You’ve named a series of opinions from the pro-abortion crowd that even in our current moral degeneracy can be easily defeated in a politically acceptable manner. You then disagree with my opinion which you are perfectly free to do. You then give me your opinion. Where’s the objective science in that thinking?
At some point we all must choose. How can you objectively determine humanity when by your very own statements there are pro-abortion opinions diametrically opposed. You cannot discuss human life without mention of a soul. There is no such thing as a souless human life.
The sperm isn’t a human being, nor is the egg. There is something more and the debate continues. Everyone has to choose. I think mine is fairly objective. If the fertilized egg is attached to the uterine wall it is capable of sustaining life, though it can still die. Before that it is not. This occurs at about the first weeks of pregnancy. That’s objective.
If you don’t want to conceive it allows for great flexibility and maturity. If you want to have an abortion you have a tough decision to make. You will be killing a human life, that is a person with a soul.
I am a scientist. I certainly can and do discuss human life without a soul. I cannot view a soul under a microscope, nor is there any biochemical test which will reveal it. But there are objective measures which I can apply to determine if something is alive or not, and so I choose life as a major determinant in the discussion of whether it is acceptable to have abortions or not.
The reason I brought up those particular pro-abortion arguments is that their proponents choose an arbitrary measure as their determinant of whether it is acceptable to kill a particular human being or not. Trying to use the presence of a soul as an argument is just as arbitrary. It is also easily countered by those who dismiss opposition to abortion as a religious belief. I try to stay away from arguments that depend on arbitrary measures. Abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. It is wrong because when it is just a few weeks old, that human feels the pain of the violence inflicted on it.
The sperm isn’t a human being, nor is the egg. There is something more and the debate continues. Everyone has to choose. I think mine is fairly objective. If the fertilized egg is attached to the uterine wall it is capable of sustaining life, though it can still die. Before that it is not. This occurs at about the first weeks of pregnancy. That’s objective.
The sperm is haploid human life, as is the ovum. Haploid humans have a very short life span, and have no chance of developing further. There is no particular reason to protect haploid human life. Once they join together and become a diploid zygote, there is a small chance of developing further. I actually do not see much reason to try to protect human life at that stage, either. The zygote may or may not begin to undergo cell division and become a blastocyst. The blastocyst may or may not implant into the uterus. The blastocyst may or may not produce an embryo capable of growth. To me, viable embryo formation marks the point at which we should protect life, because that is the first stage at which we know the human can develop further. My entire determination is made on the basis of objective scientific evidence.
If you don’t want to conceive it allows for great flexibility and maturity. If you want to have an abortion you have a tough decision to make. You will be killing a human life, that is a person with a soul.
I will not disagree. Women have a right and a responsibility to avoid pregnancy when they do not intend to have a child.