🕯️ Traditions Why I Am Anti Abortion

[Asherah Goddess]

No one is arguing that DNA by itself is alive. Science already agrees DNA is a molecule. The point is that at fertilization a new living human organism forms that contains DNA directing its development. The organism is alive, not the DNA molecule by itself.​

Ginagawa mo kasi "tao" ang DNA na hindi dapat. Ang tawag sa kanila ay living organism at hindi living human organism. Pati ako ay napapa-living human organism na rin. Living organism siya at hindi living human organism.

Bakit ka ba umuulit? Huhu Ano ba 'yan? Eh, alam ko naman na naniniwala ka na ang DNA ay magiging tao siya galing sa walang buhay from DNA mismo. Ito na nga ang point mo o, "the point is that fertilization, a new living human organism forms that contains DNA directing its development " - kapag ererewrite ko siya in my own words, ang point mo is magiging tao siya in the future galing DNA.

Bakit hindi ka maka let go diyan?​

That is why the cancer example does not apply. A tumor is abnormal tissue from your own body. An embryo is a distinct developing human organism, not just random cells.​

Iyon na nga kasi, ginagawa mo nga siya human organism. Hindi siya human organism. Living organism lang po siya. Kapag ginawa siya human organism, e talaga eseseparate siya o gagawin siya distinct developing human organism sa embryo. Talaga bibigyan nga siya ng definition ng life na if ganyan ang iyo means no need to argue na po dahil obviously, ginagawa mo nga siya tao according to your views.​

So the argument is not “DNA equals a person.” The argument is that a living human organism begins at fertilization, and that is the biological fact being discussed. The moral debate comes after that, not before.​

Huh? DNA equals not a person pero ikaw mismo nagsabi na "living human organism" huh? So it means ginagawa siya tao. Tao in the future.​

​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ginagawa mo kasi "tao" ang DNA na hindi dapat. Ang tawag sa kanila ay living organism at hindi living human organism. Pati ako ay napapa-living human organism na rin. Living organism siya at hindi living human organism.

Bakit ka ba umuulit? Huhu Ano ba 'yan? Eh, alam ko naman na naniniwala ka na ang DNA ay magiging tao siya galing sa walang buhay from DNA mismo. Ito na nga ang point mo o, "the point is that fertilization, a new living human organism forms that contains DNA directing its development " - kapag ererewrite ko siya in my own words, ang point mo is magiging tao siya in the future galing DNA.

Bakit hindi ka maka let go diyan?



Iyon na nga kasi, ginagawa mo nga siya human organism. Hindi siya human organism. Living organism lang po siya. Kapag ginawa siya human organism, e talaga eseseparate siya o gagawin siya distinct developing human organism sa embryo. Talaga bibigyan nga siya ng definition ng life na if ganyan ang iyo means no need to argue na po dahil obviously, ginagawa mo nga siya tao according to your views.



Huh? DNA equals not a person pero ikaw mismo nagsabi na "living human organism" huh? So it means ginagawa siya tao. Tao in the future.

​

Again, read it carefully and slowly. No one is saying DNA itself is a person. DNA is a molecule. But fertilization does not produce just DNA. It produces a zygote, which embryology defines as a new human organism at the earliest stage of development.

That is why scientists use the term human organism, not just “living organism.” It is human because it comes from human parents and carries the full human genome directing its development.

So the point is not that “DNA becomes a human later.” The point is that a human organism already exists at its earliest stage, and it develops through stages embryo, fetus, infant, and ãdül†.

That is standard biology, not just my personal view.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Subjective to debate din iyan galing sa mga scientists. Yung zygote na sinasabi mo? Ang ibang scientists ay hindi nila nacoconsider na human organism dahil keyso hindi raw nagfafunction independently para mabuhay ng sarili at marami pang kulang like organs at nervous system. Subjective din siya at hindi siya objective. Debatable din po siya.

Yung personal beliefs or views, means science at moral, pinagsama mo siya dalawa kaya ka nga nagdidisagree sa abortion.

Ginagawa na siya human organism from your views at ang iba pang tao dahil morally from the religious perspective na the moment na nagproduce ng zygote, consider na siya na meron life and / or consider siya na human organism pero subjective to debate pa rin siya.

Ang iba, makokonsider na human organism kapag fix na siya, like in my views, as long as walang beating of a heart or walang developed na brain, pwede pa siya ecancel.

That means, subjective lang, na nasa tao na iyon kung gusto niya bigyan ng buhay or wala sa sinasabi mo zygote that defines human organism po.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Subjective to debate din iyan galing sa mga scientists. Yung zygote na sinasabi mo? Ang ibang scientists ay hindi nila nacoconsider na human organism dahil keyso hindi raw nagfafunction independently para mabuhay ng sarili at marami pang kulang like organs at nervous system. Subjective din siya at hindi siya objective. Debatable din po siya.

Yung personal beliefs or views, means science at moral, pinagsama mo siya dalawa kaya ka nga nagdidisagree sa abortion.

Ginagawa na siya human organism from your views at ang iba pang tao dahil morally from the religious perspective na the moment na nagproduce ng zygote, consider na siya na meron life and / or consider siya na human organism pero subjective to debate pa rin siya.

Ang iba, makokonsider na human organism kapag fix na siya, like in my views, as long as walang beating of a heart or walang developed na brain, pwede pa siya ecancel.

That means, subjective lang, na nasa tao na iyon kung gusto niya bigyan ng buhay or wala sa sinasabi mo zygote that defines human organism po.​

In embryology, the zygote is defined as the earliest stage of a new human organism. That is the standard description in biology because a new, genetically distinct organism begins a continuous process of development at fertilization.

The fact that it cannot live independently yet does not change that. Newborn babies also cannot survive independently without care, but no one says they are not human organisms.

Yes, some scientists disagree, but disagreement does not automatically make something subjective. Sometimes those disagreements come from philosophical or ideological positions, not from the biological facts themselves.

So the biology is fairly clear about when a new human organism begins. The real debate is the moral conclusion, not the biological starting point.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

In embryology, the zygote is defined as the earliest stage of a new human organism. That is the standard description in biology because a new, genetically distinct organism begins a continuous process of development at fertilization.

The fact that it cannot live independently yet does not change that. Newborn babies also cannot survive independently without care, but no one says they are not human organisms.

Yes, some scientists disagree, but disagreement does not automatically make something subjective. Sometimes those disagreements come from philosophical or ideological positions, not from the biological facts themselves.

So the biology is fairly clear about when a new human organism begins. The real debate is the moral conclusion, not the biological starting point.​

Oo. Yung iyo. Yung "biological fact" na sinasabi mo is nilalagyan ng life kahit wala pang life (for me), kung kaya, nagiging subjective siya at papasok diyan ang ipinaglalaban na moral galing iyo.

Wala siya objective reality. Lahat ng mga tao is subjective sa opinion pero kung gusto mo ebukod ang self para to be unique, okay fine, objective opinion ang iyo.

Kahit ginawa siyang facts and sinabi na standard description biology, hindi lahat ng tao ay mag-aagree sa sinasabi mismo, kahit ibang scientists, mag-didisagree ang iba, kung kaya, nagiging subjective po. Meron silang rules para diyan kaya meron iba ay nagdidisagree. Rules para sa kanila kung ano macoconsider na human organism or consider na fixed biological para sa kanila or "beginning of life" daw kamo. Hindi raw consider permanent ang zygote or wala daw kasi siyang fix, ika nga. Kung baga, subject to change pa siya dahil for them, hindi nila agad macoconclude as end process na fix biological po agaran. Iyan sinasabi mo ay yan ay galing sayo lamang at sa tao na nag-aagree. Hindi siya pwede gawin truth and nothing but the whole truth na apply sa lahat na gusto mangyari dahil hindi mag-aagree ang ibang tao.

Alam ko na gusto ipilit kaya ilan beses na inuulit which is normal lang na ipilit dahil kapag ipinipilit, andoon ang sign deep inside na feel na truth po siya, kung kaya, hindi pwede elet go. Like need to change someone's mind ba na unconsciously, na ginagawa na niya pala iyon.

So diyan na nagtatapos. Wala ng maeaargue pa. Kasi ikaw, gusto mo siyang eargue. Its like, gusto mo na meron patunayan something.

Hindi ko naman sinasabi mali ang iyo. Nagkataon lang na binibigyan mo siya ng life dahil for you nga is a "biological fact". Tipong yung biological is para bago buhay.

Parang bahay. Nakahanda lang ang materials paggawa ng bahay. Complete na siya as in. Gagawa pa lang ng bahay dahil in the future, gusto siya gawin bahay. Nagbago ang isip, so gusto na ecancel ang lahat dahil ayaw na ng bahay as in. So gusto na lahat tanggalin ang materials dahil ayaw na talaga.

Yung iba tao at ikaw, halimbawa, na feel guilty. Kahit wala pang bahay at planado pa lang, disagree ang tao na basta na lang ekacancel or eaabort ang bahay in the future kung kaya, ayaw, gusto pa econtinue in the future at ayaw nila alisin ang materials po. In the back of their mind kasi, bahay siya in the future at kailangan nila.

That means naiisip na siyang bahay in the future kahit wala pang bahay na nagaganap. Yung ibang tao ay ayaw ng bahay at ayaw na ituloy pero at least, wala pang bahay na naipundar.

It means subjective lang siya depende sa conscious mind kung ano ang moral or hindi sa pagpapagawa ng bahay po regardless kung ang bahay na iyon in the future is facts siya na magiging bahay nga siya o hindi.

Ang objective doon is bahay in the future dahil magiging bahay nga siya. Objective din ang sinasabi na ang bahay na wala pa which is true naman na wala pa talaga naipundar ni isang katiting. Eh sa wala pa talaga. Walang bahay. Magiging subjective lang siya kapag andoon na ang guilt feeling na associated sa moral kung ano ang tama at mali.

E meron "sin". Ang katagang "sin" associated siya sa "guilt feeling". Hindi siya magiging "sin" kapag no "guilt feeling" ang tao po. Iyan ang moral na sinasabi since mataas ang "guilt feeling" ng tao diyan about abortion, well, "sin" siya sa kanila. Lalo na meron pro-creation sa Abrahamic beliefs. Kaya nga sabi ko, iba ang moral at ethics ng Christian society lalo na kung Abrahamic. Patriarchal din ang Abrahamic beliefs kung kaya, diyan under na sa patriarchal mentality.

Kaya kapag ganyan ang view, siniseparate ko na ang self ko by labeling as patriarchal mentality or patriarchal mindset sa kanila dahil ayoko na maging parte ng mundo nila.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Yung moral at ethics sa Christian society at Wicca society, hindi ko inilalahat na tao sa Wicca dahil based on individual views nila on how they see the reality. Sa abortion on Wicca is okay sa kanila dahil naniniwala sila sa rebirth and fertility. So kung na abort ang ano man nasa loob ng babae, naniniwala sila na rerebirth ang bata in the future. So ang conclusion is hindi sin sa kanila dahil they do not have guilt feeling. Iba kasi ang moral at ethics sa kanila pagdating sa ganyan.

Meron kasi sila rebirth and fertility like they produce at meron din sila cycle of death and rebirth.

Subjective lang ang moral.

Kaya nga in the first place, ayoko na magsalita kasi dapat dahil alam ko na po ang moral at ethics ng Christian society at patriarchal culture and society pagdating sa ganyan view. Talaga views about morality diyan sa abortion po.

Alam niyo 'yun? Mahirap mag argue dahil default na sa naniniwala na why ayaw nila ng abortion. Default na kasi na ganyan na ang view nila at possible na hindi talaga ma chachange ang views po na ganyan tao.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Oo. Yung iyo. Yung "biological fact" na sinasabi mo is nilalagyan ng life kahit wala pang life (for me), kung kaya, nagiging subjective siya at papasok diyan ang ipinaglalaban na moral galing iyo.

Wala siya objective reality. Lahat ng mga tao is subjective sa opinion pero kung gusto mo ebukod ang self para to be unique, okay fine, objective opinion ang iyo.

Kahit ginawa siyang facts and sinabi na standard description biology, hindi lahat ng tao ay mag-aagree sa sinasabi mismo, kahit ibang scientists, mag-didisagree ang iba, kung kaya, nagiging subjective po. Meron silang rules para diyan kaya meron iba ay nagdidisagree. Rules para sa kanila kung ano macoconsider na human organism or consider na fixed biological para sa kanila or "beginning of life" daw kamo. Hindi raw consider permanent ang zygote or wala daw kasi siyang fix, ika nga. Kung baga, subject to change pa siya dahil for them, hindi nila agad macoconclude as end process na fix biological po agaran. Iyan sinasabi mo ay yan ay galing sayo lamang at sa tao na nag-aagree. Hindi siya pwede gawin truth and nothing but the whole truth na apply sa lahat na gusto mangyari dahil hindi mag-aagree ang ibang tao.

Alam ko na gusto ipilit kaya ilan beses na inuulit which is normal lang na ipilit dahil kapag ipinipilit, andoon ang sign deep inside na feel na truth po siya, kung kaya, hindi pwede elet go. Like need to change someone's mind ba na unconsciously, na ginagawa na niya pala iyon.

So diyan na nagtatapos. Wala ng maeaargue pa. Kasi ikaw, gusto mo siyang eargue. Its like, gusto mo na meron patunayan something.

Hindi ko naman sinasabi mali ang iyo. Nagkataon lang na binibigyan mo siya ng life dahil for you nga is a "biological fact". Tipong yung biological is para bago buhay.

Parang bahay. Nakahanda lang ang materials paggawa ng bahay. Complete na siya as in. Gagawa pa lang ng bahay dahil in the future, gusto siya gawin bahay. Nagbago ang isip, so gusto na ecancel ang lahat dahil ayaw na ng bahay as in. So gusto na lahat tanggalin ang materials dahil ayaw na talaga.

Yung iba tao at ikaw, halimbawa, na feel guilty. Kahit wala pang bahay at planado pa lang, disagree ang tao na basta na lang ekacancel or eaabort ang bahay in the future kung kaya, ayaw, gusto pa econtinue in the future at ayaw nila alisin ang materials po. In the back of their mind kasi, bahay siya in the future at kailangan nila.

That means naiisip na siyang bahay in the future kahit wala pang bahay na nagaganap. Yung ibang tao ay ayaw ng bahay at ayaw na ituloy pero at least, wala pang bahay na naipundar.

It means subjective lang siya depende sa conscious mind kung ano ang moral or hindi sa pagpapagawa ng bahay po regardless kung ang bahay na iyon in the future is facts siya na magiging bahay nga siya o hindi.

Ang objective doon is bahay in the future dahil magiging bahay nga siya. Objective din ang sinasabi na ang bahay na wala pa which is true naman na wala pa talaga naipundar ni isang katiting. Eh sa wala pa talaga. Walang bahay. Magiging subjective lang siya kapag andoon na ang guilt feeling na associated sa moral kung ano ang tama at mali.

E meron "sin". Ang katagang "sin" associated siya sa "guilt feeling". Hindi siya magiging "sin" kapag no "guilt feeling" ang tao po. Iyan ang moral na sinasabi since mataas ang "guilt feeling" ng tao diyan about abortion, well, "sin" siya sa kanila. Lalo na meron pro-creation sa Abrahamic beliefs. Kaya nga sabi ko, iba ang moral at ethics ng Christian society lalo na kung Abrahamic. Patriarchal din ang Abrahamic beliefs kung kaya, diyan under na sa patriarchal mentality.

Kaya kapag ganyan ang view, siniseparate ko na ang self ko by labeling as patriarchal mentality or patriarchal mindset sa kanila dahil ayoko na maging parte ng mundo nila.​

Yung moral at ethics sa Christian society at Wicca society, hindi ko inilalahat na tao sa Wicca dahil based on individual views nila on how they see the reality. Sa abortion on Wicca is okay sa kanila dahil naniniwala sila sa rebirth and fertility. So kung na abort ang ano man nasa loob ng babae, naniniwala sila na rerebirth ang bata in the future. So ang conclusion is hindi sin sa kanila dahil they do not have guilt feeling. Iba kasi ang moral at ethics sa kanila pagdating sa ganyan.

Meron kasi sila rebirth and fertility like they produce at meron din sila cycle of death and rebirth.

Subjective lang ang moral.

Kaya nga in the first place, ayoko na magsalita kasi dapat dahil alam ko na po ang moral at ethics ng Christian society at patriarchal culture and society pagdating sa ganyan view. Talaga views about morality diyan sa abortion po.

Alam niyo 'yun? Mahirap mag argue dahil default na sa naniniwala na why ayaw nila ng abortion. Default na kasi na ganyan na ang view nila at possible na hindi talaga ma chachange ang views po na ganyan tao.​

First, disagreement does not make something subjective. People can disagree about gravity or evolution too, but that does not make those facts subjective. In biology, the zygote is widely defined as the earliest stage of a human organism. That is an observation about development, not a religious claim.

Second, the house analogy does not work. A pile of materials is not a house because it is not actively developing itself into one. An embryo is different because it is already a self directed living organism growing through stages. It is not just raw material waiting to become something.

Third, the biological question and the moral question are different. Biology asks when a new human organism begins. Ethics asks what we should do about that reality. Saying morality is subjective does not erase the biological starting point.

Finally, this is not just a Christian or patriarchal idea. Many non religious scientists, philosophers, and even secular pro life advocates argue the same thing. The discussion about abortion exists across many cultures and belief systems.

So the real disagreement is not about whether morality exists or not. The real disagreement is how we treat a human life once biology shows that it has begun.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

First, disagreement does not make something subjective. People can disagree about gravity or evolution too, but that does not make those facts subjective. In biology, the zygote is widely defined as the earliest stage of a human organism. That is an observation about development, not a religious claim.

Second, the house analogy does not work. A pile of materials is not a house because it is not actively developing itself into one. An embryo is different because it is already a self directed living organism growing through stages. It is not just raw material waiting to become something.

Third, the biological question and the moral question are different. Biology asks when a new human organism begins. Ethics asks what we should do about that reality. Saying morality is subjective does not erase the biological starting point.

Finally, this is not just a Christian or patriarchal idea. Many non religious scientists, philosophers, and even secular pro life advocates argue the same thing. The discussion about abortion exists across many cultures and belief systems.

So the real disagreement is not about whether morality exists or not. The real disagreement is how we treat a human life once biology shows that it has begun.​

Iho. Nakakapansin na ako. Meron ka ba ipinaglalaban? Or nangkukumbinsi ka? Anong dinidefend mo kasi kung meron ka ipinaglalaban. Hindi na kasi matapos-tapos. Ini-end ko at nagfinal conclusion na ako, ikaw, nagcocontinue pa rin. Ano ba kasi ang hind mo tanggap sa diskusyon po?

Kasi ganito, nang sinabi ko na 'inborn material' ay kinontra mo ako na 'inborn child', nang sinabi ko na 'subjective', kinontra mo ako na 'objective', nang sinabi ko na 'living organism', kinontra mo ako na 'living human organism' at nang sinabi ko na sa kalagitnaan ang final conclusion sa end discussion, ibig sabihin ng final conclusion, ano ang buod ng end discussion, umulit ka at nagdefend ka uli at kinontra mo ang sinabi ko, kaya napa-isip ako, ano ang jina-justified mo or ipinaglalaban mo as in at ano ang hindi katanggap-tanggap sayo?

Gusto mo ba eend ang discussion or hindi? The reason why nagtanong ka una para e-allure mo ako sa arguement? Galing ng strategy mo ah. Haha.

Kapag gusto mo eend, anong final conclusion mo para ma end ang discussion po? Ikaw na mag end. What is your final conclusion to our discussion?​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Iho. Nakakapansin na ako. Meron ka ba ipinaglalaban? Or nangkukumbinsi ka? Anong dinidefend mo kasi kung meron ka ipinaglalaban. Hindi na kasi matapos-tapos. Ini-end ko at nagfinal conclusion na ako, ikaw, nagcocontinue pa rin. Ano ba kasi ang hind mo tanggap sa diskusyon po?

Kasi ganito, nang sinabi ko na 'inborn material' ay kinontra mo ako na 'inborn child', nang sinabi ko na 'subjective', kinontra mo ako na 'objective', nang sinabi ko na 'living organism', kinontra mo ako na 'living human organism' at nang sinabi ko na sa kalagitnaan ang final conclusion sa end discussion, ibig sabihin ng final conclusion, ano ang buod ng end discussion, umulit ka at nagdefend ka uli at kinontra mo ang sinabi ko, kaya napa-isip ako, ano ang jina-justified mo or ipinaglalaban mo as in at ano ang hindi katanggap-tanggap sayo?

Gusto mo ba eend ang discussion or hindi? The reason why nagtanong ka una para e-allure mo ako sa arguement? Galing mg strategy mo ah. Haha.

Kapag gusto mo eend, anong final conclusion mo para ma end ang discussion po? Ikaw na mag end. What is your final conclusion to our discussion?​

My goal was not to argue endlessly or “win.” I only responded because some scientific terms were being used in ways that don’t match how biology defines them.

So to end the discussion clearly:

From the standpoint of embryology, fertilization produces a zygote, which is the earliest developmental stage of a new human organism. This is not a religious statement but a biological description used in science and medicine. The organism then develops continuously through embryo, fetus, infant, and so on.

Where people disagree is not mainly about the biological process, but about the moral and legal question of abortion. That is where personal beliefs, philosophy, culture, and religion influence people’s conclusions.

My position against abortion comes from that biological starting point: if a new human organism begins at fertilization, then intentionally ending that developing human life raises serious ethical concerns. That is why I personally oppose abortion.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

My goal was not to argue endlessly or “win.” I only responded because some scientific terms were being used in ways that don’t match how biology defines them.

So to end the discussion clearly:

From the standpoint of embryology, fertilization produces a zygote, which is the earliest developmental stage of a new human organism. This is not a religious statement but a biological description used in science and medicine. The organism then develops continuously through embryo, fetus, infant, and so on.

Where people disagree is not mainly about the biological process, but about the moral and legal question of abortion. That is where personal beliefs, philosophy, culture, and religion influence people’s conclusions.

My position against abortion comes from that biological starting point: if a new human organism begins at fertilization, then intentionally ending that developing human life raises serious ethical concerns. That is why I personally oppose abortion.​

My position against abortion, sabi mo nga, ahhhh, dini-defend mo nga ang beliefs at opinion mo patungkol diyan.​

Okay. Na defend mo na po siya. End na po ang discussion.

Salamat sa inpormasyon.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

My position against abortion, sabi mo nga, ahhhh, dini-defend mo nga ang beliefs at opinion mo patungkol diyan.​

Okay. Na defend mo na po siya. End na po ang discussion.

Salamat sa inpormasyon.

Yes, those are my beliefs, but they are grounded in objective reality and science, not just subjective opinion.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Yes, those are my beliefs, but they are grounded in objective reality and science, not just subjective opinion.

Okay. Sa final conclusion , ikaw ay nanalo. Naks.​

 

[lunantionio]

yehey clap clap hahahaha nakakatuwa naman tong mga to

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Yes, those are my beliefs, but they are grounded in objective reality and science, not just subjective opinion.

I dont see how this can ever be objective. Ang ugat naman ang usapan dito ay wether kung ivavalue ang zygote bilang isang tao, which can never have an objective conclusion.

One might say na oo they are a living human being dahil may tibok na puso nila - pero when was a heartbeat ever an objective basis na human being na ang isang nilalang? Hindi maiiwasan na subjective assumptions ang basis mo to make this jump.

 

[ronil5281]

Its morally wrong
Value others people life as your own

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Ang ibig sabihin ng objective reality kasi like meron existing objective truth , ang ibig sabihin ay grounded siya na iyan lang ang "truth" at wala ng "iba pang truth". Siya lang. As in siya lang. Wala ng makakatalo pa. The totoo is depende sa group or individual kung papaano niya na pe-perceived ang reality dahil lahat ng human is subjective in nature. It is a reason why hindi magkakaparehas kung ano ang "truth" para sa bawat isa.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

I dont see how this can ever be objective. Ang ugat naman ang usapan dito ay wether kung ivavalue ang zygote bilang isang tao, which can never have an objective conclusion.

One might say na oo they are a living human being dahil may tibok na puso nila - pero when was a heartbeat ever an objective basis na human being na ang isang nilalang? Hindi maiiwasan na subjective assumptions ang basis mo to make this jump.

Biology already gives us an objective starting point. A zygote is not just “potential life.” It is a living human organism. From the moment of fertilization, it has its own unique DNA, is biologically distinct from the mother, and is actively developing as a complete member of the human species. That is not philosophy, that is basic embryology.

So the real question is simple. What species is the organism? If it is a living human organism, then ending its life is killing a human being. And that remains true regardless of stage of development, just like a baby, a child, and an ãdül† are all the same human at different stages.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Its morally wrong
Value others people life as your own

It is always morally wrong to kill a human being.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ang ibig sabihin ng objective reality kasi like meron existing objective truth , ang ibig sabihin ay grounded siya na iyan lang ang "truth" at wala ng "iba pang truth". Siya lang. As in siya lang. Wala ng makakatalo pa. The totoo is depende sa group or individual kung papaano niya na pe-perceived ang reality dahil lahat ng human is subjective in nature. It is a reason why hindi magkakaparehas kung ano ang "truth" para sa bawat isa.​

Again, there are things that are subjective. Preferences, opinions, and personal experiences differ from person to person. For example, what food tastes best, what music sounds good, or what kind of art is beautiful. Those depend on the individual or the group.

But truth is not the same as preference. There are objective truths that remain true whether people agree with them or not. Gravity exists even if someone denies it. The Earth was round even when the majority once believed it was flat. Science itself only works because objective reality exists outside of our opinions.

If truth were purely based on what a group believes, then contradictions could both be true at the same time. That breaks logic. Two opposite claims cannot both be true just because different groups accept them.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Again, there are things that are subjective. Preferences, opinions, and personal experiences differ from person to person. For example, what food tastes best, what music sounds good, or what kind of art is beautiful. Those depend on the individual or the group.

But truth is not the same as preference. There are objective truths that remain true whether people agree with them or not. Gravity exists even if someone denies it. The Earth was round even when the majority once believed it was flat. Science itself only works because objective reality exists outside of our opinions.

If truth were purely based on what a group believes, then contradictions could both be true at the same time. That breaks logic. Two opposite claims cannot both be true just because different groups accept them.​

Okay. Kapag inaamin na objective opinion ang iyo and objective truth na galing sayo ay ibig sabihin na nasa high ground ka. Dagdagan pa na obviously ang moral patungkol sa anti-abortion. Meaning kapag objective truth at objective opinion ang galing sayo and like na ipinapaniwalaan na meron objective reality, dagdagan na meron objective morality ay lumalabas na universal fact po na lahat ng mga tao ay kailangan tanggapin dahil objective truth nga siya.

Iyon ang ibig sabihin.

Ang ibig sabihin na hindi na pwede mag-compromise ang tao sayo kapag meron objective truth na hinahawakan at meron ibang knowledge galing sa ibang tao unless mag-subscribe sila sa hinahawakan mo na objective truth dahil universal siya. Universal fact na po siya kapag objective truth kasi eh, well, according for you, kasi nga, sabi mo, objective truth.

Tapos sabi mo~ "...two opposite claims cannot both be true just because different groups accept them." ~and so meaning kailangan meron high ground means angat sa iba dahil naniniwala ka na meron nag-iisang truth. So kailangan meron mag-exist na high ground ika nga. If ganyan ang hino-hold on mo, eh di, it means, wala tayo magagawa. That means, yung beliefs mo is a universal truth meaning ang tao kailangan mag-adapt dahil objective truth nga siya. Sabi mo nga, hindi subjective opinion ang iyo dahil naniniwala ka na meron objective truth.

Ganun naman din sa gravity at earth. Isaac Newton vs Albert Einstein ay iba ang na peperceived nila sa gravity. Also sa earth flat vs earth is round ay sus me, ang mga tao na taga-earth flat ay meron ina-upload na there is evidence raw kuno about earth is really flat daw. Hanggang ngayon ay buhay pa rin. Kung kaya, subjective to opinion sila.

Like, example, science and history ay hindi magkasundo sa specific na natuklasan po. Example, science ng zygote, debatable kung kailan e-aasign bilang "human organism" and sa iba, human organism raw ang zygote or something at ang history ni Jesus naman ay debatable kung ang katawan raw niya ay nasa earth or wala. Naniniwala kasi ang nakatuklas na dinagdag lang raw ng mga tao ang resurrection na hindi naman nag resurrect dahil ipinakain lang daw ng mga Roman ang katawan ni Jesus sa mga dog scavanger po sapagkat rebelde daw si Jesus sa Roman pero at the same time, ang mga religious faith, sa kanila naman ay basta walang katawan na natagpuan, sa kanila ay nag resurrect daw.​