Do they realize that abortion happens all time, and naturally? Not all eggs are fertilized and not all "pregnancies" (for all lifeforms) come to term.
They say that abortion is always the most abhorrent SIN... They say that all things happen because of god's will, so when only one spermatozoide fertilized an ovum, can we say that this same god is "aborting" millions of possible children?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Of course when pro-lifers describe themselves as "pro-life", this doesn't extend to the whole of nature.
It often doesn't even extend to other human life. Only religious superstition can make people cry over an insentient balstocyst, but not care about the suffering of a fully formed human because they happen to be gay or have gender dysphoria.
If morality doesn't first and foremost try and reduce and whenever possible avoid unnecessary suffering then it's not much use. Trying to please bronze age patriarchal misogynists, just because they claim their rules were from a deity, is never going to work 2000 years later.
In other words, since people die every day, why should we ban murder.
It is said 20-40% of all fertilized eggs do not reach healthy birth, with most of them dying in the first 48 hours.
@Breezy you made a mistake in your comparison, you mentioned "people" in your comparison, a zygote is clearly not a person, just a possibility of one. So your silly comparison here does not work."in other words."
Right; calling a zygote a person is at best a controversial postulate.
Replace the word people with dogs if it helps you out. Every dog that is alive will die naturally, therefore its ok to kill them.
Do you think murder is ever morally acceptable?
You have not considered the option of simply not reproducing. This would limit the number of deaths, and would require no violent actions.
It will also relieve Earth's ecosystem of a burden... But even in his statement, the last part does not follow from the first one
And people do kill them, all the time. In some parts of the world dogs are just considered another form of food. In the US, we decided killing dogs can get you in trouble. (Not as much trouble as killing humans, but in trouble on the rare occasion people get caught.)
I was directly responsible for killing my 2 most favorite and most loved dogs myself, I just had the help of a paid professionals that can do it in a very gentle and humane way. Did not get into any sort of legal trouble whatsoever, nor did the paid professional.
Or in other words, dogs are also not humans, you can not compare these things, sorry bud. Do I like my pets more than many humans... probably ;)
"Or in other words, dogs are also not humans, you can not compare these things"
I don't understand why people do this. Its as if they don't accept any comparison that isn't comparing a thing to itself. So let me ask you, what comparison would you allow?
An analogous comparison that doesn't equate murder (your word) with killing dogs for a start.
How about this comparison, a fallible human terminating a blastocyst that is insentient, can feel no pain, and register no emotion or store any memories, and can live and has the potential to live only by using, and as part of a woman's body, and which can't suffer it's termination in any rel sense.
An omniscient omnipotent deity with literally limitless choice, losing it's temper and torturing a newborn baby to death over 7 days, as the deity in the bible does when it is angered because that helpless baby was conceived illegitimately. Or pick any one of the limitless acts of barbaric sadistic cruelty in the bible, or the koran, by a deity that people choose not only to believe is real, but to worship for the absurd promise they may survive their own physical deaths in any meaningful way.
That seems like a more salient comparison to me.
A blastocyst or a zygote is obviously a very controversial subject. Very difficult to draw comparisons to as we all tend to put human life on a very special pedestal that is basically w/o close comparison. Making matters worse we have a very VERY difficult time trying to define what life is, hence the popular notion of "soul" to try and simplify it.
Prolife/prochoice frequently boils down to for the pro life side: they define a fertilized egg is a human, because of god given "soul." Which is completely unsupportable concept, (both god and soul.) OPINION!
Take out the "soul" concept and god created life concept and suddenly you just have a clump of cells that activated with the presence of the other half of the dna information that can go from just a few cells to eventually trillions if everything goes right and with intense absolute critical support from the host mother body.
This dna combination of cells does and should have rights, increasing amount of rights as its potential to be full human as it grows ever more complex, but until it can survive w/o the host body, in no way should those rights supercede the rights of the host body to have control of what goes on to itself.
To me, if all these pro life folks were so interested in being pro life, why not invest their collective trillions in developing a way to have NICU's that can take the viability outside of the womb week number down to 1 week or zero? And then taking on the raising, education of all these millions of unwanted children themselves? They have the resources. Instead of abortion clinics, it would just be adoption clinics where if a mother has an unwanted child they can have the blastocyst removed and the pro life crowd can pay the enormous expense of grown and then dealing with millions of unwanted children. All the pro-lifers may have to each donate 1000's a year to this cause, but if it is so important to them, that should not be a problem. My guess is all these pro life folks will scatter like the wind when it suddenly will cost them many thousands of years to stand behind their principle rather then tell a poor, vulnerable mother she must carry the child to term whether she wants to or not, even if their is cheap, humane ways to end the process.
Of course, here in the US, the abortion debate is just a giant red herring that the GOP uses to win free one issue voters. I am not even a little worried that SCOTUS will overturn Roe vs Wade, because they would be killing the goose that lays golden eggs, (free votes,) for the GOP. They will just make another excuse why ROE v Wade does not get overturned entirely as there has been for sometime now and in other times the past 45 years a "republican hand picked" majority in Scotus. Instead they will turn it over to the states, and the rich will continue to have private abortions, while the poor, disadvantaged women lose rights to their own body simply due to economic circumstances/access.
The part that really cracks me up is all this abortion restriction going on, is just fueling innovation to have: easy, safe, mail to the privacy of your home abortion kits for weeks 0-12. Which is actually a lot closer than most people realize. Cutting out the pro life crowd entirely. (As it should be.)
I don't believe in souls.
How does not wanting you to kill your own kid, now make me responsible for raising him?
So you'd murder a child because it wasn't your responsibility. Damn John, that's cold.
Ok lets get down to it. If you do not believe in souls, why do you consider a zygote to be a human? Or perhaps a 5 ounce blob of cells that is wholly dependent on the host and lacks all higher brain function. What gives this tiny tiny organism with the possibility of being a human, the distinction of being a human?
When is the point you consider a collection of cells to be a human that deserves more rights then the mother does over her own body?
If you dodge on these questions I think it is fair to assume you have no idea, and you are hanging onto an ideology for no reason other then that is what you want and what people told you to believe.
A very salient, concise and direct question, Breezy won't touch it.
HA HA HA HA !!!!!
I'm glad someone has the time and patients for this nonsense.
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ,
People love to eat dogs. They are supposed to taste great if they are killed a certain way.
The way we kill them in Korea is to string them up by their hind legs and beat them to death with a broomstick. (That's an actual fact.) The dog soup, po-shing-tang, is not bad tasting unless the restaurant uses a lot of fat along with the meat. If the meat is lean, it's as tasty as any other meat. If there is fat in the meat it smells like wet dog and tastes about the same. Everything is in the preparation.
About the zygote thing, i have to say that sometimes, for me, the first visceral emotion, tranlasted in thought is to make an equivocation between the possbility of existence and the actual reality of it...
Of course banning murder is a right course of action, but your sentence implies a generality. It is like saying: "people die of starvation every day, why should we ban murder? But how your comment answer my post, specifically the second part of it?
And for that matter, i am not saying that you can abort a baby that will be healthy, poses no threat to the mother, and is wanted by the two soon-to be parents.
PS: i apologize to all of you if my answers contain some grammatical errors as english is not my native tongue.
The second part is simply not applicable to me; its either a misrepresentation of Christian theology, or the theology of Christian's you know and I don't.
So please educate me about it?
I mean who doesn't know how the story goes? In the beginning God created the world one way, then sin entered the narrative, and the world became another way. So in Christian theology, sin and death are not part of God's will, but it is a reality we now have to deal with.
I remember a verse in the OT stating he does good and evil:
So you're telling me that before "sin entered the narrative", if Adam and Eve were to procreate, there would be one ovum and one spermatozoide, and that these two entities will match with a probability of 100%?
It gets real fun (ugly?) when you consider the Adam and Eve story, and where all the children come from, and where their children come from etc. This insane story wants to explain to us that the first few generations of all people were heavily heavily into multi generational intense immediate family incest and we should all be okay with that.
Its the same within evolution; we are all a giant related family unit no matter what theory you prefer.
Except homosapies did not arise from one single homosapien parents like the bible. Instead as we crossed over and out of homo erectus (a very blurry line,) and other common species ancestors in a slow process that involved a much larger initial pool of homo sapien parents. As homo sapien arose and homo erectus among others died out and went extinct there was much cross breeding before those other original "parent" species died out.
Dismiss the notion of a "tree" or tree root system as it is inaccurate for this sort of scale.
If you're using a scale that doesn't work, then use a scale that does. All mutations must at some point arise from a single individual then spread.