Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

[Electric Skeptic]

Imagine that we perfect the artificial womb, such that any fetus can be removed from a woman carrying it, inserted into the artificial womb, and have the same chances of surviving as if it had remained in the woman carrying it.

Would the process of, at the woman's request, removing the fetus and putting it into the artificial womb still be an abortion?

I contend that it would be; this demonstrates that the aim of an abortion is the ending of the pregnancy, not the death of the fetus. The woman wants to not be pregnant; she doesn't want the fetus to die. It's just that (at the moment) there is no way to end the pregnancy without the fetus dying. If there was a way to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus, then that procedure would still be an abortion.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Imagine that we perfect the artificial womb, such that any fetus can be removed from a woman carrying it, inserted into the artificial womb, and have the same chances of surviving as if it had remained in the woman carrying it.

Would the process of, at the woman's request, removing the fetus and putting it into the artificial womb still be an abortion?

I contend that it would be; this demonstrates that the aim of an abortion is the ending of the pregnancy, not the death of the fetus. The woman wants to not be pregnant; she doesn't want the fetus to die. It's just that (at the moment) there is no way to end the pregnancy without the fetus dying. If there was a way to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus, then that procedure would still be an abortion.

Absurd nonsense. Come back when your ideas become reality. You can't argue the real issues of abortion, so you make up one.

These are the issues.

The SLED Model

To further show that the unborn fetus is a human being, let’s introduce the SLED model, an acronym that stands for:

S – Size. The unborn fetus is smaller than an infant and most people are shorter than 7-foot basketball star Rudy Gobert. However, rational people would not claim that the infant is more valuable than the fetus nor is Rudy worth more than a teenage girl. In addition, a sumo wrestler does not have more value than a trapeze artist. Therefore, size does not indicate one’s worth.

L – Level of Development. The unborn fetus is at an earlier stage of his or her development than a newborn baby, but an eight-year-old child is less developed (both physically and mentally) than an adolescent. Older, stronger, more intelligent humans do not have more dignity and fundamental rights than those who are younger, weaker, less intelligent, and more vulnerable. To use the acorn analogy, an acorn is not a “potential” oak tree but rather a tiny living oak tree inside a shell. It is at the same level of development that every oak tree once existed during that particular stage of life.

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them.[4]

The syllogism

Let’s return to the syllogism given above:

Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong.

You've never been able to deal with the facts. Science fiction won't help you.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Absurd nonsense. Come back when your ideas become reality. You can't argue the real issues of abortion, so you make up one.

These are the issues.

The SLED Model

To further show that the unborn fetus is a human being, let’s introduce the SLED model, an acronym that stands for:

S – Size. The unborn fetus is smaller than an infant and most people are shorter than 7-foot basketball star Rudy Gobert. However, rational people would not claim that the infant is more valuable than the fetus nor is Rudy worth more than a teenage girl. In addition, a sumo wrestler does not have more value than a trapeze artist. Therefore, size does not indicate one’s worth.

L – Level of Development. The unborn fetus is at an earlier stage of his or her development than a newborn baby, but an eight-year-old child is less developed (both physically and mentally) than an adolescent. Older, stronger, more intelligent humans do not have more dignity and fundamental rights than those who are younger, weaker, less intelligent, and more vulnerable. To use the acorn analogy, an acorn is not a “potential” oak tree but rather a tiny living oak tree inside a shell. It is at the same level of development that every oak tree once existed during that particular stage of life.

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them.[4]

The syllogism

Let’s return to the syllogism given above:

Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong.

You've never been able to deal with the facts. Science fiction won't help you.

Firstly, thanks for contributing nothing at all to the thread, since you completely ignore the op.

Secondly, I note your falsehoods, ad hominem and insult.

Thirdly, the SLED model has been repeatedly dealt with in other threads where it is actually germane. This is not one of those threads.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Firstly, thanks for contributing nothing at all to the thread, since you completely ignore the op.

Secondly, I note your falsehoods, ad hominem and insult.

Thirdly, the SLED model has been repeatedly dealt with in other threads where it is actually germane. This is not one of those threads.

I did deal with the OP, you just don't like what I have said.

The SLED model is something you have never dealt with. I have archived every post in response to it. And... no one has been able to deal with it. I just get push back without any discussion of the facts. I have some of those from you as well.

I reported the facts as your own posts will prove.

If you have other ideas, report me.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I did deal with the OP, you just don't like what I have said.

No, you did not.

The SLED model is something you have never dealt with. I have archived every post in response to it. And... no one has been able to deal with it. I just get push back without any discussion of the facts. I have some of those from you as well.

It has been repeatedly dealt with. In any case, whether it has or not, it is not germane to this thread.

I reported the facts as your own posts will prove.

And invented falsehoods.

If you have other ideas, report me.

Happily, there is no need for me to do what you tell me to.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

No, you did not.

It has been repeatedly dealt with. In any case, whether it has or not, it is not germane to this thread.

And invented falsehoods.

Happily, there is no need for me to do what you tell me to.

This sounds like a dismissal on your part.

Too bad, I am not prone to such methods.

It is my observation that you cannot deal with the facts of abortion, so you create science fiction.

Did you know that I had hoped you would report it? If you had read the CARM rules, you'd know that you cannot post threads that are intentionally divisive. That's what I believe your thread was meant to do. But, of course, I couldn't be sure.

Perhaps I will take care of it myself.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

This sounds like a dismissal on your part.

Of course it's a dismissal. You've contributed absolutely nothing to the thread and obviously intended to continue doing so.Too bad, I am not prone to such methods.

It is my observation that you cannot deal with the facts of abortion, so you create science fiction.
Did you know that I had hoped you would report it? If you had read the CARM rules, you'd know that you cannot post threads that are intentionally divisive. That's what I believe your thread was meant to do. But, of course, I couldn't be sure.
Perhaps I will take care of it myself.

Falsehood, ad hominem, insult, noted and ignored.

Oh, and I have not the slightest care what you hoped or didn't hope. If you can't be bothered to even address the thread topic but, instead, want to attack the OPer for posting it and post things that are irrelevant to it, you are of less than no interest to me.

Go right ahead and report it.

 

[CrowCross]

Imagine that we perfect the artificial womb, such that any fetus can be removed from a woman carrying it, inserted into the artificial womb, and have the same chances of surviving as if it had remained in the woman carrying it.

Would the process of, at the woman's request, removing the fetus and putting it into the artificial womb still be an abortion?

I contend that it would be; this demonstrates that the aim of an abortion is the ending of the pregnancy, not the death of the fetus. The woman wants to not be pregnant; she doesn't want the fetus to die. It's just that (at the moment) there is no way to end the pregnancy without the fetus dying. If there was a way to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus, then that procedure would still be an abortion.

At least in this instance the baby lives unlike the demonic means in which the baby is murdered when the pregnancy is terminated.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

At least in this instance the baby lives unlike the demonic means in which the baby is murdered when the pregnancy is terminated.

You're not addressing the issue raised.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Of course it's a dismissal. You've contributed absolutely nothing to the thread and obviously intended to continue doing so.Too bad, I am not prone to such methods.

Falsehood, ad hominem, insult, noted and ignored.

Oh, and I have not the slightest care what you hoped or didn't hope. If you can't be bothered to even address the thread topic but, instead, want to attack the OPer for posting it and post things that are irrelevant to it, you are of less than no interest to me.

Go right ahead and report it.

I did address it. You simply did not like what how I responded. Instead you came up with wishful thinking which again proves how little you know about abortion.

The SLED model answers every question. You never even attempted to address it. Why not?

Here let me show it to you again:

The SLED Model

To further show that the unborn fetus is a human being, let’s introduce the SLED model, an acronym that stands for:

S – Size. The unborn fetus is smaller than an infant and most people are shorter than 7-foot basketball star Rudy Gobert. However, rational people would not claim that the infant is more valuable than the fetus nor is Rudy worth more than a teenage girl. In addition, a sumo wrestler does not have more value than a trapeze artist. Therefore, size does not indicate one’s worth.

L – Level of Development. The unborn fetus is at an earlier stage of his or her development than a newborn baby, but an eight-year-old child is less developed (both physically and mentally) than an adolescent. Older, stronger, more intelligent humans do not have more dignity and fundamental rights than those who are younger, weaker, less intelligent, and more vulnerable. To use the acorn analogy, an acorn is not a “potential” oak tree but rather a tiny living oak tree inside a shell. It is at the same level of development that every oak tree once existed during that particular stage of life.

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them.[4]

The syllogism

Let’s return to the syllogism given above:

Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong.

You couldn't address the real issues so you made up something on your own.

I won't back down, the lives of 60 million babies murdered cries out for us not to continue this butchery.

The forums are not about what if's that do not exist and your OP violates the rules.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

You're not addressing the issue raised.

Do you think you can control what other people say, whenever you want to? No. . . I don't think so.

Science will find a way to make viability at twenty weeks, before your idea will ever take place.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I did address it. You simply did not like what how I responded.

You did not address it. I doubt you even read it.

Instead you came up with wishful thinking which again proves how little you know about abortion.

False again.

The SLED model answers every question.

The SLED model does not even begin to address the OP.

You never even attempted to address it. Why not?

Because it is off topic for this thread.

Here let me show it to you again:

The SLED Model

To further show that the unborn fetus is a human being, let’s introduce the SLED model, an acronym that stands for:

S – Size. The unborn fetus is smaller than an infant and most people are shorter than 7-foot basketball star Rudy Gobert. However, rational people would not claim that the infant is more valuable than the fetus nor is Rudy worth more than a teenage girl. In addition, a sumo wrestler does not have more value than a trapeze artist. Therefore, size does not indicate one’s worth.

L – Level of Development. The unborn fetus is at an earlier stage of his or her development than a newborn baby, but an eight-year-old child is less developed (both physically and mentally) than an adolescent. Older, stronger, more intelligent humans do not have more dignity and fundamental rights than those who are younger, weaker, less intelligent, and more vulnerable. To use the acorn analogy, an acorn is not a “potential” oak tree but rather a tiny living oak tree inside a shell. It is at the same level of development that every oak tree once existed during that particular stage of life.

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them.[4]

The syllogism

Let’s return to the syllogism given above:

Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Premise 2: Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.

Therefore, Abortion is morally wrong.

You couldn't address the real issues so you made up something on your own.

More falsehoods.

I won't back down, the lives of 60 million babies murdered cries out for us not to continue this butchery.

Yeah, you're a real hero, posting irrelevancies in an internet thread.

The forums are not about what if's that do not exist and your OP violates the rules.

My OP in no way violates the rules. Go ahead, report it.

Do you think you can control what other people say, whenever you want to? No. . . I don't think so.

I'm sick of your nonsense in this thread.

Science will find a way to make viability at twenty weeks, before your idea will ever take place.

Which is completely irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Was it morally wrong to abort the pregnancies of adulteresses as commanded in Leviticus 20:10?

I have seen you make these claims before, the problem is you don't know how to use a proper hermeneutical method to interpret scripture. This fact alone defeats you.

Leviticus 20:10

King James Version
​

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

There is not one word about abortion or pregnancy in this passage. There is another concept. Go see if you can find it.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

IOW Leviticus 20:10 commands the abortions of pregnant adulteresses.

Find the word 'abortion' and 'pregnant' in that passage. If you can't then you have defeated yourself. You are not a Christian, you just like to use the Bible in deceptive ways. Here is a secret. I can't tell you how many times I have reported these types of posts. If I need to, I will do so again.

Misrepresent the Bible even once more . . . . .

 

[Electric Skeptic]

IOW Leviticus 20:10 commands the abortions of pregnant adulteresses, given that most executed adulteresses would be pregnant without reliable contraceptive techniques.

Please do not further divert this thread away from the OP.

 

[Temujin]

I did deal with the OP, you just don't like what I have said.

The SLED model is something you have never dealt with. I have archived every post in response to it. And... no one has been able to deal with it. I just get push back without any discussion of the facts. I have some of those from you as well.

I reported the facts as your own posts will prove.

If you have other ideas, report me.

This is factually untrue. Not only has the SLED model been busted every time you posted it, but you have never even attempted any follow up posts to defend it. You post it, and run away to post it again weeks later in another place. It is futile garbage. It is logically incoherent, senseless and worthless. It's only function is to comfort fools into thinking that there is a valid argument behind their vapid, emotional response to abortion. There may be such an argument, but SLED isn't it. It's just cut and paste tomfoolery.

 

[Temujin]

Imagine that we perfect the artificial womb, such that any fetus can be removed from a woman carrying it, inserted into the artificial womb, and have the same chances of surviving as if it had remained in the woman carrying it.

Would the process of, at the woman's request, removing the fetus and putting it into the artificial womb still be an abortion?

I contend that it would be; this demonstrates that the aim of an abortion is the ending of the pregnancy, not the death of the fetus. The woman wants to not be pregnant; she doesn't want the fetus to die. It's just that (at the moment) there is no way to end the pregnancy without the fetus dying. If there was a way to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus, then that procedure would still be an abortion.

They won't touch the point you make because it removes the emotional draw of the "baby in peril", what has been described elsewhere as the so-called "plight of the unborn". Without this they have nothing. There is no coherent argument against abortion in your scenario. Sadly this will not register on the candyfloss thinking that sees abortion as the "slaughter of the innocents".

 

[BMS]

Imagine that we perfect the artificial womb, such that any fetus can be removed from a woman carrying it, inserted into the artificial womb, and have the same chances of surviving as if it had remained in the woman carrying it.

Would the process of, at the woman's request, removing the fetus and putting it into the artificial womb still be an abortion?

I contend that it would be; this demonstrates that the aim of an abortion is the ending of the pregnancy, not the death of the fetus. The woman wants to not be pregnant; she doesn't want the fetus to die. It's just that (at the moment) there is no way to end the pregnancy without the fetus dying. If there was a way to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus, then that procedure would still be an abortion.

What woman? What do you mean by 'woman' You guys cant decide whether a man who calls himself a 'transwoman' is a man or a woman and then you talk about abortion referring to the unborn human as a fetus.
Reprehensible. You made your bed now lie in it.

 

[BMS]

They won't touch the point you make because it removes the emotional draw of the "baby in peril", what has been described elsewhere as the so-called "plight of the unborn". Without this they have nothing. There is no coherent argument against abortion in your scenario. Sadly this will not register on the candyfloss thinking that sees abortion as the "slaughter of the innocents".

Just have touched it. What does ES mean by woman and fetus? Your whole language is veiled in terms to avoid alluding to the unborn human offspring.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

I'm not interested in hermeneutical method which is just about cherry picking and ignoring the text and changing it's meaning to suit your personal views.
I'm only interested in what the bible actually says and means after connecting the dots. And there is nothing in the bible which condemns aborting pregnancies as evidenced after joining the dots from Leviticus 20:10.

No it doesn't. You are intentionally abusing the scripture. Every Christian here knows it. You aren't interested in anything other than making the Bible look like it says something it isn't. If you can find the word "abortion" or "pregnancy" in this passage, then present it. I know your response to this so don't go there. Otherwise, I'll be forced to take other actions. As a Christian I will not allow you to abuse the scriptures.

Take a look at rule 25 which you agreed to follow when you registered.


https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/