Why elevate the legal status of the unborn above the born?

Abortion is child sacrifice, and it takes place hundreds of thousands of times every year in the U.S.

 

These accidents are individual fates. The big picture is perfect and follows the plan of God, who's also perfect.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
, a woman's body is always hers , unless sickos take the right to bodily autonomy away from her.




We aren't discussing evolution....we're discussing rights and abortion.... humans have evolved beyond just breeding...



Funny, then, how humans have natural abortions, miscarriages...






The mythical "laws of nature" aren't yours to interpret....and humans have been interfering with nature form the beginning...we no longer live in caves .




Except no one has.

Backwards is trying to deny people their rights...

 

I think we descended into the Humor Forum.....If there's "accidents" then"god's plan is not perfect

 

If the unborn is a child, yes. And that description fits a developed unborn nearing birth. It does not fit a freshly fertilized human egg cell.

 

That is the legal issue, but I’m concerned with the moral issue. We live in a secular world where many things are legal that I believe are wrong for us to do. Destroying innocent life in the womb is one of those things.

 

Destroying a developed child nearing birth is not morally equivalent to destroying an egg seconds after fertilization. The latter is not a child, legally or morally speaking.

 

I disagree. At the instant of conception a unique human DNA is created, a new human life is created, and I believe the soul enters that life. That creation is sacred.

There are unfortunate circumstances sometimes when difficulties develop that threaten the life of the mother or the fetus. In such cases I understand abortion may be necessary, but I don’t believe convenience of the mother is such a circumstance. That, for me, is where the moral issue lies: the killing of the innocent life of one for the convenience of another.

 

Of "one", sure, but not of a child.

I see absolutely no reason other than your religious programming (soul entering at conception) to see conception itself as immediately resulting in a child, or a "one" who is morally equivalent to a developed child. It is just an egg with some sperm in it at that point. I don't see any argument why secular society should think otherwise.

But I do see arguments regarding fully developed and ready to be born children prior to birth. Not considering them people in need of protection I think also takes some religious thinking.

 

And Jews and other religions believe that the soul doesn't enter until first breath. And that seems more logical, especially given that it is estimated that woman have more zygotes (which are unique human DNA structures) never even embed in the uterus, or miscarry early enough in the pregnancy such that the woman may never know she was actually pregnant. Why would God waste a soul on a zygote that is never going to make it to the embedding stage?

 

a few hundred zygotes with each pregnancy are mercilessly slaughtered .. so concur that the arrival time of the soul would come later.

 

If you are concluding this because you think God wouldn't be so cruel, I think that leafs you directly to to the problem of evil. Natural disasters and disease killing billions doesn't make any sense under a loving God either, but we don't decide from that that these don't exist.

 

Wait, what? Um please explain that because I think there is either a conceptual error here or a wording problem.

 

At conception there is one "totipotent" human cell formed .. round 2 weeks later you will have 200 -300 of these totipotent human cells - each able to generate any cell in the human body .. the "Super duper Stem Cell" .. Each able to individually create a new human .. Yet - at this point .. not one cell in the human has yet been created ... and I have always thought it odd to claim a human exists when not one cell from that entity has yet to be created.

These totipotent "zygotes" - all clones of the parent created 14 days ago - have formed a hollow sack called the "blastocyst" -Then then start spitting out differentiated and specialized cells - the first bricks in the building we might call a human some day .. should everything go well - making it this far a big deal .. and rather unlikely .. pretty sure is less than 50% of "New Zygotes" make it this far ..

In any case ... now we can claim some cells from a human exist .. the "embryoblast" The zygotes in the blasocyst .. go on to be part of the placenta .. cruelly discarded "after -birth" ... lest some lucky scientist gets them ..

Interesting question .. When these totipotent cells start spitting out differentiated cells.

1) which of the 200 totipotent cells contain the soul ? .. and well .. kind of by definition we have 200 souls at this point. each having the potential to create a human.. ( This is part of the "twinning argument" btw .. why most scientists do not accept the Genetic Perspective .. one of 5 different scientific perspectives .. metabolic, embryological, Neurological, Ecological being the others)

2) When the totipotent cell starts spitting out differentiated cells .. those that go on to form the human -- one is a differentiated cell and the other a totipotent zygote ... so .. replacing itself +creating a non totipotent cell .. a cell that has lost its "God Like" characteristic.

Into which cell does the soul go ? -- and and .. what about all the other cells being created by the other zygotes .. if do each of them get souls as well .. or do the zygotes keep the soul .. in which case . the entity being created will never have a soul.

Yeah .. gets ridiculous .. so . if one assumes the soul resides in the zygote .. is created with the formation of each new zygote .. as one would have to to be consistent .. keeping in mind that it is quite possible for 2 souls to be created .. or 3 .. or 4 .. and with the help of modern science .. pretty much as many as we like.

So yes .. is a mass killing at birth .. all those poor totipotent cells - aka "zygotes"

 

Yeah.....no. I get what you are pointing out, but the zygote contains all the totipotent cells. They are not individual zygotes as is. Although that does give rise to the questions of the next post.........

 

For all of you who are claiming that a soul enters into the new zygote as soon as the sperm is merged with the egg:

When identical twins or triplets, or whatever are created, does that mean that the soul is then divided among the identicals?

When you have fraternal twins, and one is absorbed by the other (chimera), are the two souls merged, or does one kill the other?

 

No no no.. the zygote does not contain all the totipotent cells. The zygote is one cell - and after the first motitic division you don't have a zygote with 2 cells .. you have 2 zygotes. 2 ontologically separate individuals .. each capable of creating a human .. without the assistence of the other .. a different human .. we call them twins .. but any of these 200 initial zygotes can do this...

but back to the first mitotic division -- read the other day that the genome is not yet set either .. DNA is there but the full genome willl not exist until around day 14. .. round the time when the builders .. the toti- potent clones of the parent zygote - start spitting out the cells that will be the first cells in the structure of a potential human ... sometimes building 2 at the same time .. or 3 ..

There is no "Genetic Unity" until around Day 14 - no "Moment of conception" .. is a fluid process which is not ontologically set in place - from a genetic perspective - until around day 14 ...

not that I think the soul arrives at this point - but just sayin .. each one of these progeny is each individually capable of creating a human .. just like the parent .. and is in fact a clone of the parent .. they are the builders of the Human .. a human which does not exist at this point cept .. a point after which - we get into the embryological perspective - implantation - and onward - then comes the perspective I favor..

The Neurological perspective - Since the fleshy vessel can not capacitate "I Am" prior to the wiring of the brain being complete .. not much point in the soul arriving before that..

 

I'd like a citation for this please. If for no other reason, it sounds interesting.

I get and agree with your overall point, just not your use of the labels of the stages. I mean the question of which cell does the soul go into applies even to the completed body.

With this idea, a soul doesn't enter into a born child then until a point that they are self aware.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/

What label take you unbridge with .. ? and your comment on the soul makes no sense.. this must be where disconnect is.

If we presume soul enters at "Conception" (when ever that is as there is no defined point of conception) and that the soul enters this single human cell we call the zygote .. what happens to the soul after the first mitotic division .. Which of the two does the soul reside ? Zygote A or Zygote B. The reason "Both" is not an answer is because should Zygote B go off on its own .. do its own thing .. now you have an entity with half a soul..

and Last .. yes .. "I think therefor I am" --- Self Awareness "IS" the soul - for all intensive purposes -- it is the endowment of Self Awareness - The Will ..

 

You don't take into account that God wants us to learn, even in the face of adversity that befalls us.

Btw, I tend to Islamic theology but don't reject Christian beliefs.

 

and that has a bearing on what exactly? what does soul have to do with becoming a human being which is a biological term?

 

Thank you. Although I'm not sure I understand about the part where it says the offspring (used because that can account for all the stages, and doesn't preclude or exclude any division or merging) doesn't have genetic uniqueness until implantation and the specialized cells start. I get that the mitochondria of the gestating female is needed, as we can see where the surrogate's mitochondria will be in a child she carries for another woman in via IVF, one of the technical chimeras (similar to an organ transplant recipient). But the unique DNA is already there.

The zygote is a single totipotent cell whereas the blastocyst is a collection of them. They are not all zygotes. Even in separating into twins (or more), unless that happens at the first division, then you still have two (or more) blastocysts. I just feel that trying to label all the cells as zygotes is as misleading as trying to label the ZEF at any stage a child, save as idiom as I did above. IOW, if we mislabel, then we can't complain when they mislabel.

Agreed.

That was my question in the very next post.

This begs a couple of questions then. Given the multicellular nature of the body, and the exchange rate at which we all but create a new body periodically, in which cell does the soul reside? Are all the new cells we create soulless? Are we mostly soulless, then?

Your question also seems to presume that the soul isn't a metaphysical parallel to the body. That what enters the zygote (going with that premise) isn't in and of itself a spiritual zygote. Of course then we have to take that out logically and note that we would be losing pieces of our souls when we lose cells.

And then there is the opposite issue. Ignoring for the moment the division issue, and making a premise that the soul is some kind of non-physical form that envelopes the zygote and then continues to envelope the whole as more physical cells develop. We then have the issue of two fraternal twin (which would mean two initial souls), and then one absorbs the other (chimera). So now we either have a single body with two souls, or one soul kills the other, making the remaining soul a murder before the offspring is even fully formed yet alone born.

I'm just noting that under the self awareness standard, a soul won't be there at birth because there is no self awareness for at least a couple of months after birth, if not later.

 

The argument only applies to those who are arguing that a soul enters into being upon conception. If you are making that argument, then his counter wasn't directed at you.

 

You don't take into account there is no god....and people's personal beliefs should not rule over others....

 

you fail to take into account that claim is bullshit until proven to be true.

what is 'politics' for 100?