Abortion Rights MudPit

[enoch]

The implication that the existence of spontaneous abortions (a.k.a miscarriages) justifies induced abortions is as asinine as arguing that natural death justifies murder.

Pointy used math. Is there any way you could use math too? Always use math to prove your point if possible. Key.

Also, those stats most certainly include modern lifestyles and environmental toxins etc? So how are those any more natural or less natural. Obesity leads to abortion. As does being too thin. I am sure you follow. Meh

[Infidel144]

So, when a man and a woman have sex sometimes a fetus is made in the woman’s womb. If say, like God, you call for adulterous women to be killed without checking to she if they are pregnant, it follows that one, in this case God, is cool with abortion.

And still, the verse you pointed at says nothing about abortion.

And to be fair I don’t actually disagree with you, I agree with rational thought.

Yet:
Enoch: "I do not agree with your summary of what was. Shakalaka Ding Dong."

You don't agree. And then random nonsense.

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

[enoch]

Is Infidel trolling me or does he genuinely not understand the basic arguments being put forward?

[Infidel144]

The argument put forward is that 'God is very much pro abortion', and you pointing at a verse to support this assertion, while the verse you pointed at says nothing about abortion (while trying to shift away from your assertion, providing nonsense words, making inaccurate claims, instead of just providing the quote(s)).
But, as is now known, you "don’t actually disagree with" me (post 117)...

[enoch]

So yes.

[alhoon]

Please remember and respect the Mudpit forum rules that require posters to take effort to make their posts as neutral and impersonal as possible.

[PointOfViewGun]

The implication that the existence of spontaneous abortions (a.k.a miscarriages) justifies induced abortions is as asinine as arguing that natural death justifies murder.

Too bad nobody really argued that. The context here was where abortion existed in the Bible. Where else better than god's own design? If sanctity of fertilized egg was so important god would certainly not waste so many of them in the natural process it designed. It certainly doesn't with many other animals. I'm not sure how its analogous to natural death and murder. You have to accept that god by design aborts infinitely more living humans than those that are actually born and that there is a huge bowl of fertilized eggs in heaven.

[Cope]

Too bad nobody really argued that. The context here was where abortion existed in the Bible. Where else better than god's own design? If sanctity of fertilized egg was so important god would certainly not waste so many of them in the natural process it designed. It certainly doesn't with many other animals. I'm not sure how its analogous to natural death and murder. You have to accept that god by design aborts infinitely more living humans than those that are actually born and that there is a huge bowl of fertilized eggs in heaven.

As above, this is as asinine as arguing that if sanctity of life was so important, God would certainly not allow death.

[PointOfViewGun]

As above, this is as asinine as arguing that if sanctity of life was so important, God would certainly not allow death.

Not really. Life is not created to be eternal. If it was and god chose it to be finite for humans anyways you'd have a point, but you don't.

[enoch]

YHWH isn’t real. Should be addressed. Easily disprovable.

[Cope]

Not really. Life is not created to be eternal. If it was and god chose it to be finite for humans anyways you'd have a point, but you don't.

Mortality applies to zygotes as it does to all. Deliberate intervention by man to end an innocent human life is justified neither by inevitability of death nor the rate or morality among certain groups. The implication that high rates of spontaneous mortality among the unborn justifies induced abortions is an inversion of the truth; the prevalence of natural reproductive failure implores us to protect, not terminate, zygotes, embryos or fetuses.

[antaeus]

I wonder...

seeing as the abortion debate is relevant in non Christian societies... whether we can have this conversation in a way that doesn't reference God?

[Cope]

I wonder...

seeing as the abortion debate is relevant in non Christian societies... whether we can have this conversation in a way that doesn't reference God?

A zygote is a genetically distinct, individual human organism. He/she should be guaranteed the right to life.

There, I just made the argument without referencing God.

[antaeus]

A zygote is a genetically distinct, individual human organism. He/she should be guaranteed the right to life.

There, I just made the argument without referencing God.

I think you left out the word chance in there... as in "A zygote is a genetically distinct, individual human organism. He/she should be guaranteed a chance at life"

[Cope]

I think you left out the word chance in there... as in "A zygote is a genetically distinct, individual human organism. He/she should be guaranteed a chance at life"

Since he/she is already alive, my wording is correct.

[antaeus]

Since he/she is already alive, my wording is correct.

With no heart or circulatory system?

[Cope]

With no heart or circulatory system?

Yes.

[antaeus]

Yes.

Interesting. As this is an opinion I don't think I can press you further.

Certainly, as we have discussed previously, I agree with you that there is a neat logic to the opinion that a viable life starts at conception. But there is also logic to the perspective that suggests that an embryo isn't truly a viable life until it is able to sustain itself. I don't hold this view, I am simply expressing that there are other points at which potential life could be considered actual life. I don't agree that the fusion of genes should be the final moment of judgement, as it is too unstable at this point. But I couldn't answer for you the moment that transition should occur. But hey, that's why we have courtrooms and debates.

However I would be interested in hearing where you fall on the "is a virus alive" debate.

[Cope]

Interesting. As this is an opinion I don't think I can press you further.

Certainly, as we have discussed previously, I agree with you that there is a neat logic to the opinion that a viable life starts at conception. But there is also logic to the perspective that suggests that an embryo isn't truly a viable life until it is able to sustain itself. I don't hold this view, I am simply expressing that there are other points at which potential life could be considered actual life. I don't agree that the fusion of genes should be the final moment of judgement, as it is too unstable at this point. But I couldn't answer for you the moment that transition should occur. But hey, that's why we have courtrooms and debates.

However I would be interested in hearing where you fall on the "is a virus alive" debate.

There is a difference between what pro-choice activists refer to as a "viable life" and a life (hence the modifier "viable"). It is a matter of scientific fact that a zygote is alive. This is not an "opinion".

[enoch]

There is a difference between what pro-choice activists refer to as a "viable life" and a life (hence the modifier "viable"). It is a matter of scientific fact that a zygote is alive. This is not an "opinion".

Aren’t all cells alive? And a zygote is just a diploid cell pretty sure. Should we not go out in the sun because it kills cells? I don’t think your argument says as much as you seem to.