I don't understand it. If the mom was a human and the dad was a human and conception has occurred doesn't that make it a completely separate human being.
If it does, does that mean Pro-choice people simply believe killing an unborn infant is justifiable by a mother?
2007-01-21 13:52:22 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
That is a very simple question to answer. An embryo is human if you desire to carry your child to term, if you want an abortion it is not human. That is how people try to justify abortion. There really is nothing you can do to justify and abortion though. Yes that baby is a separate human being from the mother. The baby needs to be nourished by the mother during pregnancy, but that does not mean it is not a separate body. This may help- when a baby is born- it is outside the mother's tummy- however it still cannot defend for itself, can it - and if for some reason that mother would kill her child, she would be up for murder, which of course is right- but that same women even days before the baby is due to be born, has an abortion it is called choice. Interesting when you look at it that way isn't it? I need to add though for those who may have had an abortion- and you are feeling ashamed and do not think that abortion is forgivable - look to the Cross. He is waiting to forgive you.
2007-01-21 16:50:19 · answer #1 · answered by AdoreHim 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Infertility--The Treatments, the Questions :
- A Baby Boom Through Assisted Reproduction
> The Choices, the Issues Involved
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040922/article_01.htm
2007-01-22 09:23:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
>>If the mom was a human and the dad was a human and conception has occurred doesn't that make it a completely separate human being.<<
Yep!
---
Fertilization: Beginning a new organism
Fertilization is the process whereby two sex cells (gametes) fuse together to create a new individual with genetic potentials derived from both parents. Fertilization accomplishes two separate ends: sex (the combining of genes derived from the two parents) and reproduction (the creation of new organisms). Thus, the first function of fertilization is to transmit genes from parent to offspring, and the second is to initiate in the egg cytoplasm those reactions that permit development to proceed. -- 'Developmental Biology', 6th Edition
2007-01-21 13:59:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In God's eyes, that is a life and a person with a soul. So it is the same in my eyes. Don't let people make you believe in all of this bunches of tissue stuff, and embryo stuff , and non-human stuff. All of this is contrary to God's word. Read Jeremiah 1:5. It is letting you know that God knows us even before we are placed in the womb, therefore we are never a bunch of tissue.
Now, as far as whether abortion is right or wrong. God does not allow me to judge anyone. Each one of us have to give an account for our personal doings.
2007-01-21 15:12:12 · answer #4 · answered by Moni B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An interesting twist for those that use the "soul created at conception" argument. That doesn't play a role in my objections to abortion, but if it did, I suppose I could argue that, in the case of chimeras, God simply takes the unnecessary soul at the time the merging happens...and in the case of twins, he issues a new soul when the split happens. ...or perhaps the reason for the incorporation of the chimeras AND the reason for the split of twins is the number of souls...the two entities that merge do so in order to share the one soul they were given and those that split do so to give each soul a separate home. Just speculating because, as noted, the existence of a soul has nothing to do with my objection to abortion.
2016-03-29 08:18:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe that the fetus can actually be considered a seperate human being until it is capable of living outside the mother *28 weeks or so*. Until then, it depends on the mother for life, and is thus a part of her and not a seperate being.
2007-01-21 14:17:40 · answer #6 · answered by rita_alabama 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Abortion advocates don't believe it even counts as an unborn infant at that point. It's not a completely seperate human being if it cannot survive outside of the mother's body. It's just parasitic tissue.
2007-01-21 13:56:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
After a child is born, it cannot survive without care either so I dont think that excuse they use is valid at all. They constantly want to change wording to enable them to keep killing. I always think of "The Jewish Solution" thought up by the Nazis. It had special wording but it was still plain murder.
2007-01-21 14:13:15 · answer #8 · answered by Midge 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It all depends. If the person wants it to be recognized for a human then it is, but if they choose to destroy it, well then it isn't. It satisfies us to claim it unhuman when we want to kill it. However, the courts will consider it double homicide if a pregnant woman is killed via murder, wreck, manslaughter,etc. Hard to figure out isn't it?
2007-01-21 14:01:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Boohoo, people see the world differently than you do. Grow up. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. An embryo is just a bunch of cells in the beginning. It's just a potential life, not a human. It's not an unborn infant. It's not even considered a fetus. Even in your bible (I'm assuming you're Christian) it says the human has no soul till it takes its first breath. So mind your own damn business.
2007-01-21 13:59:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋