That isn't what was said.
Nadine Dorries abortion proposals
- Thread starter hurfdurf
- Start date
That isn't what was said.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You are avoiding answering my question.
Go ask Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark
Your opinion is? Oh and see above.
YOU believe what YOU want to believe mate. Let me make this clear to YOU.You are avoiding answering my question.
Your opinion is? Oh and see above.
True Christians and people like me, however, believe that life begins at conception.
-10 points for no true Scotsman.
The Bible does not say when conception begins, regardless of what your JW translation can be held to say.
Christians using science to support their argument, oh the irony.
Yes, it is. If it's a human, totally unique, from fertilisation then both twins are the same person. You understand that identical twins are both formed from a single fertilised cell, right?
Scripture indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception.
According to the Mosaic Law, causing the death of a baby in its mother’s womb was wrong. Yes, even such a life is precious to Jehovah. (Exodus 21:22, 23; Psalm 127:3) This means that abortion is wrong.
All life is precious to Jehovah God, the Bible teaches this, true christians adhere to this scriptual teaching.
The psalmist David wrote concerning God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME,” thus accurately revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived.
And backed by a molecular biologist.
You're missing the point mate, it is a life. What are YOU trying to prove?.
Fertilization
- Fetal development of twins, as with singletons, begins with fertilization. In non-fraternal twins, two separate eggs are fertilized with two separate sperm. In fraternal twins, only one egg is fertilized but later divides into two embryos. A lesser known type of twin, called a polar-body twin, occurs when one egg splits into two and is fertilized by two separate sperm.
- After conception, for fraternal twins, the zygote (the fertilized egg) divides into two. In non-fraternal twins, there is no splitting of the zygote. Usually this division occurs within the first week of pregnancy.
- Implantation for any baby usually occurs 6 to 14 days after ovulation, which is roughly just after the zygote for fraternal twins would split. During this time, the zygote(s) divide(s) rapidly. Once this occurs, the zygote is termed an embryo. Some of these dividing cells become the placenta, while others will continue to divide and form the fetus. The embryos burrow into the lining of the uterine wall, and from that point, they develop similarly to singletons.
- During the first few weeks of development, the embryos of twins grow rapidly. As with singletons, the heart begins to beat as early as only three weeks post conception, and the embryos develop distinct "insides" and "outsides." Within a few weeks, arm buds and the tail appear, as do major organs such as the liver and spleen. The brain divides into separate vesicles, leg buds form, the lungs begin to develop, and by the end of the embryonic period, all major organs have at least started to form and an ultrasound can detect spontaneous movement. It is at this point that little tiny fingers elbow joints just barely become visible and hair follicles start to form.
Exodus 21:22 said:
This doesn't mean that all unborn babies are alive, as you are suggesting.
Psalm 127:3 said:
This has nothing to do with when life begins, it just says that children are a blessing.
Psalm 139:16 said:
Again, this says nothing about when life begins.
In any case, you're trying to argue a scientific and possibly metaphysical point based on religious belief. This is always an uphill struggle.
PS You'll excuse me quoting from the NIV. It's less heretical than the JW's Bible. True Christians prefer that sort of thing.
You have every right to hold the views you have regarding abortion, even if I think your views are utterly misplaced when you claim she should go through with the pregnancy even though she was raped.
I don't hold with abortion as a form of contraception, but I do believe it has a place in society.
However, her life is nothing to do with you or I and it's simply her choice as to whether she goes ahead with the termination.
I fully agree that there should be clear and independent advice offered before a termination but NO religious bodies or individuals should ever be in a position to influence her decision, as the advice would certainly not then be independent.
Women in this position have an already very serious and life changing decision to make and it shouldn't be added to by those who are vehemently opposed to abortion.
Once you deny a woman the right to have an abortion or even contraception, you are effectively taking away her human rights and specifically her right of choice!
This is the 21st Century and hopefully common sense will prevail.
You seem to be dodging the issue though by not actually defining what it is to be a human being. Or do you honestly think that a human being is a fertilized egg? Is that really what defines us as human?
Then I would say that you are being incredibly naive. Considering her history and her pro-life stance.
I know, that is why I mentioned God in that context...
Oh hang on, you don't see yourself as the one being closed minded, it is always the other side. My whole point was not forcing your views on to others. Slavery is forcing your view onto an other. So how exactly is my attitude akin to allowing slavery?
Sorry to say but you are not really giving a very good explanation as to why you are against it from a moral standpoint. Other than a very wooly "I believe life starts at conception" you haven't really explained why you feel abortion is wrong in all cases from a moral standpoint.
Just one of the reasons how religious people have justified slavery in the past.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It's not all that ironic in general when you consider that the Christian Church has at various points in its history promoted the study of science although equally at others has been vehemently opposed (and worse) to certain scientific discoveries and advances. It is however arguably somewhat hypocritical perhaps when someone would choose to deny science in favour of their religion if the two diverge on any point yet be entirely in favour of it when the two agree*.
For the original topic: it doesn't sound a terrible idea prima facie to have advice given on abortion by parties with absolutely no stake in it either financial or theological. However even without doubting the stated aims (there are plenty of people to do that for me) the idea that women must have counselling seems somewhat dubious to me - I've got no quibble that for many it is a traumatic experience both physically and mentally but if it is an aim for it to be forced on them that doesn't sit well (I'm aware that Nadine Dorries claims it is not a requirement).
*standard disclaimer that science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive, there are certain beliefs that appear to be irreconcilable but who knows if they always will be.
French geneticist Jermoe L. LeJeune, while testifying before a Senate Subcommittee, asserted:
To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.
There is hence no doubt that the development of a unique individual human life begins at conception. It is vital that you—the reader—understand that... You did not come from a zygote.
You once were a zygote.
You did not come from an embryo.You once were an embryo.
You did not come from a fetus.You once were a fetus.
You did not come from an adolescent.You once were an adolescent.
Consequently, each one of us has experienced these various developmental stages of life. None of these stages, however, imparted to us our humanity.Is it true that "no one knows when life begins"? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Rape Pregnancies Are Rare.
Assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare.
One final thought, Sandra Mahkorn, in two excellent studies, has asked such women what was their chief complaint? One might fully assume it was the fact that she was pregnant, but that is incorrect. Her chief complaint was how other people treated her.
Such treatment ranged from negative, to simply getting little support from those around her. Even in a culture that offers little support and aggressively pushes abortion as a solution, fewer that half of such babies are killed by abortion.
Think of how many fewer yet there would be if each pregnant victim of a rape were given the support, aid and tender loving care that she and her baby deserve.
Our goal is to offer truly compassionate care to the woman. That is what is best for both mother and child.
Rape Pregnancies Are Rare
Have you realistically any idea how a woman would feel that has become pregnant through a rape?
Not only has she been traumatised by a violent sexual act but then has to endure nutters telling her she should have the seed that is growing inside her grow into a child?
What happens if she is married? It would be hard enough for both parties to come to terms with what has happened - how do you think for a moment they would feel in having to bring that child into the world and raise it!
I really despair at religious mumbo jumbo that can even attempt to inflict this on a woman and or her partner!
There's only one place for religious views like this and that is in the bin! It is both offensive and despicable.
There are to laws to protect religious freedom - there should be laws protecting the public from purveyors of religious tripe which infringes a person's right to do as they please with their body!
Anyone conveying a message that a woman is a murderer because she has an abortion should be prosecuted in the strongest possible terms!
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Why thanks, but honestly I do not need your approval to believe what I believe. That isn't the question though. We are arguing at what point those cells become sentient and thus a valuable human life.
I can tell you one thing. A sperm or a egg is not a human life, nor is the collection of cells that forms when they meet.
Then your scripture is wrong.
The crux of the issue her actually has little to do with conception - it is about choice. A woman must carry the child, she must have the choice to go through the term or not and no man nor god can influence that choice. Nobody but a woman can ever understand how hard it must be to decide that a precious potential human being they are carrying must be aborted.
All they should need during this tough time is non-bias advice and tender support. Not biased and often dangerous religious zealots trying to tell her what she must do with her body and her unborn child.
To bring god into this is quite frankly disgusting. No deity has the right to tell a woman that she must carry a baby if she desires not to, after all she must live with the decision and that perhaps may be punishment enough.
Nor does any human have the right to tell a woman to do that, but the woman had a choice prior to conception to use the contraceptive pill AND a condom if she didnt want to carry a baby. As already stated, pregnancies caused by either rape or failed contraception are extremely rare, and an insignificant minority of the total number of abortions that are being carried out. Most are simply due to girls / women who didnt use contraceptives in the first place.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Of course she has the choice to use contraception but reasons exist for abortion between two extreme ends of the spectrum you have posted.
Whilst I don't have figures to back me up I very much doubt that most abortions are down to women that could not be bothered to use contraception because abortion is a horrendous thing for women to go through. You would have to be suffering some psychological condition to actively chose abortion as a method of contraception. It doesn't compute in my opinion.
They dont 'actively choose' abortion as a method of contraception, they simply have unprotected sex without even thinking for one second to use any kind of contraception. Then if they do end up pregnant, which most of the silly teenage bints who are sleeping around while underage without even using a condom end up doing, some will go in for an abortion, others will end up as teenage mothers.
Its not a case of 'using abortion as a method of contraception', its simply that the number of girls / women who didnt use contraceptives in the first place even though they dont want to have kids is shockingly higher than you you want to believe.
I do not mean to be discourteous, as I am sure you would not mean to be if you were to inform a woman she should be forced to bare a child she did not want.
Let us just assume the ridiculous notion that life begins at conception, what right does a separate life have to live inside someone else?
If I left my window open and a tramp climbed into my house, I would have the right to kick him out...
Last edited: