Abortion and Numbers 5: the error that deceives? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Abortion and Numbers 5: the error that deceives?

Debate Information

Numbers 5:11-31 (Test for Unfaithful Wife)

Numbers 5 is far too often used by pro-choice advocates in their efforts to prove the Bible supports abortion. The atheist/pro-abortion advocate will cite Numbers 5 in the NIV which incorrectly translates the Hebrew.

The Incorrect Translation…

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NIV)

21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

The Correct Translation…

Numbers 5:21, 22, 27, 28 (NASB)

21 (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people by the Lord’s making your thigh [m]waste away and your abdomen swell; 22 and this water that brings a curse shall go into your [n]stomach, and make your abdomen swell and your thigh [o]waste away.” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her [r]and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will [s]waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive [t]children.

Note: In the Hebrew, this test does NOT involve a child or a pregnant woman, but is simply a test of faithfulness v. unfaithfulness. If the Woman is guilty, her uterus will be made sterile or “waste away.” If the Woman is not guilty of adultery, she will be able to bear children…there is no mention of a miscarriage or abortion in the Hebrew…it’s simply the difference between sterility and fertility, but no child is mentioned in the text other than in v. 28 stating that the innocent Wife would be fertile and able to bear children.

See the following verses in Numbers 5 in Hebrew and note “nephal” (Strongs 5307) (waste away) is used and NOT “nephel” (Strongs 5309) (miscarriage or abortion).

v. 21 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-21.htm

v. 22 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-22.htm

v. 27 in Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/numbers/5-27.htm

The Hebrew word for miscarriage is “nephel” (Strongs #5309) (miscarriage or abortion) but Numbers v. 21-22 and 27 use the Hebrew word “naphal” (Strongs #5307) (to fall, lie) concerning the woman’s uterus (thigh or abdomen).  There is no mention of “miscarry” or a child in the Hebrew relevant to Numbers 5:21-22, 27.

See the Hebrew word “nephel” designating “abortion or miscarry which is NOT found in Numbers 5: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5309.htm

See the Hebrew word “nephal” (nō-p̄e-leṯ) as used in Numbers 5 meaning “to fall or lie” or to “waste away” https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5307.htm

Note: The NIV is the ONLY version that uses “miscarriage” in v. 21 and 22, see: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17009/does-numbers-511-22-describe-sanctioned-abortion

“Got Questions” agrees that Numbers 5 is not discussing an abortion and notes that the NIV mistakenly translates “miscarriage.” See: https://www.gotquestions.org/Numbers-abortion.html

Also see: http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/01/numbers-5-and-water-of-bitterness.html?showComment=1549839721300



«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    If a woman gets pregnant because of circumstances outside of her control, she is under no obligation to allow the fetus to use her private property, and she has the right to do what is necessary to prevent them. A woman has a right to her own body. If however she gets pregnant either by her own will, or will willful negligence, than she has an obligation to allow the fetus to survive off of her private property because she is the reason that they have to, another example of this is: you have the right to your own money, and you are under no obligation to allow someone else to use it, even if they don't know what they're doing, you have the right to do whatever is necessary to protect it, if you have willfully harmed someone in a way the makes it so that they can not survive without your money, then you are under an obligation to allow them to use what they need.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 ; Since when has the law permitted the murder of a child for the crime of the child's father?


  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    A woman has a right to her body, she has the right to not allow someone else to use it, by whatever means necessary.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 ; There is no bodily autonomy when a woman is pregnant, there are two-lives at stake...where do you find legal precedent allowing for the murder of a baby for the crime of the father?


  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    I told you, a woman is under no obligation to allow someone else to use their body, she has a right to her body, therefor she has the right to kill to prevent someone else from using it.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 ; The woman has no right to murder the life within her...there is a human being in her body and she is murdering part of herself...how can you justify this? It's not "killing"....it's "murder." Are you for murdering those who require assistance to live when their prognosis is abundant life if they remain on assistance for a period of time?



  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    I'm in favor of the right to defend private property, by any means necessary.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 8
    @anarchist100 ; How about defending the life of the innocent in accordance with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of life with happiness...are the mother's "rights" more valuable or relevant than a child's? Why are you for murdering innocent babies?


  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    If someone starts using your money, and living on your property without your permission, do you not have the right to use whatever force is necessary to stop them? Of course you have the right, it's your private property, you have the right to your property, it has nothing to do with whether the person doing it knows what they are doing, you always have the right to defend your private property. You are saying that a woman doesn't have a right to her private property, and that she is obligated to allow someone else to use it because the only way to stop them is to kill them, do you not support the right to use deadly force to defend your private property?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 8
    @anarchist100 ; I have the right to refer the case to law enforcement and they may or may not receive permission from the district attorney to remove the trespassers...but I have no right to murder them lest they are attempting to murder me or my family. The woman is sharing her property with life that is protected by rights and privileges granted by the US Constitution; therefore, this "woman" has no right to murder her baby simply because she's inconvenienced for a short period of time....how demonic of you.


  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    So you don't support the right to use deadly force to protect your private property?
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 ; No...only the force necessary to repel the theft and that in accordance with value and circumstances involved. Do you support the right to use deadly force to protect innocence from a threat to life?
  • anarchist100anarchist100 605 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    and in the case of abortion the force necessary to defend private property is deadly force, does a person not have the right to their private property? A person can not on one hand have a right to their private property, and on the other hand be obligated to allow it to be violated.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 ; Property rights are not protected by deadly force usage without specificity in the law. Texas, for example, does or used to allow deadly force "at night" to prevent the commission of a theft if the complainant truly believed that deadly force was the only possible alternative to retrieving their property...but generally speaking, protection of "property" does NOT include the right to us deadly force.
  • @RickeyD

    The sin of pregnancy abortion is simple. Pregnancy abortion is a lie told and written down on paper, a women, all women do not seek a medical pregnancy abortion they are told to admit to a described form of sin and crime before even being allowed to be medically treated.

    The woman is sharing her property with life that is protected by rights and privileges granted by the US Constitution;

    No, that is part of the lies women and men are instructed by direction to loss privacy as a liberty so they may not hold a constitutional united state right. Female specific amputation is a more perfect union to describe a threat a women faces when introducing a child as a nations posterity.


  • @RickeyD

    You are in league with sin for you knowingly side with a child who cannot be charged or kept equal under accusations of a crime that only all others can be connected to by the process of birth. The spoken crime moves in only one direction away from the possible creation of evil as a sin against humanity. If the word devil be considered as a threat by you, had you considered it might been real, you would have been do nothing but ensure the devils birth on earth.

  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; You don't express yourself...perhaps you're attempting to impress with irrelevant words and verbiage but I'm not impressed. Abortion is murder of innocence and a violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of the a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Life begins at conception and any action taken by another to destroy that life is premeditated murder by man's law and God's law. Abortion angers our Creator and has brought much suffering and cursing upon the American people. Abortionists are murderers and the mother who surrenders her baby to them is a co-conspirator and shares equally in culpability.

     
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; Are you a regular consumer of narcotics or do you speak in the manner in which you write...you're absolutely baffling in that you compile words that don't flow and are unintelligible...will you make an effort to be comprehensible?
  • @RickeyD

    You don't express yourself...perhaps you're attempting to impress with irrelevant words and verbiage, but I'm not impressed. Abortion is murder of innocence and a violation of the US Constitution's guarantee of a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.
    Pregnancy abortion is the Christian sin of lie not murder. While life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a declaration of Independence not United States Constitutional right. It is a united state of law seeking independence from the action of others.

     Life begins at conception and any action taken by another to destroy that life is premeditated murder by man's law and God's law. Life begins at the creation of a embryo not the extension of life by fertilization. GOD knows the child is a killer just as a mother may be a killer...How is female-specific amputation premediated murder in human law or religious law? Explain?
  • @RickeyD
     Are you a regular consumer of narcotics or do you speak in the manner in which you write...you're absolutely baffling in that you compile words that don't flow and are unintelligible...will you make an effort to be comprehensible?

    As born American, I am under obligation of oath to speak and write in a way it conveys truth to what I witness with the understanding it can carry a cost both known, and unknown. I do not know any better way to create a constitutional union is not a reason to continue to push inferior states of the union on the public.


  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; Again, gibberish without substance.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 9
    @John_C_87 ; The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution promises the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the  Constitution sets forth articles that under gird these inalienable right.

    Life begins at conception...the moment the ovum is fertilized. Why do you side with the devil and what authority do you have to advocate for the murder of babies?

    "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
    [England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


    "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


    "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
    [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


    "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
    [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


    "Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
    [Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


    "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


    "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
    [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


    "I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
    [Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


    "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
    [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


    "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
    [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


    "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


    "The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
    [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


    "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
    [O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


    "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
    [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


    "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
    "[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
    "I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
    "The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
    [Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]


  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    Using religion as an authority on this issue is highly inappropriate, because not everyone accepts the same religious authorities. A muslim for example trying to impose sharia law using the Koran, isn't like to get far in a christian society, or vice versa. That aside, this is a secular nation guided by secular laws and that's a great thing. 

    On the issue of abortion, it's simple for me. It's about bodily autonomy. The argument is simple, either people, including women have medical rights over their own body and what happens to them and what medical procedures take place with them....or they don't. I've heard and used this example before, but if the issue is "protecting a life" at the sacrifice of bodily autonomy, in other words having the rights of an unborn child take precedence over the rights of the woman carrying it, then it's a slippery slope that could be used in other areas. Let's take for example a child who is dying and badly needs a bone marrow transplant. You are the only match for this child within 100 miles and any other matches won't make it in time. Most people would happily donate, but what if the person (you) didn't want to. Doesn't matter the reason, could be religious, or out of fear...doesn't even matter. The point is, if bodily autonomy is important to us as citizens, then we get to make that choice of whether or not to donate. But if we use the same precedent, that "protecting a life", or that if you don't donate, you are in essence, "killing a young life", then the state could force you to donate your bone marrow. That is essentially what some are considering today with overturning Roe v Wade is taking away a woman's bodily autonomy and forcing them to carry a child to term. I know the example isn't exactly the same, because in one case you are terminating a "potential life" and in the other you are refusing to save a currently living one, but the issue is still over bodily autonomy...the medical rights over your own body and the ability to choose what happens medically to your body. That is why, although I do value life, I can't ever support overturning Roe v Wade, because you must necessarily take away women's rights to choose and force them through jail time, at the end of a barrel, tied down to a bed, locked up....to force them to use their body in a way that they don't wish to and that's....frightening and not the kind of country I want to live in. 

    Just as a side bar as well, it's amazing to me that so many religious say "god values all lives" or "god gave you this precious child", when he also supposedly gave us free will to choose and pretty regularly killed children and babies in the OT. If this "god" gave us free will....then why are christians trying to take it away from half the population, essentially trying to be the god over women?!
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited May 9
    @dallased25

    The difference is for most pregnancies you would be the cause for the child needing a bone marrow transplant.
    So if you stuck the child in a radiation zone and gave them cancer, and you were the only person that could give the transplant I'd say yeah you've forfeited your right to refuse.

    Additionally under your property argument another could be made that the mother commited a crime by creating human person inside of her. She had no right to lock a person inside of her.
    Lf course This is an impossible enforcement
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers ; Pregnancy is natural, murder of a child is not.
  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    Wow, rarely have I read a post that made me go "wow, is he serious?". First of all, no pregnancy would not be the cause for a need for a bone marrow transplant, unless you are trying to argue that merely by being born, all medical needs or diseases are a direct cause by the mother. I'm glad you aren't in charge of the law, because by this logic any child could sue their parents if they develop a disease, whether genetic or not! Either way, just dumb to even bring into the conversation. 

    2nd it was not a "property argument", it was "bodily autonomy", or the right to make medical decisions with regards to your own body and what happens to it, or what medical procedures may be done on it. The rest is far too to even comment on. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    Then why did your god order it so many times in the OT and commit it himself? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    I was drawing a comparison to your original statement not saying pregnancy causes bone marrow transplants.

    The women's actions made the child dependent on body.  

    In the situation you stated the individuals played no responsibility in the child having bone marrow.  In a pregnancy they mother directly caused the dependence. 
    I'm saying if you caused the child to need a transplant you should forfeit the right to refuse.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    Again, not really making sense here. First, a fetus I agree is dependent upon the body of a woman for development in to a full child, not sure why that's relevant, except just the small distinction in phrasing.

    Second, needing a bone marrow transplant is not a direct result of the mother "creating a dependence". The number one cause of bone marrow failure is Leukemia, but can be caused by a host of other diseases or genetic disorders. Perhaps you are referring to the "dependence" as the genetic disorder. I'm not really sure you weren't very clear. In my example however, I stated that someone else had to the the donor, eliminating the mother or father from the mix, for whatever reason. Perhaps the mother is dead, or has cancer and can't donate anyways, doesn't matter. In most cases bone marrow would come from a parent, but you are entirely missing the point of my example. You can take whatever part you wish, kidney transplant, liver, hell...even just donating blood. The point is if we eliminate bodily autonomy for half the population on one issue, what's to prevent eliminating it for other areas, with the overall argument being that "Life is precious and more important than someone's selfishness". Then we could be forced to donate blood every 3 months instead of volunteering, or forced to donate a kidney to someone who is a match, take your pick. Either we have control over what happens to our bodies medically, or we don't, but we can't just select certain areas and force people's decisions for them, that's unethical and it takes away the free will of people and the right to choose, in this specific case....women. 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    Maybe this will make it easier.

    Your comparison: We don't force random individuals to give bone marrow transplants

    So

    Mothers shouldn't be required to give body for fetus.

    My argument is this doesn't equate because the mothers relationship to the fetus isn't random.

    A closer relationship to a pregnancy is

    A criminal sticks a child in a radioactive area where they develop a need for a transplant.
    In this situation the criminal should be forced into the transplant because he directly created the need.  I.e they gave up the right to refuse the transplant.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    You are really good at leaving out or missing context. Let's try again. This is about BODILY AUTONOMY. So, rather than your oversimplification, I'll simplify in my own words:

    If it's not ok to force a person to do something medically with their body that they don't approve of (give blood, donate organs, take vaccines, get tattooed barcodes)

    Then it's not ok to take a woman's right to choose whether to use her body to create a child or not. That is a medical decision that should be made by the person that it impacts, same as the above situations. 

    It doesn't matter if the relationship is random or not, it's still the government taking away medical decisions and rights over what a person can or can't do with their own body. That is what bodily autonomy is all about, is medical rights over what happens to your own body. Just as the judges struck down an executive order by the Biden administration that they could not force federal employees to take the covid-19 vaccine, they also cannot force women to develop a child. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited May 10
    @dallased25

    My argument is you are able to forfeit certain aspects of bodily autonomy when another persons circumstance is caused by youre direct choices.

    If someone stabs you and your bleeding out, they're the only ones around with your blood type, should they be forced to donate blood or would they still have autonomy.
    I'd say they'd have to.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -   edited May 9
    @MichaelElpers

    A fetus is not a person in any meaningful sense. A pet dog has far more personality than a fetus, and no one calls pet dogs "persons" and assumes that they have the same rights as living human persons do. Why make an exception for a fetus?

    Of all the traditionally conservative stances, the stance on abortion makes the least amount of sense to me. I can understand the anti-immigration arguments, the pro-religion arguments, even the "women are happier being housewives" arguments: I disagree with them, but I can see the points of those who make them seriously. But "a fetus has rights" - this is very outlandish. Next, people will start talking about the rights of corpses, or of video game NPCs, or of fantasy book creatures (some already have arrived at the latter; Salvatore was recently apologizing for his racism, because some of the fantasy races in his book were generally more evil than other races).
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -   edited May 9
    @MayCaesar ;  Science confirms that life begins at conception...this is science, your god...why don't you believe? No woman, not even you, has the right to murder life in the womb...that is demonic and evil. Who provides you the right to advocate for the death of a child?

    "Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
    [England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


    "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
    "Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
    [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


    "Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
    [Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


    "Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
    [Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


    "Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
    [Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


    "The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
    [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


    "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
    [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


    "I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
    [Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


    "The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
    [Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


    "The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
    [Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


    "Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
    [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


    "The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
    [Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


    "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
    [O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


    "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
    [Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


    "[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
    "[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
    "I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
    "The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
    [Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

    When Human Life Begins

    American College of Pediatricians – March 2017

    ABSTRACT: The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.

    See: https://acpeds.org/position-statements/when-human-life-begins

    Are you a racist as well?




    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD

    I thought you had muted me; I am saddened to see that you have not, as your ability to argue has not improved since you promised to mute me. I was not at all talking about where "life begins"; I was talking about human rights and personhood.

    You claim to have read the Bible, a long and complicated book. How have you accomplished such a feat, when reading simple arguments online and comprehending them is too hard a task for you? Perhaps your understanding of the Bible is of a similar level, in which case you are much less of a Christian than you think you are.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • RickeyDRickeyD 770 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ; I have and I thought I was responding to another...then I observed your name...just disregard...I have no desire to banter with you....

  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -   edited May 10
    @MayCaesar

    I'm not measuring persons based on their personality or lack there of.  Dogs I'd argue have more personality than 1 years olds or certain elderly folks.
  • @RickeyD
    The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution promises the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the  Constitution sets forth articles that under gird these inalienable right.
    Life begins at conception...the moment the ovum is fertilized. Why do you side with the devil and what authority do you have to advocate for the murder of babies?
    The Bill of rights are the First 10 Amendments made to the United State of law which is American Constitution preamble and all. The American Constitution in fact states that an Inalienable right to be presented as self-evident truth to be held as a consitutional right. The burden of the beginning of life rests at the place where the very start of life is to be first recorded created. The creation of the embryo as all women can be held equal in this one process by their creator.
  • The embryo is the creator of fact in self-evident truth by the way. It is the event which makes it possible for all women to be mother as a legal united state of law with seniority. Meaning it happens before fertilization, it always happens before fertilization.


  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    My argument is you are able to forfeit certain aspects of bodily autonomy when another persons circumstance is caused by youre direct choices.

    If someone stabs you and your bleeding out, they're the only ones around with your blood type, should they be forced to donate blood or would they still have autonomy.
    I'd say they'd have to.
    MichaelElpers
    Ok...not sure at all what that had to do with my post, but sure, I can agree to that, it makes sense in that regard, but not in terms of the abortion argument.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    How so... the mother in this instance is similar to the criminal in that she created the victims (fetus) situation.  She should now be responsible for it.

    If the mother can kill the fetus, why can't men walk away from the child? We force them to pay child support.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @MichaelElpers

    How so... the mother in this instance is similar to the criminal in that she created the victims (fetus) situation.  She should now be responsible for it.

    The search for a more perfect state of the union with truth as self-evident truth you are incorrect in the evaluation it is all women as mother who is not the creator the victim, fetus.... situation. A fetus cannot be criminally charged by legal precedent for the murder of the mother by any state in constitutionals union with law. This is the creator of the crime as the mother and fan father are all who is left to be criminal. The mother, father and the fetus are the victims of what was ruled on by court as a illegal invasion of privacy. The privacy loss was created by a wrong by a list of possible or known outcomes of harm that had never been introduced by the use of negligence ... yet. In order to hold and maintain a perfect state of the union with legislation already conducted by the State of Texas and Connecticut...

    The mother is introduced by constitution as the victim with reason to understand she possibly suffers the greatest harm from the already illegal invasion of privacy that occurs. The fetus does not bear any criminal consequences toward the mother who may by fact implicated in a murder of first degree. Why not the child, it not an adult. As child per introduction of whole truth learns how to think in the process of pregnancy becoming the citizen it is never considered to be legal adult or citizen.

    Does this now mean that pregnancy is the only Constitutional product which can be placed in self-evident truth as the creator of illegal immigrant? Now that is a Constitutional argument to be made.

    Pregnancy abortion is no longer held in the union of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of press, it is being challenged as fact, and being held in comparison to female specific amputation as a state of the union with privacy, legal privacy, and medical privacy.


  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    Ah, I see where you are going with this. You are assuming out of hand that the woman intentionally created the fetus. If she did, she very likely would not be looking at aborting it. You can't assume all situations are the same and that the "creation" was intentional. In fact it is very safe to assume that the creation was unintentional and this can happen in a variety of ways. Could be the condom broke, or birth control pills failed, or the man stealthed her, or put holes in the condom on purpose, or she was raped, or drugged, or drunk, or they were using the "pull out method" and she still got pregnant. In any event, according to the stats, it is very, very safe to assume that if the girl is seeking an abortion, it is because she did not intend on getting pregnant. Even if she did intend on getting pregnant and then changed her mind though (her husband divorced her, or whatever), it's still her body that she has to use to develop this fetus into a child. She must use her body's resources, take specific things, endure physical changes...all the things that go along with pregnancy, not to mention have to go through a significant labor called birth.

    A fetus isn't a "victim", it's a potential life entirely dependent upon the woman's body to develop. It doesn't matter at all if she "created it" on purpose, or accident, the point is if we do change the law, then if a woman gets pregnant, no matter the circumstances, then we must say to her, "You got pregnant, you no longer have medical rights over your body. You must carry this clump of cells to full term baby, or we'll jail you!" Again, if you follow the body autonomy logic and we use "life is sacred and must be protected" as the standard as in with pregnancy, then you can say, "this boy or young person needs your kidney to survive, you are a match, you must give it up or we'll jail you". It's taking the medical rights over one's own body away from a person and I mean an actual person, not a potential person that may or may not develop into a baby. We must maintain body autonomy or we will run into a dangerous slippery slope. 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @dallased25 I'm not assuming she intentionally created it, I'm assuming she directly caused it.  That would be different for rape.

    In the instance I laid out where someone stabbed you, it may not be assumed they meant for you to bleed out.  This doesn't change the fact that it's their fault.

    Also the fetus is not potential life, it's clearly already alive just very low developed.
    I'm following the you created life or put life in danger, you should be responsible for caring for it logic. This is not a slippery slope to every life is everyone's responsibility.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4521 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    I'm not measuring persons based on their personality or lack there of.  Dogs I'd argue have more personality than 1 years olds or certain elderly folks.
    But, by definition, personality is what defines a person. As for dogs having more personality, they are purely instinctual creatures and do not have consciousness (as far as we know), hence the terms "person" and "personality" are no more applicable to them than to a toy robot.
  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    No at any stage of development, whether a zygote or embryo, it's a potential life, because it could still not make it to full term and could be miscarried or still born and cannot live on it's own without the mother. The rest of what you said doesn't at all address what I said in my prior post as I already addressed what you said and following your logic of "every life is everyone's responsibility", is the very slippery slope I mentioned, because it could be used to say "you must donate blood, because saving lives takes precedence over your choice over your own body", or "you must donate your kidney, you are the only match for this person, saving this life takes precedence over your own medical choices and body autonomy." So you actually inadvertently proved my point, even though you didn't see it. 
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Personality is something that makes individuals distinct but I wouldnt it's what makes someone a person.

    I'm not sure why you think dogs are purely I instinctual and wouldn't have consciousness.  Have you had several pet dogs before, their personality can vary widely?
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 981 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    It's still alive, it just can't survive in the same environment a fully developed human would.  If you were deprived of an oxygen environment you would also not be viable.  This would also mean fetuses would become persons at different times in the US vs Africa based on viability with technology.  This doesn't make sense if they're at the same level development.

    I'm not requesting we say everyone's life is everyone's responsibility.  I'm requesting that your responsible for life you directly create or damage. Those are different ideas.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • dallased25dallased25 171 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    "I'm not requesting we say everyone's life is everyone's responsibility.  I'm requesting that your responsible for life you directly create or damage. Those are different ideas."

    But if you are "responsible for a life you damage or create", then that means you have control over it, because you are responsible for it. But yet you really want to take the choice to be responsible away and enforce it no matter what. In the case of an accident or intentional damage to someone, you would say "you did it, pay for it" and that's understandable and normal, even though there are indeed limitations on how far that can go. With a pregnancy again, you are saying "doesn't matter if you did it on purpose or were tricked, you are pregnant now, so you have no choice now but to carry it and either be responsible for it, or give it up for adoption or into the foster system". Not nearly the same. In one case you are asking someone to pay for what damage they did, in another you aren't asking them at all, you are taking away medical rights, which we do not even do right now for criminals who stab someone! I mean they don't force criminals to give blood, or give up kidneys or body parts to their victims. So your comparison is irrelevant, but ironically would lead to the very slippery slope once again that I mentioned! Again, this is about people's medical rights and decisions over what happens to their own bodies. So basically if you had your way and if you were in an accident where you didn't intend on harming someone, but through an improper lane change, or inattention, you cause an accident, you are saying that the injured party now has medical access to your body to have your organs if they need it! That's I'm sorry...insane. Anytime in history when we look at the erosion of rights, we always, always see the government take it too far, which is what I'm afraid of in this case, because the issue of bodily autonomy is paramount and if we take away the rights of women in one circumstance, it will become a slippery slope into other areas and it appears you are on board with that happening in the example you gave! You want to give up rights, you go right ahead and volunteer, but I will vacate this country before I do! 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch