-->
@YeshuaBought
Does my right to do with my body what I want to give me the right to kill another human being?I have the right to choose what to do with my body.
Can Christians be prochoice?
Posts
Total:
109
-->
@YeshuaBought
Just propaganda. What If I had been pregnant by my rapist? People like you would force me to give birth.
Not propaganda. I can get into the proof further. I think you are in denial of what the unborn is. We should get that established first. Can you scientifically establish the unborn is not a human being? I can establish scientifically/biologically and philosophically that it is. I am still waiting for you to challenge that assertion. Is it a human being? Go ahead, commit yourself one way or the other.
So far you have not been honest with yourself and avoided all my questions.
The societies we live in (the USA and Canada) gives the woman the "right" to kill her offspring. That is not justice IF the unborn is a human being. It is treated as a lesser being than what it is unless you can prove the unborn is not a human being. Go ahead.
Now, when it comes to rape, the unborn is the innocent victim here. It has done nothing wrong. I say castrate the rapist and throw him in jail, but should the unborn pay for someone else's sins? Where is the justice there?
-->
@YeshuaBought
No need to get upset, and if it's not a baby, then what is it?
-->
@YeshuaBought
Let's do the thought experiment again: I didn't invent this one, it's not my creation, I just find it interesting.
You are standing on the third floor of a burning hospital, at the top of a flight of stairs that will lead to your escape. To the right is the children's ward. To the left, the fertility clnic. Somehow, in the children's ward, you can see a three year old, frozen in terror, crying and needing help. One child, the last one left, and you're that child's only hope to survive. The the right is the fertility clinic. There's a case of 1000 fertilized embryos. If you pick up the child, you can't carry the embyros. If you pick up the embryos, you can't carry the child. Whichever you pick dooms the other, because the stairs will burn before you can get back.
As pro-life Christians, which do you save?
Don't add any conditions in: do you save 1000 or 1?
-->
@ludofl3x
I would save the born babies.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Troll question. I don't have to answer that.
-->
@YeshuaBought
I would have guessed that for you, given the rest of the thread. I admire your conviction in it, too, no equivocating, which for a Christian is not often the case when presented with this version of the trolley problem. Well done!
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Isn't the answer a fetus?
-->
@PGA2.0
Little girl, YOU are in denial, if you think a fetus without brain waves is a baby. Get off your high horse, before someone knocks you off.
-->
@ludofl3x
Thank you.
-->
@PGA2.0
I have been very honest. I have done nothing wrong.
-->
@ludofl3x
Let's do the thought experiment again: I didn't invent this one, it's not my creation, I just find it interesting.You are standing on the third floor of a burning hospital, at the top of a flight of stairs that will lead to your escape. To the right is the children's ward. To the left, the fertility clnic. Somehow, in the children's ward, you can see a three year old, frozen in terror, crying and needing help. One child, the last one left, and you're that child's only hope to survive. The the right is the fertility clinic. There's a case of 1000 fertilized embryos. If you pick up the child, you can't carry the embyros. If you pick up the embryos, you can't carry the child. Whichever you pick dooms the other, because the stairs will burn before you can get back.As pro-life Christians, which do you save?Don't add any conditions in: do you save 1000 or 1?
You can look at this from a number of vantage points.
1. Both the one child and the thousand embryos are human beings (I contend from conception). Debatably, the fertilized embryos, to continue living, will eventually have to be transported to a womb.
Since I did not know whether wombs were available or the thousand will survive for a long period of time I would save the child.
Since the child will feel more pain at its stage of development I would save the child.
Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child.
2. Morally, both the thousand embryos and the child are equally valuable if all human beings have intrinsic value.
3. Now, if not all human beings are not intrinsically valuable then how can you object when one class of human beings is exploited, dehumanized, devalued, discriminated against, to the point of death? You are being inconsistent in your thinking if not all human beings are equally intrinsically valuable.
So, the question to you is, Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?
-->
@YeshuaBought
Little girl, YOU are in denial, if you think a fetus without brain waves is a baby. Get off your high horse, before someone knocks you off.
Thanks for the replies! Now let us debate what you have said.
First off, my name is Peter. I'm not a girl.
Second, if you are going to base your justification on level of development (since the unborn by nature will develop all the traits of humanness that you have) then the principle of killing less developed human beings could apply to anyone less developed than those doing the killing. Reproductively, a two-year-old girl is less developed than a twelve-year-old girl or a twenty-year-old woman. Does that mean the more developed can kill the less developed? If not, then why should you have the choice to kill the less developed, biologically sharing your genetics (your very own unique offspring that biologically shares 23 chromosomes from you and 23 from your male donor), even though a less developed human being? Can you answer that question?
Third, you have done an excellent job of avoiding every question to date I have asked you. That makes me think you are in denial. Since you don't have a suitable and logical argument you brush my arguments off with ad hominem attacks.
So, let's try this again.
1. Is the unborn alive?
2. Is the unborn human?
3. Is the unborn a human being?
4. Is the human being a personal being?
5. When does personhood begin exactly?
6. Should all human beings be treated with equal dignity?
7. What makes us human beings?
Please answer these questions so I can understand your thinking.
-->
@YeshuaBought
I have been very honest. I have done nothing wrong.
You asked the question that generated this thread (Can Christians be prochoice?), and you and others have answered that question yet you have avoided answering my questions and reciprocating the courtesy in regards to your answer. You say to others, "Fair enough, I just wanted to debate this" (Post 12). Do you want to debate this or not? So far you have just called me names. I get it. I realize this is a very sensitive subject with you. I realize you don't like my answers or questions. That does not, however, justify your position.
As a fellow believer in Yeshua, I am trying to season your thinking on the subject and open your eyes to the other side of the equation and what is really taking place in the pro-choice position. I can understand ignorance in understanding things, but I believe you do not understand the heart of the problem or you are just ignoring it.
So what is the heart of the issue?
1. What is being killed?
2. Does it matter?
If you do not agree it is a human being I can enlighten you on that subject by showing you scientifically as well as philosophically and morally what it is and what is happening here.
Morally speaking, I can also show you that once you do not treat all human beings with "intrinsic value" (all human beings being treated with equal dignity and grace) you open the door for brutality and unjust practices not only by yourself doing the brutality but also from others doing the same brutality to you. Once we, as human beings, stop treating others with the same equality, dignity, and respect we hope they do to us (the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do to you) we are in danger of becoming savage barbarians.
-->
@ludofl3x
Sorry, a correction in my answer to you. I said:
"Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child."
I meant, "Thus, establishing both are human beings, it comes down to a preference...."
-->
@YeshuaBought
Why is that a troll question?
-->
@ludofl3x
is the fetus nalive?
-->
@YeshuaBought
It is not your body, it is the fetus's body. You don't get to choose whether or not to murder a baby just because it is attached to you. Life scientifically starts at conception. Religiously, God says "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
The church fought to abolish exposure in the late Roman Empire, just as it fought to abolish gladiator games and slavery. While these actions were not directly rooted in Biblical canon, they drew upon a moral understanding derived from the Gospel, the writings of the Apostles, and the OT. This was a particularly glorious age in the history of Christendom, where the Holy Spirit moved visibly upon the Church, inspiring great works.
At least one of these great works has been undone in our times by a pagan resurgence in American culture. Let's not cheer and clap as it happens.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your question was:
if it's not a baby, then what is it?
THat's what I answered.
-->
@PGA2.0
1. Both the one child and the thousand embryos are human beings (I contend from conception). Debatably, the fertilized embryos, to continue living, will eventually have to be transported to a womb.Since I did not know whether wombs were available or the thousand will survive for a long period of time I would save the child.Since the child will feel more pain at its stage of development I would save the child.
So you've made the decision that the embryos are less valuable than the three year old, because they aren't viable, they don't all have wombs. This is problematic: if 1% of the 1000 embryos have a reasonable chance at survival, then there are at least 10 viable babies you're letting burn. If all human life starts at conception, and these 1000 embryos are past conception, and 10 post fertilization embryos have a chance at survival, by simple math, that box is ten times as full of life than the single three year old. Also, you have decided that a less-than-viable embryo, even one, is worth less than a living baby. They're both the same, right? I mean you can't believe in aborting non-viable embryos identified in utero, right? You're also valuing the child's pain over the embryos. Why?
Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child.2. Morally, both the thousand embryos and the child are equally valuable if all human beings have intrinsic value.3. Now, if not all human beings are not intrinsically valuable then how can you object when one class of human beings is exploited, dehumanized, devalued, discriminated against, to the point of death? You are being inconsistent in your thinking if not all human beings are equally intrinsically valuable.So, the question to you is, Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?
The thousand embryos and theone child are not equally valuable. 1000 embryos, according to your beliefs = 1000 lives. Not embryos. It does not appear that you think embryos have the same intrinsic value as a single child. Otherwise, you'd be choosing one life over at least 10, and that's if it's only 1% of the 1000. Is there a number where the embryo viability becomes more valuable than the single child? Is it 25? 100? 500?
-->
@ludofl3x
1. Both the one child and the thousand embryos are human beings (I contend from conception). Debatably, the fertilized embryos, to continue living, will eventually have to be transported to a womb.Since I did not know whether wombs were available or the thousand will survive for a long period of time I would save the child.Since the child will feel more pain at its stage of development I would save the child.So you've made the decision that the embryos are less valuable than the three year old, because they aren't viable, they don't all have wombs. This is problematic: if 1% of the 1000 embryos have a reasonable chance at survival, then there are at least 10 viable babies you're letting burn. If all human life starts at conception, and these 1000 embryos are past conception, and 10 post fertilization embryos have a chance at survival, by simple math, that box is ten times as full of life than the single three year old. Also, you have decided that a less-than-viable embryo, even one, is worth less than a living baby. They're both the same, right? I mean you can't believe in aborting non-viable embryos identified in utero, right? You're also valuing the child's pain over the embryos. Why?
I've made the decision based on the sure thing, the degree of pain, although I do not know that as factual, and my bias. I have also based it on the fact that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and I can only save one or the other. Either choice would have been valid based on equality but like you, I have a preference for the one that is born rather than the many that are not. Generally speaking, there are emotional attachments and investments by the parents and others that have not been formed to the same degree as with the unborn. But I recognize based on biblical principles that all human beings have intrinsic value and I believe abortion is morally wrong because it is not up to us to take an innocent life.
Thus, establishing both human beings it comes does to a preference or choice for the individual doing the saving since one or the other will die. Even so, I think most would save the child.2. Morally, both the thousand embryos and the child are equally valuable if all human beings have intrinsic value.3. Now, if not all human beings are not intrinsically valuable then how can you object when one class of human beings is exploited, dehumanized, devalued, discriminated against, to the point of death? You are being inconsistent in your thinking if not all human beings are equally intrinsically valuable.So, the question to you is, Are all human beings intrinsically valuable?The thousand embryos and the one child are not equally valuable. 1000 embryos, according to your beliefs = 1000 lives.
According to my beliefs? It is either fact or it is not that embryos are living human beings. What say you?
Thus, yes, 1000 lives will be lost but will those lives be lost also without having wombs to grow in since I am not aware of an embryo surviving artificially outside of a womb for very long. Since I don't know the circumstances with the embryos I go for the one sure thing. Then there is the unknown to me of whether in the early stages of life the unborn feel pain as of yet. I know the child does, so my compassion and bias go to the child.
Not embryos. It does not appear that you think embryos have the same intrinsic value as a single child. Otherwise, you'd be choosing one life over at least 10, and that's if it's only 1% of the 1000. Is there a number where the embryo viability becomes more valuable than the single child? Is it 25? 100? 500?
I do think and recognize that embryos have the same value that the child has for every life is intrinsically valuable but I only have one of two options. Someone is going to die and that is beyond my control to prevent. I take what I feel is the sure thing, also taking into account I don't believe the embryos yet sense pain, at least not to the same degree that the child would. I also take into account the investment the parents and others have in the child that has a far greater degree of attachment than the 1000 embryos. They have not been nurtured by a woman whether that be the natural biological parents or a surrogate as of yet. Their personalities have not developed to the same degree. The level of emotional attachment has not developed to the same extent with the1000 embryos.
The question is would you fault me if I saved 1000 less developed human lives instead of the child?
Since there are only two options I feel either is a win-lose scenario.
-->
@YeshuaBought
Sure,. Even if you believe abortion is immoral and evil, it falls under the "for all have sinned" doctrine.
A better question would be under what circumstances, if any, would Jesus condone abortion.
-->
@YeshuaBought
.
YeshuaBought,
YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE: "It is not a baby until it has brainwaves."
HELLO, anybody home today? Our serial killer Yahweh God differs with you upon this topic, and why am I not surprised?
Lest you forget, our Jewish Yahweh God says life began at the first breath! "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Genesis 2:7)
YeshuaBought, do you want to call our Jewish Yahweh God a LIAR with what He says compared to what you say? Huh? Life DOES NOT begin at inception, neither does it begin with "brain waves!" Besides, our bible is hardly pro-choice with our Yahweh's serial killings of innocent children, zygotes, fetus' and babies throughout the scriptures.
So many fake Christians, and so little time to address their ignorance.
.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
God is make believe so it can neither agree nor disagree.
And abortion is simply abortion.
And YeshuaBought assumes that both christianity and pro-choice are more than just the outspewing of data.
And that is their choice.
And your choice is to outspew your own data constructs.
As is mine.
-->
@PGA2.0
The question is would you fault me if I saved 1000 less developed human lives instead of the child?
"Fault" you, no. It is, however, inconsistent with your stance that embryos have the same intrinsic value as a baby. Otherwise, because while neither is appealing, generally we'd want to save the most lives in a situation like that, you'd have to choose to save a percentage of the 1000 (if you really want to be specific about the wombs, it's a fertility clinic, at least 200 of the 1000 would have parents waiting for them, because they are grown for applicants, not just wily nily, and each applicant would likely have more than one embryo grown then selected for viability and implanted: 1000 / 5 = 200 applicants, 200 wombs, all 200 selected for most viable). Would you allow someone whose OB told them "I'm sorry, but your embryo is non-viable, it will be born, live a short and painful life," would you allow that person to choose to abort their baby?
My point is you don't preach that you're pro life under conditions, right? It's not pro life so long as the baby has a personality, or parents, or feels pain, or isn't mentally disabled, physically deformed. Yet here you are, making that very same distinction in saving the baby: I saved the baby because I'm not sure the embryos are going to survive. I'm not saying you're a bad person for doing it, I'm saying it merely demonstrates that you do not, in fact, believe that 1 embryo = 1 baby. In fact you don't even think 10 embryos = 1 baby. We all choose the baby because it's a baby. An embryo is a clump of cells. I don't see them as the same and I don't claim to.
-->
@ludofl3x
The question is would you fault me if I saved 1000 less developed human lives instead of the child?"Fault" you, no. It is, however, inconsistent with your stance that embryos have the same intrinsic value as a baby. Otherwise, because while neither is appealing, generally we'd want to save the most lives in a situation like that, you'd have to choose to save a percentage of the 1000 (if you really want to be specific about the wombs, it's a fertility clinic, at least 200 of the 1000 would have parents waiting for them, because they are grown for applicants, not just wily nily, and each applicant would likely have more than one embryo grown then selected for viability and implanted: 1000 / 5 = 200 applicants, 200 wombs, all 200 selected for most viable). Would you allow someone whose OB told them "I'm sorry, but your embryo is non-viable, it will be born, live a short and painful life," would you allow that person to choose to abort their baby?
Again, you paint a hypothetical situation in which you only give two undesirable possibilities and no additional information. Hypothetically, I can only save one or the other. I don't know the kind of pain the embryo will go through if it does, but I do know the kind of pain the three-year-old will go through. I also know that the parents, grandparents, other siblings, neighbours, and so on, will experience a lot of emotion and trama since they have invested a lot into the three-year-old life. I don't think the same degree of attachment has been made with the embryos. I would like to save both the child and the embryos, but with your scenario, I can't.
Such an event is designed to find fault in whatever position is taken. That is just the way the hypothetical is designed. So no matter what side I take, you bet, there is going to be fault found with either hypothetical choice. It is a dilemma. Am I inconsistent with my view that both have equal value by saving one and not the other? I fight to make known to others the pro-life position. When I debate the subject I feel sometimes those I debate are playing a game with how many wins they can rack up. They don't care about the injustice abortion causes (over 1.5 billion human lives lost, not hypothetical lives but real lives, mainly because of a choice not to take responsibility for their actions).
My point is you don't preach that you're pro life under conditions, right? It's not pro life so long as the baby has a personality, or parents, or feels pain, or isn't mentally disabled, physically deformed. Yet here you are, making that very same distinction in saving the baby: I saved the baby because I'm not sure the embryos are going to survive. I'm not saying you're a bad person for doing it, I'm saying it merely demonstrates that you do not, in fact, believe that 1 embryo = 1 baby. In fact you don't even think 10 embryos = 1 baby. We all choose the baby because it's a baby. An embryo is a clump of cells. I don't see them as the same and I don't claim to.
I object to the pigeon-holing as a fact that I don't think the 10 or 1000 embryos are as intrinsically valuable as any other life. Yes, I identify and relate more with the child yet I see both groups as deserving of life and protection.
I object to that painting of personality by one and not the other. The embryo has a personality also. All human beings by nature are personal beings. The embryos are undeveloped. The difference is that with the three-year-old we experience that personality. With the embryo, we have not witnessed it as of yet. It is growing into what it is.
Now you critique me for saving the three-year-old but my choice is not to KILL another human being. The choice of a woman seeking an abortion is to intentionally kill another human being. Do you find that wrong???
I look upon it as a crime to kill an innocent human being. Do you?
My choice is to protect the unborn's life and fight for its rights. You give me an either-or situation. If I saved 1000 over the three-year-old you would critique me over that decision too. There is no winning in such a scenario and that is the purpose of such scenarios. IMO, it is a psychological ploy to sway opinion and take away from the important issue of what the pro-choicer is doing. They are intentionally choosing to kill another human being. In your scenario, I am intentionally choosing to save a life in an undesirable situation when no matter what I do life will be lost.
-->
@PGA2.0
Am I inconsistent with my view that both have equal value by saving one and not the other?
To be more precise, it's not "one" or "the other". It's "one" or "one thousand." All of the reasoning about why you'd save the three year old is why we'd ALL save the three year old. We get that part, you didn't need to restate it. I'm not trying to find fault in a position with which I agree (save the actual baby), I'm pointing out that your decision is at odds with what your stated beliefs are: all embryos past fertilization are in fact every bit as alive and precious as the three year old. Yet you still saved 999 less lives.
I object to the pigeon-holing as a fact that I don't think the 10 or 1000 embryos are as intrinsically valuable as any other life. Yes, I identify and relate more with the child yet I see both groups as deserving of life and protection.
Well, okay, but you didn't save the box with 1000 times the intrinsic value of the baby. This does not match, you see what I'm saying? There's no conditions on your pro life stance. It doesn't matter if you can't imagine the pain an embryo feels, it's still a baby to you and therefore it should be calculated exactly the same as the three year old, times 1000. You're not pro life only when the embryo has a parent already dedicated to loving it, tons of babies are born into loveless situations that will destroy their lives forever, every single day. Their parents don't care if they're dead. Can we now say "those aren't worth being pro life over" because this seems quite close to your "no one cares about those embryos enough yet" to make the box worth choosing.
I am intentionally choosing to save a life in an undesirable situation when no matter what I do life will be lost.
You're intentionally choosing to end the 999 lives, though, as a result. Wouldn't it make sense to minimize the loss? You're not doing that. It seems according to your own position, you're choosing something we'd call immoral: death for 1000 children for the sake of a single crying three year old.
Again, I'm not trying to find fault in your CHOICE. I'm pointing out the fault in your conviction: it's not really there if you're put into a difficult spot and forced to choose on it, you choose the baby not the embryo. Clearly if the embryos weren't embryos and were instead babies, you'd make a different choice: one three year old baby versus four crying newborns. I think you're probably a good person, my guess is you'd make a difficult choice and never forgive yourself, but I think you'd choose the four. I would. You'd want to do the MOST good, right? But you chose not to save the most lives, according to your own position (all embryos = individual babies, therefore you save 1000 lives, or 200 lives or 10 instead of 1).
I don't see embryos as human beings whose rights supersede the right to bodily autonomy, it's very simple for me. Those embryos aren't lives, they're embryos. And in my experience, there's a lot of hypocrisy from the pro life side, because most of the time they don't give two shits about babies that are born into bad circumstances, they just want them born for some reason. After that, sorry poor folks, you're on your own. Praise his name, I guess.
-->
@Stronn
.
Stronn,
YOUR HELL BOUND ATHEIST QUOTE: "A better question would be under what circumstances, if any, would Jesus condone abortion."
Even though PGA2.0 has shown themselves to be as ignorant as Tradesecret relative to the Bible, I am sure that this person would have to agree that Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, aborted many zygotes, fetus' and babies in His Great Flood because of His creation being evil. What makes me disturbed about this biblical axiom, is the fact that as these babies were being essentially aborted, Jesus was watching them drown a horrible death as their mothers watched in horror. (Hebrews 4:13). This is what a TRUE Christian like myself has to accept when being of the faith.
.