Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 29 of 29
  1. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    Fortunately for all Jews they are also under the Natural Moral Law which says killing an inocent human being is murder and includes abortion as well. Science tells us at that at moment of conception that an embryo in the womb is growing living distinct human being. So rather being a religious issue abortion is a Scienfitic one.

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chas_martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,482
    Quote Originally Posted by sopwithcamel View Post
    Fortunately for all Jews they are also under the Natural Moral Law which says killing an inocent human being is murder and includes abortion as well. Science tells us at that at moment of conception that an embryo in the womb is growing living distinct human being. So rather being a religious issue abortion is a Scienfitic one.
    I don't know anything about "Natural Moral Law" but I do know that the Torah says that causing a fetus to be expelled is not a blood sin. This also applies to Christians, show me one other example ANYWHERE in vol 1 or vol 2 where this topic is addressed.

    And science seems to be losing out to religion and politics as those two are OK with abortion. In the U.S. of A. at least.
    Nobody cares...........

  3. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    The Natural Moral Law applies to all human being as it is written in to humanity by God at the moment our creation.

    You don't need the Torah in order logically deduce that the idea that murder and aborition is morally wrong.

  4. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    940
    The unborn child differs from the newborn in four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human being. Those four ways are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.
    The acronym SLED is a helpful reminder of those differences.

    Size: The unborn are smaller then newborns, but since when has size had anything to do with the rights that people have? Men are generally larger than women, does that mean they deserve more rights? Are you less of a person because you are bigger or smaller then someone else? Clearly size isn't the issue.

    Level of development: True, the unborn are less developed than newborns, but this too is morally irrelevant. A newborn child, for that matter, is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent. An adolescent is less developed than an adult. But we speak of all as equally human. Is a child of four, for example, less of a person because she has not yet developed sexually? It follows, then, that the ability to perform human functions is not a necessary condition for human personhood. Rather, a person is one with the natural, inherent capacity to give rise to personal acts--even if she lacks the current ability to perform those acts. People who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts. We don't kill them because of it, nor should we kill the unborn.

    Environment: True, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one? Did you stop being human when you walked from your house to the car? From the kitchen to the den? Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is. A child in the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a child then the one being sustained by neonatal technology. Ladies and gentlemen, you don't stop being human simply because you have a different address.

    Degree of dependency: If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers, and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine. Siamese twins do not forfeit their right to live simply because they depend on each others circulatory systems.
    We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn one in only four ways--size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency--and none of those differences are good reasons for disqualifying it as fully human.

    Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individualís life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his fatherís sperm and his motherís ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.


    - The above is not a religious faith belief.
    - The above is not debatable, not questioned.
    - The above is not a philosophic theory.
    - It is a universally accepted scientific fact.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •