How can Christians justify Abortion?

[returntosender]

Sure, but you didn’t give an opinion, you gave a what you believe is a statement of fact. You can’t expect to make blanket claims without any support and expect people to blindly agree with you.

If you aren’t prepared to support your claims, they’re probably not worth sharing.

And like mine yours is just another opinion to listen to or not. You know its true you just need to control.

 

[Cis.jd]

Why isn't this apart of who you select to run your country? People seem to be hung up on the presidency being filled with a man of valor, humility, high morals, decency, honorable, truth teller and the list goes on. Most of which is an impossibility and yet a president that believes in the legitimacy of abortion is welcomed in. I don't get it.
God says "Thou shalt not kill" and you say but that is not murder. A man or woman kills a baby clinically and you say that is not murder.
Please fill me in so I can understand.
Nicely and quietly tell me why you think abortion is okay for the president you choose if you don't believe in abortion.
There are few things we can control or change but this seems to be one we can make a difference in.
Thank you.

media brainwashed.
trying to give christianity a "hip" image to their leftist friends.

 

[Jamdoc]

Why isn't this apart of who you select to run your country? People seem to be hung up on the presidency being filled with a man of valor, humility, high morals, decency, honorable, truth teller and the list goes on. Most of which is an impossibility and yet a president that believes in the legitimacy of abortion is welcomed in. I don't get it.
God says "Thou shalt not kill" and you say but that is not murder. A man or woman kills a baby clinically and you say that is not murder.
Please fill me in so I can understand.
Nicely and quietly tell me why you think abortion is okay for the president you choose if you don't believe in abortion.
There are few things we can control or change but this seems to be one we can make a difference in.
Thank you.

Here's where I stand on it. I'm pro choice but anti-abortion.
I do not support surgical abortion except in a few medical necessities. Ectopic pregnancy is one instance, or a serious condition where the mother and fetus both die, or what is called fatal anomaly of the fetus, IE they're going to be born without organs and die within minutes or hours of being delivered and their own body has to function independently. There is sometimes NOTHING that can be done to save the baby's life and you can't do anything except palliative care after they're born. At that point it's a judgement call on the doctors and mother which would be more merciful. It is possibly the most painful choice a woman could make, and she should not be considered a murderer if she has to make that choice. Murder requires malice, hate, not mercy or compassion.
The other possible exception depending on your definition of abortions is rape. I am in favor of morning after pills and emergency contraceptives for rape victims, I don't consider it an abortion, however some people (like the Catholic Church) do. Most of these pills prevent ovulation or implantation, a woman is not pregnant unless there is fertilization AND implantation. "Conception" is not a biological term by any means, and people qualify "conception" at fertilization, but if it does not implant, there will never be a baby born from that fertilization. So preventing implantation is to me at least, still contraceptive but some people will qualify that as an abortion.

Now those qualify a very small portion of abortions performed. However because of those situations, the procedures should be available, the doctors should know how to perform them, and they should be legal. I subscribe that "Legal with restrictions" instead of "Illegal with exceptions" should be the go to for some laws. If you make abortion completely illegal except for a few mitigating circumstances, now it comes down to paperwork when a mother and doctor have to make a very difficult decision, and I don't trust the government to work expediently when needed. I expect the government to be very slow and unresponsive. If you make an exception for rape, to what extent does a woman have to "prove" that she was raped to get a morning after pill? Does she have to be able to identify her attacker? Does there have to be charges filed? Does there have to be a trial? Conviction? It's too late then and you've caused more suffering if she still decides to go through the procedure, vs just giving her a morning after pill at her examination. So instead, I would prefer things like these heartbeat laws, where it is legal up to about 6 weeks of pregnancy (where it wouldn't be a surgical procedure but often times a high doses of contraceptives). After that, it'd only be for medical reasons, but the government should err on the side of the doctor when determining necessity, rather than sitting on paperwork for months.

Now as far as reducing the amount of abortions performed, I like programs like I've heard of Christian Associations that give mothers to be who are considering abortion a free ultrasound, which often will change a woman's mind to choose life instead of an elective abortion. Patients should also be encouraged towards adoption for an unwanted pregnancy, and financial assistance if the financial burden of prenatal care, delivery costs, and childcare costs are a big deciding factor for them. Education is also key, one thing that should be a part of the decision making process is hearing testimony from women who have had abortions and been depressed or full of regret afterward. Instead of heavy handed government, let people be pro choice and choose life, it is more meaningful then.

Some scripture I'd like to point out in regards to "how can you possibly support allowing irresponsible women to choose murder!?" is in Revelation 22:11

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

It is not my responsibility to make choices for these women, these are the end times and this is all a symptom of the curse of this world reaching a fever pitch.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

I do not agree with abortion just as I do not agree with the dearth penalty.
However, I cannot judge anyone who agrees with it or has had one.
I ask to the people who agree with abortion: if you support abortion then why do you disagree with the death penalty?
For those who are against abortion I ask: if you are against abortion then why do you support executions?
In countries where democracy has voted for legalized abortion, I believe that if you disagree with it just don’t have one. Try to support the the prevention of one. Support afterbirth care. Make adoption easier and less expensive.
You cannot force people to believe what you believe sometimes.
People are going to do what they want. Especially if they are not Christian.
Our job is to not judge and welcome them with open arms. Create a safe space where they feel like they do have more supportive options besides abortion.
But no matter what, even if it is made illegal, there will be those that will still undergo back alley coat hanger abortions.

 

[zoidar]

Why isn't this apart of who you select to run your country? People seem to be hung up on the presidency being filled with a man of valor, humility, high morals, decency, honorable, truth teller and the list goes on. Most of which is an impossibility and yet a president that believes in the legitimacy of abortion is welcomed in. I don't get it.
God says "Thou shalt not kill" and you say but that is not murder. A man or woman kills a baby clinically and you say that is not murder.
Please fill me in so I can understand.
Nicely and quietly tell me why you think abortion is okay for the president you choose if you don't believe in abortion.
There are few things we can control or change but this seems to be one we can make a difference in.
Thank you.

The best way to save children is bringing people to Jesus, then there will be a natural decline. God bless!

 

[SPF]

And like mine yours is just another opinion to listen to or not. You know its true you just need to control.

The difference is that the claims and arguments I put forth can be supported with facts. You just threw out a completely unsupported generalization with no ability to defend it other than “because it looks true to me”.

I don’t know what sort of education you have, but not even a high schooler would get away with that in a paper.

bottom line, if you’re going to engage in discussion, you’ll need to support your claims.

I am in favor of morning after pills and emergency contraceptives for rape victims, I don't consider it an abortion, however some people (like the Catholic Church) do. Most of these pills prevent ovulation or implantation, a woman is not pregnant unless there is fertilization AND implantation. "Conception" is not a biological term by any means, and people qualify "conception" at fertilization, but if it does not implant, there will never be a baby born from that fertilization. So preventing implantation is to me at least, still contraceptive but some people will qualify that as an abortion.

I understand this position, and it is certainly based out of compassion for the mother. The problem is that it’s not based in science or actual truth.

Science has progressed enough that we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization (not implantation).

At fertilization, a new and unique being comes into existence. She has her own DNA, and if permitted to continue developing, will continue her 25 year developmental period into a full grown adult human.

Any sort of intentional action on behalf of her mother or doctor to kill the growing human when a medical emergency is not at hand is morally wrong.

98.5% of all abortions take place because of convenience reasons, and those are immoral.

They are immoral because all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

For those who are against abortion I ask: if you are against abortion then why do you support executions?

The abortions performed for convenience reasons are the intentional killing of an innocent and vulnerable human being has done nothing wrong, broken no law.

People subject to the death penalty have on their own intentionally and purposefully performed a heinous crime. It’s nothing short of a categorical mistake to try and draw a comparison between abortion and the death penalty.

 

[Arc F1]

I do not agree with abortion just as I do not agree with the dearth penalty.
However, I cannot judge anyone who agrees with it or has had one.
I ask to the people who agree with abortion: if you support abortion then why do you disagree with the death penalty?
For those who are against abortion I ask: if you are against abortion then why do you support executions?
In countries where democracy has voted for legalized abortion, I believe that if you disagree with it just don’t have one. Try to support the the prevention of one. Support afterbirth care. Make adoption easier and less expensive.
You cannot force people to believe what you believe sometimes.
People are going to do what they want. Especially if they are not Christian.
Our job is to not judge and welcome them with open arms. Create a safe space where they feel like they do have more supportive options besides abortion.
But no matter what, even if it is made illegal, there will be those that will still undergo back alley coat hanger abortions.

Murder is unjustly taking someone's life (abortion). The death penalty is killing, taking a life that the individual forfeited when they took someone else's. We aren't judging by taking God's side. He set forth the rules so he is the judge. When I tell someone they are wrong or speak against something it's not my judgment. Jesus set an example and we should follow that example.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[mindlight]

Why isn't this apart of who you select to run your country? People seem to be hung up on the presidency being filled with a man of valor, humility, high morals, decency, honorable, truth teller and the list goes on. Most of which is an impossibility and yet a president that believes in the legitimacy of abortion is welcomed in. I don't get it.
God says "Thou shalt not kill" and you say but that is not murder. A man or woman kills a baby clinically and you say that is not murder.
Please fill me in so I can understand.
Nicely and quietly tell me why you think abortion is okay for the president you choose if you don't believe in abortion.
There are few things we can control or change but this seems to be one we can make a difference in.
Thank you.

Abortion is murder but it is not the only issue. Arguably Trump has already appointed enough conservative justices to tip the balance. But this would be a viable reason to vote for a second term for him just to make sure that only conservative supreme court justices are appointed.

A failure to provide comprehensive health care at an affordable price is arguably costing more American lives each year than abortion is at the moment as well as causing massive insecurity and costs for average Americans. America is spending twice as much for its system but its people die 4-6 years before European counterparts and the growing problem of underlying ill health has exacerbated issues with the current Pandemic. So the death rate from Americas health crisis is most likely measured in millions of lives cut short and of unnecessary deaths and the degradation of the quality of life for all but the top 20-30 %.

Also declines in social mobility with the commensurate poverty, crime and despair costs lives

Various decisions to ignore problems with the environment cost lives and degrade the quality of life of the many

You have to weigh all these factors when making decisions.

 

[Jamdoc]

I understand this position, and it is certainly based out of compassion for the mother. The problem is that it’s not based in science or actual truth.

Science has progressed enough that we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization (not implantation).

At fertilization, a new and unique being comes into existence. She has her own DNA, and if permitted to continue developing, will continue her 25 year developmental period into a full grown adult human.

Any sort of intentional action on behalf of her mother or doctor to kill the growing human when a medical emergency is not at hand is morally wrong.

98.5% of all abortions take place because of convenience reasons, and those are immoral.

They are immoral because all human beings are created in the image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

Without implantation, that fertilization will never result in anything. Before implantation, it really is a ball of undifferentiated cells, and very often, maybe even a majority of the time, eggs are fertilized too far down the fallopian tubes or in the uterus itself, don't develop enough and are discarded, naturally. So an emergency contraceptive is not taking a fetus and hacking it up in the womb.. it's just having the zygote not implant. That zygote likely will not implant anyway, but taking the contraceptive is ensuring that it doesn't. I see no reason to force a woman to be an incubator for a baby she did not want, that was produced through an act of violence against her. If it doesn't implant, it never lives. There is no "permitted to continue developing" for an unimplanted zygote.

 

[SPF]

I see no reason to force a woman to be an incubator for a baby she did not want, that was produced through an act of violence against her.

The morality of abortion has everything to do with how we view the life of the unborn human and nothing to do with the how in which the human came to exist.

If it doesn't implant, it never lives.

This unfortunately isn’t reality. At fertilization is when a new living, growing, developing, and unique human being comes to exist. Their being implanted doesn’t actually change their structure or have anything to do with them.

A new human being exists at fertilization. This is unbiased, non-religious scientific fact. A human being takes about 25 years to fully develop, yet at no point during our developmental period are we not a human.

discriminating against a human based upon their level of development is wrong and indefensible. Either we are morally valuable from our beginning, or we are not.

 

[Jamdoc]

The morality of abortion has everything to do with how we view the life of the unborn human and nothing to do with the how in which the human came to exist.

This unfortunately isn’t reality. At fertilization is when a new living, growing, developing, and unique human being comes to exist. Their being implanted doesn’t actually change their structure or have anything to do with them.

A new human being exists at fertilization. This is unbiased, non-religious scientific fact. A human being takes about 25 years to fully develop, yet at no point during our developmental period are we not a human.

discriminating against a human based upon their level of development is wrong and indefensible. Either we are morally valuable from our beginning, or we are not.

Luke 1:31, Luke 2:21 and Job 31:15 establish that it is in the womb (IE after implantation) that a new life begins and begins being formed by God, not in the fallopian tubes, and if fertilization happens in the womb, then it is too late and it will pass away without ever implanting and will never be.
Do you believe that every fertilized blastocyst has a soul? Cause that's probably 10's if not over 100 billion souls that were never given a chance even by God to develop.

 

[SPF]

Luke 1:31, Luke 2:21 and Job 31:15 establish that it is in the womb (IE after implantation) that a new life begins

The Luke passage is a beautiful passage about the calling of John the Baptist. The purpose of the passage is not by any means to provide a teaching about when a new human comes into existence.

That being said, what it does tell us about John’s beginning can be used to establish some neat Truths.

We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother’s womb. We are also told that he leaped for joy while in his mother’s womb.

These passages are important because they do demonstrate, at the very least, that we are living humans with moral value before we are born.

What this passage does not do however is teach us when precisely a new human being is created. You simply go too far with your assertion that it teaches that it is after implantation that a human being is created. It teaches nothing on that subject.

Do you believe that every fertilized blastocyst has a soul? Cause that's probably 10's if not over 100 billion souls that were never given a chance even by God to develop.

What I believe is that Scripture teaches that all human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

I also believe (as it’s established fact at this point) the science that has revealed that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. It is at fertilization that a new and unique being comes into existence. At the moment of fertilization the new life begins to grow.

Thus, based upon what Scripture teaches, and based upon what science has demonstrated, I see no consistent position to be held other than the one that says that at fertilization a new human being, created in the image of God and possessing the same moral worth and value as you and I, has come into existence.

Again, human development takes about 25 years, but at no point during our developmental period are we not a human being. We don’t “grow into” moral worth and value.

Your position is not defensible from either the Biblical or scientific front.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Liberal christian justifications for abortion are pretty weak. They usually go with the line of 'while it isn't it good, i support the right of the woman to procure an abortion."

It's so at odds with the natural pro-life Christian conviction that has been with the Church as to make me question the very legitimacy of such a person's Christianity.

Politically it is an issue I think Christendom at large should be united on. Thankfully the major Churches of the world have an official stance against it, Catholic, Orthodox and most Protestants. Though I think Church leaders could always be stronger on the issue and shouldn't be afraid at offending the delicate sensibilities of pro-abortion advocates.

 

[Jamdoc]

The Luke passage is a beautiful passage about the calling of John the Baptist. The purpose of the passage is not by any means to provide a teaching about when a new human comes into existence.

That being said, what it does tell us about John’s beginning can be used to establish some neat Truths.

We are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother’s womb. We are also told that he leaped for joy while in his mother’s womb.

These passages are important because they do demonstrate, at the very least, that we are living humans with moral value before we are born.

What this passage does not do however is teach us when precisely a new human being is created. You simply go too far with your assertion that it teaches that it is after implantation that a human being is created. It teaches nothing on that subject.

What I believe is that Scripture teaches that all human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

I also believe (as it’s established fact at this point) the science that has revealed that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. It is at fertilization that a new and unique being comes into existence. At the moment of fertilization the new life begins to grow.

Thus, based upon what Scripture teaches, and based upon what science has demonstrated, I see no consistent position to be held other than the one that says that at fertilization a new human being, created in the image of God and possessing the same moral worth and value as you and I, has come into existence.

Again, human development takes about 25 years, but at no point during our developmental period are we not a human being. We don’t “grow into” moral worth and value.

Your position is not defensible from either the Biblical or scientific front.

It is, because it is utterly ignorant to ignore that the majority of fertilized eggs will never be born because they never implant, and that is naturally without any intervention. Reproduction is a miracle that it even happens, because of the complex timing involved.
I'm going to hold that that life really begins at implantation because that's the only way that that life CAN be born, and the language in the bible where conception is used, refers to conception in the womb. A cell bombarded by radiation or carcinogens also has a unique set of DNA different from your own, that does not make it a new human being, it does not have a soul, and we deliberately kill those tumors whenever we can.

So I will hold that morning after pills, considering what they are is the same hormones that are used in contraceptives, are not abortion, but as the name contraceptive refers to, they prevent conception, and conception only happens if there is fertilization AND implantation. A human being is more than DNA. DNA are the instructions to MAKE a human, not the human itself.

BTW, you got the verses wrong, as the verses I quoted referred to Jesus being conceived in the womb, they weren't about John the Baptist. If conception happens in the womb, the word conception cannot be referring to fertilization.

 

[Telesto]

Why isn't this apart of who you select to run your country? People seem to be hung up on the presidency being filled with a man of valor, humility, high morals, decency, honorable, truth teller and the list goes on. Most of which is an impossibility and yet a president that believes in the legitimacy of abortion is welcomed in. I don't get it.
God says "Thou shalt not kill" and you say but that is not murder. A man or woman kills a baby clinically and you say that is not murder.
Please fill me in so I can understand.
Nicely and quietly tell me why you think abortion is okay for the president you choose if you don't believe in abortion.
There are few things we can control or change but this seems to be one we can make a difference in.
Thank you.

It's a scam.
It's been a scam for nearly 50 years.
50 years.
It's been a scam.
You can vote Republican all you want. You can vote for the worst people. You can vote for incompetent people. They are scamming you by pretending to be anti-abortion. Abortion is permanently legal.

 

[SPF]

It is, because it is utterly ignorant to ignore that the majority of fertilized eggs will never be born because they never implant, and that is naturally without any intervention.

I think you would agree that this only happens because sin has entered the world and now tragic things happen that wouldn’t otherwise happen in a perfect world without the corruption of sin. The sad truth is that we have to live in light of the corruption of sin in our world.

I'm going to hold that that life really begins at implantation because that's the only way that that life CAN be born

You’re welcome to hold this position, but I find it odd you want to fight so hard for it.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. I can quote dozens of biology textbooks if you would like. It is at the fusion of the sperm and the egg that a new and unique human being comes into existence.

Is it true that they will only live if they are successfully implanted in the womb? Yes, certainly. But that doesn’t therefore mean that the human is not alive prior to implantation. Implantation does not make the growing human alive, it only serves to provide the secure environment that it needs.

But our 25 year developmental period scientifically occurs at fertilization. It’s a biological fact.

A cell bombarded by radiation or carcinogens also has a unique set of DNA different from your own, that does not make it a new human being,

Sure, and would a cell bombarded by radiation or carcinogens, if left on its own develop into a human being? I think you know the answer to that.

So I will hold that morning after pills, considering what they are is the same hormones that are used in contraceptives, are not abortion, but as the name contraceptive refers to, they prevent conception, and conception only happens if there is fertilization AND implantation.

Again, there’s nothing scientific or Biblical that you can cling to that supports the idea that a new human being doesn’t come into existence until a successful implantation.

A human being is more than DNA. DNA are the instructions to MAKE a human, not the human itself.

A human begins their 25 year developmental period at fertilization, yet at no point during their development are they not a human being. They don’t become a human based upon their location.

Also, it’s worth noting that fertilization and conception used to be synonymous terms. It’s only been recently, specifically in the pro-abortion camp that a distinction between the two has attempted to be established.

Your position, just like people who hold support abortion is an attempt to redefine when a new human being comes into existence for the sole reason of justifying an action against a human that would otherwise be considered immoral.

That’s why you are ignoring science completely, and attempting to use isegesis to read into Scripture a teaching that isn’t there so you can justify killing a human being.

 

[Jamdoc]

I think you would agree that this only happens because sin has entered the world and now tragic things happen that wouldn’t otherwise happen in a perfect world without the corruption of sin. The sad truth is that we have to live in light of the corruption of sin in our world.

You’re welcome to hold this position, but I find it odd you want to fight so hard for it.

We know scientifically that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization. I can quote dozens of biology textbooks if you would like. It is at the fusion of the sperm and the egg that a new and unique human being comes into existence.

Is it true that they will only live if they are successfully implanted in the womb? Yes, certainly. But that doesn’t therefore mean that the human is not alive prior to implantation. Implantation does not make the growing human alive, it only serves to provide the secure environment that it needs.

But our 25 year developmental period scientifically occurs at fertilization. It’s a biological fact.

Sure, and would a cell bombarded by radiation or carcinogens, if left on its own develop into a human being? I think you know the answer to that.

Again, there’s nothing scientific or Biblical that you can cling to that supports the idea that a new human being doesn’t come into existence until a successful implantation.

A human begins their 25 year developmental period at fertilization, yet at no point during their development are they not a human being. They don’t become a human based upon their location.

Also, it’s worth noting that fertilization and conception used to be synonymous terms. It’s only been recently, specifically in the pro-abortion camp that a distinction between the two has attempted to be established.

Your position, just like people who hold support abortion is an attempt to redefine when a new human being comes into existence for the sole reason of justifying an action against a human that would otherwise be considered immoral.

That’s why you are ignoring science completely, and attempting to use isegesis to read into Scripture a teaching that isn’t there so you can justify killing a human being.

A new set of human DNA happens at fertilization, but I wouldn't call that a human being yet. I'm not sure when exactly I would say "that's a person" it's certainly before birth, but after implantation.
You keep saying that "if you leave it alone it will develop into a person" but if it does not implant, no it won't. Without implantation it won't do anything except die. We have tons of cryogenically frozen fertilized embryos from the excess from IVF. Most of those embryos will never develop because they are not implanted into a womb.
Without implantation a new life is not possible. You have something that left on its own as you like to claim, will just die, not develop. It requires attachment to the womb to develop and live and become a person.
So anything that prevents ovulation, fertilization, or implantation, is a CONTRACEPTIVE
not abortion.

 

[SPF]

Without implantation it won't do anything except die.

Absolutely true. It will die. Something has to be alive in order to die.

We have tons of cryogenically frozen fertilized embryos from the excess from IVF. Most of those embryos will never develop because they are not implanted into a womb.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. Practice doesn’t determine principle. What people are doing with fertilized eggs doesn’t determine whether or not fertilized eggs are alive.

Without implantation a new life is not possible.

This is scientifically false. New life occurs prior to implantation. As you said earlier, the new human may die prior to implantation.

So anything that prevents ovulation, fertilization, or implantation, is a CONTRACEPTIVE
not abortion.

Again, scientifically false. Contraceptive would be anything that prevents a new human being from being created. And as science has demonstrated that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, anything we do to intentionally prevent the new human being from developing would be immoral.

 

[SPF]

1. All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.
2. Science demonstrates that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
3. The intentional killing of an innocent human being is immoral and wrong.

Given the above 3 points, I think a couple of conclusions can be drawn.

1. The 98.5% of abortions that are performed for convenience reasons are immoral and wrong.

2. Any sort of birth control that kills an already fertilized egg as opposed to preventing fertilization is also immoral and wrong.

As Christians, we should strive for intellectual integrity. We should submit our beliefs to Scripture, and not attempt to form Scripture to fit what we want to be true.

Christianity has become fractured and less unified over the years. There are branches and then denominations galore within the branches. There are conflicting secondary, and even now conflicting primary beliefs within Christianity.

Yet, there are still a few beliefs that seem to be universally held. As far as I can tell, one of them is that we all seem to still agree that human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

That's Premise 1: All human beings are created in the Image of God and possess inherent moral worth and value.

As our moral worth and value is inherent within us, it stands to reason that our moral worth and value is always part of us. It doesn't matter our gender, our race, our age, and cognitive awareness - we are always, at all times, morally valuable agents.

A human's developmental period from beginning to adulthood takes about 25 years. We wouldn't say that a child is any less inherently morally valuable than an adult. Our moral worth and value come from God, not anything about us or our circumstances here on earth.

Thanks to the advancements in science, with ever increasing technology comes ever growing knowledge about how our bodies work. We now know that at fertilization a new human being comes into existence.

That's Premise 2: Science demonstrates that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

“The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.” Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.” Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)

“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).” Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“The zygote and early embryo are living human organisms.” Keith L. Moore & T.V.N. Persaud Before We Are Born – Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects (W.B. Saunders Company, 1998. Fifth edition.) Page 500

As Christians, we should be more unified on this subject than we are. It's not actually that complicated. As Christians, we know that all humans are created in the image of God. Thanks to science, we now know that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization.

The conclusion that the 98.5% of abortions which are performed for convenience reasons, and that any sort of pill or medication that kills an already fertilized egg is morally wrong.

 

[Jamdoc]

Absolutely true. It will die. Something has to be alive in order to die.

You’re putting the cart before the horse. Practice doesn’t determine principle. What people are doing with fertilized eggs doesn’t determine whether or not fertilized eggs are alive.

This is scientifically false. New life occurs prior to implantation. As you said earlier, the new human may die prior to implantation.

Again, scientifically false. Contraceptive would be anything that prevents a new human being from being created. And as science has demonstrated that a new human being comes into existence at fertilization, anything we do to intentionally prevent the new human being from developing would be immoral.

A tumor is alive too, and a tumor may have distinct DNA from your own, that doesn't make it a person. Identical twins have the same DNA, yet they are distinct individual human beings. A unique set of DNA is NOT the qualifier for what is and what is not a person. Is a blastocyst in the image of God? a ball of undifferentiated stem cells? With no heart, no brain, no appendages, no eyes? Cause that's the state before implantation, and without implantation it will never progress further than that.

as I said earlier, it's the same hormones used in contraceptives in morning after pills in higher doses. The hormones don't always block ovulation, especially if the woman has not been taking them habitually for a period of time, but often they work by preventing implantation. A married woman that is using contraceptives for family planning purposes can have fertilized eggs passing out of her body before implanting as one of the means that she does not get pregnant.

A fertilized blastocyst is alive in the same way the sperm and the egg, or a tumor were alive, but none of those components is a human being by itself. Actually, are you aware that each individual sperm and egg do not contain exact copies of your DNA, but rather 23 chromosomes that have been cut and pasted semi randomly together (during meosis "crossing over") from your 46 chromosomes? It's not even a clean split down the middle, they mix and match to generate a new unique sequence for basically every single gamete. By your definition each sperm is a human being. It's alive, has human DNA and is a unique set of instructions.

This is analogous to having blueprints to build a house (the DNA) and the starting construction materials to build a house (the undifferentiated stem cells), but you can't call that a house, because the foundation hasn't been laid yet (implantation). Once you lay the foundation and start putting up structures you can call it a building at least. But the blueprints and cement and lumber by themselves is not a building. If the land deal falls through and they don't let you lay the foundation.. that building does not come to pass, even though you have the blueprints, concrete, and lumber.

What defines a human being? It's not our DNA, it's not our cells, it's our soul and mind, our brains. Those have not developed yet before implantation. We kill cells all day, but unless you kill a person's brain, they exist as a human being. A person's heart may stop, a person's lungs may stop, but if their brain lives, they're still there on this earth. When the brain dies, even if the heart beats and lungs breathe, the person you knew is no longer in that body. You can transplant virtually every organ in the body from one person to another and what wakes up from the surgery? The person who's brain remains alive. You can even transplant hearts. I know that "heart" is the popular euphemism, but the reality is the heart is just a muscle that creates a flow of blood to the brain and rest of the body. If you transplant a person's heart into another person's body, it is the recipient that wakes up, not the donor. You cannot transplant brains though, you also can't replace the brain with a machine (like you can a heart). If there is a physical structure in which can be said to be the seat of consciousness and the house of the soul, it is the brain.

That doesn't exist before implantation and rather takes some weeks after to get even started running. But because every embryo develops at different rates, you can't really gauge when they begin to have a nervous system that might be housing a consciousness or soul, so it's risky to say at any point after implantation you'd still not be terminating a human consciousness at any level.
But I can guarantee before implantation, that you are not.

We will see the souls of aborted fetuses in heaven and the new earth, maybe even in the millennium, I have heard that that could be what the saints "rule over" during the millennial kingdom, it'd make sense (although it is just speculation), as to why a Millennial Kingdom would even be necessary, if all the wicked were killed at Christ's return on the mount of olives at Armageddon. You'd have a bunch of miscarriages, abortions, infant deaths, children who died at young ages, and people who through the curse, were born with such mental handicaps that they could not consciously know right and wrong. They still deserve a chance to be tested on whether they choose Christ, or choose Gog and Magog. But I do not think we will see hundreds of billions who never even implanted