The debate "Abortion should be made 100% illegal in the U.S. and all other countries. It is genocide." was started by
September 16, 2019, 6:40 am.
103 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 90 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Delta_Force01 posted 27 arguments, dinosaurrawr posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 14 arguments, historybuff posted 12 arguments, Batman posted 1 argument, diecinueve posted 9 arguments, Allirix posted 7 arguments, mr_potato_head posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Delta_Force01, gopalved, sibongo, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, ProDavid, Shrivali_16, dinosaurrawr, Lynn, lmaoimsad, Mice, arkasamanta681, truthseeking, CastLight, chelseat99, Grant65, sssk, helpforr, logan5689, Rayyan989, chelrasonjohn and 83 visitors agree.
TheExistentialist, historybuff, Saam, Batman, YEET, lolopopo, elipsa1000, Priyan_shiii00, Lind, diecinueve, Allirix, MightyJackalope, balckqueen_27, DebatorOfFacts, Agrumentman, StarianaMusicINFP, mr_potato_head, meek, Audrey23, NoctaRavage and 70 visitors disagree.
The potential of what can become a fetus is uncertain and impossible to know. if the fetus is killed and another is made, the new potential would also be uncertain and therefore for us it would be the same
I agree. But it's not an easy right to give her since she is still choosing to end a human life, even if it isn't yet a social creature, it is still undeniably human.
I think that a woman should have the choice to do what she wants with her body. If she is raped and gets pregnant she should have the option to either have the baby or not. If a woman is not ready to bear a child than she shouldn't have to. Abortion is also used to save women if their fetus is killing them and if abortion is banned then there will be many mothers that could die because of their fetus.
Adding memories to the benchmark is odd. Isn't a memory just an accessible record of emotion and perception? Those functions are formed very early in the womb, long before consciousness. Or are you only including 'important' memories? Ones you empathise with, not lame ones like the heartbeat of your mother or vibrations of her talking. I'm not sure if memories is a solid addition to the threshold for protecting human life.
And you say "nothing is lost" so easily. How are you addressing the lost potential. Potential is something significant in society. It's the main reason we don't legalise drugs. It's why we educate ourselves. It's why we invest. You're dismissing it as nothing without explaining how. Just because it's abstract (not physical) doesn't mean it's nothing.
but a person asleep upon waking has memories of everything he has lived that would disappear forever if he was killed, but if you kill a fetus nothing is lost because he has not lived anything, you could have another fetus and it would be exactly the same
You literally said killing a fetus is not a problem because it is not aware it has a human life. Then you implied a fetus wouldn't mind death [in its current temporary state] because it is not conscious. You've made it look like awareness is your standard. If it's not, what is your standard?
The issue with the way you're framing your argument is it implies killing you in a deep sleep is not a problem. While asleep you're also in temporary unconscious state. You're not sentient or aware of your life. The unconscious state you're in wouldn't experience death. It wouldn't mind being killed, just like you say a fetus is.
That temporary unconscious state is what pro-lifers see as a fetus: a fetus as a sleeping human life. We can all agree being asleep doesn't mean a human life is not worth protecting. Id even say it makes the life require more protection as it cannot protect itself.
that is not the standard, but someone who is not aware that he is alive would not mind dying
Is awareness of one's own life the standard? Cows are aware of their life to a degree that they avoid death, should we stop farming animals for food? I would say that that is a poor line to draw
Everyone should have the right to do what they want as long as it does not affect the rights of others. If a mother kills her child it is wrong because the child wants to live and that right would be taken away, instead a fetus is not yet aware of what life is, so there would be no problem in killing him
Are you saying pro-lifers should leave pro-choicers alone and let them choose? That'd be great, but you know why that's not happening right?
It's like suggesting to us that we let mothers kill their children if they want to. We might think it's abhorrent, but you're saying we should give them the right to choose to kill their child?
We disagree with a pro-lifers on personhood vs human life but at the end of the day they see a human life as someone worth protecting. While they see human life as valuable they're not going to be happy with giving someone the right to choose.
so that he who believes that abortion is wrong that does not abort and he who believes that it is not wrong to abort
To those that believe human life has intrinsic value it is wrong because it destroys that value.
Think of something you value. Your freedom? Would taking that away be wrong? To someone who doesn't value your freedom, or the abstract notion of freedom, that wouldn't be wrong. If your freedom meant risking something society valued then we'd take away your freedom. That's how our courts work. If you're proven to genuinely risk destroying the values of others you're put in jail.
We don't believe human life has intrinsic value (at least I don't). But, I can sympathise with the belief. I understand it's a very important belief for society to hold as it can effect how we empathise and treat other humans, even vegetables and disabled humans.
The Abortion debate is about female autonomy vs intrinsic human life and your own beliefs will determine where you're put on the debate. But I think it's important you recognise that the other side of the debate is equally legitimate.
What's wrong with killing a human life that has not been born and cannot think or feel?
That abortion is killing human life.
What reality am I rejecting?
Nothing happens? Well that's wrong. Killing a human life, an inevitable person, does do something. To reject that is why the debate is so polarised.
I think even if we agree with abortion we shouldn't reject reality because it makes us feel better about protecting female autonomy.
Yes, because a fetus can't think, has no feelings, has no goals, nothing happens if he dies
it is not the same, but is it different enough?
It is not the same to kill a person than a fetus
Lets say that our cars were sentient, if we decided to drive in them, do they have the right to kill us simply because they don't want us around or have us as 'cargo' any longer? Just because you happen to be in the car, doesn't mean you are apart of the car. Its the same with unborn infants, even though they have their own heartbeat, brain wave patterns etc. I think that you shouldn't have the right to kill them. If you don't want the child, put it up for adoption. Just please don't kill it. It hasn't even had the opportunity to experience life.
Not wanting to sound aggressive, and I understand where your opinion is founded, but studies have shown that unborn children have their own brain wave patterns and can feel pain from as little as 11- weeks. If you want I can send the articles.
its my body, am i allowed to then kill people with it?
although i dont think a fetus in all stages is a person, others do. that should be where to focus your arguments. not ambiguous rights that can be twisted.
But, it's not just her body; it's also the body of the unborn child. The unborn child has its own DNA, blood type, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. So, your argument is invalid, but there are better ones for your stance.
Women's body. Her choice.
A fetus relies on the mother, just like a brain dead patient relies on a machine. So in that sense pulling the plug has the same consequence. There is no guarantee that a pregnancy will actually occur, especially early on (at the time where plan B would be effective). An abortion is simply the mother deciding she doesn't want to be a life-support machine.
I didn't say there was a 1 to 1 correlation. My point was that you were pretending like a person being killed was something super rare that should be avoided. But it is an every day occurrence. I mean the US killed, or caused the deaths of, hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. Most republicans are pushing for another war with Iran right now. Killing people is the US government's national policy.
You are right that fetuses are not the same. Because a fetus isn't a person. Those are examples of actual people dying that you don't care about. You want to focus on cluster of cells that might one day become a person, meanwhile voting for politicians that support killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries. You are a hypocrite.
Soldiers kill for the protection of others. Doctors take people off life support because their only hope is the machine, and they ask the relative first. our government executes criminals. The unborn don't apply to any of those.
The US government kills humans pretty much every single day. They execute prisoners, they drop bombs on foreign countries etc. Doctors kill people too. They take people off medical intervention which ends their life. You are talking about it like killing humans is in some way rare or uncommon, but it isn't. If you actually cared about saving lives you would advocating for the end of the death penalty and an end to foreign wars.
Defining personhood is a very complicated question. A fetus is not a person for several reasons. It does not have consciousness. It does not know that it exists nor does it have the brain capacity to know. It is not a separate being in the sense that is has no ability to live separately and it never has. If it were disconnected from the woman it resides in, it would immediately cease to be alive.
At some point during fetal development it gains personhood and we can debate at what point that is. But a fertilized egg has none of the characteristics of a human being and therefore cannot be considered a person.
How can we kill something that is obviously human. Can I kill a mentally ill person because he might not catch on as fast or not understand? Can I kill someone unique, alive, breathing, and human? Even your own people of your side believes that they are breathing and human.
As for Personhood, it is a person. The definition is "the quality or condition of being an individual person." They are themselves, not their mother. They are housed inside the mother, but are their own person. Just because they aren't fully developed doesn't make it a person. Neither is an infant. They still have a decade and a half at least before they stop growing.
being of the species homosapien does not guarantee rights. It's always been personhood. We don't grant brain dead people the same rights we grant non-brain dead people. We allow others to make decisions that can ultimately result in their deaths.
We grant rights based on personhood precisely because of our capacities and remove them based on our capacities. Children have less rights than adults (the right to vote for example), the mentally ill people have fewer rights due to their limited or severely disturbed mental capacity, etc.... a fetus has no capacity of personhood and therefore should be treated (in the eyes of the law) as a non-person.
"Not a person" is a decidedly unscientific argument...moral or political philosophy"
Yeah, that's the point. Abortion is a moral debate so of course we're using philosophical arguments, those arguments are informed by science but aren't exclusively scientific. How could they be? Science has no method of ascribing morality to an act, it can only inform us.
The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species.
Thus, the scientific evidence is quite plain: at the moment of fusion of human sperm and egg, a new entity comes into existence which is distinctly human, alive, and an individual organism - a living, and fully human, being
Not a person" is a decidedly unscientific argument: it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with someone's own moral or political philosophy
"Pro-choice" feminist Naomi Wolf, who in a ground-breaking article in 1996, argued that the abortion-rights community should acknowledge the "fetus, in its full humanity" and that abortion causes "a real death."
More recently, Kate Michelman, long-time president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, acknowledged that "technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being."
All quoted from frc.org.
On a strictly philosophical level, the Holocaust would still be considered wrong under social contract theory and most certainly under utilitarianism. A society which persecute minorities for no reason but their social ranking and status, is undesirable. As social demographics shift throughout time oh, it would be in no one's best interest to persecute a given people. As people migrate and demographics shift the majority could easily become the minority. Hitler actually broke the social contract, and would fall under a tyrannical government.
If you read John Locke and his book "Two treatise of government", you would understand social contract theory better in this context. He makes the case that such a violation of the public interest warranted an uprising of the people. This is also the justification of America rising up against the British. Hitler would fall under the same category as the British in this sense. You are confusing social contract theory with cultural relativism; the two are not the same.
Historians tend to agree that the majority of the German population were ignorant of the ongoing of the Holocaust. there is a reason why many of the concentration camps were not located in Germany or near populated areas. Hitler knew that the German population would not support the cruel and violent behavior of his administration.
Hitler did believe that. Obviously we think it is morally wrong. If he had won and installed his vision onto the world, then history would likely remember it as a glorious moment in the history of the world. It would be described in glowing terms. Society would see it as moral. Virtually every large country has done something like this. Have you ever read about what Americans did to the natives? It could easily be described as a holocaust. But Americans continue to think the creation of their country was somehow "moral".
You are wrong that millions of soldiers supported the holocaust. The holocaust was not common knowledge in Germany. They didn't send out announcements about it. Large chunks of the government didn't even know about it. Most of the regular people didn't know. There were lots of guards and soldiers that knew obviously, but to say that the majority of the german military knew of, or agreed with, the holocaust is untrue.
Hitler's government saw mass murdering Jews by millions as morally lawful. Is this correct? He said jet was in society's best interest, and the millions of soldiers he had agreed with him. He said it was in the best interests of his people.
"No, I wouldn't."
then you can't use your religious believes to structure legislation for anyone either.
"The problem with having no God is that you don't have absolute morals."
This is an inaccurate statement. There are objective moral theories that are not based on religious beliefs. As far as my own moral framework is concerned, I believe in a mix of utilitarianism and social contract theory.
"Do you believe it's right that a man should severely abuse his child?"
No; in a society this would create severely damaged children which would result in a less stable social structure. This kind of society is not in my or anyone's best interest and therefore such conditions should be avoided. Furthermore, the action would result in more anguish than joy and thus would be wrong on a utilitarian point of view as well.
"What about a spouse cheating on their partner?"
This depends on the situation. I'm ok with open relationships so long as there is consent between the spouses. I think that in a society, lying creates a negative atmosphere to be living in that isn't in anyone's best interest. Therefore, cheating in the context of it being a lie is wrong. However, I don't believe it to be a criminal matter.
"How about mass shootings that end with a dozen or more dead and injured?"
Again; this is not in the best interest of a society or it's individuals. I believe that we'd all prefer to live in a society where we can be safe and where we can be relaxed. Therefore we should be forced to give up our "natural rights" to violence.
"If we are all just clumps of cells, what justifies the laws we create?"
We are all born with the natural rights to do that which we are capable of doing. The universal and absolute practice of such rights would lead to a existence which is violent, brutish, and short. In a society we suspend some of these rights (like arbitrary violence, lying, torturing, etc...) in order to create a space in which our existence is better. We, who agree to these terms get to enjoy the benefits of such a society.
"The best interest of a mass murderer is joy in death, gain of possession. Yet we put him in prison or execute him. Why? It was in his best interest."
He is in violation of the social contract and thus does not get the protections it offers. Therefore, society as a whole is allowed to break their treaty with him as well and unleash their collective natural rights upon him. We may do with him as we please and as we are capable.
No, I wouldn't.
A man should bear the consequences as much as the girl/woman.
The problem with having no God is that you don't have absolute morals. Without absolutes, evrtythinf that a person does is based on what they want. Do you believe it's right that a man should severely abuse his child? What about a spouse cheating on their partner? How about mass shootings that end with a dozen or more dead and injured?
If you answer that you are opposed to these things, what basis do you have? If we are all just clumps of cells, what justifies the laws we create?
You will most likely say our best interest. The best interest of a mass murderer is joy in death, gain of possession. Yet we put him in prison or execute him. Why? It was in his best interest.
not in the way you want her to be responsible. She should have the option of how she wants to deal with the consequences of her actions. She should have all the options available to her. Just like a man can walk away from rearing a child, so should a woman. Just like he doesn't have to go through the trauma of child birth, neither should she if she doesn't want to. The choice of having an abortion and going through that is "punishment"/consequence enough.
As you keep dodging this question, I again ask you:
Would you be Ok with a law based on Islamic scripture that forced your sisters, mother, or spouse to wear a Hijab? Would you be ok with legislation based on Islamic scripture that prevented women from being educated? Your ideology is no different than that to someone who doesn't believe in your version of God. You have no actual reasoning beyond scripture to justify your claim
Your not focusing on the entirety. Should she be responsible for her actions?
Having sex before marriage is not a criminal act....Again; you're simply pushing your religious believes onto others. I ask you again:
Would you be Ok with a law based on Islamic scripture that forced your sisters, mother, or spouse to wear a Hijab? Would you be ok with legislation based on Islamic scripture that prevented women from being educated? Your ideology is no different than that to someone who doesn't believe in your version of God. You have no actual reasoning beyond scripture to justify your claim.
So a woman who willingly had sex before marriage should be able to have an abortion because she doesn't want tel be respomoble for the actions that she's made? Again, a criminal is punished. Cause and effect. Why should she not as well? We all have a will and an ability to control what they do. Just control yourself.
"Again, I ask what's wrong with handing the child for adoption after pregnancy?"
Nothing is wrong with it. What is wrong is FORCING a mother to carry out a pregnancy that she does not want, possibly did not have a choice in, is possibly unable to carry out (the mortality rate of pregnant women in the US is the highest of any developed country.). If you don't want a kid but get someone pregnant, you guys can choose to give up that child for adoption. However, your religious believes don't entitle you to make that choice for other people. You can't dictate your ideology onto another person's choices.
Would you be Ok with a law based on Islamic scripture that forced your sisters, mother, or spouse to wear a Hijab? Would you be ok with legislation based on Islamic scripture that prevented women from being educated? Your ideology is no different than that to someone who doesn't believe in your version of God. You have no actual reasoning beyond scripture to justify your claim.
"I have heard many times that women say that they regret their abortion. Do you have kids?"
anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. I can point to multiple people who have said they regret having kids, I also know people that have had an abortion when they were younger, had a kid later on and are perfectly happy with their choices. These stories are, however, also anecdotal and not really relevant in terms of a debate.
"So you would help someone end their own life? Youmight as well plunged a dagger into their heart and do it yourself."
I most certainly would if they were unable to do so themselves (in the case of terminal illness for example). That is why I'm for Dr. assisted suicide. If they are able to do it themselves however, they should not put anyone through that kind of ordeal and simply take their own life. I believe your life is your own and you are free to choose how you life it and how you die (if you're lucky enough to have a choice), so long as you don't unnecessarily harm another person in the process (for example; it's not ok to drive your car into on-coming traffic just because you want to commit suicide).
"Do you have kids?"
No; chose to have a vasectomy....Not that it really matters. Having children does not change whether or not someone else should be forced to have them.
So you would help someone end their own life? Youmight as well plunged a dagger into their heart and do it yourself.
Again, I ask what's wrong with handing the child for adoption after pregnancy? Let it enjoy the life that it has ahead. There are many reasons why.
Just one, for example, is that it has more than a possibly poor childhood. The child has experiences like marrying their future spouse, having their first child. The mother gets to be called Nana.
I have heard many times that women say that they regret their abortion. Do you have kids?
You're thinking that abortion and murder are same thing, but that's wrong.
What if a rape victim of age 15 years or less gets pregnant, doesn't she have a right to abort the pregnancy...
"A person want to commit suicide. He has no self interest and wishes to die. Can I kill him?'
if you're talking about assisted suicide, then yes. I am 100% for assisted suicide.
Would you tie her down for 9 months if she tried to harm herself rather than carry out the pregnancy?" We all have an obligation to protect others from themselves. Yes, if needed I would strap anyone down so that they wouldn't harm themselves. Would you let them harm themselves.
"it has no self interest and therefore should not be granted the rights of a person." A person want to commit suicide. He has no self interest and wishes to die. Can I kill him?
Your argument is based on religious doctrine. "a soul" is a not an argument on which you can base legislation on as you'd be advocating for one religious believe to be valued over another. Essentially you want to turn the US and all other countries to become a theocracy according to your religion. You're views are nothing short of Tyrannical in nature. You want to impose your belief system on the world regardless of whether or not it is true. You simply believe and therefore feel you have the right to govern everyone else's life according to your own believes. This is not a democratic way of governing and thus is strictly un-American and falls in line with theocratic governments that want Sharia Law. You are no better than them in this sense. Why? What makes your belief any more valid than another? Why is Satanism just as valid as your beliefs? Why is Islam not correct? Why is Judaism not correct? Why is Atheism, agnosticism not correct?
You want to force a mother to carry a child to term, to what extent? Would you force feed her if she refuses to eat? Would you tie her down for 9 months if she tried to harm herself rather than carry out the pregnancy?
A Fetus does not have the capacity of personhood. it has no self interest and therefore should not be granted the rights of a person. Science tells us that until the 3rd trimester there is no higher brain function and thus we can't force a woman to carry out a pregnancy until that time period.
A worm doesn't have personhood. A child that is growing inside a stomach that will be a human, is the beginnings of one, and therefore has a soul which will go in one of two places, deserves to live. Five said it before, the mother needs to be responsible and take the consequences of her actions. If she was forced, a child, a precious gift, is still given. At most, she could put the child up for adoption after birth. Why kill it?
Living; sure, in the same sense that a worm, parasite, bacteria, amoeba, fungus, etc... are "living".
Living, however does not constitute personhood.
Do you believe every living thing should have the same rights/consideration that a person has? Yes or no?
Do you believe that the fetus is living at the time given? Just yes or no.
a heart beat is irrelevant when we talk about personhood since I can get heart cells in a petri dish to beat and you wouldn't call that a human. I can also keep a heart beating indefinitely by using a 3D printed electronic membrane like researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Washington University in St. Louis did in 2014 to a rabbit heart.
" brain activity begins at the end of 5 to 6 weeks"
This is a misleading statement that stems from ignorance of embryology. If you did any sort of actual research or bothered to read my previous post you'd see that
What we are measuring at the 5-6 week stage is the electrical impulse generated by nerve cells not brain activity as the structures of the brain haven't even developed yet. I'll repost here again; please actually read it this time.
Embryology and the study of the developing brain shows us that last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex–those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing–as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex. In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of simple forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother’s abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother’s voice).
If you think that electrical activity in the most basic brain structures (brain stem) is sufficient for personhood, then you must be against the concept of brain death and clinical death and must believe only in the concept of biological death.
The fetus has a heartbeat at five and a half to six weeks and the brain activity begins at the end of 5 to 6 weeks. to kill the fetus is to kill a human.
The issue here is one of personhood and whether or not a fetus is should be considered a person and granted the rights of a person. Being a Christian this concept is probably fairly abstract for you since your defining characteristic of a person is the concept of a soul which according to your belief is granted at conception I'm assuming.
This however, can't be the framework for legislation as it is based on religious doctrine. If we allow one faith to inject their religious doctrine into our legislation, then we must allow all religious faiths to inject their doctrine as well. So if you don't want a legal standing for something like sharia law to exist then you must be for secular reasoning as the basis of our legal system or else you are not for democracy but rather for a theocracy. Please refer to the Dark Ages as to why this is undesirable. .
So what can we use as the source of personhood without resorting to magical thinking like the concept of a soul? Embryology and the study of the developing brain shows us that last of all to mature is the cerebral cortex, which is responsible for most of what we think of as mental life–conscious experience, voluntary actions, thinking, remembering, and feeling. It has only begun to function around the time gestation comes to an end. Premature babies show very basic electrical activity in the primary sensory regions of the cerebral cortex–those areas that perceive touch, vision, and hearing–as well as in primary motor regions of the cerebral cortex. In the last trimester, fetuses are capable of simple forms of learning, like habituating (decreasing their startle response) to a repeated auditory stimulus, such as a loud clap just outside the mother’s abdomen. Late-term fetuses also seem to learn about the sensory qualities of the womb, since several studies have shown that newborn babies respond to familiar odors (such as their own amniotic fluid) and sounds (such as a maternal heartbeat or their own mother’s voice).
I'd argue since the 3rd trimester is when the brain has structures and connections necessary for the capacities that we commonly associate with personhood and the human condition, that this is the point in time at which we should grant a fetus the rights of a person.
im unsure about my stance on abortion, but if your only reason is religious, then that cannot constitutionally be passed as a law.
you may practice it at will. noone is forcing you to get an abortion.
If Christianity is true, then abortion is wrong. That's my argument. It's wrong.
I just wrote an account about Disney world. I went five years ago. Does that mean that I didn't go because I wrote it five years after the event.
Second, just because the accounts weren't in the Bible, it doesn't mean that there aren't any. Also, how do you know they didn't meet him?
What eye witness accounts? The oldest part of the new testament was written about 40 years after the death of jesus by men who had never met him. There are no surviving 1st hand accounts of the life of jesus.
you seem to just be making things up.
The twelve disciples saw Jesus and then suffered for testifying of it. Why would they do that unless it really happened?
There were eye witness accounts. 500 in fact. They have held up to 2000 years examination and were killed because they wouldn't go against their accounts and deny.
The idea that the 1st law of thermodynamics refutes the big bang is spread by people who don't understand science. The big bang explains where our universe began. It does not attempt to explain what came before the big bang itself. There are theories that attempt to explain what existed before the big bang, but since we are talking about things that happened billions of years ago it difficult to say. We might figure that out one day, but for now we simply don't know. However, the 1st law does not disprove the big bang.
The idea that the big bang is wrong, therefore it had to be created by someone is childish. I don't know how something happened, so a wizard must of done it is the kind of answer a 5 year old would give. It is certainly possible that the big bang is incorrect. But that just means that some other method happened instead. That would certainly not be proof god did it.
That whole thing about jesus is just nonsense. There are no written accounts about jesus from anyone who met him. There are certainly no eye witness accounts to the resurrection. The earliest parts of the bible to be written came decades after the death of jesus and were written by men who had never met him. But that really has nothing to do with abortion.
You are correct that murder is wrong. But since murder is the unlawful killing of another person, and abortion isn't unlawful, nor is it killing a person, obviously that does not apply.
The first Law of thermodynamics states that something can't come from nothing. That explodes the theory of a big bang. Therefore, Someone had to create it.
Jesus raised from the dead after three days. Five hundred eye witness accounts testify to that. We know He was dead and not carried away after the cross alive because blood and water poured forth, which is a symptom of death by asphyxiation. During His life, Jesus Christ stood for all of God's commandments. If He hadn't he would've not risen. Therefore, when He said that before Abraham was, He was, He was telling the truth. If He is God (and He is), then He also stood for every word of the Bible. Hence, Gen. 1 to Rev. 22 is true. God created the heavens and the earth, and everything else.
The Christian faith is true. God's word is true, and it says "Thou shall not murder."
You are correct. If something already exists then you can't prevent it existing. But as I keep saying, a fetus isn't a person. It has the potential to become a person, but has not become one yet.
At the moment of conception, you are talking about a very tiny cluster of cells. That is obviously not a person. it has no brain, no heart, nothing that describes human life at all. It is a cluster of cells with the potential to become more than that, that's all.
Once you accept that at conception it is not a person, now we are just discussing where the line is. Is it a person when it has a heart? When it has a brain? When it reacts to external stimulus? When it is capable of surviving outside the womb? When it is born?
If your position is that a fertilized egg should be a legally protected person, then there is no discussion to be had. That is an entirely unreasonable position and the only reason to hold that position is because your religion says so. If you accept that a zygote is not a person, then we can have a discussion about what stage a person comes into being.
you can't prevent something from existing that already exists. A five year old boy is not a fully formed human. Adults are. So why does a mother stand in front of her child to protect him from a bullet or knife?
About whether you thought its okay to kill, I meant abortion in context.
Why do we not want to die? Evolution has made us prioritize our own survival. All animals have this attribute.
Why do we defend people? Not everyone does. Many stand by and watch. Some join in.
Why do we get upset when someone has sex with our partner? That is cultural. We established a culture where sexual fidelity is valued. There are arguments that this is also evolutionary. but this would certainly spiral off into another debate.
Why do we get angry when lied to by friends and family? This is tribal. We look to our friends and family to co-operate as a unit. We get angry if we feel that a member of our tribe betrays us as tribal co-operation was critical to our survival in pre-historic times. You can see this same behavior in apes.
You are throwing out generalities that are all based around our culture and how we evolved and saying that these are somehow laws handed down by god.
Back to abortion. Do I think that it is right to kill a person? Sometimes. In self defense, in war etc. There are cases where it is justified to kill a person. But again, a fetus is not a person. A fetus might one day be a person in the same sense that a seed might one day be a tree. But digging up a seed is not the same as chopping down a tree. Preventing something from existing is not the same as killing it.
Then why does every man not want to die by the hand of another, or defend someone else when being attacked? Why does a man get angry when another man lays with his wife? Why do friends get angry or not trust someone when his/her friend lies to them? Everyone has always stood upon a constant law in some way shape or form? Why? Because God wrote it on our hearts. All throughout history you find this.
So back to abortion, do you believe that it is right to kill a person (the fetus is a human because it is growing into one)?
If society decided that was moral then, to those people, it would be so. To the romans conquering and enslaving entire nations of people was a moral thing to do. They thought that making people fight to the death for their amusement was moral. To the greeks it was normal and moral for men to wrestle other men naked. In fact it would be wrong to put on clothes for it. To the Europeans it was moral to massacre natives and destroy their culture because they were savages who needed to be educated.
Today we look back and think that those things are wrong or immoral. Some day people will look back on us and think the things we are doing now are immoral. Morality is constantly shifting. It always has and, for as long as humans exist, it always will. Pretending that morals are an absolute that never changes is to ignore the entirety of our history.
So if the U.S., one day, decides that randomly killing someone for a reason or no reason at all is morally right and therefore legal, that's okay, since it's subjective to what we think.
Did you read Psalm 23?
I disagree with absolutely everything you just said about god.
Morals are entirely subjective. We, as a society, determine what is right and wrong. Morality changes all the time. Sex before marriage used to be seen as immoral behavior. These days the large majority of people don't believe that. Divorce was seen as completely wrong by the catholic church. Now the pope has endorsed giving communion to people who have divorced and remarried. Morality comes from us, not from some mythical being giving commandments from on high.
God is holy and pure, and He wants His creatures to look like Him in that manner. When man fell, we declared war on Him, and all He saw was sin. That's why he sent Christ. So that His people would be reunited to Him and would love Him again. He is not cruel. As a father spanks his son to teach Him what not to do, God chastises His people so that they know what not to do, and He doesn't punish because He is mean. He does it because He wants us to be happy, and His way is the only way that humanity will ever be happy. Read Psalm 23 and look at how Christ is with His people.
To get back on track, how do you get morals if there is no God?
As I continued to learn more about the world in general and Christianity in particular I realized that Christianity is a laughably ridiculous religion. From things like Noah's ark which quite obviously never happened, to the idea that the Pope is infallible (and the story around where that idea came from), to the crusades, to the many, many terrible (supposedly infallible) popes, to the many schisms and sects that believe contradictory things etc.
There is just so, so many reasons to question the validity of Christianity. And even if I could get past all of that, if i could suppress all of my rational thought and just choose to believe what I am told, the god described in the bible is an awful, petty, narcissistic, jerk. He burns civilizations down for not believing hard enough. He wipes out the entire human race saving only 1 family because he decided everyone else sucked. He tells parents to murder their children. He commands that everyone must worship him or else he will have them tortured for all eternity by demons. If the christian god did exist, which in my opinion he very clearly does not, why would I want to worship that?
May I ask why?
I was born into a christian household. In case it is relevant it was a protestant branch.
I do not identify as a christian any more.
History Buff, are you a Christian?
I never said it wasn't living. It is obviously alive. I said it wasn't a person. Which it is not.
At some point during the pregnancy it becomes a person. We can have a discussion about when that is. But saying that a cluster of cells in a woman's uterus is a person is absurd.
If it isn't living, why is there a heart beat at 5 and a half to six weeks after conception and beginnings of brain activity very shortly thereafter?
The two cases you laid out having nothing in common with each other. A man killing 20 people is 20 cases of murder. A woman aborting a fetus is a medical procedure where a cluster of cells that are not yet a person are terminated.
A fetus is not a person. Therefore it cannot be murder. It certainly cannot be considered a massacre.
A man kills 20 people. Should he not go to jail and suffer the consequences of his actions?
Okay. Let me rephrase. It is massacre. Do you really believe that women who made terrible choices should kill a child in the womb simply because she doesn't want to suffer the consequences that come with intercourse?
Your definition of Genocide makes the term irrelevant as it simply becomes synonymous with "killing".
"Your definition also states that it is preventing births within a group. Hence, genocide takes place in America every day."
Wrong; Abortion does not prevent the entire group of Americans from giving birth, it only prevents one individual from giving birth. Furthermore it is a personal choice and not a forced one therefore it cannot be genocide.
Geno- : Race, kind, family, or birth
Cide- : Killing
Human beings are a race. In hospitals hundreds of thousands of babies are killed every day. Therefore we are killing our own kind. Your definition also states that it is preventing births within a group. Hence, genocide takes place in America every day.
How is abortion "genocide"?
Genocide as defined by UN article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Furthermore; by what reasoning do you propose that abortion should be illegal?