Thread: Help me with a logical understanding of this very emotional issue...

In all fairness, for the flip side - getting into the third trimester, the fetus is, in fact, a formed and recognizable baby, and is in fact capable of life - however fragile - outside of my artificial womb. Is there any argument that if I 'abort' it, at this point, it's murder?

I'm using an imaginary laboratory and artificial womb to remove as much emotional connection as is possible. I'm trying to examine this from as logical a viewpoint as I can.

I already believe strongly that if a woman's life...or sanity...is at serious risk, abortion is a potential life saver.

Originally Posted by EldonG

In all fairness, for the flip side - getting into the third trimester, the fetus is, in fact, a formed and recognizable baby, and is in fact capable of life - however fragile - outside of my artificial womb. Is there any argument that if I 'abort' it, at this point, it's murder?

I'm using an imaginary laboratory and artificial womb to remove as much emotional connection as is possible. I'm trying to examine this from as logical a viewpoint as I can.

I already believe strongly that if a woman's life...or sanity...is at serious risk, abortion is a potential life saver.

So its ok to kill humans, all humans, as long as you kill them by putting them into an environment that does not sustain human life? Or is this some special standard only applied to humans that do not include you?

Originally Posted by EldonG

In all fairness, for the flip side - getting into the third trimester, the fetus is, in fact, a formed and recognizable baby, and is in fact capable of life - however fragile - outside of my artificial womb. Is there any argument that if I 'abort' it, at this point, it's murder?

I'm using an imaginary laboratory and artificial womb to remove as much emotional connection as is possible. I'm trying to examine this from as logical a viewpoint as I can.

I already believe strongly that if a woman's life...or sanity...is at serious risk, abortion is a potential life saver.

Abortion always kills a woman if the offspring is female.

Originally Posted by Zef

So its ok to kill humans, all humans, as long as you kill them by putting them into an environment that does not sustain human life? Or is this some special standard only applied to humans that do not include you?

That which you quoted states that I figure at that point it's pretty obviously murder. Is that not clear enough?

Originally Posted by EldonG

I will admit to having trouble with the concept that that single cell, or any mass of cells that as of yet has an undefined shape, is a human being, and not just a potential human being, but as for the rest, I don't know what to think.

If I just dump the sperm and the egg without allowing them to combine, it's not murder. You say it becomes murder, the second after I've allowed it to happen?

That is what the anti-abortion position is; it just follows the strict logic of biology. Of course it has harsh implications for women's (negative) liberty; but it's a helpless bind, an either-or. Either a woman's liberty is sharply curtailed, or we acquiesce in the killing of a human being (however immature its state of development). The anti-abortion position is simple: the interest of continued life trumps all other interests...

Originally Posted by EldonG

I will admit to having trouble with the concept that that single cell, or any mass of cells that as of yet has an undefined shape, is a human being, and not just a potential human being, but as for the rest, I don't know what to think.

If I just dump the sperm and the egg without allowing them to combine, it's not murder. You say it becomes murder, the second after I've allowed it to happen?

well personaly i believe abortions okay for maybe a week or two, (definetly morning after and etc), becasue i don't see it as a living human untill after it begins serious growth. (as in human cells begin o form, not just one or two human ones and alot of blank ones)

At conception, you have the same dna structure as someone who is 100. Put them under a microscope, a geneticist/biologist can't tell the difference.

I consider "Life" as coming from a moral or religious point of view. Being a Christian...my position is quite simple. Who is best qualified in defining life than He that first designed and then implemented that design into "pro-creation" or natural creation...after the fact of INTELLIGENT introduction? (Genesis 1:26-28, 2:18-24). Personally, I find the sanctity of human life to be paramount. As life is all that any human possess..his/her most obvious personal possession, if you deny the fact of living...you TAKE EVERYTHING in this physical realm from a living representative of the human species.

From a logical standpoint....void of any religious reasoning whatsoever, its easy to establish the scientific fact that LIFE actually begins at "conception". Conception involves the union of a human father's sperm with a human mothers egg. The very basic rules of biology now inform us and demonstrate that even at this most early stage....The "zygote", aka one celled fertilized egg, is in possession of the FULL COMPLIMENT of human chromosomes, 23 each from the mother and father. These chromosomes are located inside the nucleus of the cell containing genes that, in turn determine and contain a complex link of DNA... a personal signature which determines everything in the future development of this life, things such as eye color, hair color....gender, etc.

Any Geneticist can study and analyze the developing and gestating human that its DNA is "special"...uniquely so, no other human on earth will possess the same DNA strain. This fact alone makes this gestating life an INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLE OF HUMAN LIFE...regardless of what life support that it might require to CONTINUE TO LIVE...this life is an individual life. Thus, what is being debated is not the existence of said life...but rather the value and quality of that individual life as defined via political or moral purposes. Although this small example of human life...the ZYGOTE, has no arms, legs, thought process, communication skills....it will continue to gestate and become a part of society....UNLESS interrupted...by external forces or design.


From a CHRISTIAN view and standpoint...when considered with intellectual honesty, this life must be granted the same respect and rights that sanctifies ALL HUMAN LIFE.

Although the scriptures do not mention the scientific terms of DNA or ZYGOTES or even ABORTION....the righteous teachings and instruction does extend concern to the PRE-BORN.

God can and does know all about us...in a physical sense (simply because of the already existing DNA traits contained even at the point of conception). The scriptures make this point specifically clear. God is responsible for creating the way that fetuses develop (Isaiah 1:5, Jer. 1:5).

The scriptures make no distinction between the new born...after birth and A gestating child still in the womb. For example, several passages found in the NT use the same exact GREEK word, "brephos", to describe infants..after birth the newly born, and a child within the womb. (Luke 1:41-42, 2:12, and 8:15).

But the most revealing fact found in the scripture is the declaration that declares that, ".....THE LIFE OF THE FLESH, is in the BLOOD." -- Lev. 17:11 As long as BLOOD is present and sustaining, LIFE EXISTS. When blood is found existing, especially INDIVIDUAL BLOOD.....HUMAN LIFE EXISTS, even in the womb. Life is not measured in cognitive thought patterns, or even human breathing....it is clearly defined by God, as having BLOOD support and sustain it. When the blood of the innocent is spilled...it is considered an abominable MURDER by God --Pr. 6:16-19