Abortion Question

When it comes down to it - your opinions on this topic only really matter when it impacts you directly. You can believe what you want, take whatever action you want. Nobody should judge another.

Everybody should be able to make their own decision on their healthcare or their family's healthcare without anyone elses perspectives (other than a medical professional who is aware of the specifics of the case) coming into play.

I dont tell you when its time to put grandma in a home. I don't point out to anyone that they need to go to rehab and I don't insist my neighbor go for chemo - unless it effects me personally its none of my business.

Freedom of choice. Period.

 
When it comes down to it - your opinions on this topic only really matter when it impacts you directly. You can believe what you want, take whatever action you want. Nobody should judge another.
But for people who genuinely believe it's murder, how do you say that? You're against a guy robbing a bank and gunning down the bank teller, right? That's murder, and that's wrong.

People who believe it's a baby feel the same way. It's just "murder" to them. Doesn't matter if it's a person inside someone else, it's still a person to them, still murder.

That's what everyone has to wrap their head around. It's not cut-and-dry.

 
Hope you didnt think my response was directed at you Knapp.

Dare I ask about thoughts on assisted suicide? My feelings are the same with that and I suppose others feel that too is murder.

It comes back to when is it "life" and if I think its life at day 1 or day 100 then I should be able to do what I want before that time. Not murder. So no, not cut and dry but also not anyones decision but the people it impacts directly.

And no, shooting the bank teller is not the same (imo) as taking a medicine that prevents an egg from implanting in a uterus. Or having a surgical procedure to remove a cluster of cells. If a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb, then Id say termination is inappropriate, and you could judge. Otherwise no - its apples to oranges.

 
I agree with you on a lot of that. Regarding the fetus being viable, what happens 30 years from now when a fertilized egg can be gestated in a device? Is it life at fertilization then? I think at least part of the riddle can be solved then.

Assisted suicide, I can't say I'm against it. It's their life, so who am I to force them to live it? I think people should choose life, but I haven't gone through their life. Maybe all lives aren't worth living. And what a horrible thought that is.

 
30 years from now there will be no healthcare so we wont have to worry about it. :-)

I'm still gonna go with viability. If organs and brain arent developed enough to sustain life its not viable.

How about cryogenisis? Are those people living?

 
I don't know enough about cryogenesis to say. I will say the definition of life has changed over the years so that's a maybe.

 
The difference between assisted suicide and abortion occurring at some point when a fetus might be a person is that the fetus is the most vulnerable, helpless human that exists, completely incapable of defending itself, having not been given the chance to live a life.

Also, no fetus can survive on it's own outside of the wom. Not even non-aborted healthy babies can survive on their own. So if a fetus could survive outside the womb, that would make abortion inappropriate, does that mean that if a baby can't survive outside the womb, it would make infanticide appropriate? Not putting words in your mouth nm just trying to understand the underlying logic at play here.

Wherever in the process of childbirth that clump of cells gains personhood and becomes a human life (and we have no idea when that is), the moment that happens, opinions on abortion become about way more than your own life, because we're talking about 54 million abortions since 1973. Even if 1% of those were after whatever mysterious moment in time that a person is living inside a woman's womb, that's still 540,000 dead children.

 
The difference between assisted suicide and abortion occurring at some point when a fetus might be a person is that the fetus is the most vulnerable, helpless human that exists, completely incapable of defending itself, having not been given the chance to live a life.

Also, no fetus can survive on it's own outside of the wom. Not even non-aborted healthy babies can survive on their own. So if a fetus could survive outside the womb, that would make abortion inappropriate, does that mean that if a baby can't survive outside the womb, it would make infanticide appropriate? Not putting words in your mouth nm just trying to understand the underlying logic at play here.

Wherever in the process of childbirth that clump of cells gains personhood and becomes a human life (and we have no idea when that is), the moment that happens, opinions on abortion become about way more than your own life, because we're talking about 54 million abortions since 1973. Even if 1% of those were after whatever mysterious moment in time that a person is living inside a woman's womb, that's still 540,000 dead children.
When one says viability we're talking about the organs and brain being developed enough to function on their own.

 
When one says viability we're talking about the organs and brain being developed enough to function on their own.

But what does that mean? Humans are still unable to function on their own even after being born healthy at term.

If we're just talking about the first point of a pregnancy where it is possible for a fetus to survive outside of the womb, there's been plenty of fetuses born 22-24 weeks in that have survived. Over half of the states in the country allow abortions after that point in time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lungs being able to inflate deflate. Heart being able to hold a natural rhythm, Basics.

I think you're twisting the "function on their own" to mean that they need someone to feed them and etc? I'm talking about natural, basic bodily functions like breathing.

 
I think you're twisting the "function on their own" to mean that they need someone to feed them and etc? I'm talking about natural, basic bodily functions like breathing.

If we're just talking about the first point of a pregnancy where it is possible for a fetus to survive outside of the womb, there's been plenty of fetuses born 22-24 weeks in that have survived. Over half of the states in the country allow abortions after that point in time.


Even then, how many millions of dead babies are we talking about here?

 
Don't Christians believe the aborted baby goes directly to heaven? So doesn't that make them the lucky ones? They get to bypass this world of sin and the possibility of hell and go straight to heaven. At least that is what I believed when I was big into religion.

 
Don't Christians believe the aborted baby goes directly to heaven? So doesn't that make them the lucky ones? They get to bypass this world of sin and the possibility of hell and go straight to heaven. At least that is what I believed when I was big into religion.
Yeah, I've heard that. And I know there are some who believe it. But I'm not sure where this belief came from. If you look at Christianity throughout history with a critical eye, you can come up with all sorts of odd beliefs and superstitions.

 
Don't Christians believe the aborted baby goes directly to heaven? So doesn't that make them the lucky ones? They get to bypass this world of sin and the possibility of hell and go straight to heaven. At least that is what I believed when I was big into religion.
Yeah, I've heard that. And I know there are some who believe it. But I'm not sure where this belief came from. If you look at Christianity throughout history with a critical eye, you can come up with all sorts of odd beliefs and superstitions.
I like spaghetti!
default_wink.png
 
Back
Top