I Detest The Concept Of Abortion

My hatred for abortion stems from the fact that so little regard is shown for life in the sense that we can look at a newly conceived baby, and in our minds, decide that is not yet a baby, but the newly conceived cells hold the potential to become baby and therefore in certain minds, it is okay to stop its growth ****** its potential from the confines of its mother's womb. At what point are we going to say stop? Each conception is a thought most wondrous and a thought most planned. Even if it was divine will for the abortion, after all nothing can come without first inspiration, that baby had a starring role in the walls of his or her mother's womb, that part, that life holds the most sacred of revelations both of ourselves and of the baby, in total connection to the one GOD (I am not religious, but GOD/Allah has always been there for all of us.)

There is a time in a pregnancy that we can acknowledge the baby's life, but the baby is alive from the moment of first thought and conception, otherwise, how can there be life in a further stage of pregnancy. If there is no life there is no pregnancy. How can we say, this is a just a ball of cells? I burn wit anger everytime the clinics that counsel mother's prior to an abortion actually devalue the concept of life. Their compassionate hearts need not deny the existence of life, but rather weave into their souls, binding mother to child, even if for just a few moments, and then gently let her heal, knowing she is understood.

There are times when a mother's is in danger. Would I advocate an abortion, never, but I know if it must be done, then let the baby's passing be treated with dignity. The voiceless soul with the loudest cry. However, as we are aware of the possibility of this happening, why has medical technology seemed to have stopped with abortion as the only choice? I understand that there are newer medical breakthroughs, but I remember as a ten year old child, sitting at the kitchen tables, wondering why didn't they invent something like an artificial womb, to carry the baby to term, externally
deleted deleted
4 Responses Jan 6, 2013

If rape is a wonderful thing and planned, then so is abortion, god must've wanted abortion otherwise it wouldn't hapoen

I completely agree with you, there should be the fewest possible abortions, only if there is a medical reason where only the mother or the child can survive and there has to be taken such a drastic decision. And what's about the mother suffering of killing her unborn child ? There is very few spoken about these problems that can cause much superior costs than the abortion itself. And why does health assurance pay to kil children ? The abortion has to be propagated as THE SOLUTION if an unwanted child was conceived, or there are economical or other reasons that make bearing the child a problem. We should rather help mothers after the child was born than incite them to abort the child.

At least until the 5th week after conception, the embryo is just a bunch of unspecialised cells: it cannot feel, cannot think, doesn't have any organs, no brain, no heart. It is no different from any other cell in the woman's body, except from the fact that it is made of totipotent/pluripotent cells, i. e., cells that can specialise and form an organism or parts of it. It has the potential to become a human life, but is not a human life. Just like the spermatozoa and the egg, have the potential of creating a human life. Following this line of reasoning, it should be illegal to waste spermatozoa or eggs, which would outlaw contraception and force everyone to have as much children as they can, which doesn't make sense at all.

My line of reasoning was that if one thinks that it is immoral to abort a zygote or a young embryo because it has the potential to become a baby, then one must be forced to realise that spermatozoa and unfertilised eggs also have the potential to become babies and hence it would also be immoral to waste them.

miraedocommunistPortugal is confusing something :
a spermatozoa alone is not conceived and an egg alone isn't conceived neither, but once they both found together and are conceived LIFE STARTS and the embryo is developing till it's a child. That's so special and so fantastic we can't understand. Or do I see something wrong here ? Or will we say as it doesn't yet have the form of a child it isn't a child ? It is a child in developnment from the moment the eprmatozoa and the egg conceived.
If that isn't accepted WHEN EXACTLY will life starts ? 3 months after conception ? 6 months after conception ?,Or even after birth ?
Sorry but I can't understand that misconcept at all. Probably the only valuable reason for abortion is when only the mother or the child can survive where such a drastic choice has to be taken.
Why are there millions and billions of children being killed without any valuable reason ?

Then, I agree with you on that aspect.

I never said spermatozoa and eggs were conceived. I said that, in a scientific point of view, in ethical terms, there's no difference between killing a spermatozoa or an egg and killing a fertilised egg.
"but once they both found together and are conceived LIFE STARTS"
Every cell is alive. So, what difference can you set between the life of a spermatozoa or an egg and the life of a cell that resulted from the fusion of these 2 cells, the only difference being that it has twice the chromosomes? It is not something "so special and so fantastic we can't understand", it is a phenomenon very well described by science: it is the random fusion of two cells.
"If that isn't accepted WHEN EXACTLY will life starts ?"
As I've said, all cells are alive. The problem is not to know when "life starts", but when a cluster of cells that resulted from the continued divisions of a fusion of two haploid cells can be considered a person, and not a cluster of cells with no differentiation and only with the potential to become a human being. Because life is already present on any cell, regardless of being a human, animal or plant.
My point was that there's no scientific reason to believe that killing an embryo that is under 5 weeks after conception (i.e., doesn't even have started to develop a spinal cord or a brain) is ethically equivalent to killing a spermatozoa or an egg, because they are on the same ethical level: they are both only cells, not persons, but at the same time have the potential to create a person. So far, I couldn't find any rational reason for the fact of aborting an embryo under 5 weeks of age to be immoral. On every subject, I follow the position that seems the most logical and has the strongest arguments in favour, not the position that pleases me the most. If I were a woman, I would certainly not abort on any stage, but I also know that there's no rational reason to think that way under 5 weeks after conception, only biological instincts. There are also religious arguments, but those are not relevant for legislation, because for a matter of human rights, most states in the West are secular states.

Ok, lets try again :
"there's no difference between killing a spermatozoa or an egg and killing a fertilized egg" , the BIG difference is that spermatozoas and not fertilized eggs are products of a living (already existing) person and a fertilized egg is the initial state of a NEW person (even the two parts are also products of different persons). For the rest I don't argue further as it's the development of that erroneus idea that a fertilized egg isn't a NEW person.

The fertilised egg can also be defined as a product of the union of two cells produced by two different people. It is not a person itself, it is a cell. The only reason why we could call it a new person is because it has a different DNA from the two people who originated it. But both the spermatozoa and the egg have a different DNA from the body of the people who produced it. It's way too simplistic to just assume that a fertilised egg is a new person because it doesn't result directly from another person. Nothing special happens when the s p e r m and the egg merge, just a new cell. You can't call it a person just because it has the DNA of a new individual: all the cells in a body have the complete DNA of the individual. Imagine it was possible to reactivate any somatic cell of an adult organism into a totipotent cell (with the ability to divide and originate a new human being, with the same DNA obviously). If we originated a totipotent cell, it would be no different in ethical terms from a zygote: it has its own DNA, can evolve into a fully developed human being. Would it be immoral to kill the cell?

I appreciate your respectful approach to the abortion issue, but I truly disagree with you.
I will admit that the lines between a human and a clump of cells are questionable before 5 weeks. But I think that something as important as a human life should not be risked simply because of uncertainty. New drugs get tested for safety for years. But when it comes to abortion, a lot of people assume that it's okay. It's not a chance we should just take.

Sorry, I don't argue further, as you don't WANT to accept that the conception of ***** and egg is a NEW LIFE starting ! I NEVER said that conception of egg and ***** is a NEW PERSON, but it's when a NEW LIFE starts, as the fertilized egg will be a new person when birth is given, so interrupting the process of the fertilized egg till natural birth during pregnancy is KILLING, it doesn't depend if YOU want to accept that or not, it is a fact.

5 More Responses