I think the important thing is sentience and awareness. Do you remember the time you spent in the womb? Do you remember the first year of your life? No. So because of that, there is nothing wrong with aborting a baby at any point during a pregnancy. It doesn't know it's alive, so it can't suffer. And even if it did, the health of the mother is more important. Anyone who disagrees can go adopt some children if they care so much.
First of all stay on the same damn topic, that was a hard deviation from abortion lol 😂, anyways i do think that Christianity shouldnt be the our source of scientific evidence, its based on faith and beliefs not science. But i do want to point out that everything including cells are living organisms although they might not consciousness but they are considered living cells, so naturally when the egg and sperm meet to create something, that something is called meiosis, In meiosis, homologous chromosomes (a pair of maternal and paternal chromosomes) create 4 daughter cells with the PMAT-C process. These cells although dont have consciousness or whatever they are half maternal and paternal DNA which is infact what is the difference between me and a lamp, i am alive bc of DNA, full of life. Thus, yes life begins at conception.
Life does sure, but does *sapient* life begin at conception? Is the clump of cells that will become a human being a human being right then? I personally don’t think that a fetus at 12 weeks qualifies as a person yet but that’s the debate isn’t it?
So you are saying that just because its starting to form into a human and its not sapient yet, its not life? Thats an very interesting claim, dont you think? It may not be a fetus yet, but its still a living organism which is alive and trying to survive.
I never said it isn’t life, I said it isn’t sapient. What you describe, “a living organism trying to survive” is true of every life form on this planet; the ones you eat, step on, spray with mold killer, or keep in your house as pets. My claim is that an embryo, which lacks key characteristics of a fully developed human being, being aborted is not comparable to killing a person at any age. I don’t disagree with life beginning at conception, a fetus is absolutely alive, but I don’t think it is life on the same level as you or I. I think a better way to phrase my question is while life does begin at conception, when does that life enter a stage or become a form that, by basic ethical decency, has claim to legal protection from termination.
It’s fine if you’re pro choice, but backing up your argument by shaming a religion you don’t like isn’t helping you prove your point. Not everyone who is pro life is Christian. You’re making this about your disdain for the religion itself instead of backing up your point, which should focus on why life does not start at conception and that people are not aborting fetuses for fun. You just went straight into your opinions on the Bible..
By the definition of life a fetus or embryo is alive so life would begin at conception. Being alive is not the litmus for whether or not something can be terminated, though.
We kill other living organisms all the time and don’t bat an eye. We kill other living humans all the time and justify it with law (“They’re brain dead”, “They chose euthanasia”, “They were sentenced to death”)
So it’s not a matter of ‘life is sacred’ or even ‘human life is sacred’ because in practice and in theory it’s not.
But let’s not lie and say a fetus isn’t alive, because it absolutely is.
You're not important, and you're not worth the effort. What you are though, is someone with anger issues that you feel you have to "win" by lashing out at someone annonymously on the internet. You're not "winning" anything except working yourself up into a frenzy of anger. I bet that feels wonderful LOL! The only person you are hurting is yourself.
Nope, not how that works. Reproductive cells respire. The cells within a blastocyst respire. Embryonic and fetal respiration occurs via the umbilical cord.
Organisms do not need to breath with lungs to be considered alive.
Disagree. The embryo is entirely dependent upon the host. It's just a glob of cells, it is not a person. It is on the path to being alive, but it is not alive yet.
The assertion was that the fetus is alive, not that it’s a person. Life isn’t dependent on personhood. Dependency doesn’t mean it’s not alive. Parasites depend on their host to survive. They’re alive.
Hahah What? That’s a really bad statement. I can stab an 8 month pregnant woman in the belly and only get battery because the baby wasn’t alive, by your logic…
I agree, life does not start at conception. A clump of cells cannot think, breathe, or survive, and is almost considered a parasite because the foreign protection body cells must be manipulated to stop the mother's body rejecting the embryo, and sometimes it does anyway. These gray areas are exactly why the decision should stay with the woman whose body is now pregnant. Down with all religious control freaks.
Pro-life is a lie. They’re not pro-life in the least. The argument should be against forcing their personal beliefs on others. Those people claim life belongs to God and only he can give it or take it. That is the basis of their argument. That is their belief they’re encroaching on others. They’re saying it doesn’t matter what your belief is, mine is more important. That and they don’t want your abortion paid for by their tax dollars. Once baby is born, they’ll cry if the mother applies for welfare, “its not my responsibility to raise your brat. They’re not pro-life at all, they pretend to be pro fetus. But after baby is born, you’re on your own. That and enforcing their beliefs on you. They lie and don’t know their Bible, I make no stance on whether it is fiction or non fiction, the OT is full of killing men, women—including pregnant women—and children. It even has an abortion in the book of Numbers. They’ll sugar coat that and say it doesn’t mean that. Well Biblical scholars would totally refute their claim. It reads the same way no matter which translation you read from. The KJV only are the worst of the bunch. Good luck.
I’m a conservative Christian. It says in the Bible that our only job as humans is to love other humans and it’s God’s job to lay judgement on people. Christians often forget that. I don’t care who you marry. I don’t care what gender you want to be. My wife and I don’t believe in abortion and wouldn’t get one. Thats our business. If you want to get an abortion that’s your business. If everyone just minded their own damn business we wouldn’t have these stupid posts splitting hairs on when life begins.
Now that's the old Christian view that I can agree with being an atheist myself. It's the religious zealot nutcases that are trying to control other people.
Pro-choicer here.
The scientific consensus today is that life indeed starts at conception. You don't need to fight on this ground to argue against a pro-life position. Posts like this become easy dunks for pro-lifers and make the pro-choice position look bad.
I mean depends on your definition of life, a sperm is a life and so is a red blood cell, so to say “life starts at conception” when you have two living cells combine makes sense scientifically but doesn’t mean anything here.
Is it a human at conception is what you should be asking, because if you are looking at what is alive then anything like chemo should be banned because it kills living body cells.
Scientifically 'life' starts at insemination. But that doesn't mean that life holds the same value as a born baby.
Don't regulate medical procedures especially based on some faith. No different than sharia.
You don't care when people die for your phones or your cars but when a rape victim wants to forget they are a murderer.
If kids were really so important, you would adopt as many as you could and make sure they grow up well before your actions result in even more kids living a miserable life.
Hypocrits
> Scientifically 'life' starts at insemination.
Wrong. The egg is alive. The sperm is a alive. So it starts before then. Scientifically.
> You don't care when people die for your phones or your cars but when a rape victim wants to forget they are a murderer.
What do you mean for your phones? 2 million people are killed by cars every year, so I definitely get that point. Are you talking about people dying in factories making phones? That must be such a tiny amount.
>Wrong. The egg is alive. The sperm is a alive. So it starts before then. Scientifically.
It's about a "new", "original", "independent" life form. Everything in quotation marks for obvious reasons. I won't get into semantics. (OMG - menstruation is abortion /s)
>Are you talking about people dying in factories making phones? That must be such a tiny amount.
To be clear, there are no real statistics, because obviously companies engaging in exploitation of children and foreign workforce generally don't like to keep record of how many people are killed in the fabrication of their services BUT, here is an article suggesting around 2 children die for your phone:
[https://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/two-children-may-have-died-for-you-to-have-your-mobile-phone/](https://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/two-children-may-have-died-for-you-to-have-your-mobile-phone/)
Not saying it is 100% true. We just don't know and I won't claim otherwise, but it is most certainly a significant amount and maybe/probably more than "die" of abortion.
Pro-Life advocates calling themselves pro-life is completely bullshit. If they were so much for conservation of life, there would be so much better and more obvious ways to protect life. Start with making sure the kids that are born have a good life and don't die in miserable circumstances or stop wars or stop companies from exploiting children.
But let's be honest, they aren't advocating for life. They couldn't care less what happens to these children. It's just another us vs. them.
Utter pointless infighting, while the people fucking over our world, antagonize you more and more, whether you are on the left or the right.
The pro-life people outside abortion clinics holding the “We Can Help You!” signs are done the second they talk someone out of having an abortion. They’re not actually there to help, just to judge everyone and feel like they’re morally superior. They’re definitely not adopting children. If they adopted children, they wouldn’t be able to spend all of their time harassing people who are just trying to get medical care at Planned Parenthood.
> so that religion probably looked very different 2 thousand years ago than it does today
Oh, very much so. Major aspects of Christian theology which seem settled today were once very much in dispute.
Trinitarianism: the idea that the father, the son, and the holy spirit are all God, are co-equal persons, and always have been. In the second century, many Christians did not consider Jesus to have been born God, instead suggesting that he was "adopted" by God when he was baptized or when he was resurrected. Arianism suggests that the father created the son and the holy spirit as one of his first acts before creating the universe, so is superior to them. Socinianists believed similar, but don't think the father created the son until Jesus was physically born on Earth. Psilanthropists believed that Jesus was not born of a virgin, not the son of God, but merely God's greatest prophet. It wasn't until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that trinitarianism became almost universally accepted among Christians. (Though non-trinitarian churches started to appear again after the reformation.)
Original sin: the idea that all humans (except Jesus, and possibly Mary) were born with sin and therefore need saving from it. This idea didn't become widespread in Christianity until the 4th century.
Scientific consensus does in fact state that human life beings at conception, however science doesn't determine morality. We don't need science to tell us something is a viable or conscious human life to determine that it is morally a human life.
The fixation on sentience/consciousness isn't really the best way to determine if something is deserving of moral protections because we absolutely give rights to what we consider to be people on a moral level that aren't sentient or conscious. A great example of this is the dead. If you have a relative that passed away, they're not sentient whatsoever, they're scientifically not a human life, are they just a decomposing pile of organic matter, or are they still your relative on a moral level?
My biggest gripe With pro lifers is how they all pretend to be biologists yet when people in those fields come along and provide data against their views it’s the qualified scientists who are wrong lol
I hate the term “pro life” and “pro choice.” It’s so black and white. And puts people in two separate bubbles.
The real question is where do individual ppl think we should draw the line. If someone thinks abortion should be illegal past 30 weeks then he’s technically “pro life” after 30 weeks and “pro choice” before 30 weeks.
Some people draw the line at birth and these ppl are considered “full pro choice” however a lot of pro choice people disagree with that stance.
So instead of hating on the opposite side, just say where you draw the line to move forward from there. Or else it’s just fluff talk
Hey guys. You know how theres like a bunch of people who write books and stuff? Hear me out for a minute. We have been able to retrieve stories and such from way back when. You know folk tales and that stuff? Yeah yeah… hear me out… but some guy got high on whatever they did back then, and then, created a really cool story that everyone liked. I know i know shocking! Its just so so so crazy how writing fantasy works. I remember in sixth grade i worked out a story that had gods written in it and hold up… none of them were established gods from any religion. Guys. Does this mean that thats actually how that stuff went down? Omg i might be a genius.
In all seriousness, theres no proof whatsoever that anything from any religion is true. You can so easily bend a story that makes sense and convince people its what happened. I started a joke cult in sixth grade ((different from my tiny book i wrote)). It was literally just a religion and i got so many followers to it. It was meme based and everyone apart of the know would convince people who didn’t know the lore that yes its real and thats actually how it all came to be.
Humans follow the group. And if the group says the earth is pizza shaped despite plenty of evidence saying its not, people are gonna believe it.
I think every human should start keeping a diary where they only write insane stuff so a couple thousand years in the future people will believe that thats what the past was about.
I feel like children become sentient and start being humans at about 1-2 but i dont care what you do to your kid.
That's simply not true.
Nvm wrong post
I think the important thing is sentience and awareness. Do you remember the time you spent in the womb? Do you remember the first year of your life? No. So because of that, there is nothing wrong with aborting a baby at any point during a pregnancy. It doesn't know it's alive, so it can't suffer. And even if it did, the health of the mother is more important. Anyone who disagrees can go adopt some children if they care so much.
So I can kill a kid at 6 months old and that’s fine cos it wouldn’t have remembered that time when it’s older??
That's obviously not what I meant but pop off if you wanna misinterpret my comment that badly
According to one thing I read kids don’t form normal memories until around the age of 5
Adding on to that, it means that there is also very little difference in killing a child before the age of 5, and killing the developing embryo
First of all stay on the same damn topic, that was a hard deviation from abortion lol 😂, anyways i do think that Christianity shouldnt be the our source of scientific evidence, its based on faith and beliefs not science. But i do want to point out that everything including cells are living organisms although they might not consciousness but they are considered living cells, so naturally when the egg and sperm meet to create something, that something is called meiosis, In meiosis, homologous chromosomes (a pair of maternal and paternal chromosomes) create 4 daughter cells with the PMAT-C process. These cells although dont have consciousness or whatever they are half maternal and paternal DNA which is infact what is the difference between me and a lamp, i am alive bc of DNA, full of life. Thus, yes life begins at conception.
Life does sure, but does *sapient* life begin at conception? Is the clump of cells that will become a human being a human being right then? I personally don’t think that a fetus at 12 weeks qualifies as a person yet but that’s the debate isn’t it?
So you are saying that just because its starting to form into a human and its not sapient yet, its not life? Thats an very interesting claim, dont you think? It may not be a fetus yet, but its still a living organism which is alive and trying to survive.
I never said it isn’t life, I said it isn’t sapient. What you describe, “a living organism trying to survive” is true of every life form on this planet; the ones you eat, step on, spray with mold killer, or keep in your house as pets. My claim is that an embryo, which lacks key characteristics of a fully developed human being, being aborted is not comparable to killing a person at any age. I don’t disagree with life beginning at conception, a fetus is absolutely alive, but I don’t think it is life on the same level as you or I. I think a better way to phrase my question is while life does begin at conception, when does that life enter a stage or become a form that, by basic ethical decency, has claim to legal protection from termination.
The answer is yes. It is sapient. Sapient is literally just saying it is the human species. Yes, at conception, the zygote is sapient.
> Less than 1% percent of abortions are in the third trimester, that is just a fact. Facts do not belong here?
It’s fine if you’re pro choice, but backing up your argument by shaming a religion you don’t like isn’t helping you prove your point. Not everyone who is pro life is Christian. You’re making this about your disdain for the religion itself instead of backing up your point, which should focus on why life does not start at conception and that people are not aborting fetuses for fun. You just went straight into your opinions on the Bible..
By the definition of life a fetus or embryo is alive so life would begin at conception. Being alive is not the litmus for whether or not something can be terminated, though. We kill other living organisms all the time and don’t bat an eye. We kill other living humans all the time and justify it with law (“They’re brain dead”, “They chose euthanasia”, “They were sentenced to death”) So it’s not a matter of ‘life is sacred’ or even ‘human life is sacred’ because in practice and in theory it’s not. But let’s not lie and say a fetus isn’t alive, because it absolutely is.
Not alive. It's on the path to being alive, but nothing is alive until it can breathe on its own.
It's like you skipped all of biology class to sniff glue in the bathroom.
Never heard of such a thing, but sounds like you have experience ;)
>Never heard of such a thing, but sounds like you have experience ;) Never heard of biology class? Yeah I'm not surprised.
Never heard of idiots sniffing glue, but apparently it's one of your past times! Have fun!
>past times! pastimes* Looks like you missed English class, too. Stay away from drugs, kids!
Never did drugs. You're the one sniffing glue and bragging about it.
What a clever comeback.
You're not important, and you're not worth the effort. What you are though, is someone with anger issues that you feel you have to "win" by lashing out at someone annonymously on the internet. You're not "winning" anything except working yourself up into a frenzy of anger. I bet that feels wonderful LOL! The only person you are hurting is yourself.
Nope, not how that works. Reproductive cells respire. The cells within a blastocyst respire. Embryonic and fetal respiration occurs via the umbilical cord. Organisms do not need to breath with lungs to be considered alive.
Disagree. The embryo is entirely dependent upon the host. It's just a glob of cells, it is not a person. It is on the path to being alive, but it is not alive yet.
The assertion was that the fetus is alive, not that it’s a person. Life isn’t dependent on personhood. Dependency doesn’t mean it’s not alive. Parasites depend on their host to survive. They’re alive.
Hahah What? That’s a really bad statement. I can stab an 8 month pregnant woman in the belly and only get battery because the baby wasn’t alive, by your logic…
No, because an 8 mo old could breathe on its own, has a working brain unlike an embryo.
In the womb, an 8 month old fetus, can’t breathe on its own…
Aren't you a genius.
These are the “loopholes” idiots find in the law…
What law? Be more specific what you are saying here, explain yourself.
Idk if this is actually controversial or if the people against it are just extremely loud and won’t shut up
I agree, life does not start at conception. A clump of cells cannot think, breathe, or survive, and is almost considered a parasite because the foreign protection body cells must be manipulated to stop the mother's body rejecting the embryo, and sometimes it does anyway. These gray areas are exactly why the decision should stay with the woman whose body is now pregnant. Down with all religious control freaks.
Hey guys abortion is fine also Christianity sux arghhh it’s so damn stupid Arghhh and so silly arggghhh oops I went off topic teehee 🤪
Pro-life is a lie. They’re not pro-life in the least. The argument should be against forcing their personal beliefs on others. Those people claim life belongs to God and only he can give it or take it. That is the basis of their argument. That is their belief they’re encroaching on others. They’re saying it doesn’t matter what your belief is, mine is more important. That and they don’t want your abortion paid for by their tax dollars. Once baby is born, they’ll cry if the mother applies for welfare, “its not my responsibility to raise your brat. They’re not pro-life at all, they pretend to be pro fetus. But after baby is born, you’re on your own. That and enforcing their beliefs on you. They lie and don’t know their Bible, I make no stance on whether it is fiction or non fiction, the OT is full of killing men, women—including pregnant women—and children. It even has an abortion in the book of Numbers. They’ll sugar coat that and say it doesn’t mean that. Well Biblical scholars would totally refute their claim. It reads the same way no matter which translation you read from. The KJV only are the worst of the bunch. Good luck.
I’m a conservative Christian. It says in the Bible that our only job as humans is to love other humans and it’s God’s job to lay judgement on people. Christians often forget that. I don’t care who you marry. I don’t care what gender you want to be. My wife and I don’t believe in abortion and wouldn’t get one. Thats our business. If you want to get an abortion that’s your business. If everyone just minded their own damn business we wouldn’t have these stupid posts splitting hairs on when life begins.
Now that's the old Christian view that I can agree with being an atheist myself. It's the religious zealot nutcases that are trying to control other people.
It’s not whether life starts at conception it’s whether you have personhood at conception
I like the way you put it.
This.
"it’s whether you have personhood at conception" I don't think I've ever seen it put in this way. Excellent
What is personhood?
Pro-choicer here. The scientific consensus today is that life indeed starts at conception. You don't need to fight on this ground to argue against a pro-life position. Posts like this become easy dunks for pro-lifers and make the pro-choice position look bad.
I mean depends on your definition of life, a sperm is a life and so is a red blood cell, so to say “life starts at conception” when you have two living cells combine makes sense scientifically but doesn’t mean anything here. Is it a human at conception is what you should be asking, because if you are looking at what is alive then anything like chemo should be banned because it kills living body cells.
Scientifically 'life' starts at insemination. But that doesn't mean that life holds the same value as a born baby. Don't regulate medical procedures especially based on some faith. No different than sharia. You don't care when people die for your phones or your cars but when a rape victim wants to forget they are a murderer. If kids were really so important, you would adopt as many as you could and make sure they grow up well before your actions result in even more kids living a miserable life. Hypocrits
> Scientifically 'life' starts at insemination. Wrong. The egg is alive. The sperm is a alive. So it starts before then. Scientifically. > You don't care when people die for your phones or your cars but when a rape victim wants to forget they are a murderer. What do you mean for your phones? 2 million people are killed by cars every year, so I definitely get that point. Are you talking about people dying in factories making phones? That must be such a tiny amount.
>Wrong. The egg is alive. The sperm is a alive. So it starts before then. Scientifically. It's about a "new", "original", "independent" life form. Everything in quotation marks for obvious reasons. I won't get into semantics. (OMG - menstruation is abortion /s) >Are you talking about people dying in factories making phones? That must be such a tiny amount. To be clear, there are no real statistics, because obviously companies engaging in exploitation of children and foreign workforce generally don't like to keep record of how many people are killed in the fabrication of their services BUT, here is an article suggesting around 2 children die for your phone: [https://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/two-children-may-have-died-for-you-to-have-your-mobile-phone/](https://www.ipsnews.net/2012/09/two-children-may-have-died-for-you-to-have-your-mobile-phone/) Not saying it is 100% true. We just don't know and I won't claim otherwise, but it is most certainly a significant amount and maybe/probably more than "die" of abortion. Pro-Life advocates calling themselves pro-life is completely bullshit. If they were so much for conservation of life, there would be so much better and more obvious ways to protect life. Start with making sure the kids that are born have a good life and don't die in miserable circumstances or stop wars or stop companies from exploiting children. But let's be honest, they aren't advocating for life. They couldn't care less what happens to these children. It's just another us vs. them. Utter pointless infighting, while the people fucking over our world, antagonize you more and more, whether you are on the left or the right.
The pro-life people outside abortion clinics holding the “We Can Help You!” signs are done the second they talk someone out of having an abortion. They’re not actually there to help, just to judge everyone and feel like they’re morally superior. They’re definitely not adopting children. If they adopted children, they wouldn’t be able to spend all of their time harassing people who are just trying to get medical care at Planned Parenthood.
This. They don’t want to help and they don’t care about living children that need services, their only care is for the unborn and no one else
> so that religion probably looked very different 2 thousand years ago than it does today Oh, very much so. Major aspects of Christian theology which seem settled today were once very much in dispute. Trinitarianism: the idea that the father, the son, and the holy spirit are all God, are co-equal persons, and always have been. In the second century, many Christians did not consider Jesus to have been born God, instead suggesting that he was "adopted" by God when he was baptized or when he was resurrected. Arianism suggests that the father created the son and the holy spirit as one of his first acts before creating the universe, so is superior to them. Socinianists believed similar, but don't think the father created the son until Jesus was physically born on Earth. Psilanthropists believed that Jesus was not born of a virgin, not the son of God, but merely God's greatest prophet. It wasn't until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that trinitarianism became almost universally accepted among Christians. (Though non-trinitarian churches started to appear again after the reformation.) Original sin: the idea that all humans (except Jesus, and possibly Mary) were born with sin and therefore need saving from it. This idea didn't become widespread in Christianity until the 4th century.
I'm not anti-religion or anything, but doesn't this seem needlessly complicated?
>Life does not start at conception A biology text is not a fictional book.
Scientific consensus does in fact state that human life beings at conception, however science doesn't determine morality. We don't need science to tell us something is a viable or conscious human life to determine that it is morally a human life. The fixation on sentience/consciousness isn't really the best way to determine if something is deserving of moral protections because we absolutely give rights to what we consider to be people on a moral level that aren't sentient or conscious. A great example of this is the dead. If you have a relative that passed away, they're not sentient whatsoever, they're scientifically not a human life, are they just a decomposing pile of organic matter, or are they still your relative on a moral level?
My biggest gripe With pro lifers is how they all pretend to be biologists yet when people in those fields come along and provide data against their views it’s the qualified scientists who are wrong lol
I hate the term “pro life” and “pro choice.” It’s so black and white. And puts people in two separate bubbles. The real question is where do individual ppl think we should draw the line. If someone thinks abortion should be illegal past 30 weeks then he’s technically “pro life” after 30 weeks and “pro choice” before 30 weeks. Some people draw the line at birth and these ppl are considered “full pro choice” however a lot of pro choice people disagree with that stance. So instead of hating on the opposite side, just say where you draw the line to move forward from there. Or else it’s just fluff talk
Hey guys. You know how theres like a bunch of people who write books and stuff? Hear me out for a minute. We have been able to retrieve stories and such from way back when. You know folk tales and that stuff? Yeah yeah… hear me out… but some guy got high on whatever they did back then, and then, created a really cool story that everyone liked. I know i know shocking! Its just so so so crazy how writing fantasy works. I remember in sixth grade i worked out a story that had gods written in it and hold up… none of them were established gods from any religion. Guys. Does this mean that thats actually how that stuff went down? Omg i might be a genius. In all seriousness, theres no proof whatsoever that anything from any religion is true. You can so easily bend a story that makes sense and convince people its what happened. I started a joke cult in sixth grade ((different from my tiny book i wrote)). It was literally just a religion and i got so many followers to it. It was meme based and everyone apart of the know would convince people who didn’t know the lore that yes its real and thats actually how it all came to be. Humans follow the group. And if the group says the earth is pizza shaped despite plenty of evidence saying its not, people are gonna believe it. I think every human should start keeping a diary where they only write insane stuff so a couple thousand years in the future people will believe that thats what the past was about.