Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?

Quite the contrary..

I'm more concerned about what >harm< people do in their lifetime. Why abort the innocent before they have proven who they are? We should be aborting those that would be causing us harm. Does a baby do harm?

Now the complicated part is ... What is the definition of harm? Is what I would consider harm be what you consider harm?

edit on 27-10-2012 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

In fairness that doesn't actually answer my assumption that you dont care about a persons life after they have been born. And i would say its safe to agree that our definitions of "harm" are different.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

The question should not be if a developing Fetus is alive because it is...the real question is at what point does a clump of cells turn into a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING!

Well, congratulations! By determining that life is not life until the person becomes a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING you have determined your own acceptable criteria for ending it. This makes you an ethicist as well.

So why would a bacteria be considered life on Mars and a heartbeat NOT considered life on Earth?

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

The question should not be if a developing Fetus is alive because it is...the real question is at what point does a clump of cells turn into a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING!

Well, congratulations! By determining that life is not life until the person becomes a SENTIENT HUMAN BEING you have determined your own acceptable criteria for ending it. This makes you an ethicist as well.

So why would a bacteria be considered life on Mars and a heartbeat NOT considered life on Earth?

edit on 10/27/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

I did not infer what you state in your reply at all. I stated that there is no question that a Fertilized Egg Cell is alive...in fact the Sperm and Egg Cells are ALREADY ALIVE and are independent Life Forms on their own. What I was stating is that the question that should be answered is at what point of development of a Growing Fetus of a human Being become SENTIENT? This is the question that should be answered. A Cabbage is ALIVE and so is a Potato or a Carrot or a Bacteria...that does not mean those Life Forms are SENTIENT. The same can be said for a clump of cells attached to the uterine wall. Just because it will someday develop into a Sentient Being does not mean that it IS SENTIENT through out the period of it's development. It takes many months before a Fetus becomes even reactive to stimulus as the Fetus Brain will not reach a level of development for this activity to occur for months. It is not until the Final Stages of development that Sentience is present in a fetus. The close to exact moment would be a great help for knowing what the actual stakes are in making a decision. I still would not involve myself in another's business...but providing proper education, facts and making Birth Control as well as Plan B or the MORNING AFTER PILL easy to obtain would reduce these difficult decisions by a GREAT PERCENTAGE. Split Infinity

The creator is heartbroken for each life lost, his creation is so personal and priceless to Him

I am glad to finally hear the obvious being stated on this topic for once

Enough of these words to please those who wish it to be alright

Killing a living human so small and helpless is just WRONG

reply to post by saintinwaiting

I don't think there is anyone who really would disagree with your statement but we need to deal with the REALITIES. There will always be conditions where an Abortion is warranted as well as the possible best course of action. I find it sheer IDIOCY for anyone to place a 10 day old clump of Cells value above the value of the Woman's Life that is Impregnated.

To state that the Clump of Cells existence is of Greater Value over the Woman's Life is not only Selfish Conceptual Idealism but even worse...PURE IGNORANCE. What do you say to an Pregnant 11 Year Old who has been Raped by her Father? Do you tell her SHE MUST HAVE THE BABY? Or do we not prefer compassion and abort the Fetus.

Such decisions can be made much easier if that 11 year old was able to be educated to the fact that the SIMPLE TAKING OF A PILL shortly after being RAPED will eliminate the possibility of becoming PREGNANT. Here is where one side of this Heart Tearing Debate has become Hopelessly intractable and in my opinion...EVIL in it's inability to consider the VICTIM.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by selfharmonise
I like that scientists have the freedom to discuss and publish ideas like this - no matter how abhorrent they might be.

Rationally - they are correct. If society contends that abortion is acceptable, then infanticide should also be allowed. I can see how they follow that rational thought path - an infant cannot survive without the intervention and care of a parent....so following that...we should be allowed to dispose of youngsters up to the age of 16!

Rationally, they are correct. But just because they have thought of it...doesnt mean they actually really believe it.

This is an exercise in logic, that's designed to make us think.

If you read to the bottom of the article before you get too outraged - he makes a good point.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.” Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.” He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

I am not taking the article seriously - it is designed to make us question our paradoxical morality...and it has achieved its aim.

edit on 26-10-2012 by selfharmonise because: (no reason given)

Oh yea its logic all right. Like the logic upswing a serial killer has when he moves from animals to humans......and then not just one but two and three and so on.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?

What you are suggesting is that killing in or out of the womb can be justifed based on subjective live quality ideas. We could then means test life on one side of the womb or another.

reply to post by Logarock

I believe you have made a complete error of analogy and association with your reply. It seems you and others are equating the Death of any aspect of development of a Fetus as well as the beginning basic Clump of Dividing Cells which cannot be labeled a fetus as the same thing as Aborting a Fetus that is in it's last Trimester.

This has neither LOGIC to it nor does it have equal value of Moral Potential.

We KILL many things on a daily basis. We eat...we kill insects, rodents, fish, cattle...the list goes on. The Killing of a Clump of Cells via either abortion or Plan B or the Morning After Pill has no LOGICAL VALUE EQUAL IN MORALITY with anything greater than any other life form lacking SENTIENCE.

Your only argument is POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. But if a Fertilized Egg that cannot implant itself into the uterine wall is lost due to using THE MORNING AFTER PILL...it has no more MORAL ISSUE than BILLIONS of SPERM AND HUMAN EGG CELLS which are lost in a FERTILITY CLINIC.

You reply and argument have no logical basis or veracity of being MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE. Such ability to prevent Impregnation is a very important step to lower the number of Abortions. Split Infinity

Jehovah God did indeed decree that a person begins living when they are conceived in the mother's womb. While a person is not able to see into a woman's womb and see what is taking place, the Creator of sight and also the great Scientist who designed life surely understands it. And he makes it quite clear that he is very interested in human life, even a person who is unborn.

For example God inspired these words:

(Psalm 139:16) . . .Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.

God looks into the womb and can see the person, who he is. And not only who that person is as a fetus, but even who that person will be as a grown man or woman.

Again Jehovah inspired these words in the Holy Scriptures:

(Job 3:3) . . .Also the night that someone said, ‘An able-bodied man has been conceived!’


Notice at conception God already considers the person as an "able-bodied man." How is this possible?

Well God is the one who designed the DNA code. He designed it so he can certainly read it. He inspired another Bible writer to state:

(Luke 12:7) . . .But even the hairs of YOUR heads are all numbered. Have no fear; YOU are worth more than many sparrows.


Yes God has such a keen interest in each one of us that he knows how many hairs. That is not a great feat for God.

The universe is made up of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each of these with tens if not hundreds of billions of stars. That is a huge number beyond him understand or reasoning. Yet God knows each one of them by name:

(Psalm 147:4) . . .He is counting the number of the stars; All of them he calls by [their] names.

Man who leaves God out of the equation then the only morality is left to whim. And thus good becomes bad, and bad becomes good. God is considered evil, because he is good and evil men rule:

(Ezekiel 18:29) . . .“‘And the house of Israel will certainly say: “The way of Jehovah is not adjusted right.” As for my ways, are they not adjusted right, O house of Israel? Are not the ways of YOU people the ones that are not adjusted right?’

(Isaiah 5:20) . . .Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

To those of you who scoff at God's word as being the moral guideline may you be reproved by the above or at least take caution by the following:

(Isaiah 5:21) . . .Woe to those wise in their own eyes and discreet even in front of their own faces!

Human reasoning says to trust in your own heart, yet Godly wisdom teaches us how foolish that is:

(Proverbs 28:26) . . .He that is trusting in his own heart is stupid. . .


Take it for what it's worth. I believe in God and believe he has the right as the Sovereign of the universe to govern, and if he decrees that life begins at conception (especially since he can see into the very genetic makeup of the newly formed human life in the embryo and contemplate it and see everything how it will grow and who it will turn into, something a human cannot do, or even begin to fathom to do) then we should respect that.

Abortion is murder. It is disgusting. It is wrong. It is morally repugnant. That is not my opinion. It is God's word on the matter. I prefer to yield to it. For he is always right, while we are mostly almost always wrong.

By the way in the law given to Moses for the nation of Israel if a person caused an abortion and the unborn child died because of it, God's law stated that the person causing the abortion was to be put to death, that is where we get the term "eye for an eye" from. "Soul for soul." He considered the unborn child to be alive and the person that caused its death worthy of the same fate, death.

Don't play with human life. A human is a human from the time of conception.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock

 

I believe you have made a complete error of analogy and association with your reply. It seems you and others are equating the Death of any aspect of development of a Fetus as well as the beginning basic Clump of Dividing Cells which cannot be labeled a fetus as the same thing as Aborting a Fetus that is in it's last Trimester.

This has neither LOGIC to it nor does it have equal value of Moral Potential.

We KILL many things on a daily basis. We eat...we kill insects, rodents, fish, cattle...the list goes on. The Killing of a Clump of Cells via either abortion or Plan B or the Morning After Pill has no LOGICAL VALUE EQUAL IN MORALITY with anything greater than any other life form lacking SENTIENCE.

Your only argument is POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. But if a Fertilized Egg that cannot implant itself into the uterine wall is lost due to using THE MORNING AFTER PILL...it has no more MORAL ISSUE than BILLIONS of SPERM AND HUMAN EGG CELLS which are lost in a FERTILITY CLINIC.

You reply and argument have no logical basis or veracity of being MORALLY OBJECTIONABLE. Such ability to prevent Impregnation is a very important step to lower the number of Abortions. Split Infinity

No its real simple. You are trying to control the argument with terms that serve your position. Points and arguments that I understand but dont believe hold much merit. Its not a matter of sentience so it is morally objectionable.

reply to post by Logarock


Let me ask you this then...do you object to the BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs which are discarded at a Fertility Clinic? Do you find this Morally Objectionable? Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by saintinwaiting

 

I don't think there is anyone who really would disagree with your statement but we need to deal with the REALITIES. There will always be conditions where an Abortion is warranted as well as the possible best course of action. I find it sheer IDIOCY for anyone to place a 10 day old clump of Cells value above the value of the Woman's Life that is Impregnated.

To state that the Clump of Cells existence is of Greater Value over the Woman's Life is not only Selfish Conceptual Idealism but even worse...PURE IGNORANCE. What do you say to an Pregnant 11 Year Old who has been Raped by her Father? Do you tell her SHE MUST HAVE THE BABY? Or do we not prefer compassion and abort the Fetus.

Such decisions can be made much easier if that 11 year old was able to be educated to the fact that the SIMPLE TAKING OF A PILL shortly after being RAPED will eliminate the possibility of becoming PREGNANT. Here is where one side of this Heart Tearing Debate has become Hopelessly intractable and in my opinion...EVIL in it's inability to consider the VICTIM.

Split Infinity

These arguments are not the whole of the story but its so easy to camp out here in 11 year old gets raped. Its bad everybody knows that.

Lets take a case of someone wanting to crack open the skull durring a partial birth event and suck the brains out of a human that could survive out of the womb. And lets move it on up to the reason for this thread and that is killing young baby children for one reason or another. These issues leave your arguments of worst case in another palce.

An 11 year old getting raped and with child has no place in an argument about killing young children. Logical real world madness. The tragic 11 year old picture is not a light that serves to shead light on the issue as a whole.

reply to post by Logarock

You did not answer my question...if you would please? Split Infinity

There is another scripture that comes to mind for a generation of people who condone such evils such as abortion and murder of unborn children:

(Proverbs 30:12) . . .There is a generation that is pure in its own eyes but that has not been washed from its own excrement.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock

 

Let me ask you this then...do you object to the BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs which are discarded at a Fertility Clinic? Do you find this Morally Objectionable? Split Infinity

If it would ever lead me to thinking that 2 year old children could be terminated then yes.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock

 

You did not answer my question...if you would please? Split Infinity

Well I got news for you. I am one of those that believe these are cases that can be terminated for the good of the young girl.

It bothers some, and I have always hated the position some hard liners take, but that position doesnt bother me. But like I said I also consider it far removed from the question at large and certainly far far away from the op.

reply to post by Logarock

Your answer has nothing to do nor can it be applied to my question in any way. Nor can the association used as your condition to find my question possibly Morally Objectionable apply by any Logical Concept.

I am asking you only this...Fertility Clinics destroy BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs during the process of getting several eggs ready for implantation for a couple to have a Baby that they have not been able to conceive.

Now I ask you ONLY THIS...Do you find the destruction of all those BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs OBJECTIONABLE?

Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Logarock

 

Your answer has nothing to do nor can it be applied to my question in any way. Nor can the association used as your condition to find my question possibly Morally Objectionable apply by any Logical Concept.

I am asking you only this...Fertility Clinics destroy BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs during the process of getting several eggs ready for implantation for a couple to have a Baby that they have not been able to conceive.

Now I ask you ONLY THIS...Do you find the destruction of all those BILLIONS of Fertilized Eggs OBJECTIONABLE?

Split Infinity

Well that sort of thing happens in nature. Females lose many many fertilized eggs every year through natural causes. But we need to start form the other end. Lets talk 2 year old children and down.

reply to post by Logarock

So...I am taking it that your answer to my question is NO...you do not find the destruction of Billions of Fertilized Eggs Morally Objectionable....correct?

Split Infinity

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Cant help but get he impression that all your bothered about is making sure a life comes to term but then couldn't care less how that life is lived - Defeats the purpose almost?

What you are suggesting is that killing in or out of the womb can be justified based on subjective live quality ideas. We could then means test life on one side of the womb or another.

Cant help being a realist, i wouldn't have a child be born into a family who abuse them throughout childhood, do not raise them as adults who can live productively in the adult world and spend their lives almost in a state in constant depression, negative thinking and at a disconnect level with their peers. Im certainly not suggesting that this is the case for all babies born into undesirable circumstances but this happens to TO many people

The phrase "i wish i was never born" is meant by some people, all the more reason why women should be able to make that choice about bringing life into the world because if they aren't ready to do it, then who are you to dictate differently? Who is anyone really?