Nonsense, what really reeks imo are posts from those who would dogmatically compel a raped woman into gestating and giving birth to a rapist's child regardless of the situation and against her will. :vomit:
Exactly . . . :thumb:
MaryContrary, Stripe, and Cruciform: :banana::banana::banana:
Sorry my mistake then, it rather seemed to be heading that way.
The rapist is a violent cruel opportunist who has already taken what he wanted. My question however was rather if you thought aborting a rapist’s zygote is always wrong?
Again you want to talk about something beginning to look like a baby I’m simply talking about just after a rape here. The rapist’s zygote may or may not even exist why not simply make sure it doesn’t, would that be wrong?
Humans are animals.
Rather less tragic perhaps if you don’t happen to think that zygotes are actually human persons, but instead are sometimes just normal and often failed attempts to start the process of possibly becoming a human being.
My answer was intended to demonstrate how the original question asked the wrong thing; in other words, it’s unanswerable. No one is aborting the rapist’s “anything.” It’s doesn’t belong to the rapist. The woman is aborting her own child, not the rapist’s child.
Oh, you mean like a D&C that’s done in the hospital right after the rape? I’d say it’d be acceptable. I believe the heart can begin to beat as early as 18 days after conception. I think the nervous system begins to develop just after that, about 21 days after conception. How long is it considered a zygote?
Animals are not human beings, though. It’s the beginning of a life, the life of an human being.
The beginning of the life of an human being.
Your fingernails won’t develop into a man or woman.
The zygote is the beginning of a human life/soul. Is the soul functioning at that point or does it "flip on" when the heart begins to beat or the brain waves begin? Not sure.
Yes, the process failed. But the process began (i.e. the beginning of a human life/soul).
I think you’re rather missing the point or maybe avoiding it, since clearly it’s an inescapable fact that half of the zygote’s DNA will be the woman’s while the other half will be that of the rapist. In that sense it is always as much the rapist’s zygote as it is the woman’s, while any human concept of personal ownership is irrelevant here.
Then we have progress if you think that the possible removal of a zygote after rape is acceptable. This tells me that you do accept that abortion, at least after rape, as a valid moral choice. If a zygote did exist before Dilation & Curettage, whether it was known to exist or not, then we can assume that it will be aborted by the procedure and that it was quite acceptable. This is as far as we need go in this thread imo.
“Life” rather covers all stages imo.
Right, and neither would the zygote without the woman. The question of exactly when human “person-hood” is achieved is still not resolved btw, but for me this entity must be to some degree capable of independent action to be considered as a person.
Then I don’t know what you mean by “soul”. Can it be identified materially perhaps? The Christian idea of “soul” would seem to be at odds with you here.
Then I feel very sorry for those who believe that actual human persons are being created at conception only to be cruelly, routinely and naturally discarded soon after. What an awful thought, if it were true.
Then I feel very sorry for those who believe that actual human persons are being created at conception only to be cruelly, routinely and naturally discarded soon after. What an awful thought, if it were true.
Half of the DNA came from the vicious “volunteer” but the zygote is not and will never be the rapist’s. If we start giving any ownership to the rapist (however that ownership is dressed up), pretty soon will start hearing about the rapist's rights when it comes to the life and/or death of the unborn! Ugh!
I’m not ignoring the rapist’s involvement. Half the DNA came from him, but in “no sense” does the zygote belong to him.
I don’t think it’s always wrong. A thorough exam, including D&C, would be appropriate immediately following a rape.
Sounds like you’re pro-life to me.
Well, yeah.
I’ve read that a zygote can be removed from the womb and develop outside the woman. So…??
If one is not capable of independent action, he/she should not be considered a “person”? What’s “independent action”?
There’s the unborn soul/life and the born soul/life. I suspect that the soul/life begins with the zygote (perhaps some would say the soul is absent until brain activity begins??). But since there’s no brain activity, I don’t see how that soul/life would have any memories if it were to die in the womb. But a lack of memories doesn’t mean it wasn’t a soul/life.
Why?
First trimester miscarriages are pretty common. However, I don’t find it cruel at all, to the unborn, that is. All those souls not having to deal with this ol’ world sounds like a privilege to me. Don’t get me wrong, though, that doesn’t mean we get to choose when to end another’s life just because this is a tough place to live.
My concern isn’t with the rapist at all but the woman who I think (unlike some of the neg reppers here) has the human right to choose who fathers her children or indeed to not to have any.
I still think you’re missing the point here, rapists don’t have rights afaic, this is about the woman’s choice to be pregnant or not and if so by whom.
Then we agree it is not wrong that a woman chooses to abort after rape since that is what will happen here (D&C) if she has been made pregnant, it's perhaps for the best that she need not ever know.
Yes I’m pro-life and even more pro-choice.
A zygote is still totally dependent on a womb.
No, that isn’t its particular function.
Until there is a reasonably functioning nervous system I personally would have no worries at all that a person would be being aborted. After that it might require more weighing up of all the specific facts, but until that point then I’d say abortion after a rape would be pretty much a no brainer option afaic.
How do you know this “soul” is there, what does it do?
Christians usually claim the “soul” is a supernatural creation that exists dualistically yet independently of the physical form, and whatever happens or develops in the material world the “soul” remains unchanged and unharmed, even if the material brain is damaged and the "person" seems to have changed or gone . It apparently doesn’t need to develop since it is already complete, as I understand the idea (woo?) anyway.
You seem to have a very odd way of looking at it, that “persons” are brought into existence briefly by the process of conception, but some get to skip this life altogether?
Of course she does. And if she waits and later wants an abortion a month later, it’s too late.
No one should hinder a raped woman from a complete examination and D&C. But if she waits, she’s made her choice.
Yes, there’s a slim chance, even only after a few hours (I think), a zygote has formed. I'd have to look into it more to be dogmatic about it, but I'd say time is of the essence and she should get in there immediately to get that sperm out of her.
I’m not sure what that means.
I’ve read that research has been done where human embryos successfully attach themselves to an engineered womb and begin to grow. Although not perfected, science is moving in this direction.
What about its nervous system makes you feel confident it’s become a person at that point? What do you call it before that point?
I suppose I’d say there’s the unborn life/soul and the born life/soul. It sounds like you’re saying the unborn life/soul begins when the nervous system begins to develop. Right? I suspect it begins earlier. I could be wrong.
I use the terms interchangeably. I assume, because your profile says atheist, you wouldn’t use the word “soul”?
I think once the soul/life begins (at the zygote stage, brain activity or nervous system stage, I’m not sure), it continues to grow. The only thing, in my belief system, that can end the growth of this soul is what is known in the Christian world as the second death. The souls/lives that were ended with miscarriage or abortion will be resurrected with new bodies and continue to grow for eternity.
You may find that odd, but it’s a common view in my circle. But let me clarify, they don't skip "this life." They skip this particular time on earth, but they don't skip life on earth.
No. I don’t believe our souls will ever be “fully” developed (maybe I’m not sure what you mean by that). The point of a soul/life is to live and grow and develop and learn and experience, etc.
You feel it’s unfair? Not only do miscarried and aborted ones not experience as much as you and I, but many infants and children die. Do they have an unfair advantage over you?
Well, I wasn’t really trying to convince you. But as far as what happens to miscarried babies, watch this:
No, nor am I really, but I am very much for living life (pro-life) while not being restricted by what other people may think are moral choices (pro-choice). All abortions, not just from rape, are imo individual cases to be left to those involved to make their choices not dogma.
I judge that a person does not exist without a nervous system, which includes the brain btw. If an existing person loses all brain function then that person ceases to exist at least in the material world, so imo until a zygote develops one there is no person. Until that point a zygote is simply living cells holding a unique DNA that could potentially become a person.
I tend to think that the “soul” idea is complete nonsense but who knows perhaps I’m wrong.
Since ”soul” doesn’t indicate anything material, then it’s just an abstract human notion imo, perhaps as a response to fear of our obvious mortality, not of any real worth outside making some people feel better about dying perhaps.
Well that all seems more like wishful thinking than truth. Magic realms in all probability don’t exist, nice idea though if you can make yourself believe it I suppose.
Really, how do you know all this?
The idea of carrying your mental baggage from one life to another, perhaps eternally, sounds quite dreadful. I’d rather prefer a total obliteration perhaps and then maybe coming back anew perhaps. I’d really hate to be me for ever and ever with no escape, how ghastly.
Sorry but I don’t even believe in my own mumbo jumbo. Life is simply unfair that’s just how it is, so accept it, it’s no good pretending it will all become fair in the end, it probably won’t.
A Pastor’s son in a NDE seeing the kind of afterlife he was taught to believe in doesn’t exactly surprise me much, which no doubt the son of an Islamic Imam would not have seen.
lain: So, you would stand by and approve of doctors performing abortions into the second and third trimesters, for example? If so, you don’t take any responsibility for allowing that? Maybe I’ve just misunderstood you, so please feel free to clarify.
Sounds reasonable to me. It’s possible that at that early point, only God knows what the potential person could be (not necessarily that the person “is being” at that point). I think the opposition you’d get is from Bible believers who look to Jeremiah 1:5 that says God knew Jeremiah before God formed him in the womb. I’m not convinced that this means that Jeremiah was considered a “living soul” before he was formed in the womb. I liken it to a woman imagining what her future children will be like.
Still, I think it’d be acceptable to get that sperm out of the woman as soon as possible. It’s still unclear whether the zygote actually possesses the “breath of God” and is considered a “living soul.” As you said, when brain activity ceases to function in an existing person, he ceases to exist. It’s not unreasonable to think that brain activity begins when the “breath of God” joins with the physical component.
Scripture uses the word soul and life interchangeably. In other words, if one loses his life (i.e. dies) it is said he lost his soul. So, it certainly indicates something material, biblically, that is. Yes, the soul is said to “leave the body” at death, but that’s a temporary state. The joining of the body and breath of God is what makes up the living soul.
Mostly the Bible.
Well, that’s kind of what God does. He’s not “obliterating” me, but He’s renewing me, transforming me. At the resurrection, I’ll get a new body, equipped for life in the next age. If I didn’t have, at least, some of my memories I wonder if I’d be grateful.
Well, everyone gets to choose whether to follow their conscience or not. Life becomes unfair when folks don’t follow their conscience.
I have read about many NDEs. I think you’re right, to a point. We see what God knows will comfort us, what we’re familiar with. I’m not sure we’ll have wings, but you’re missing the point. There IS life after death. This little boy said too many things his parents never informed him of for me not to believe much of what he’s shared. Did you listen to the entire thing?
Well, I’m not going to make judgement without knowing all the facts of an individual case. If your doctors are doing their job and have perhaps valid medical issues to deal with then I’m not about to interfere, make an ill informed or dogmatic judgement.
In this particular thread I don’t intend to get involved in what some people’s religious doctrine may lead them to believe about their particular god. In this thread you will probably need to first demonstrate that any supernatural at all is required in human reproduction before I’d want to go down any doctrinal rabbit holes.
I don’t know about any “breath of God” however I’d have thought though that if your God exists then whatever happens would be perhaps because it’s the will of God? However I simply don’t accept that any supernatural agencies play any part and that humans have to make honest and difficult choices from time to time.
That’s what you think anyway.
Quelle surprise!
You are quite entitled to believe that of course.
Some people are born with unfairness built in it seems.
:e4e:
If I approve of doctors performing abortions after a “person” has begun to develop, I’m an accessory to murder. Can you give me a reason why I shouldn’t believe that?
I was simply sharing how I come to my conclusions. And the questions were rhetorical. I didn’t really expect you to answer them. However, I’m simply using biblical language to express the same question you’re asking (well, answered) in secular language. For example, instead of “person” I use “living soul” but we’re still pondering the same thing: When does this unborn life form become a person?
Well, my point was that your argument sounded reasonable even from a Christian perspective. You feel a “person” comes into existence at the point of the nervous system along with brain activity. From a Christian perspective, this sounds reasonable since it is possible the physical component (zygote) is not “activated” with the spiritual component (“breath of God”) until the moment of brain activity.
God allows miscarriages, He doesn’t cause them.
It’s what I’ve come to believe from biblical study and learning of others’ experiences.
Really? You expected a different answer?
Do you think believing this way is a more pleasant way to spend this existence?
You think some are born without a conscience?
So, what'd you think of the little prodigy? Had you seen that before?
No, but what you do believe is rather your business. I think doctors sometimes have to make tough choices while the quality of life is also a major factor that I’d consider anyway weighed up against how much of a person the particular foetus seems to represent to me.
This thread is about a rape victim and if the woman has not already decided on an early abortion and let the pregnancy proceed to late term then I see no obvious justification to abort an otherwise healthy foetus. However I suspect that my idea of “person” may not quite match yours since I tend to think that perhaps the majority of “personhood” develops postnatal.
No, not exactly, for me the start of a person might coincide with a basic nervous system but it probably still has a way to go.
Yes, He seems to let very bad things happen to some good people, you might even tend think that there is no God at all for all the difference He seems to make. :think:
Actually no I didn't.
Can’t say, I’ve no experience of it. Some more evangelical Christians almost seem to be on a permanent high, which just seems a bit weird to me.
I know that some are born with faulty brains not even able to understand in the concepts of “God” and “conscience” while others are trapped in bodies they can’t control properly, while others yet have deformities. All that seems pretty unfair to me, at least abortions are over quickly with no obvious signs of suffering imo.
Yes, your God seems to have smiled on her alright, but I can think of one or two rather more deserving people to experience some Godly beauty, talents and kindness, who don’t get anything but misery.
lain:I’m having some trouble following you. Tell me plainly, is there any stage in the development of the embryo or fetus you would choose to make abortion illegal?
Belief is not an issue for me since I have personal experience with God. But, yes, loyalty to God can sometimes be a struggle because of the lack of answers to pressing, vital questions.
Weird as in strange or weird as in unfamiliar? If strange, why would you think so?
I’m not sure I’m following you. I can see why you’d say some are born “with unfairness built in” (i.e. handicapped). But I don’t think anyone is born without a conscience in the sense that they don’t know right from wrong, so they always do the wrong thing. But, I guess were getting off track.
That may be true, but it seems you keep missing the point. There is an afterlife. Whether you understand why things happen the way they do is irrelevant to that. Know what I mean?
I haven’t said anything about making abortion illegal IIRC, however I live in the UK where I understand it actually is illegal already except “for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioeconomic factors, and/or fetal defects”. However in practice I would say that in the UK if a woman is determined enough to have an abortion then she can pretty much get one nevertheless.
Is this personal experience tangible in some material way or do you simply think you have experienced God?
Strange; it seems to me rather as though they are almost on drugs and perhaps aren’t totally among us but off in a world of their own. “Off with the fairies” perhaps.
I disagree, some are in fact born with very little mental abilities and can’t ever be expected to understand the complex issues involving “conscience” (say). I don’t think anyone is simply born with a “conscience” any more than they are born believing in a particular god, such things require learning about and an ability to make reasoned conclusions. Any particular god eventually believed in will usually be the one they are taught to believe in by their family and culture.
Sorry, but claiming that there really is a particular religious based afterlife is simply a bald assertion which imo is almost certainly not true.