Why is abortion such a big deal in the Christian world?

1. You won't

2. You said

In response to this comment

So I am asking which parts can't be proven.

 

Nice quote by Boethius, even though it has been debated if that definition still has any value - http://www.aristotelophile.com/Books/Articles/Boethius-1.pdf

But I tend to use sentient to mean

1. Having sense perception; conscious:
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

So you can argue definition all you want, I am happy with my use of Independent sentient person.

IMO it has a lot to do with abortion as the point at which a fetus has the capability to be -
a. Independent - Be able to process air to oxygenate its blood. To infuse food in order to fuel the processes of its bodily functions.
b. Sentient - Having sense perceptions, begin able to experience sensation or feeling

and therefore a person with all the rights attributed to that status.

 

Philosophical reasoning is quite well estalished .. as is the scientific reasoning. That is why there is a "consensus".

There is a critical level of brain function that is considered requisite for senses such as feeling pain, mental function such as congnition and so forth.

Lacking a significant level of brain function renders one "clinically dead" .. a living human is not considered to exist.

What is clear is that the single cell at conception has almost none of the characteristics required for membership in the club "homo sapien"... certainly less than many of the animals we kill for food.

Your claim "thats not a reason to kill someone" is a fallacy. There is no "someone" .. no living human being.

That something "might" become a living human in the future .. does not make it a living human in the present.

 

Stop with the fallacy. You have never shown the single human cell at conception to be a living human.

Second .. .. What part of "God commands abortion in the Bible" .. do you not understand ?

 

Before the law sits a gatekeeper. To this gatekeeper comes a man from the country who asks to gain entry into the law. But the gatekeeper says that he cannot grant him entry at the moment. The man thinks about it and then asks if he will be allowed to come in sometime later on. “It is possible,” says the gatekeeper, “but not now.” The gate to the law stands open, as always, and the gatekeeper walks to the side, so the man bends over in order to see through the gate into the inside. When the gatekeeper notices that, he laughs and says: “If it tempts you so much, try going inside in spite of my prohibition. But take note. I am powerful. And I am only the most lowly gatekeeper. But from room to room stand gatekeepers, each more powerful than the other. I cannot endure even one glimpse of the third.” The man from the country has not expected such difficulties: the law should always be accessible for everyone, he thinks, but as he now looks more closely at the gatekeeper in his fur coat, at his large pointed nose and his long, thin, black Tartar’s beard, he decides that it would be better to wait until he gets permission to go inside. The gatekeeper gives him a stool and allows him to sit down at the side in front of the gate. There he sits for days and years. He makes many attempts to be let in, and he wears the gatekeeper out with his requests. The gatekeeper often interrogates him briefly, questioning him about his homeland and many other things, but they are indifferent questions, the kind great men put, and at the end he always tells him once more that he cannot let him inside yet. The man, who has equipped himself with many things for his journey, spends everything, no matter how valuable, to win over the gatekeeper. The latter takes it all but, as he does so, says, “I am taking this only so that you do not think you have failed to do anything.” During the many years the man observes the gatekeeper almost continuously. He forgets the other gatekeepers, and this first one seems to him the only obstacle for entry into the law. He curses the unlucky circumstance, in the first years thoughtlessly and out loud; later, as he grows old, he only mumbles to himself. He becomes childish and, since in the long years studying the gatekeeper he has also come to know the fleas in his fur collar, he even asks the fleas to help him persuade the gatekeeper. Finally his eyesight grows weak, and he does not know whether things are really darker around him or whether his eyes are merely deceiving him. But he recognizes now in the darkness an illumination which breaks inextinguishably out of the gateway to the law. Now he no longer has much time to live. Before his death he gathers in his head all his experiences of the entire time up into one question which he has not yet put to the gatekeeper. He waves to him, since he can no longer lift up his stiffening body. The gatekeeper has to bend way down to him, for the great difference has changed things considerably to the disadvantage of the man. “What do you still want to know now?” asks the gatekeeper. “You are insatiable.” “Everyone strives after the law,” says the man, “so how is it that in these many years no one except me has requested entry?” The gatekeeper sees that the man is already dying and, in order to reach his diminishing sense of hearing, he shouts at him, “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going now to close it.”

Franz Kafka

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzEKeHR6Yks

 

I'm not doing abortions. Someone who is doing abortions has to know exactly and without any doubt why it is not a human being what he is killing. Otherwise he has to stop immediatelly to do so. A very seldom exception could be only cases of [self]defense - for example if the baby would kill the mother. But normally during gestation a human being evolves as every human being since ever evolved. Abortion as a dance of "kill as kill can" around the golden calve of an industrialized form of mass-murder makes not the murdered children to monsters - it makes us all to monsters and demons. The whole situation "abortion" has just simple nothing to do with rationality. I'm not sure - but if mankind is losing rationality then we are maybe in danger the sky could fall down on us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYoBZ-G5dpY

 

No human being is independent - every human being is sentient - from the first human cell to the grave. Simple example: A psychologist could do experiments with single cells. A single cell has a psychological structure. Our immune system (blood) for example is even like an animal - it is able to learn via stimuli. And so on and so on ... The rognaisi9cnsonof a hann biody is very chacotic -. but thsi soi also a very high form of organsiscion. And the first key is in the first cell.

 

No. It's politics - maybe a kind of pragmatism - but the decision to kill human beings in their mothers has nothing to do with medicine, arts, religion, philosophy and science.

What for heaven is this? It are empty phrases. Why has for example no one the right to kill a baby what has not reached the critical level of brainfunction "to be able to speak"? We could kill in this case two years old human beings on "scientific" reasons - but in this case everyone would call it murder .

But the human being evolves. You have only to wait little while then you can ask this human being wether it would agree to be killed or not. Do you agree to be killed? Do you think it is okay if someone had aborted you?

Please. Do you seriosly like to tell me that a human being is "clinically dead" before the own birth during gestation? ... I need a break now. I guess I will read a little in the book "Irre! Wir behandeln die Falschen – unser Problem sind die Normalen: eine heitere Seelenkunde."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WBmqz_qh_o

 

Correction:

No human being is independent - every human being is sentient - from the first human cell to the grave. Simple example: A psychologist could do experiments with single cells. A single cell has a psychological structure. Our immune system for example is even like an animal - it is able to learn via stimuli. And so on and so on ... The organisation of our body is very chaotic - but this chaos is also a very high form of organisation. And the first key is in the first cell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwARpaKHx_w

 

It's not a big deal in the christian world; only in that part of the christian world where reactionary fundamentalists are able to foist their superstitions on the population. People who call themselves "Pro Life" are ironically usually people who are devoid of compassion and humanity.

By and large, they believe in capital punishment, in our "right" to murder people all over the world, in eliminating health care,(let em die, yay) in making this a country where we are "all in this alone." So they hold up the baby as a symbol of the compassion that they lack so that they can convince others and perhaps even themselves that they are still decent human beings.

The purpose of the so called "pro life" movement is to make women slaves to their biology. They believe that a psychopathic magician in the sky told them that women should be subservient to their men. Since they can't make that happen directly, they are taking the indirect approach. Once they have eliminated women's ability to control their lives it should become much easier to "keep them in their place."

In all fairness to these would be tyrants, they are not completely misogynistic. No, they want to remove the ability of men to control their family sizes and much of their lives also by attacking birth control.

In order for them to make any case at all, they have to leave reality behind completely. We see them claiming that an egg is sentient, that rape victims should carry the baby to term to act as evidence at trial, that procreation is the only reason to have sex, that women can't get pregnant through rape, that women who have miscarriages should be tried as criminals, that babies that are a result of rape are "gifts from god".

This issue was created by the Republicans as a wedge issue to get people to vote against their own economic interests. It has been a very effective, destructive piece of propaganda but a moral issue? Not in the slightest.

 

Ignoring those "broad brush" comments, I have to ask, what do you believe the pro-life movement think they gain, by being pro-life?

 

My post answers your question. Read it again or have a friend explain it to you.

 

hell is always the other
Jean Paul Satre

I believe in what?

No one has any right to murder anyone. Only because you hate Christians on no reason to do so you should not be completly blind

Altough I am not an American you are right and "the baby" is my god - specially during Christmas tide.

A women is a slave of the own biology in the moment she gets pregnant without love. And indeed I think men who don't like to take their responsibility are the main reason for abortion.

You are calling god a "psychopathic magician in the sky"? Who teached you to say so? Your mother? Your school? Your friends? ...

God said something else - and my wife too. And my wife is always right.

I could sell you one of my grandmothers to teach you something if they wouldn't be dead.

Tyrant? ¿I? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYV-OaJKt7I

misogynistic? ... m-i-s-o-g-y-nist .... ah: misogynist - someone who hates women ... that's a kind of antiheterosexual man I guess ... interesting - but indeed I never met someone who hates woman. I met once a woman who hates men - but she had more than only a very good reason to hate men. And she was right to do so. Her hate kept her alive. She was one of the exceptions confirming the rule of love.

If a man rapes a woman and the women gets a baby then the most people are thinking she should abort this baby. But ... and this is really very important ... this baby is also part of her. 50%+50%. She is the real mother of this baby. To kill the own child is not able to heal all this wounds. It's only again another wound.

Your completly empty propagandistic nonsense shows to me that you maybe never thought about the real problems. A woman with a child what came from rape is in our western societies not able to say to anyone only a little that her child is a product of rape - otherwise she and her child would be more than only misrespected. The western world is ugly not tolerant.

The reason for sex is it to have babies. That's why sex is so much fun.

Give me please a name from someone who said such a nonsense.

Every human being is always a gift from god. If your father had raped your moher - what had you done to become a victim of death penalty? Nothing, isn't it? So why do you say someone should be killed on no reason to do so? But to be more serios: There's indeed a reason for abortion on reasons of defense in case a woman was raped and she has very heavy psychological problems and is full of uncontrolable hate against the baby in her. After world war 2 for example only in Berlin 20000 german women did suicide because they were raped from russian soldiers. But this is it not an automatism. No one has any right to force any woman to abort - what would be the next step in your logic.

???

Let me ask you something. What was the exact reason for abortion # 823567 in the United States in the year 2012? Who forced this woman to abort her baby? She did it on her free will? She aborted her baby on her own free will? ... Do you really think so? ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SG6ZITbWpU

 

It should be easy to answer, your post didn't directly answer the question, so could you do that for me, please?

 

Hmm is that so, tell me do you need a tube connected to you in order to process air to oxygenation your blood, and to put food into you to energize the bodily processes .. a fetus does.

A psychologist doesn't do experiments with single cells, A psychologist is a professional or academic title used by individuals who are either:

Clinical, counseling, and school psychologists who work with patients in a variety of therapeutic contexts (contrast with psychiatrists, who are physician specialists).

Organizational psychologists who apply psychological research, theories and techniques to "real-world" problems, questions and issues in business, industry, or government.

Academics conducting psychological research or teaching psychology in a college or university;

Does our immune system learn, I'd be interested to see your medical evidence to support this .. from what I have read, it isn't so much as a learning process per se, more of a trial and error process the first time it encounters an unknown invasion.
It's interesting that you mention the immune system in that the mother has to produce certain chemicals in order to stop her own immune system from attacking the zygote, it treats it as an foreign body.

 

Probably yes to the first part, to the second you are admitting that no government funding goes towards abortion or the promotion of it .. you say it "can" free up money, do you actually know that it does, or is that an assumption?

It could agreed, but as no government money is used by PP to fund abortions, exactly how are they breaking any rules.laws imposed upon them. you would punish a legitimate business (a non profit business) for not breaking any of the rules placed upon it?

That's the point, they are not separate human beings, they are joined to another human being until birth .. can a handicapped or elderly person take in air to be processed by their lungs in order to oxygenate their blood, even the handicapped have a higher sentient level than a zygote and elderly people are mostly still sentient or were sentient at some time in their life.

 

Moral self-righteousness, and an in-group. That's pretty much it. They get to earnestly believe that they're doing something incredibly righteous, while belonging to a self-affirming "in-group" that will turn on you like a viper the moment you start to ask the wrong questions. You know, kind of how most religions work.

If the "pro-life" are really so staunchly against abortion, why are they also so against birth control pills, which lower the rate of abortion considerably?
Why are they so commonly fiscal conservatives, staunchly opposing the kinds of child support programs that lead to countries like the Netherlands, France, or Germany having incredibly low abortion rates?
Why is their only solution seemingly to ban abortion, when there is at best a very weak correlation between the legality of abortion and the actual number of abortions performed per capita?

I don't think it's intentional. I think most people involved mean well. It just doesn't work. And it doesn't help in the slightest that, when it's already so easy to interpret their views as simply "anti-women" and "anti-sexuality", the figureheads of the movements - the Akins, the Mourdochs, the Limbaughs - go out and say things that people know are phenomenally callous, stupid, and evil. Things like "a woman's body will reject a baby made from rape" and "I'm not sure there's ever been a pregnancy from legitimate rape" and "You know, the best birth control is aspirin held between the legs". It makes the whole movement out to be that way. And then idiots like Chrome-Dome over there start parroting faux issues such as "The woman should take responsibility", which really moves it out of the arena of saving lives and into the arena of controlling women.

 

This is an easy question to answer. You shouldn't even have to wrestle with this ... at all.

Should a murderer who killed a pregnant mother and her unborn fetus be charged with double homicide? Yes, to say otherwise is to state that no matter how much that mother loved that fetus it will never be considered a conscious being, but instead a "prospective human being". I don't think this is a road that civilization wants to go down. The logical extractions that could be made of "prospective human being" removes the finality of being human and replaces it with prospects of powerful groups determining the overarching meaning of "prospective" thus rendering humanity a self defeating society.

With that in mind Any time a mother willfully kills her unborn child it should be considered murder, unless the child is threatening the life of the mother imminently.


Birth Control is a whole 'nother ball game. I'm all for Birth Control and intelligent breeding.

 

edit: The caveat of the people who say "yes" to abortion is that they literally cannot accept the premise of this argument on the grounds that doing so automatically renders them worthless, a state the ego cannot live with. Both metaphorically and literally.

 

Read about the fractal recursive iteration in nature, the communication from roots to leaves in trees. Most certainly all matter is somewhat conscious to varying degrees.

 

blah blah blah .. were you going to get around to answering the question at some point ?

 

You can dance around the central question all you like but the bottom line here is that you have no valid support for your claim that the single cell at conception is a living human.

So quit talking about this human cell as if it is a human !

 

If a psychologist likes to know something about the process of signal-transfers in cells then he will do some experiments with cells. If you should think a psychologist and psycho[-socio-]therapist are the same then you would be just simple wrong.

Example: In 1889 an American - JN Mackenzie - watched an allergy sufferer (- she had problems with roses -) how she was sneezing when she saw a rose made of plastic. I could give you also a very complex information about a modern experiment in Germany in this context - they are conditioning a green drink with medicaments against allergy and are comparing this situation with placebos. In the end the result is that basophille cells are reacting on the green drink in nearly the same way as they are doing it in case of medicaments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsMzaILLAJU

 

To kill human beings is murder [except on special reasons of defense]. Abortion is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUYRa3LeqlY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TGM2Xd1wdo

 

Every human being was once a first cell. Abortion is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mm9fvr8huc