 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: Where does human life start? |
 |
|
Why do pro-lifers consider abortion to be murder, but they don't consider contraception to be murder?
A sperm is one cell, and an egg is one cell. When they come together, the result is still just one cell. Why are the two reproductive cells not considered to be "alive" or have souls, but the fertilized egg is?
After all, contraception and abortion have EXACTLY the same result, namely that a child that otherwise would have been born doesn't get born. Both cause a baby that otherwise would have existed to not exist.
So why is contraception not murder, but abortion is?
And why stop there? Let's say a couple decides that they're not in the mood one night, and the result is that a child that otherwise would have been conceived doesn't get conceived. Why isn't that murder?
Let's say a woman is going to have one child during her lifetime. Consider these two scenarios:
1. She gets pregnant, has an abortion, gets pregnant later, and has the child.
2. She gets pregnant, has the child, and then doesn't get pregnant later because she's had her baby and now uses contraception.
In the first case, she aborted the first child, and in the second case she did the equivalent of aborting the second child.
Do you see the point I am trying to make? I claim that conception is an arbitrary point to call the causing of the non-existence of a child to be murder. If you're being caused to non-exist, it doesn't really matter to you if it happened before or after conception; in either case the result is the same from the "victim's" point of view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: Re: Where does human life start? |
|
|
| Whew... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: Re: Where does human life start? |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Why do pro-lifers consider abortion to be murder, but they don't consider contraception to be murder? |
I know you're posing a rhetorical question here, right?
| P1234567890 wrote: | | A sperm is one cell, and an egg is one cell. When they come together, the result is still just one cell. Why are the two reproductive cells not considered to be "alive" or have souls, but the fertilized egg is? |
God, as far as I know, has never given a soul to a chromosome transporter nor docking station. Reason: They don't need a soul. Once the egg is fertilized, it's no longer an egg nor is there a sperm cell.
| P1234567890 wrote: | After all, contraception and abortion have EXACTLY the same result, namely that a child that otherwise would have been born doesn't get born. Both cause a baby that otherwise would have existed to not exist.
So why is contraception not murder, but abortion is? |
Ummmm...... (scratching head)
| P1234567890 wrote: | And why stop there? Let's say a couple decides that they're not in the mood one night, and the result is that a child that otherwise would have been conceived doesn't get conceived. Why isn't that murder?
Let's say a woman is going to have one child during her lifetime. Consider these two scenarios:
1. She gets pregnant, has an abortion, gets pregnant later, and has the child.
2. She gets pregnant, has the child, and then doesn't get pregnant later because she's had her baby and now uses contraception.
In the first case, she aborted the first child, and in the second case she did the equivalent of aborting the second child.
Do you see the point I am trying to make? I claim that conception is an arbitrary point to call the causing of the non-existence of a child to be murder. If you're being caused to non-exist, it doesn't really matter to you if it happened before or after conception; in either case the result is the same from the "victim's" point of view. |
P, I think this notion is goofy. But that's just me. Perhaps someone with a more seasoned background at debating hypotheticals is required here...or maybe even a psychotherapist. 
But I'm going to give this my best: In the above, you've assumed a position of a being, being caused to *not exist* via two scenerios (1) by being aborted after conception and,
(2) by not being conceived at all
and the being, not being conceived is referred to as a victim, along with the being that was conceived.
I'd have to say the law of genus-dynamicus applies here:
"If your parents didn't have children, there is a reasonable likelihood that you won't either.”
So if you don't exist, would you have been murdered? And, if you weren't murdered, at which point did that *not* happen?...and why?
I think I'm having an aneurism.
Unless, I'm a complete dolt (and there are some who might believe that), this jumbled concept is impossible to debate. I followed you over from the church & state board at your urging, so I feel obliged to offer up something, here, but this is all I got. It's going to take a smarter guy than me to even crack the shell on this one. I'll watch and maybe I can learn something.
Last edited by Flashman on Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not really trying to 'win' any argument here. I'm just throwing an idea out that I think is worth discussing.
Just look at it this way:
From the point of view of the 'victim', who cares whether your parents had an abortion, used contraception, or just weren't in the mood one night; the end result is EXACTLY the same. They are all just different means to exactly the same end. In each case a human life was caused to not exist.
So why is one considered to be murder, and the other two are not? To the victim, it's all the same. How can three scenarios, all with EXACTLY the same result, be judged totally differently??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | I'm not really trying to 'win' any argument here. I'm just throwing an idea out that I think is worth discussing.
Just look at it this way:
From the point of view of the 'victim', who cares whether your parents had an abortion, used contraception, or just weren't in the mood one night; the end result is EXACTLY the same. They are all just different means to exactly the same end. In each case a human life was caused to not exist. |
In case 1, yes a human (victim 1) has been aborted/murdered.
In case 2, nothing has been aborted/murdered (no victim)
In case 3, nothing has been aborted/murdered (no victim)
Are you referring to what I said about God's knowing the child before it's conceived? Is that what you are trying to conceptualize?
| P1234567890 wrote: | | So why is one considered to be murder, and the other two are not? To the victim, it's all the same. How can three scenarios, all with EXACTLY the same result, be judged totally differently??? |
Well, you have three scenarios, with three outcomes (wrapping my head around this. -ouch). The outcome is that no birth happens, right?
Would this be a parallel set of scenarios?:
1. A man (victim 1) is walking down the street and someone jumps out from behind a parked car and strangles him dead.
2. A person (victim 2) who hasn't been born has nothing happen to them on this street.
3. Another person (victim 3) who, also, hasn't been born has nothing happen either.
In each case a human was caused not to live. I'm wondering if I'm really stupid and not understanding you clearly.
I think, if you want to discuss when a "life" begins is the subject line implies, you might have come up with something a bit less...strange?
I think you think it would be interesting to entertain and discuss, but I can't find anything here to discuss. Throw me a bone here, ok?
Last edited by Flashman on Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
In case 1, yes a human (victim 1) has been aborted/murdered.
In case 2, nothing has been aborted/murdered (no victim)
In case 3, nothing has been aborted/murdered (no victim)
|
Yes, but that doesn't really matter from the point of view of the person who was caused to not exist. For example, I am exactly as happy about the fact that my mother did not abort me as I am about the fact that my parents weren't using contraception at the time, since both would have caused my non-existence (which is the same as death).
| Flashman wrote: |
Are you referring to what I said about God's knowing the child before it's conceived? Is that what you are trying to conceptualize?
|
No, I haven't really figured out how to incorporate that into my argument.
| Flashman wrote: |
Would this be a parallel set of scenarios?:
1. A man (victim 1) is walking down the street and someone jumps out from behind a parked car and strangles him dead.
2. A person (victim 2) who hasn't been born has nothing happen to them on this street.
4. Another person (victim 3) who, also, hasn't been born has nothing happen either.
In each case a human was caused not to live. I'm wondering if I'm really stupid and not understanding you clearly.
|
This is sort of parallel to my scenario, but it is a much weaker example. In my scenario, the abortion, contraception, and not being in the mood are all different agents that cause the same thing.
In your scenario, the situations are not the same. In your scenario 1, the victim got to live a nice happy life before being strangled. In scenarios 2 and 4, the victims didn't get to enjoy being alive before they were killed.
So the analogy isn't as clean as in my scenario.
| Flashman wrote: |
I think you think it would be interesting to entertain and discuss, but I can't find anything here to discuss. Throw me a bone here, ok? |
Ok, well here's an observation that I hope you find interesting:
If anything, from a Christian point of view, it should be BETTER to be aborted, because at least then your soul gets to go to heaven. If you're caused to not exist by means of contraception or your parents not being in the mood, then your soul doesn't get to go to heaven!
If I were a Christian, then I would certainly prefer to be a soul in heaven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
In case 1, yes a human (victim 1) has been aborted/murdered.
In case 2, nothing has been aborted/murdered (no victim)
In case 3, nothing has been aborted/murdered (no victim)
|
Yes, but that doesn't really matter from the point of view of the person who was caused to not exist. |
So if no one existed, how could they have a point of view?
| P1234567890 wrote: | | For example, I am exactly as happy about the fact that my mother did not abort me as I am about the fact that my parents weren't using contraception at the time, since both would have caused my non-existence (which is the same as death). |
I'm glad you're happy, so am I, I think. But how do you equate non-existance to being the same as death?
| P1234567890 wrote: | Ok, well here's an observation that I hope you find interesting:
If anything, from a Christian point of view, it should be BETTER to be aborted, because at least then your soul gets to go to heaven. If you're caused to not exist by means of contraception or your parents not being in the mood, then your soul doesn't get to go to heaven!
If I were a Christian, then I would certainly prefer to be a soul in heaven. |
See, aren't you glad you're not a Christian? Now you get to live your entire life...to whatever age you will live it.
*better* implies a comparison...better than what? Better than non-existance? Since I don't have recollection of my non-existant days, I'm at a loss here.
For the sake of a semblance of indulging you, I would agree that it is better for a soul to be in heaven than not. It's better to live than be aborted (from a Christian perspective - and your mother's).
On the other hand, it's better to be a non-conceived non-mass of nothing, than to be something and then aborted. Sure, no soul goes to heaven, but then even things that do exist don't make it into heaven. (I can't believe I'm debating this).
I think I'm beginning to understand FFT's melon theory now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
*better* implies a comparison...better than what? Better than non-existance? Since I don't have recollection of my non-existant days, I'm at a loss here.
For the sake of a semblance of indulging you, I would agree that it is better for a soul to be in heaven than not. It's better to live than be aborted (from a Christian perspective - and your mother's).
On the other hand, it's better to be a non-conceived non-mass of nothing, than to be something and then aborted. Sure, no soul goes to heaven, but then even things that do exist don't make it into heaven. (I can't believe I'm debating this).
|
But being in Heaven is the best possible thing that can happen to someone. So surely it's better to be aborted than to never exist. I would much rather be in heaven enjoying its treasures than to not exist.
Put it this way: you have two choices: one is to be in heaven, and the other is to not exist. Which do you choose? I think it's pretty clear that anyone would choose heaven.
In that sense, abortion is much more humane than contraception. I think I've got an interesting point here.
Abortion may be murder, but that is irrelevant. Consider these three scenarios:
1. Not being aborted, living a long and happy life on Earth, and then going to heaven for eternity in the presence of God.
2. Beign aborted, skipping the whole life on Earth, and going to heaven for eternity in the presence of God.
3. Not existing due to contraception or your parents not being interested, skipping the whole life on Earth, and then ALSO missing out on being in heaven in the glorious presence of God for all eternity.
I claim that scenario 1 is better than 2, and 2 is better than 3. Therefore abortion is much more humane than contraception. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
*better* implies a comparison...better than what? Better than non-existance? Since I don't have recollection of my non-existant days, I'm at a loss here.
For the sake of a semblance of indulging you, I would agree that it is better for a soul to be in heaven than not. It's better to live than be aborted (from a Christian perspective - and your mother's).
On the other hand, it's better to be a non-conceived non-mass of nothing, than to be something and then aborted. Sure, no soul goes to heaven, but then even things that do exist don't make it into heaven. (I can't believe I'm debating this).
|
But being in Heaven is the best possible thing that can happen to someone. So surely it's better to be aborted than to never exist. I would much rather be in heaven enjoying its treasures than to not exist.
Put it this way: you have two choices: one is to be in heaven, and the other is to not exist. Which do you choose? I think it's pretty clear that anyone would choose heaven.
In that sense, abortion is much more humane than contraception. I think I've got an interesting point here.
Abortion may be murder, but that is irrelevant. Consider these three scenarios:
1. Not being aborted, living a long and happy life on Earth, and then going to heaven for eternity in the presence of God.
2. Beign aborted, skipping the whole life on Earth, and going to heaven for eternity in the presence of God.
3. Not existing due to contraception or your parents not being interested, skipping the whole life on Earth, and then ALSO missing out on being in heaven in the glorious presence of God for all eternity.
I claim that scenario 1 is better than 2, and 2 is better than 3. Therefore abortion is much more humane than contraception. |
I'm beginning to think that you might live near a toxic waste dump
Love ya, dude. But I just get headaches on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
I'm beginning to think that you might live near a toxic waste dump
Love ya, dude. But I just get headaches on this one. |
Look, as strange as this may sound, I've given a reasonable argument that abortion is more humane than contraception, because at least in the case of abortion, the victim's soul gets to exist and goes to heaven and gets to bask in the glory of God for all eternity.
You don't find this to be interesting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your forgetting something "P" If that little baby or fetus really has a living soul, then everyone involved in that abortion had a part in the murder of the little baby. In the eyes of God. No matter what some of us think.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nobby wrote: | | Your forgetting something "P" If that little baby or fetus really has a living soul, then everyone involved in that abortion had a part in the murder of the little baby. In the eyes of God. No matter what some of us think. |
Sure, so the million-dollar question is whether or not fetuses have souls.
But this aside, at least babies that were aborted get to go to heaven. Babies that were never even conceived don't get to go to heaven. I therefore claim that abortion is more humane and moral than contraception. What do you think of this idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
I'm beginning to think that you might live near a toxic waste dump
Love ya, dude. But I just get headaches on this one. |
Look, as strange as this may sound, I've given a reasonable argument that abortion is more humane than contraception, because at least in the case of abortion, the victim's soul gets to exist and goes to heaven and gets to bask in the glory of God for all eternity.
You don't find this to be interesting? |
With contraception, there is nothing to kill and nothing to enjoy the benefits of life or the pain of death. There is simply...nothing.
With abortion, as Nobby mentioned, you have the murder of one of God's kids. Sure the little one goes to be with God, but I'm sure God's preference would have been that the little one reach "its" human potential and fulfill God's plan for "it".
So, yes, I find it somewhat interesting to explore the idea with you, but only to the extent that I now know of the impossibility to debate it. Your hypothetical depends on the idea that there is some choice...a "rather". But no being to make that choice.
Valiant effort, old boy, but let's push this one into the grave and move on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
So, yes, I find it somewhat interesting to explore the idea with you, but only to the extent that I now know of the impossibility to debate it. Your hypothetical depends on the idea that there is some choice...a "rather". But no being to make that choice.
|
I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you please explain further? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
So, yes, I find it somewhat interesting to explore the idea with you, but only to the extent that I now know of the impossibility to debate it. Your hypothetical depends on the idea that there is some choice...a "rather". But no being to make that choice.
|
I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you please explain further? |
P, are you sure you don't understand? I smell something that doesn't smell like lack of understanding. However, I may just be paranoid, so:
You hypothesized that one would be "better off" in heaven as an aborted fetus than one who was "never conceived". One would "rather" be aborted and with God than never have existed.
That supposes that I (being the person who'd never been born) had a look back and said, "Gosh, I'm glad I was aborted Lord, here I am with you." The second side being impossible to look back and say anything, since I never existed. The second side is a non-relevant.
I've seen your posts for months before I came aboard and I don't think you are easily confused by an issue. So what's up? Please, tell me I'm just overly suspicious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
