The bible and abortion

"Mr Jack" writes:I'm going to start with a sentence that may be a little contraversial. Abortion has exactly zero to do with women's rights.That's right. Zero. The real issue is only one of the whether a fetus, or embryo, is a human being. If it is then killing it is wrong, and should be illegal. Whatever the mother feels or suffers. We do not allow someone to kill their baby because it screams, keeps them awake, puts a dampner on their social life, or any such thing. If on the other hand it is not 'human' then we should have no concerns. A Woman's 'right to choose' has nothing to do with it.So then, let us address the question of is a Fetus (or embryo) human or not? Some claim that a fetus is just a 'blob of cells'. This is clearly nonsense, by twelve weeks a fetus is recognisably human. You can see the feet, and hands, even make out the beginnings of a face. This is no 'blob of cells'.A zero-day old 'baby' is a bunch of cells, a freshly born baby is human. Along the way it slowly develops all of the features that make us human, many can be recognised from surprisingly early on. While still in the womb babies are known to respond to different sounds in the environment, and even what the mother is eating, or drinking. The question is at what point does it become a human?My answer is that there is no point. That zero-day old is 0% human, and that baby is 100% human, along the way it moves along that scale - probably not in a linear fashion. (Are premature babies fully human and all that?)Where does this leave abortion? I think abortion is not something we should ever take lightly. We should restrict abortion based on the age of the fetus, and attempt to use methods of abortion that do not inflict unnecessary pain on the fetus just as we attempt to slaughter livestock humanely. Finally I believe we should extend the time window for abortion for rape, and incest victims and in cases where the child is found to be disabled or malformed.This isn't too far from current abortion legalislation, at least in my country. But I think the window should probably be narrowed some, maybe down to 14, or 16 weeks.

How come? There is sperm in my testicles. There is an egg in my girlfriend's fallopian tubes. Keep adding sperm to egg, and it will become a human as well. By not combining the sperm with the egg, are we denying people the right to live?

Exactly, and in a multicultural country that is supposed to protect every individual's belief systems, which singular definition of "human being" are we to force on everyone else?

About the only thing that is noncontroversial is to say at birth a child is 100% human being. That "sliding scale" you talk about a fetus having in the womb has NOTHING TO DO WITH OBJECTIVE REALITY, and only SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

You just said abortion has EXACTLY ZERO TO DO WITH WOMEN'S RIGHTS. So what do ANY of the above qualifications have to do with a fetus not becoming defined as a human being until later.

So, is it a woman's right to get raped and end up pregnant?

If a woman cannot bear the thought of having a child, is it her right to have to starve herself to miscarry instead of getting appropriate, readily available medical treatment - having the embryo develop far further than it normally would, making the woman suffer, and create serious health risks?

I'd say it looks more like a cross between an alien and a tyrannosaur...

Yes. Late in the 3rd trimester. Do you see us arguing for that?

If abortion is not immoral in the case of rape, why is it immoral in the case of consensual sex?

Bud didn't you just say that abortion is wrong, "Whatever the mother feels or suffers."?

And that is *how* easy for a 14 old to come across (even if she knew how to deal with the situation)? There's the issue of parental consent requirements here.

Excepting in the case of a threat to the mother's life. There is no miraculous "cutoff point" where the fetus becomes human. However, in the third trimester, cerebral brain activity becomes more than just sporadic; human thought has started to occur. It is still just the basis, but it adds a stronger moral issue. Meanwhile, the "right to choose" issue has significantly waned, since there has been ample time to choose (assuming that there aren't piles of restrictions in place by the anti-abortion crowd as a stall tactic).

Think about this very carefully. You have now outlined that the fetus is a human being and so covered by law that covers everyone that has been born. Yet out of compassion for a mother that had been raped, her child can be killed. BY YOUR LOGIC a mother who had been raped can kill her new born child, or maybe even her toddler? Why should she be forced to have to take care of a child that was forced upon her, or have part of her walking around where she did not want that?

In the US, there is no over-the-counter medication, free or not, that can be used as a morning after treatment.

How many unwanted, parentless babies have you adopted?

If you have, then do you consider the child an inconvenience, or a major, life-altering addition to your world which has rendered said world changed in drastic ways, forever?

Also, why do you refuse to address the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is much more dangerous to a woman's health that undergoing a properly-performed abortion?

Who are you to decide that a woman should be forced by law to be subjected to any "health risk", no matter how mild?

Yes you do.She told you about it on this thread.

On the other hand, it's irrelevant who you know or don't know.