If it was proven that life begins at fertilization and that the zygote is a person, would you be okay with aborting it?

john james said:
Some may say that the definition of a person can be changed. To avoid this tactic, in the OP, the zygote is a "What ever word that means a human being regarded as an individual who has legal rights, such as the right to not be murdered".

(Please stop the tactics and just answer the OP. If you can't control yourself in not using these tactics, please don't reply)
Click to expand...
Of course definitions can be changed and interpreted differently

Just look at all the different ways Christians define “kill”
 
BMS said:
The zygote is 2 gamates, the sperm and the egg from the father and mother. Its new life and a new human being.
Not sure what you are twittering on about?
Click to expand...
Word games. It is their style of bickerfest.

The trait appears in grade school with kids that are O.D.D. Oppositional defiant disorder and seek to quible.
 
BMS said:
The zygote is 2 gamates (sic), the sperm and the egg from the father and mother. Its new life and a new human being.
Not sure what you are twittering on about?
Click to expand...
An egg is a single living cell. Do you disagree? If not, then that is one living cell. A sperm is a single living cell. Do you disagree? If not, then that is a second living cell. The process starts with two different living cells. Two. Two living cells necessarily exist before the process starts.

We are not discussing new life, we are discussing different life, with different DNA. The process requires living cells as the input.
 
john james said:
If it was proven that life begins at fertilization and that the zygote is a person, would you be okay with aborting it?

(Please don't reply if you don't answer hypothetical questions.)
Click to expand...
What sort of proof is needed to show that life begins at fertilization and that the zygote is a person?
Do you have any such proof?
Are you referring to scientific proof, or legal proof?
 
john james said:
Some may say that the definition of a person can be changed. To avoid this tactic, in the OP, the zygote is a "What ever word that means a human being regarded as an individual who has legal rights, such as the right to not be murdered".

(Please stop the tactics and just answer the OP. If you can't control yourself in not using these tactics, please don't reply)
Click to expand...
My answer remans, no. Neither of the two parts of your hypothetical make any sense, so in a hypothetical universe where they do make sense, then I would not support abortion.
 
rossum said:
An egg is a single living cell. Do you disagree? If not, then that is one living cell. A sperm is a single living cell. Do you disagree? If not, then that is a second living cell. The process starts with two different living cells. Two. Two living cells necessarily exist before the process starts.

We are not discussing new life, we are discussing different life, with different DNA. The process requires living cells as the input.
Click to expand...
When asked about when life begins, a colleague said 4 billion years ago.
 
rossum said:
An egg is a single living cell. Do you disagree? If not, then that is one living cell. A sperm is a single living cell. Do you disagree? If not, then that is a second living cell. The process starts with two different living cells. Two. Two living cells necessarily exist before the process starts.

We are not discussing new life, we are discussing different life, with different DNA. The process requires living cells as the input.
Click to expand...
The new human being doesnt start developing unless the egg.and sperm join and are fertilized. We can see the human being develop from that
 
Furion said:
The dearth of life beyond earth seems to be a persistent problem for your atheist view. If you wait long enough you might be proven correct, ya never know.
Click to expand...
The difficulty of verifying live beyond earth is certainly great. However, that makes no difference to my point. Neither does it have any bearing on atheism, which concerns the absence of gods, not the presence of extra terrestrial life.
 
BMS said:
The new human being doesnt start developing unless the egg.and sperm join and are fertilized. We can see the human being develop from that
Click to expand...
The word "life" covers a lot more than just human life. A wombat is alive and is not a human being. An egg cell is alive and is not a human being. A sperm cell is alive and is not a human being. You are narrowing the scope of the OP unnecessarily.
 
rossum said:
The word "life" covers a lot more than just human life. A wombat is alive and is not a human being. An egg cell is alive and is not a human being. A sperm cell is alive and is not a human being. You are narrowing the scope of the OP unnecessarily.
Click to expand...
You are denying observable reality with a load of waffle.
I guess it depends on all the words you use.
 
Hello. I don't believe in abortion now, regardless of what they can or cannot prove. The fact that man doesn't know everything is enough proof to make me give me the benefit of the doubt and to choose not to harm an unborn baby. If someone handed you a box and told you there may or may not be a baby in there and told you to shoot it, I think most people would rather err on the side of caution and not shoot the box just in case a baby IS in there. That's how people should view a pregnancy. There's no proof the unborn baby is NOT a living soul at conception, so err on the side of caution.
 
Thanks
Princess Bonnie Lilibet said:
Hello. I don't believe in abortion now, regardless of what they can or cannot prove. The fact that man doesn't know everything is enough proof to make me give me the benefit of the doubt and to choose not to harm an unborn baby. If someone handed you a box and told you there may or may not be a baby in there and told you to shoot it, I think most people would rather err on the side of caution and not shoot the box just in case a baby IS in there. That's how people should view a pregnancy. There's no proof the unborn baby is NOT a living soul at conception, so err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
Thanks Princess.

We use an ultra sound to see and prove it is a human baby and not a tumor.

They use a heart monitor to make sure they did a good job of killing the baby before chopping into parts for extraction.

Am I the only person here that knows how to do a C-section and actually handle the human baby in utero?
 
Princess Bonnie Lilibet said:
Hello. I don't believe in abortion now, regardless of what they can or cannot prove. The fact that man doesn't know everything is enough proof to make me give me the benefit of the doubt and to choose not to harm an unborn baby. If someone handed you a box and told you there may or may not be a baby in there and told you to shoot it, I think most people would rather err on the side of caution and not shoot the box just in case a baby IS in there. That's how people should view a pregnancy. There's no proof the unborn baby is NOT a living soul at conception, so err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

I agree. Wise post and welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top