This Is For The Men Of This Board

[Ray]

What the heck? Listen to what you are saying. If you extend the rights of a full blown individual to a fetus, then intent can't count at all!

What do you mean by saying that “intent can’t count at all?” I meant that it should be a crime for anybody to intentionally kill a child.

If a woman is raped, by that logic, she should be able to bring the fetus to full term, give birth, and then decide that she wants to kill it.

Huh? You think she should be able to decide that she wants to kill her child? I do not agree.

If a fetus is considered a full human being, then they must be given the same constitutional rights as any living person whether he/she was conceived intentionally or not.

Oh, I see. You were talking about intentionally conceiving a child, and I was talking about intentionally killing a child. But yes, I think a baby should be considered a human being and given the same constitutional rights as any other living person whether the child was conceived intentionally or not.

Allowing an abortion in the case of rape/ incest requires that you not consider the embryo/fetus a full human being.

Yes, I understand that to be the argument, or the reasoning used to justify abortion. Some people try to convince themselves and other people of the idea that an embryo / fetus is not a “full” human being, so that it will be that much easier to allow an abortion. And so far that reasoning has worked well for some people. But I have always believed and science is now beginning to show that an embryo / fetus is most certainly as much of a human being as any of the rest of us.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 8 2004, 10:54 AM

Yes, I understand that to be the argument, or the reasoning used to justify abortion. Some people try to convince themselves and other people of the idea that an embryo / fetus is not a “full” human being, so that it will be that much easier to allow an abortion. And so far that reasoning has worked well for some people. But I have always believed and science is now beginning to show that an embryo / fetus is most certainly as much of a human being as any of the rest of us.

First of all, I don't think the belief/knowledge that an embryo is not a full human being, but only the beginning of human life is simply an excuse to get an abortion. (You really are incapable of wholistic thinking aren't you?) I also do not trust your interpretation of science, so I'm not getting into a scientific argument with you. However, since you have stated a literal belief in Old Testament events, I will exhort you to review your Mosiac laws concerning spontaneous abortion to convince you that God does not consider an embryo worthy of the rights of a full human being.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 8 2004, 10:54 AM

What do you mean by saying that “intent can’t count at all?” I meant that it should be a crime for anybody to intentionally kill a child.

I think I misinterpreted your post. One poster expressed opposition to a woman having an abortion for birth control reasons, but not to a woman who had an abortion if she had been raped, or the victim of incest. By "intent" I thought you meant the intent of the pregnant woman. My point was that if one believes an embryo to be full human being just as valid as a baby then they can't justify it's abortion under any circumstances.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette@ Nov 8 2004, 11:05 AM

Since you have stated a literal belief in Old Testament events, I will exhort you to review your Mosiac laws concerning spontaneous abortion to convince you that God does not consider an embryo worthy of the rights of a full human being.

I’ll try to find some time to check into what you might be referring to, but for the moment I remain assured that God considers an embryo to be worthy of the rights of a “full” human being just as much as God considers any other human being to be worthy of human rights.

My point was that if one believes an embryo to be full human being just as valid as a baby then they can't justify it's abortion under any circumstances.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. I believe there are instances where abortion is sometimes necessary or allowable, just as there are instances where killing anyone is necessary or allowable. If a mother is in imminent risk of death by the birth of her child, for instance, I believe a doctor would be justified in choosing to save the life of the mother over saving the life of the child. That is probably the only situation in which I could imagine the death of that child to be justified, though. In all other cases that I can think of, I think the child should live.

Even in the case of rape the child is innocent and should be allowed to live. And if the mother of that child can’t find enough love in her heart to raise that child, she should allow that child to be adopted. Allowing that child to be killed simply because the mother doesn’t want to be a mother is simply a perpetuation of selfishness.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

But I have always believed and science is now beginning to show that an embryo / fetus is most certainly as much of a human being as any of the rest of us.

Science can't "show" that, because the definition of what is a "human being" is completely semantic. When you compare a newborn baby with a fertilized egg, you're definitely looking at two things which are different in significant ways. Do those differences add up to enough to say the one is "human" and the other is not? Whatever judgment you judge is going to be completely arbitrary. Science can show that an embryo is genetically distinct from its parents, so you do have a basis for arguing that it is human. Any other line you may draw -- one month, three months, viability, birth -- is pretty much arbitrary; you're drawing a line on a continuum.

My thinking on abortion is that whether a fetus is "human" or not, it's pretty close -- and it gets even harder to argue that it's not "human" the closer you get to birth. If destroying it without just cause is not subject to "thou shalt not kill," then it falls under the Doctrine & Covenants' addition "nor do anything like unto it."

Since the law may legitimately protect life by protecting even non-human animal life from wanton destruction (i.e. by animal-cruelty and endangered-species laws), it may legitimately also protect life that misses being "human" by far less degrees than that by which a dog misses being human.

[Ray]

I was referring to how science can now more clearly show how an embryo / fetus is human by showing that an embryo / fetus has all of the potential to become “fully” human, and nothing other than “human”. In other words, science can now show that pregnant women don’t have dogs, or cats, or a little rats in their bellies, and in fact what they have is a little human.

Heh, who woulda figured.

And btw, this is in contrast to a time when people, including women and doctors, didn’t really know for certain what pregnant women had in their bellies until it came out and they saw with their eyes that it looked like a human.

Amazing stuff, science is.

Btw, I wonder when science will eventually be able to show that we [humans] have the potential to become like our heavenly parents? Hmmm.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 8 2004, 01:28 PM

In other words, science can now show that pregnant women don’t have dogs, or cats, or a little rats in their bellies, and in fact what they have is a little human.

You are joking, right? I'd be astonished to find any human population that ever thought otherwise.

I feel kind of like I should clarify my beliefs on this. I am very prolife. I don't think I could ever have an abortion under any circumstances. However, I don't think that an embryo becomes equal to a fully born baby until it's well into the fetus stage. Because of that belief, I also think there are circumstances where very early abortions could be performed and be the best choice in those cases.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by curvette+Nov 8 2004, 02:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Nov 8 2004, 02:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 8 2004, 01:28 PM

In other words, science can now show that pregnant women don’t have dogs, or cats, or a little rats in their bellies, and in fact what they have is a little human. 

You are joking, right? I'd be astonished to find any human population that ever thought otherwise.

Satire and Sarcasim are not your strong points are they my little curvette cutsie pootsie

[Setheus]

Here is one to boggle your mind for those of you that still don't see an embryo/fetus as "fully" human.

Here in TX (and perhaps other states) when male pigs and cattle are old enough to be shipped off for slaughter they are all casturated. Only those few selected for breeding purposes remain furtil and MUST not be sent to slaughter. Why? Because it is AGAINST THE LAW to slaughter pregnant livestock. Why? Good Question. Why? Why do cow and pig and horse embryos have laws protecting them against death but for humans there is no law to protect the embryo/fetus?

Note: there is NO stipulation as to how far along in pregnancy the livestock must be before it is illegal to slaughter. The law says "pregnant" period.

Where are our priorities?

[Setheus]

another thought I just had. If a embryo or fetus can be classified as "not fully human" up until some magical unknown point in its development does the same hold true to those of us born? Is there a point in our spiritual growth that if we do not make it to we can be "aborted" by the plan of salvation? When are we "fully children of God?" was it when we were first created or did it take a while in the pre-mortal existence to quallify as "fully children of God"? And if the gospel is true then we had to accept the plan of salvation in order to come to this earth. So when a woman becomes pregnant there is a clear reason why. To bring a HUMAN into the world.

Are you pregnant? Its a baby!

[Ray]

Originally posted by Setheus@ Nov 8 2004, 03:50 PM

Are you pregnant? Its a baby!

And guess what… if you’re a pregnant woman, it’s a baby human!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 8 2004, 03:38 PM

Satire and Sarcasim are not your strong points are they my little curvette cutsie pootsie

Well I can certainly sense the sarcasm in you. I just haven't seen much of it in Ray.

Now Setheus you stud muffin, please answer this question. Do you or don't you believe that there are certain rare circumstances where abortion is allowable?

[Setheus]

Yes, and if you'll scroll back I already made that clear my preseptive friend.

[Guest curvette]

"Preseptive?" Okay. So, if you think abortion is okay sometimes, and you feel that a two week old embryo the size of a pinhead is just as valuable of a life as an eight pound baby, then you MUST believe that it's sometimes okay to kill an eight pound baby. My belief is that a two week old embryo is the beginning of a human life, but not in the same category as a twenty week fetus or a full term baby.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by curvette@Nov 8 2004, 09:04 PM

"Preseptive?" Okay. So, if you think abortion is okay sometimes, and you feel that a two week old embryo the size of a pinhead is just as valuable of a life as an eight pound baby, then you MUST believe that it's sometimes okay to kill an eight pound baby. My belief is that a two week old embryo is the beginning of a human life, but not in the same category as a twenty week fetus or a full term baby.

No and here is why. Once a baby reaches 8lbs, the mother has ALREADY made her choice. And no "already born" baby has ever caused medical complications wich resulted in the death of the mother.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette@ Nov 8 2004, 09:04 PM

...if you think abortion is okay sometimes, and you feel that a two week old embryo the size of a pinhead is just as valuable of a life as an eight pound baby, then you MUST believe that it's sometimes okay to kill an eight pound baby. My belief is that a two week old embryo is the beginning of a human life, but not in the same category as a twenty week fetus or a full term baby.

When you say that a two-week old embryo is not in the same category as an 8lb baby, I think you’re referring to a child’s age and level of development. Is that right? And you’re then trying to say that it’s okay to intentionally kill a younger baby simply and only because it’s not fully developed. Is that right? If not, tell me what I'm not saying.

Why do you believe it would ever be okay to intentionally kill an innocent child? In other words, if you believe there are situations in which it would be okay to intentionally kill an innocent child, please describe those situations and explain why it would be okay to kill?

Self defense? I can agree with that. While it would be rare to ever need to kill an innocent child in self defense, I can accept that as a rational and justifiable answer.

Can you conceive of any other reason to justify killing an innocent child? I can’t. If you can, please explain.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 9 2004, 10:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 9 2004, 10:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@ Nov 8 2004, 09:04 PM

...if you think abortion is okay sometimes, and you feel that a two week old embryo the size of a pinhead is just as valuable of a life as an eight pound baby, then you MUST believe that it's sometimes okay to kill an eight pound baby. My belief is that a two week old embryo is the beginning of a human life, but not in the same category as a twenty week fetus or a full term baby.

When you say that a two-week old embryo is not in the same category as an 8lb baby, I think you’re referring to a child’s age and level of development. Is that right? And you’re then trying to say that it’s okay to intentionally kill a younger baby simply and only because it’s not fully developed. Is that right? If not, tell me what I'm not saying.

Why do you believe it would ever be okay to intentionally kill an innocent child? In other words, if you believe there are situations in which it would be okay to intentionally kill an innocent child, please describe those situations and explain why it would be okay to kill?

Self defense? I can agree with that. While it would be rare to ever need to kill an innocent child in self defense, I can accept that as a rational and justifiable answer.

Can you conceive of any other reason to justify killing an innocent child? I can’t. If you can, please explain.

Ray. Please go back and read my posts. Contrary to Old Testament scriptures where God allegedly commands innocent children to be slaughtered, I don't believe it is ever okay to kill a baby--under any circumstances--ever! I don't consider an embryo a baby, although I consider it the beginnings of life. An egg or a sperm is the beginning of life as well. You expressed that you reverence life so much that you would only grudgingly approve of an abortion if your wife's own life were gravely threatened by giving birth. I think that is reasonable to value your wife's life more than an embryo. Setheus added rape or incest to the list of exceptions. I don't see how he can reach that conclusion if he thinks an embryo is every bit as valid a life as a full term baby.

I don't approve of killing babies. (where did you get that idea?) If you killed my baby, I would kill you (after I liquidated and ripped your gonads off and tore you limb from limb.) I feel very passionately about human life--especially children. I don't support abortion at any time. But, I do NOT think that very early abortions are the same as late term abortions. I think once a fetus is viable, and able to live independently of the ubilical cord, it becomes a full fledged life.

This is MY opinion. I think my opinion can be backed up by scripture. A man causing a miscarriage in a woman was only required to pay a fine to the woman's husband unless the woman died as well. Then he received the death sentence. If you believe these Old Testament laws to be literally given by God, you must believe that a fetus is valued by God, but not as much as a woman's life. The scriptures also say that man became a living soul AFTER he received the breath of life. The Book of Mormon records that Jesus appeared in spirit the night before he was physically born. His spirit was not inside his body at that point. In the Bible, John's spirit jumped inside Elizabeth when she was six months pregnant and heard Mary's voice. I didn't really want to get into all of this, but my opinions are usually formed after many experiences, and influenced by science and scripture (as well as common sense.)

[Ray]

Some good thoughts there. Thanks for sharing. :)

[Setheus]

Originally posted by curvette@Nov 9 2004, 11:00 AM

(1)I don't consider an embryo a baby, although I consider it the beginnings of life.  An egg or a sperm is the beginning of life as well. 

(2) Setheus added rape or incest to the list of exceptions.  I don't see how he can reach that conclusion if he thinks an embryo is every bit as valid a life as a full term baby.

 

(3)The Book of Mormon records that Jesus appeared in spirit the night before he was physically born.  His spirit was not inside his body at that point. 

(4)In the Bible, John's spirit jumped inside Elizabeth when she was six months pregnant and heard Mary's voice.  I didn't really want to get into all of this, but my opinions are usually formed after many experiences, and influenced by science and scripture (as well as common sense.)

(1)So "In the beginning" was not God's creation, just the "beginning"? Come on the first inch of a mile is still part of that mile. If you don't think an embryo is "fully human" because its not as developed as a born baby then we might as well count children that have not completed puberty as "not fully human either.

(2)I did add rape to the equasion and I did not say I agreed with the abortion but that I could understand without malice towards a woman who got an abortion after being raped. After all if she were forced to give birth who is to say she wouln't kill it anyway? Or just throw it away in a dumpster. (It happens)

(3)About Jesus' visit the night before he was born. Please ref that verse I've never seen it. (or at least do not remember it) But, even if he did show himself he also rose from the dead and walked on water. So who is to say he couldn't show himself and his spirit be in his physical body? What you are suggesting is that a thing can be "alive" and not possess a soul. That is what we call a zombie my dear. So you must believe that women are pregnant with zombies for 9 months and then as they exit the woman they transform into magical beings called Humans.

(4)About John "jumping" inside his mother's womb, that was out of love and joy of the savior. Its not talking about him "entering" or "jumping INTO" his mother's womb.

(common sense will tell you that)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 9 2004, 04:23 PM

[

(3)About Jesus' visit the night before he was born. Please ref that verse I've never seen it. (or at least do not remember it) But, even if he did show himself he also rose from the dead and walked on water. So who is to say he couldn't show himself and his spirit be in his physical body? What you are suggesting is that a thing can be "alive" and not possess a soul. That is what we call a zombie my dear. So you must believe that women are pregnant with zombies for 9 months and then as they exit the woman they transform into magical beings called Humans.

(4)About John "jumping" inside his mother's womb, that was out of love and joy of the savior. Its not talking about him "entering" or "jumping INTO" his mother's womb.

(common sense will tell you that)

I didn't say that John's spirit was entering his physical body at that time, only that it was there by six months gestation and responsive. I think the exact word used in the Bible was "leapt". The Savior spoke to Nephi the night before He was born and assured him that the prophecies would come to pass. You aren't familiar with that? I think you'd better brush up on your reading. Are you a teenager?

[Setheus]

Now why would you start with the insults? That is a sign of weakness and uncertanty.

My point about the savior showing himself to Nephi (please give me the exact verse or at least chapter) was that Christ could show himself and at the same time be in his physical body. After all with God all things are possible.

Here is why I think the punishment was so mild for killing an unborn child compared to killing the wife. The level of medical understanding at that time was such that they didn't even know that sperm cells had a tail. So why would they know about gestation and zygoats and in utero heart surgery etc. After all why do you think God had the hebrews wash their hands before they could eat the manna from heaven? Because it "clensed" their spirits somehow? Not at all. Washing your hands is a great way to prevent sickness and if you're gonna wonder the wilderness for 40 years it might be a good idea to try and stay healthy. The men of that time had no idea about germs etc so they did not consider that as a core motive to their instructions to wash before eating. How could they have known that dirt was full of living things? I am rambling so I will stop now.

[Ray]

I feel very passionately about human life--especially children. I don't support abortion at any time. But, I do NOT think that very early abortions are the same as late term abortions.

Not the same how? Where do you draw the line between what is right and what is wrong?

How do you think they are different, other than being "humans" in different stages of development?

I think once a fetus is viable, and able to live independently of the umbilical cord, it becomes a full-fledged life.

But a fetus is a full-fledged life form too, wouldn’t you say? Why are you making a distinction?

The scriptures also say that man became a living soul AFTER he received the breath of life.

I think you’re making a correlation between this scripture and the moment we "humans" receive our first breath of air outside our mother’s womb, which is a fascinating idea, but you would still agree that a "human" is still a "human" while its body is in its mother’s womb, wouldn’t you? Or are you saying that "humans" don’t become independent souls until their bodies leave their mother’s womb?

Btw, if it could be shown that "human" spirits leave or do not enter their bodies at various times, do you think that would make the destruction of their bodies more or less acceptable?

The Book of Mormon records that Jesus appeared in spirit the night before he was physically born. His spirit was not inside his body at that point.

Again, the idea that our spirits can leave our bodies, or not enter our bodies until a later time, does not mean that our bodies are any less sacred. Our bodies are vessels for our spirits, but our bodies are still sacred and should not be casually discarded.

In the Bible, John's spirit jumped inside Elizabeth when she was six months pregnant and heard Mary's voice.

Again, what point are you trying to make by referring to this incident? Are you saying that our bodies are fair game until we come out of our mother’s womb, or until our spirits enter our bodies?

[StrawberryFields]

Here is something that has come to me concerning abortion.

If we have true and absolute faith then an abortion shouldn't be a question. If a child is not to be born, then I believe that Our Heavenly Father will intervene. For us to choose to take a life of an unborn child by abortion is wrong in my opinion.

[Lindy]

I saw a billboard somewhere making the statement that the human heart starts doing something at 18 days after conception ( I didn't see the whole thing) so I did a search on the web to see if I could find something to explain that statement.....and here is part of what I found:

What are the stages in human embryonic development? Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception. There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception.  This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even "early" abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form. The human brain begins to form on day 23 is formed enough to produce brain waves by 6 weeks, which means that abortion destroys a functioning human brain.

This is on God And Science.org website....

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/scie...ceabortion.html

I had to stop before I got to the end of the page, it made me sick to my stomach just reading about it.

Of course there is a warning....

Warning: some of the descriptions below are graphic and upsetting to most people. Do not continue if you are unwilling to suffer some emotional trauma.

It would have to be one of the most agonizing decisions to make for medical reasons, but for those who just don't give a rip about a human life....they should read up a bit about the procedure and the aftermath IMO. That goes for the "men" involved too. Maybe they would think twice before jumping on the "let's get it taken care of" bandwagon.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 9 2004, 04:55 PM

Now why would you start with the insults? That is a sign of weakness and uncertanty.

What insult? Asking you if you are a teenager? I was completely sincere. I think I initially had you confused with another poster because your posts suddenly seem extremely immature. I was going to cut you some slack if you are a teenager because I know that young people have very limited experience to draw on.