It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I don't advocate or encourage abortion. I simple do not believe in calling doctors and women who choose to engage in such activities murderers.
Even if it is so premature that it needs help breathing, but if it can be born out of womb, then it is a living, breathing being and it has the right to life. To be honest, I don't know when that stage is.
If that point is indeed 22 weeks, then abortion past 22 weeks should be illegal, since the fetus is capable of experiencing birth (soul imputation).
I'm not to familiar with the developmental stages of a fetus, so I wont speculate any further. I will say, if the fetus takes its breath during the process of abortion, and the process is continued, then it is murder. If the abortion is completed without the fetus taking its breath, then its not murder. So I personally think abortion laws should be designed based on that. Does that answer your question?
So I am really curious about something, do you really believe it is morally acceptable to pull a baby partially out of the womb one day from delivery, stab it in the back of the head, and suck the brains out? Or how about torture it while its head is still inside, is that morally acceptable as well?
Why do you think God used the phrase, "breath of life"? Its because living is associated with breathing, and death isn't. Why is it so difficult to see that its an idiom, cleverly attatched to a physiological action.
I'm not saying that abortion isn't a sin, nor am I trying to morally justify it. Those decisions are between the patient and God. I'm just saying that abortion is not murder.
A fetus, even outside the womb is not alive till it breathes, so any damage to the body is not damage to a human being unless it starts breathing. There is an entire circulatory conversion that occurs once the child takes its first breath. I really think you are letting emotion control you're reasoning.
Okay so it is not murder to pull a baby at 39 weeks gestation from the womb, toss it in the air, and blow it away with a shot gun? I mean you have enough time to do so before it breathes so this mustn't be murder. Why isn't it murder? It doesn't pass my soul test, which is solely based on oxygen touching the lungs.....like that is retarded man...it really is..and I am sorry if I seem short but your to smart for such a dumb position.
You simply cannot win an argument with a person who is insane. A sane person listening to your presentation may become convinced, but there is no way of convincing a person who is not sane of anything. For example, Lets say I am holding a pineapple in my hand and claim that it is a pineapple, but another person in the room instead claims that it is a tv remote. I would be completely incapable of refuting this persons claim as I would have no stronger proof other than a pineapple being in my hand. This person and I would have a fundamental disagreement about reality, and the only solution to this would be to the resolution of a mental illness. I find the above example, parallels to the discussions I have upon morality. For example I may say that torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil. Yet there are those who would argue that morality is based on the subjective whims of each individual person. Those who argue this are simply calling my pineapple a tv remote. There is a fundamental disagreement about reality. I have no stronger argument that the torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that torturing babies is objectively evil. I cannot hope to convince anyone who disagrees with such things that objective morality is the truth behind reality as they simply are not in touch with reality.
Drinking in excess is a sin, does that mean it should be illegal? If you say yes, then your problem runs deeper than pro-life vs pro-choice.
6f. A child’s “breathing,” her intake of oxygen, begins long before birth. Some prochoice religious groups argue that as Adam’s life began when God breathed into him, so each human life begins when the baby is born and takes his first breath. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of the unborn’s respiration:
While breathing in the usual sense does not begin until birth, the process of respiration in the more technical biological sense of the transfer of oxygen from the environment of the living organism occurs from the time of conception...it is the mode but not the fact of this oxygen transfer which changes at birth.[viii]
Science Clarified El-Ex Embryo and Embryonic Development Embryo and embryonic development The term embryo applies to the earliest form of life, produced when an egg (female reproductive cell) is fertilized by a sperm (male reproductive cell; semen). The fertilized egg is called a zygote. Shortly after fertilization, the zygote begins to grow and develop. It divides to form two cells, then four, then eight, and so on. As the zygote and its daughter cells divide, they start to become specialized, meaning they begin to take on characteristic structures and functions that will be needed in the adult plant or animal.An embryo is a living organism, like a full-grown rose bush, frog, or human. It has the same needs—food, oxygen, warmth, and protection—that the adult organism has.These needs are provided for in a variety of ways by different kinds of organisms.
If Adam wasn't alive until being given the breath of life, AFTER the formation of his body.... If Israel is not resurrected until being given the breath of life, AFTER the formation of her body... If we are BORN AGAIN, not CONCEIVED AGAIN.... Why would God deviate from His specially crafted theme to put a soul in a fetus while in the womb? Show me what the spiritual lesson would be behind 'life at conception'.