A very brief history of Human Life

If you let the fetus develop on its own without interference it will become a baby. A baby will become a toddler, a toddler a child, a child an adult and so on. It's just a self-serving rationalization to think you can kill it at any stage and not be murdering a human being. If the fetus spontaneously aborts that's not murder; if the born human being dies of natural causes that is not murder either; but if you kill it at any stage that's murder, or whatever it should be called legally. It would also be murder to kill a person who couldn't live without mechanical help with breathing or kidney dialysis or anything like that. You are rationalizing murder by pretending it doesn't have all the stuff of a human being at every stage. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh nonsense. Straw man. The argument is that if you leave natural processes alone you'll either get a human being or nature will bring about miscarriage.Other things such as mercy, assessment of possibility of recovery and so on, enter into decisions about life support. There are so many things that go into it that it's not possible to give a principle that covers them all. Even you wouldn't be in favor of removing life support in many cases. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've always found that to be a very strange attitude, that you can know you are killing a child, so it is a very difficult decision that is hard to forget. I don't see how you could even do it at all if you really face the fact that it is a human being. I had an abortion at age twenty, then had a dream about a small child riding off in a hearse waving to me. I'd told myself it was just a bit of tissue, the standard rationalization then and now, and then I had that dream. It is hard to think about it now without crying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no moral contradiction in saving the life of an innocent unborn while approving of legally prescribed death for a criminal. Right to life can be forfeited after all, but the unborn baby has done nothing to forfeit it. The moral confusion exists on the side that would kill the innocent but preserve the life of the guilty. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's got all the stuff for making a human being already present. There's no need to get into all the definitional nitpicking, it WILL BE a human being if it develops naturally without interference. And of course it may not develop naturally, it may fail at many stages and never develop into a child. That's up to nature, and none of those possibilities justify killing it. It doesn't matter what you call it at any stage, it's got all the stuff for developing into a human being, so if you kill it at any stage you are ending the life of that human being. I think this is instinctively understood by everybody but it's suppressed by all this rationalization and nitpicking that propagandizes women into killing their children. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't suppose you'd care to require that marriage be emphasized as the healthy happy envionrment that children should grow up in, and put a lot of energy into the cultural critique of free sex and fatherless children and solutions to it. That's a direction I think we should go, not just for the sake of the mother and child, but for the sake of society.Beyond that, pro-life counseling is often denounced and prevented by the pro-abortion people. What it does, however, is counsel women with unwanted pregnancies about how it really is a human being, and encourages them to bring it to term, and offers all kinds of helps to make it easier on them, including free medical help and housing in the many living situations provided by churches for those who need it. There they may get help with the pregnancy and yes general health information and aid, with completing their education, with getting a job, with getting funding, with making the decision about keeping the child or putting it up for adoption, sometimes with reconciling the woman with the baby's father if that's at all possible. These ministries are all over the country. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh nonsense. Nobody is saying that. For instance, wherever the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy her life is put above the fetus' life. That is a very rare occurrence but the priority is clear that the developing child is not the same thing as a living person.What I'm arguing is that it will become that if you leave it alone. There is no legal status involved, it's just the recognition that killing it will end a human life that inevitably would have been under normal circumstances. You all take this simple point to straw man extremes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No.Duh.Read it all.Duh.

.... Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes it's just word games. EvC posts are almost nothing else. Your irrelevant one-liners that aren't based on reading much of what I said are a pain in the neck.I'm not stuck on the word "murder," I mean KILLING A HUMAN BEING in a formative stage, and murder is the usual term for ending a human life; and I clearly said in a recent post that I put the mother's life above the child's. I'm also not stuck on "human being" I've said many times I'm talking about the inevitability of its becoming a human being so that if you kiil it you are ending a human life.I'm not for prosecuting anybody at this point, and certainly not the mother who doesn't usually know what she's doing and often sorely regrets it when she knows. Stop projecting stuff on me. I said what I meant given the limits of language. Nitpicking pedantry is a stu/pid word game. Try reading in context.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think people who make stu/pid straw man arguments ought to be executed by firing squad.There.

Nothing that occurs in the natural course of pregnancy justifies killing the developing baby, so there's no point in going on and on about those natural processes. If they lead to miscarriage that's not murder.I already said the mother's life is more important than the baby's. A threat to her life or health is really the only justification for terminating a pregnancy. Deformities of the child are not a reason to my mind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't think it's relevant when something you would define as "personhood" begins, since the point I've been arguing is that if you leave it alone at any stage it will inevitably become a person, barring the effect of abnormal processes.I also have a problem based on this reasoning, with any abortifacient or contraceptive that interferes after egg and sperm have combined, because all the genetic material is there for the making of the human being. I might be forced to make an exception for it just because it's popular and not gruesome like abortion, but logically I'm against the exception.I expect to meet my own child in heaven, the one that I aborted when I was twenty, which was done at the age of about seven weeks. If the fertilized ovum is also a child IN GOD'S EYES, then there are going to be a lot of children meeting their Christian parents in heaven. I don't know of course. There may be an early stage of purely physical formation before the soul is infused by God. Nobody knows that. I rather think if the genetic material is all there, then it's the person in the making already. BUT, again, since we can't know that, I suppose I have to make the exception for the earliest stages.

OK.

Only a perverted legal system could call the murder of an unborn child a "choice" to be made, a "medical decision" when there is no medical issue involved, or a "right." But I guess when you believe that morality was evolved by natural processes you can justify any heinous crime.