of development is IMO a wrong.

How about this though... Instead of abortions, we remove the zygote, embryo, fetus, with the expressed intent of simply relieving the mother of the duty of carrying the fetus, but with the directed intent of keeping it alive. At the beginning there would be many unfortunate deaths, but in time we will be able to give real reproductive choice to mothers (mothers could choose to carry a child or to have it formed outside the womb thus allowing them the same direct accesses of males, this has the added effect of actual reproductive choice not simply only the "choice" of directed death). The fetus is not killed for convenience, the direct intent is not to kill, many people are willing to adopt infants that may be unwanted by the biological mothers....

Each time somebody enters a room for an abortion, there are three beings directly effected or effecting the procedure, the Doctor, the mother and the fetus, only one has to give up their life for the "rights" of another and they are the only one with no choice in the matter....

 

[Tippy Toes]

Bonnie,

I appreciate your post. I think that the soul may have meaning for Christian's, but it may also be that the Human Being is the only of God's creatures with a soul, and so therefore it's the life that's the issue. We are created in God's image, and likeness so maybe it's because we are so much like God that taking a human life is a slap in the face to God. God created the life, so only He should take it away, or intervene.

Just a thought. Not sure what all Christian's believe, but I think the soul is part of it.

I would think that Catholic's would be particularly appalled by abortion because they believe you have to get Baptized before entering Heaven, and an aborted baby wouldn't get that chance, but then Catholic's believe anybody can enter heaven if they are good people, but you have to live to be good.

On another Conservative site I go to, some there were bragging about adopting Chinese babies, and I said, "why not adopt here first"? Especially when you are trying to preach against abortion, but then you don't want a lame child, a bi-racial child, a retarded child. But they have that right, I was told. Yes, but it's a contradiction to me. So many contradictions it makes my head swim. I believe the Asian babies are trendy right now. I'd be careful adopting outside of the states. I think it's really risky.

You should be taking the babies here first, and when there are no babies here, then you go somewhere else. Well I should say children, cause some kids do turn into toddlers, and adolescents, and teenagers.

 

[Gem]

The other aspect of adopting a baby here however, is that it seems like you have to be a rich celebrity in order to do it!

 

[Bonnie]

Bonnie,

I appreciate your post. I think that the soul may have meaning for Christian's, but it may also be that the Human Being is the only of God's creatures with a soul, and so therefore it's the life that's the issue. We are created in God's image, and likeness so maybe it's because we are so much like God that taking a human life is a slap in the face to God. God created the life, so only He should take it away, or intervene.

Just a thought. Not sure what all Christian's believe, but I think the soul is part of it.

I would think that Catholic's would be particularly appalled by abortion because they believe you have to get Baptized before entering Heaven, and an aborted baby wouldn't get that chance, but then Catholic's believe anybody can enter heaven if they are good people, but you have to live to be good.

On another Conservative site I go to, some there were bragging about adopting Chinese babies, and I said, "why not adopt here first"? Especially when you are trying to preach against abortion, but then you don't want a lame child, a bi-racial child, a retarded child. But they have that right, I was told. Yes, but it's a contradiction to me. So many contradictions it makes my head swim. I believe the Asian babies are trendy right now. I'd be careful adopting outside of the states. I think it's really risky.

You should be taking the babies here first, and when there are no babies here, then you go somewhere else. Well I should say children, cause some kids do turn into toddlers, and adolescents, and teenagers.

I have to agree with everything you stated especially the part regarding God seeing each individual soul as meaningful and yes he is the sole authority (pun intended) in matters of life and death. Some think differently, and in that spirit I find discussing the point useless, best to pray for hearts and minds to be changed.

Welcome to the board Paula

 

[mrsx]

Unfortunately, only if you simply give no rights to the living being inside. Simply by being alive the zygote, fetus, embryo, infant has rights. To deny the right to life because of the stage of development is IMO a wrong.

How about this though... Instead of abortions, we remove the zygote, embryo, fetus, with the expressed intent of simply relieving the mother of the duty of carrying the fetus, but with the directed intent of keeping it alive. At the beginning there would be many unfortunate deaths, but in time we will be able to give real reproductive choice to mothers (mothers could choose to carry a child or to have it formed outside the womb thus allowing them the same direct accesses of males, this has the added effect of actual reproductive choice not simply only the "choice" of directed death). The fetus is not killed for convenience, the direct intent is not to kill, many people are willing to adopt infants that may be unwanted by the biological mothers....

Each time somebody enters a room for an abortion, there are three beings directly effected or effecting the procedure, the Doctor, the mother and the fetus, only one has to give up their life for the "rights" of another and they are the only one with no choice in the matter....

I have never heard this proposal before. If it is medically possible, it seems like a wonderful way to preserve life without violating anyone's rights. I would guess that in almost every case, the woman would gladly take that option. Is anyone offering this choice now? It seems *really* pro-choice and pro-life!

 

[Bonnie]

Unfortunately, only if you simply give no rights to the living being inside. Simply by being alive the zygote, fetus, embryo, infant has rights. To deny the right to life because of the stage of development is IMO a wrong.

How about this though... Instead of abortions, we remove the zygote, embryo, fetus, with the expressed intent of simply relieving the mother of the duty of carrying the fetus, but with the directed intent of keeping it alive. At the beginning there would be many unfortunate deaths, but in time we will be able to give real reproductive choice to mothers (mothers could choose to carry a child or to have it formed outside the womb thus allowing them the same direct accesses of males, this has the added effect of actual reproductive choice not simply only the "choice" of directed death). The fetus is not killed for convenience, the direct intent is not to kill, many people are willing to adopt infants that may be unwanted by the biological mothers....

Each time somebody enters a room for an abortion, there are three beings directly effected or effecting the procedure, the Doctor, the mother and the fetus, only one has to give up their life for the "rights" of another and they are the only one with no choice in the matter....

If this were medically feasible it could be a real solution though Im not a biologist to know the perils or problems that need to be addressed to do this. That said it certainly is worth considering. So many could adopt these babies once they were full term.

 

[colehart]

You can't use God/Bible as an argument against abortion to someone who doesn't believe either.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You can't use God/Bible as an argument against abortion to someone who doesn't believe either.

Good point, newperson. When secularists use biblical arguments it just rings hollow and insincere.