Let me see...they are conceived by two humans? That human is a person. This is pure semantics. BTW, human is NOT ambiguous. We are not talking about frogs and rocks...we are talking about a human body, human DNA, human chromosomes, etc. Yes. And a sloughed-off skin cell has human DNA. A shaved-off hair or a cut-off toenail has human DNA. Having human DNA does not suffice to give something moral rights. Ethicists are agreed on this; I am not saying anything new here. Moreover, something can lack human DNA but still have moral rights. Elephants, for example, or Mr. Spock, were he to exist, or a sufficiently advanced android. Having human DNA is neither nor sufficient to have moral rights. What the study of ethics requires is that we try to work out what does confer moral rights upon an entity. Religions have historically claimed that having a soul confers moral rights upon an entity. Presumably, Mr. Spock would have a soul. Immanuel Kant thought that the capacity to make moral decisions gave a being moral rights. The capacity for rational thought has been proposed as conferring moral rights. The ability to feel pain has been proposed as conferring moral rights. We have to work out when a being does have moral rights. Moreover, we have to decide when a being has moral rights sufficient to protect it from being killed. Cats can feel pain, and we grant them the right not to be tortured; but we don't grant them the right to life, as we suppose it to be morally OK to take a cat to the vet to be euthanized. What we have to decide, then, is whether an embryo or fetus has whatever features give it moral rights, and whether an embryo or fetus has whatever features give it the right not to be killed. This is a theoretical endeavor; it will have practical consequences.
Let's be real about this. Let's not beat around the bush any longer. Based on your discussion here (which differs somewhat from the discussions in the atheist groups, which has shocked me How has it differed from my discussions elsewhere? ), you are perfectly okay with an individual sleeping around with whoever, knowing that this can get them pregnant, Of course, people generally take measures against unintended pregnancy, but unintended pregnancies do sometimes occur, and then we have to decide what is and is not permissible. and you are okay with them having an abortion at any gestational age (and allude that you are okay with aborting even after physical labor has taken place). You are not okay with someone interfering with this. You are missing some big "ifs." *IF* abortion at ten weeks is not murder, *THEN* I think it should be permitted regardless of the reason. However, *IF* abortion at ten weeks is murder, *THEN* I think it should not be permitted for any reason (unless the mother's life is endangered, which seems unlikely at ten weeks). What has to be decided is whether or not abortion at ten weeks is murder. And similarly for abortion at twenty weeks, or later still.
Why are you okay with these things? Furthermore, why are you in a Christian group, if you don't believe in Christian practices? I belong to this group because I was invited here, long ago, in order to have discussions with a particular member about belief in God. Perhaps to discuss from an atheistic standpoint? I don't understand it. Your entire discussion is lacking in morality, from a Christian stance. I do take issue with deciding the morality or immorality of abortion on the basis of the embryo's or fetus's being ensouled. But the Bible permits abortion, and even prescribes it in some cases. From your stance, you might presume that you are being an open-minded champion, but there is no way I would allow my child to be overseen by you, with your current outlook on children. I would be afraid that when they were a mere baby, you would have allowed them to choke, because you don't invest the same effort in their lives until a certain mental state is apparent. You have a very mistaken view of how I treat children.
Why are no other Christians commenting on this portion of the discussion? I think this thread has been inactive for a while.
I don't see a reason to continue this further, MindWalk. You have proven my point - you are more apt to defend the rights of those who willingly murder children The language you use shows that you have already decided that abortion *is* murder, for you label the embryo/fetus a "child." When the egg is first fertilized, however, I have difficulty seeing it as a child. At some point in its development, it becomes a child, but it's not entirely clear when. for selfish reasons, but are easily able to consider a child in the womb as able to be destroyed because it doesn't meet up to the criteria you require. I cannot continue back and forth on this, MW, and I won't. I will point out that there may be other reasons to ban abortion than that it is murder. It is possible to argue, as some have, that abortion should be banned because permitting it contributes to an environment in which life is valued less than it ought to be and that banning it contributes to an environment in which life is held precious, encouraging people to treat other people well in general. You might take that stance. Or, it is possible to argue, as some have, that although we cannot tell when an embryo or fetus gains protected moral status, we should err on the side of extreme caution and ban all abortions just to be sure we aren't inadvertently permitting murder by allowing early-term abortions. You might take that stance. The point is, the discussion of the ethics of abortion does not begin and end at "it has human DNA."
I dont comment becouse I believe that the conversation is over a long time ago and becouse my english are not so good for such a high level conversation.
Human begins life on the time of conseption.
A human in a coma is still a human.
An african, a poor, an icapable are humans and they deserve to live the same as a european, a rich, a healthy human.
The ONLY reason to allow (not accept, becouse the wrong can never be accepted, we just allow it as a smaller wrong-sin istead of a big one) an abortion is if it is absolut sure that the embryo is going to kill the mother, but its still a choice of the mother and we cant force her to kill it if she wants to be sucrifized for her baby.