The Moment Life Begins....

a reply to: ArizonaGal

In order to make the argument about how old the being is, or how big the being is, or how many cells the being has....where can you draw the line?

The OP literally makes the case that there is no point which can Define the beginning of "life." Any and all lines drawn -- yay or nay -- are opinion and therefore arbitrary.

a reply to: Boadicea

Ok, perhaps semantics are getting in the way.

We don't have to call it "murder", which has a legal definition in most countries here on planet Earth.

But the difference between miscarriages and premeditated abortions should be pretty clear. The latter requires the WILL to take a human life - by a sentient human being.

Now, I suppose you could argue that God or nature also had a will to take the life. And I have no direct experience of their minds, so I couldn't tell you. But as a human, what I do know is that if I had a miscarriage it was not my will, but if I premeditated an abortion it was my will.

a reply to: ArizonaGal

let's talk about the concept of "POTENTIAL".

Okay.

Can anyone be certain that a soul's physical life in one body has the same potential as in another physical body?

Can anyone be assured that a soul's physical life with these parents will provide the same potential as with other parents?

Can anyone be confident that a soul's physical life at this time will have greater potential than at a later time?

a reply to: Boadicea

Well, then that's the OP's opinion.

I make a different case. I mean, I thought the whole point of a forum is for debate and dissenting opinions? Or am I on Twitter.

a reply to: ArizonaGal

Perhaps God in His ultimate wisdom understood that not all pregnancies are ideal and willfully gave women that option. Perhaps God in His ultimate wisdom wants women to have that option.

Many mammals are capable of self-aborting when the mother senses trouble. Often because of the presence of unknown males (the "Bruce Effect,"). Perhaps due to illness, drought or famine, etc.

originally posted by: ArizonaGal
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, then that's the OP's opinion.

I make a different case. I mean, I thought the whole point of a forum is for debate and dissenting opinions? Or am I on Twitter.

I'm not understanding... you gave your opinions, I responded with mine. Is that
a problem for you? You don't want your opinions discussed or responded to?

Another point that abortionists make - the being is part of the mother because it is like a parasite that depends on the mother to live.

Well, going back to my thing about toddlers - they also depend on the mother to live. Unlike other animals, human beings are not self sufficient until several years, and they don't even retain memory before the age of three or four.

Is abortionist logic going to evolve into the acceptance of killing young children, because they're not self sufficient and can't remember anything? Their minds are still developing, outside of the womb. The development of a human is a long process, and only a very small part of it takes place in the womb. But it does take place, it IS development, the spark has already been ignited.

You can legally kill that baby in most places, but you're extinguishing a forming life.

a reply to: Boadicea

Of course not, we humans can't be "certain" or "confident" of anything. We're like mushrooms....kept in the dark and shoveled sh*t, or something, can't remember how that saying goes.

But that's part of the point. You DON"T know. The only thing you DO know, the only thing you have direct knowledge of, is your own self. You (people in general) don't even know or can't prove that we're not in a simulation and all the supposed "people" around you aren't programs - because you have no direct knowledge of them, only sensory.

The only thing that you "know", is the choice that YOU make. Do you choose to end the forming life, or do you choose to birth it and give it up for adoption if necessary.

a reply to: Boadicea

So, my last post was about how we don't know. But here's my "hunch":

I see life as a school, training for soul development. I'm not actually worried about the souls of aborted children because I think they will be taken back up and stationed elsewhere. I think that probably, we're all eternal souls that couldn't die if we wanted to, and that we decide (in the interludes between our "lives") what our next mission will be based on our soul development needs.

But what matters most is the choice you make. It is your choice, the baby has no say. The choice that you make, as a fellow soul, will reflect on you and be recorded. So, in my humble opinion that probably doesn't mean much to anybody, I think that people in general need to take care with their choices.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm enjoying the conversation with you. What I was pointing out was that you basically responded with "Well OP said this and why are you dissenting", which I found kind of funny, LOL

a reply to: ArizonaGal

Another point that abortionists make - the being is part of the mother because it is like a parasite that depends on the mother to live.

I've seen that opinion expressed and argument made.

For the purpose of rights and legislation, the point is that rights do not require anything from anyone else. The unborn require everything from the mother and often to her detriment.

The mother undoubtedly already has pre-existing rights.

At what point does the unborn rights cancel the mother's rights?

a reply to: Boadicea

Nope. Spontaneous abortions happen all the time.

Ya that is called a miscarriage partner. And it shouldn't be confused
in any way with an abortion. Morally spiritually clinically and
personally they are two different things and worlds apart.

a reply to: ArizonaGal

Of course not, we humans can't be "certain" or "confident" of anything. We're like mushrooms....kept in the dark and shoveled sh*t...

That's for sure!!!

The only thing that you "know", is the choice that YOU make. Do you choose to end the forming life, or do you choose to birth it and give it up for adoption if necessary.

I'll be the first to admit there's far too much I do not know -- and cannot know! -- to speak authorities on the matter.

But that's where you take a good hard look at what we do know. For example, the fact that not all pregnancies are destined for a live healthy birth even when the baby is very much wanted and loved. And that God and nature do provide the means and resources to terminate pregnancies. Or that too many children live a hellish life of pain and suffering. And that many women are left with debilitating medical conditions... and that some women die from pregnancy or delivery complications.

There are no perfect or easy one-size-fits-all answers.

a reply to: ArizonaGal

Your argument is lacking. There is a huge difference between some cells with potential to a walking talking human being regardless of their size or age. That is a non-starter.

Two cells is not a human being. They have potential, nothing more. Using your lax interpretation I could convict you of murder every time you wash your hands and scrape off a few thousand cells. Those are human skin cells. There is a point where the navigation of what constitutes a human being is genuine and then there is a point where it has become absurd.

a reply to: ArizonaGal

I see life as a school, training for soul development. I'm not actually worried about the souls of aborted children because I think they will be taken back up and stationed elsewhere. I think that probably, we're all eternal souls that couldn't die if we wanted to, and that we decide (in the interludes between our "lives") what our next mission will be based on our soul development needs.

I could have written that! It pretty much sums up my beliefs. I would only add that I don't believe the soul inhabits the physical body until birth. It may come and go before birth, but doesn't take up permanent residency until birth.

But what matters most is the choice you make. It is your choice, the baby has no say. The choice that you make, as a fellow soul, will reflect on you and be recorded. So, in my humble opinion that probably doesn't mean much to anybody, I think that people in general need to take care with their choices.

Again, I agree for the most part. Although I think the soul does have a choice and say in the matter. Just as God does not compel (nor promise) motherhood, neither does God compel (or promise) the gift of life.

I would also think the individual's motivation matters as well. But I think that's between individuals and God... and their own conscience.

"Choose wisely" as the wise knight once said.

originally posted by: ArizonaGal
But as a human, what I do know is that if I had a miscarriage, it was not my will, but if I premeditated an abortion, it was my will.

I've had both and stand by both. Plus have 2 LIVING children.

My mind is on the life any LIVING CHILD will have.

Should I starve 2 -- just to have another?

originally posted by: ArizonaGal


I see life as a school, training for soul development. I'm not actually worried about the souls of aborted children because I think they will be taken back up and stationed elsewhere. I think that probably, we're all eternal souls that couldn't die if we wanted to, and that we decide (in the interludes between our "lives") what our next mission will be based on our soul development needs.

I agree with this.

originally posted by: ArizonaGal
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm enjoying the conversation with you. What I was pointing out was that you basically responded with "Well OP said this and why are you dissenting", which I found kind of funny, LOL

Gotcha! (I think 🤔)

I'm enjoying this discussion as well-- thank you! I like being challenged to examine my opinions with different perspectives. It doesn't mean I'll change my mind, but it helps me flesh out my thoughts and opinions.

a reply to: Randyvine2

Ya that is called a miscarriage partner. And it shouldn't be confused
in any way with an abortion. Morally spiritually clinically and
personally they are two different things and worlds apart.

It's also called a spontaneous abortion. Abortion itself is the termination of pregnancy by any means. Clinically speaking, the two are often/usually treated the same.

The cause/reason varies... the end result does not.

originally posted by: ArizonaGal
One more and then I'll shut up for awhile - let's talk about the concept of "POTENTIAL".

A young being has more potential than an old being. A young, developing person has potential, whereas as an elderly person, though most likely revered for their wisdom, has less potential.

Think of the point of conception, sperm meeting the egg, as the ignition of the spark of potential. There is potential for it to grow and develop. Just like a four year old has potential to grow and develop.

Before the sperm met the egg, there was no potential. But once the sperm met the egg, potential was born.

Your argument is nonsense. The "potential" referred to is potential to survive up to and including birth. Two cells at the moment of conception have the "potential" to become a human being at some point in the future, which means that at that moment they are not a human being. Trying to equate that with an individuals potential in various areas of pursuit is a spectacular bit of gibberish. It has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of when human life begins.

No two human beings have precisely the same potential. That does not make killing them acceptable under any circumstances. Your entire argument is infuriating as you have reduced what was a serious discussion about preserving life to a farcical absurdity.

Trying to determine the exact moment human life begins has absolutely nothing to do with assessing a persons height, weight, artistic, intellectual, or philosophical potential. Thank you for clearly demonstrating the fact that you do not have the mental or emotional maturity for this conversation.

Think of the point of conception, sperm meeting the egg, as the ignition of the spark of potential. There is potential for it to grow and develop. Just like a four year old has potential to grow and develop.

Before the sperm met the egg, there was no potential. But once the sperm met the egg, potential was born.

I am truly sorry for putting such a fine point on it, but, this is one spectacularly stupid thing to say.

To conflate the viability of two cells to survive until birth with the potential for growth of a toddler is just bullsh1t and nothing more. A tree has the potential to grow and develop. Does cutting it down constitute murder? A fire has the potential to grow and develop. Does putting it out constitute murder? What about cancer? Its alive and its part of some human beings. Is killing it murder? Do you see how stupid that argument is now?

It is impossible to both be a human being and possess the potential to become a human being. You can not have the potential to become something you already are. Murder only applies to human beings. It has absolutely nothing to do with growth in terms of intellect, height, weight, etc, of a walking talking person. That was an absolute insult to intellect.