CDZ POLL: An Abortion Kills a Child

[Leo123]

An abortion kills a developing human being. That life will never exist and an abortion does kill life. So far, science has not created life so, IMO, defining what is and what isn't life is pretty impossible.

 

[Chuz Life]

An abortion kills a developing human being. That life will never exist and an abortion does kill life. So far, science has not created life so, IMO, defining what is and what isn't life is pretty impossible.

Can you please expound on your "developing human being " comment?

 

[flacaltenn]

I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are.

How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?

Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???

Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..

I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."

If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.

It really is THAT simple.

That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.

There is no CLEAR LINE here. No YES or NO answers.. No LEAPS to making people murderers or not.. I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..

 

[JoeMoma]

As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.

Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child

Interesting.

So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?

A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.

While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.

Are you willing to be questioned further on that?

Sure why not?

An embryo is a potential child it is not a child

Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?

Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help

But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.

I have no dog in this hunt.

But I see there is a difference between a 2 day old embryo and a fully formed human child 2 days away from birth.

They are not the same thing.

A zygote is not the same as an embryo which is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as a new born infant which is not the sane as a toddler which is not the same as a 12 year old which is not the same as a 25 year which is not the same as a 50 year old which is not the same as a 100 year old. All of these are different stages of the human life cycle. Termination at any of these stages is the termination of a human being.

Sorry if you consider this post off topic.

 

[Chuz Life]

As with most of these kinds of questions the rational answer is neither and both depending on the circumstances.

Personally I don't think of a 6 week old fetus as a child but I do think a 6 month old fetus is close enough to a child and i think a 7 - 9 month old fetus is a child

Interesting.

So, do you hold the view that Human Beings reproduce like frogs and butterflies do? Where the parents have sex and create one organism that only later becomes some other organism?

A zygote is no more a child than a cheek cell.

While a zygote is genetically unique collection human cells it is not yet a child.

Are you willing to be questioned further on that?

Sure why not?

An embryo is a potential child it is not a child

Ever here a new expectant mother say she's going to have an embryo, a zygote...clump of cells?

Good grief life begins at conception, anyone thinking different needs help

But. I suppose killing an embryo makes it ease one's conscious than killing a baby.

I have no dog in this hunt.

But I see there is a difference between a 2 day old embryo and a fully formed human child 2 days away from birth.

They are not the same thing.

A zygote is not the same as an embryo which is not the same as a fetus which is not the same as a new born infant which is not the sane as a toddler which is not the same as a 12 year old which is not the same as a 25 year which is not the same as a 50 year old which is not the same as a 100 year old. All of these are different stages of the human life cycle. Termination at any of these stages is the termination of a human being.

Sorry if you consider this post off topic.

Nope. Spot on!

 

[Chuz Life]

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.

Now a zygote is not a child

Oh but it is a child.

You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.

so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is

A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.

You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.

However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.

Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.

And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.

You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.

A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.

You agreed (at least) for the sake of this argument, that a human being in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

Didn't you?

Organisms more than "potentially" exist.

Organisms "actually" do exist.

Organisms are MORE than "potential" beings.

Now, if you want to view un-united haploid reproduction cells
(sperm and eggs) as mere "potential" organisms? You will little to no argument from me on that.

However, once they (sperm and egg) unite and a new organism (zygote) is created? Their combined "potential" to create a new organism has been realized.

What else would make your biological parents YOUR biological parents? Or biological relationship to mine? Or anybody else's?

A potential human being would not physically exist. A child / organism in the womb (even in the zygote stage of their life) biologically DOES physically exist.

Man I hate it when I have to rush a post like the above.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As presented the answer would be no, not killing a child. if presented as killing a fetus that has a strong possibility of becoming a child the answer is yes. the problem is not that simple. the abortion question is very complex.

True.

And as a consequence of that complexity the issue is best left to individuals to decide for themselves whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a ‘child,’ not the state.

 

[Chuz Life]

Finally a chance to respond to some of these.

An organism is not necessarily a life unto itself is it?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "unto itself" but the life that ANY organism lives is its own. isn't it?

A zygote cannot survive outside the womb can it even if it is an organism?

A grown man can not survive outside of earth's atmosphere without some kind of machine or machines, either. Does that him any less of a man? Since when does the survivability of something (or lack thereof) determine what that organism is?

Hell, there are people who are decades old who are only alive because some machine breathes for them. Are they not someone else's child?

It cannot perform the processes necessary for life can it even if it is an organism?

An organism, even in the zygote stage of life most certainly DOES perform the processes necessary for his or her own life. If they don't, they die on their own. Quickly.

It is alive only in the body of the mother not unlike the way any cell in my body is alive while it is part of my body.

Do you know what probiotics are? They are bacterial organisms that live in our bodies. (found in yogurt, for example.)

Are the bacteria that live within your body ACTUALLY "part of" your body?

If the probiotics bacteria can not survive outside of your body, does that mean it's not actually alive or that it is not a bacterial organism anymore?

So there is a point where that zygote becomes a life unto itself right?

All organisms, no matter how simple or complex, live a life of their own. A life "unto itself" If you will.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Once you agree that a human in the zygote stage of your life IS a human organism. . . We can move on to the next line of questions and you will see how your above comment is wrong.

I have already said I agreed to that for the sake of this argument.

If this is as close as I am ever going to get in the way of you acknowledging the biological fact that a Human Being, even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism?" I'll take it.

Now a zygote is not a child

Oh but it is a child.

You just don't want to believe or acknowledge it.

so just cut to the chase and tell me when you think a zygote becomes a child. I already told you when I think that is

A human being / child who is in the zygote stage of their own life, growth and development doesn't later "become" a child, because biologically, they already ARE a child.

You have just admitted, AT LEAST for the sake of this argument, that a child in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If you have studied evolution, science, biology esp, genetics, etc. . . you would know that "ALL organisms have PARENTS." Click on the hyperlink for examples.

However, even if there might be found an exception or exceptions to that "rule." There is no doubt (per the dna and the reproductive process) about who the genetic "parents" are to any human organism. Even if they are only in the "zygote" stage of their life, growth, etc.

Genetically, we all have biological "parents." We are all the biological "children" of those parents, because they created the biological "organism's" that we are.

And that is all there need to be for the "parent / child" relationship to be established on the most basic level.

You admitted that a human being even in the zygote stage of their life is an "organism."

If it is an organism, it has biological "parents." And that biological fact is what makes it the biological "child" of the parents who created it.

A zygote is a potential human being as all it contains the genetic information necessary but it is not a human being yet.

As a matter of the law – yes.

As a matter of religion/philosophy/personal belief – for some that’s not the case.

The conflict isn’t really about when life begins or if an embryo/fetus is a ‘child’; the conflict is the result of those hostile to privacy rights refusing to respect the decision by many that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘child,’ and those hostile to privacy rights refusing to respect the rule of law.

 

[Leo123]

An abortion kills a developing human being. That life will never exist and an abortion does kill life. So far, science has not created life so, IMO, defining what is and what isn't life is pretty impossible.

Can you please expound on your "developing human being " comment?

Well, when a sperm pierces an egg more often than not a miracle takes place which is the advent of life. Nature counts on the fact that if left to develop it will result in a human being. Stopping that development by killing the developing egg (zygote) is precluding a human life from developing into a person. No amount of slicing and dicing the definition of the development of a human being is going to alter that. Abortion is therefore, killing a future human being at best and taking a human life at worst. Pretty obvious really. The real question is: How do women who get abortions reconcile the killing of a life? After all, unless raped, they had a hand in creating that life. Now they are going to kill it. I would like to ask them why. I wouldn't judge them but it would be interesting to hear.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are. How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?

Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???

There is no such implication in merely asking the question about whether or not an abortion "kills" a child. At least not to anyone who knows the legal and ethical distinctions that enable us to differentiate between an act of "killing" and a charge of "murder," That is.

Do you deny the fact that not all killings are "murders?"

It is a biological fact that many "children" are killed in the IVF process. Whether or not those killings (intended or not) amount to "murders" is a completely different debate. However, the point remains. Not all killings are murders.

Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..

No-one is forced to participate in a poll or debate that they do not want to participate it.

I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."

If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.

It really is THAT simple.

That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

No matter how emotive or genuinely felt an outburst like that is, it doesn't change any of the biological facts about what the child (or any other organism) is.

OBJECTIVELY.

It is a child.

Fully functional brain or not.

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.

Again.

OBJECTIVELY.

That makes no difference as to whether or not they are actually biological children.

Does it.

There is no CLEAR LINE here.

Yes, there is.

Despite your attempts to ignore it or to pull people's attentions away from it. It is THERE, even if you don't want to see it.

No YES or NO answers..

Sorry but that is not true. It most certainly is a yes or no question. EVEN in hard cases like some of those you mentioned. An abortion either kills a child or it doesn't kill a child. It can't be "both" and it can't be "neither" and still conform to the scientific / biological facts.

No LEAPS to making people murderers or not..

Different issue for another thread.

I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..

None of that has anything to do with whether or not an abortion actually kills a child.

 

[Leo123]

An abortion kills a human life because if left to develop it will most likely result in a living, breathing human being. Everything else is just an attempt to ease the consciences of the ones doing the killing. That being said, we need to decide if we want to steer our society in the direction of killing developing human beings for the sake of convenience or maybe becoming more responsible for their creation. As humans, men and women are 'given' great responsibility for the continued procreation, raising and educating human life.

 

[Chuz Life]

An abortion kills a developing human being.

Can you please expound on your "developing human being " comment?

Well, when a sperm pierces an egg, more often than not a miracle takes place which is the advent of life.

Not a word I would choose. But, ok.

Nature counts on the fact that if left to develop it will result in a human being.

Biologically, it already IS a human being. Is it not already human? Yes. Is it not already an organism? It is. Does it not already physically EXIST as a human organism? It does.

Stopping that development by killing the developing egg (zygote) is precluding a human life from developing into a person.

That's a debate for another thread. However, as you have tied it to the development and biology, above. . . I have to point it out to you that the most basic definition for what a natural "person" is - is simply "a human being." Conceivably, any "human being" of any age, sex, color, stage of development or age would MEET that criteria. Just by "being" a human being.

No amount of slicing and dicing the definition of the development of a human being is going to alter that. Abortion is therefore, killing a future human being at best and taking a human life at worst. Pretty obvious really.

For the sake of this discussion, I am trying to keep it objective. Comments like "at Best" and "at Worse" do not really address the real issue of this thread. Specifically, about whether or not it is a child.

The real question is: How do women who get abortions reconcile the killing of a life? After all, unless raped, they had a hand in creating that life. Now they are going to kill it. I would like to ask them why. I wouldn't judge them but it would be interesting to hear.

I hope you get answers to those questions.

Just not in this thread.

 

[Chuz Life]

An abortion kills a human life because if left to develop it will most likely result in a living, breathing human being.

LEO.

It already IS a "living human being." I'm not sure why you bring "breathing" into it but (via cellular respiration), a child in the womb also "breathes."

 

[Chuz Life]

The conflict isn’t really about when life begins or if an embryo/fetus is a ‘child’; the conflict is the result of those hostile to privacy rights refusing to respect the decision by many that an embryo/fetus is not a ‘child,’ and those hostile to privacy rights refusing to respect the rule of law.

This thread is NOT about the conflicts.

This thread is about whether or not an abortion kills a "child" REGARDLESS of the conflicts and or turmoil that might also need to be addressed at some point.

 

[CremeBrulee]

I didn't answer yet, nor have I gotten all the way through the thread. Sorry if what I am about to type has been covered. My hangup is on the definition of child for the purpose of this exercise. I would answer affirmatively depending on the stage of development. Where I start to get squishy about whether it's a child or not would be at very at the earliest stages of development. Can you please define it if you have not yet done so? If you have defined it then I will put my hand down now and continue reading.

Found it.

 

[Leo123]

An abortion kills a human life because if left to develop it will most likely result in a living, breathing human being.

LEO.

It already IS a "living human being." I'm not sure why you bring "breathing" into it but (via cellular respiration), a child in the womb also "breathes."

Because that is how some define a human being. They disconnect the life force from the result which is really wrong. An abortion KILLS life, I think I already said that.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are.

How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?

Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???

Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..

I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."

If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.

It really is THAT simple.

That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.

There is no CLEAR LINE here. No YES or NO answers.. No LEAPS to making people murderers or not.. I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..

"That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history."

I support abortion in both of the above situations. The first, only the extremists would suggest that it is wrong to abort a baby with no chance of developing a brain the most CRUCIAL organ in the ENTIRE body that without there is no actual life.

The second that is in the section of the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger and so yes if a woman was having triplets and one was crowding and suffocating the others and also endangering the mothers life then one of those triplets would have to be removed, depending on the damage to the other two and the risk to the life of the mother the possibility would be that all three would have to be removed.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

I didn't answer yet, nor have I gotten all the way through the thread. Sorry if what I am about to type has been covered. My hangup is on the definition of child for the purpose of this exercise. I would answer affirmatively depending on the stage of development. Where I start to get squishy about whether it's a child or not would be at very at the earliest stages of development. Can you please define it if you have not yet done so? If you have defined it then I will put my hand down now and continue reading.

Found it.

"Where I start to get squishy about whether it's a child or not would be at very at the earliest stages of development."

The situation is that from the very earliest stages of development it IS already beginning the process of developing into a child and so aborting it for no other reason than it's going to be inconvenient and fuck up the woman's lifestyle is the deliberate act of ending that life, which is killing it and as it's a premeditated act of killing something that is developing and living that would constitute murder.

 

[Chuz Life]

I am ONLY asking a question about what people's belief / conclusions are.

How is that tantamount to "depriving" them of ANYthing?

Because the way you phrased the question is implying that a women (couple) seeking In Vitro fertilization are murderers? (In fact you later confirmed that) Or the teen that forgot her contraceptives and went with "Plan B" is a murderer???

Reasonable people not PUSHED to those extremes CANNOT just "check no or yes".... And the problem in this issue is that "reasonable people" generally are attacked from both sides..

I can argue with scientific facts, for why a child in the zygote, embryo or fetal stage of their life is a "child."

If someone believes they are NOT a child? That's fine. Just vote NO.

It really is THAT simple.

That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history.

There is no CLEAR LINE here. No YES or NO answers.. No LEAPS to making people murderers or not.. I'm basically against abortions, but because I realize that Freedom depends on ME respecting choices of OTHERS that I personally might abhor --- I will not deny them the REASONABLE choices. And I'll STILL be "anti-murder" of fetuses in a lot of cases..

"That's fine until you see an ultrasound of "an embryo" that has NO Neural tube development at 3 months.. And it's YOUR WIFE carrying a baby with no chance of a brain.. Any REASONABLE person would NOT FORCE HER to term... Least she be called a "murderer"...

Or any women who was artificially inseminated and now has triplets crowding each other to death, endangering THEIR future and her life because of health history."

I support abortion in both of the above situations. The first, only the extremists would suggest that it is wrong to abort a baby with no chance of developing a brain the most CRUCIAL organ in the ENTIRE body that without there is no actual life.

The second that is in the section of the exceptions of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is in danger and so yes if a woman was having triplets and one was crowding and suffocating the others and also endangering the mothers life then one of those triplets would have to be removed, depending on the damage to the other two and the risk to the life of the mother the possibility would be that all three would have to be removed.

I may or may not agree on some if the justifications for an abortion that you just described.

However, What does any of that have to do with whether or not an abortion actually kills a child?

Please.

That is the ONLY topic for this thread.

Intentionally so.