Religion/Abortion

[qayak]

You don't know how I'd love to answer that dumb statement.

What did you have in mind?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nothing in particular.

I'd "let the spirit move me."
Which particular imaginary friend is that going to be?

The one you'll never know.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You don't know how I'd love to answer that dumb statement.
What did you have in mind?

Again, nothin' in particular.

I'll let the spirit move me.

And you, too.

Lots of movement............

[qayak]

I've got more answers than you have questions.

Not even close. We are running about 10:1 in the question answer department.

I've asked you twice what you had in mnd and you haven't answered. Either you don't have an answer or you are afraid to answer. Whatever.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I've got more answers than you have questions.
Not even close. We are running about 10:1 in the question answer department.

You're not getting the answers you deserve.

I've asked you twice what you had in mnd and you haven't answered. Either you don't have an answer or you are afraid to answer. Whatever.

PM?

Got an email?

I'll give you my address.

C'mon over...........

[qayak]

Again, nothin' in particular.

I'll let the spirit move me.

And you, too.

Lots of movement............

Spirits don't exist so I doubt it can move me, even slight movement.

Oh, wait a minute! Isn't that what those people that bomb abortion clinics and shoot medical doctors say, "The spirit moved me?" :jaw-dropp

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Again, nothin' in particular.

I'll let the spirit move me.

And you, too.

Lots of movement............
Spirits don't exist so I doubt it can move me, even slight movement.

I'd love to "learn ya'" about it.

Oh, wait a minute! Isn't that what those people that bomb abortion clinics and shoot medical doctors say, "The spirit moved me?" :jaw-dropp

Nope.

You don't know about tactical stuff, either?

You don't know much at all, do you?

[qayak]

I'd love to "learn ya'" about it.

I imagine it will be as unimpressive as you trying to shake me and claiming the "spirit" did it. Uri Geller must be your hero!

Nope.

You don't know about tactical stuff, either?

You don't know much at all, do you?

The old "spirit shake" is a tactic now, is it? :dl:

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'd love to "learn ya'" about it.

I imagine it will be as unimpressive as you trying to shake me and claiming the "spirit" did it.

No, I'd claim all the credit.

Uri Geller must be your hero!

Nope.

Never paid much attention to him.

You?

You don't know about tactical stuff, either?

You don't know much at all, do you?

The old "spirit shake" is a tactic now, is it?

Nope.

It's a motivator.

Got one of your own?

[Huntster]

Still there?

[qayak]

Still there?

Yes, I was just spending sometime reading intelligent posts. Had to go to another thread for them.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Still there?
Yes, I was just spending sometime reading intelligent posts. Had to go to another thread for them.

I hope you didn't post there.

If so, they wouldn't be "intelligent" anymore.

Got anything more to say?

[qayak]

Got anything more to say?

As soon as you quit dodging questions I am sure to have more to say.

As for your threats here and in the PM's. We have already agreed that you will be travelling here, getting your own car, travelling to the dojo of your choice, where I will meet you and you will demonstrate your "spirit shake" tactic for me.

It should be fun. I haven't had a full contact fight in about 3 months. I'm looking forward to it.

Let me know the date.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Got anything more to say?
As soon as you quit dodging questions I am sure to have more to say.

Be specific:

Which questions did I miss?

As for your threats here and in the PM's. We have already agreed that you will be travelling here, getting your own car, travelling to the dojo of your choice, where I will meet you and you will demonstrate your "spirit shake" tactic for me.

Incorrect.

I will happily visit Vancouver (I've got folks in the area I'd love to see), I'll get a car, and the dojo will be of your choice, since I don't have access to one in that area.

I have no intention of demonstrating any "spirit shake".

It should be fun. I haven't had a full contact fight in about 3 months. I'm looking forward to it.

Which dojo?

Let me know the date.

You're scheduling the dojo. You failed to mention dates.

[qayak]

Which dojo?
You're scheduling the dojo. You failed to mention dates.

Fair enough. See my PM and I will have a date for you tomorrow once I talk to the owner. How much time do you need to arrange flights?

[Huntster]

Fair enough. See my PM and I will have a date for you tomorrow once I talk to the owner. How much time do you need to arrange flights?

No more open posts.

PM.

[JanisChambers]

My two cents on this whole matter is that Xians have the burden to proving their own subjective conclusions about a 'soul'. The simple fact is that at some stages of pregnancy the 'baby' is nothing but a lump of cells. At first it doesn't even have a brain. Just how many people have to be impaled in the head for others to realize how important the existence of the brain is? One day I hope it becomes acceptable to treat hard pressed religionists the same way you treat other loonies, just don't make eye contact and keep walking.

[The Atheist]

It's fun being psychic.

I predicted that exactly this would happen. When a person sees something as murder while another sees it as a "medical procedure", trouble is easy to predict.

I'd just like to say that one of the most gutless things someone could ever do is bring a private fight into a public arena. It certainly smacks of a said someone being a big fraidy-cat.

Oh, and by the way, qayak. Abortion is absolutely classed as murder in more enlightened countries. Did you miss that bit in all the fuss?

You class abortion as anything before birth. I can assure you that a doctor performing an abortion at 7 months+ is almost certain to be charged with murder in NZ law.

[BillyJoe]

I can assure you that a doctor performing an abortion at 7 months+ is almost certain to be charged with murder in NZ law.Not in Australia. An abortion was performed at eight months in a Melbourne hospital. The pregnant woman threatened suicide because an ultrasound showed that the baby was a dwarf. The doctors were investigated but not charged. The medical board cleared them of professional misconduct. It wasn't even an issue until a politician bought into it.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1742492.htm

[BillyJoe]

Huntster and quyak remind me I haven't seen "Fight Club" for a while.

Hmmm....I see he's suspended!

[BillyJoe]

I haven't been following this thread (and it's too long to catch up), so I might be misunderstanding this:

What I've always found amusing is the level of sexism that exists in the belief that "pro-choice" is the only way to provide equality to women and that this issue trumps any debate on the viable(or sapient) status of the fetus.I don't see that it's a question of sexism. The "pro-choice argument is that it's the woman's body and it should be up to her to decide what to do with it. Not anyone else. Not religious leaders. Not politicians. Just the woman in discussion with her partner and doctor, family and friends, with her making the final decision. Where's the sexism?

I think the same thing with pro-choice. It was a valid argument when women were dependant upon a man and society was sexist. We are rapidly moving beyond that point and rightly so. But now, to continue to believe that women would need special protection from ethical responsiblities is a wholly sexist viewpoint. It requires the belief that women are irrational, weak individuals who require special circumstances that a male wouldn't get.I don't see it. Pro-choice doesn't mean "special protection from ethical responsiblities", it means she weighs up the pro and cons and makes her own decision free of any interference form politicians and religious leaders. She becomes the rsponsible person. Quite the reverse of seeing women as "irrational, weak individuals who require special circumstances".

There shouldn't be any fear from re evaluating the status of the fetus. To try and block such a simple, logical inquiry enhances sexism, it doesn't reduce it.I agree that evaluating the status of the foetus should be ongoing. But, in the pro-choice argument, it's the status of the foetus against the status of the woman and, increasingly, it looks like the balance is towards the woman.

[joobz]

I haven't been following this thread (and it's too long to catch up), so I might be misunderstanding this:

I don't see that it's a question of sexism. The "pro-choice argument is that it's the woman's body and it should be up to her to decide what to do with it. Not anyone else. Not religious leaders. Not politicians. Just the woman in discussion with her partner and doctor, family and friends, with her making the final decision. Where's the sexism?

I don't see it. Pro-choice doesn't mean "special protection from ethical responsiblities", it means she weighs up the pro and cons and makes her own decision free of any interference form politicians and religious leaders. She becomes the rsponsible person. Quite the reverse of seeing women as "irrational, weak individuals who require special circumstances".

I agree that evaluating the status of the foetus should be ongoing. But, in the pro-choice argument, it's the status of the foetus against the status of the woman and, increasingly, it looks like the balance is towards the woman.

What balance? If the fetus is a person, abortion would constitute a murder. If it isn't "a person" then there's no problem. Abort away.

People have used "pro-choice" to avoid discussion on the fetus status. As though this choice outweighs ethics of killing. Simply, to claim that a woman's choice supercedes everything else, it to say that a woman is too illogical/irrational to be held to the same level of ethical/moral standing as a man. That's sexist.

[BillyJoe]

What balance? If the fetus is a person, abortion would constitute a murder. If it isn't "a person" then there's no problem. Abort away.Wish it were so cut and dry, black and white.
Do you think the following have equal standing:

Ovum being penetrated by a sperm.
The zygote that results from the combination of the nucleus of the ovum and sperm.
The zygote after the first division.
The zygote/blastocyst at 1 week (implantation into the womb).
The blastocyst/zygote after implantation.
The blastocyst/embryo at 4 weeks.
The embryo/foetus at 8 weeks.
The foetus/baby at 28 weeks (viability outside the woman).
The baby before birth at 40 weeks.
Pregnant women at the above stages.

If they do not have equal standing, there is a balance to be struck between the consideration of the zygote/foetus/embryo's life and the wishes of the pregnant women.
(my nomenclature may be off a little)

People have used "pro-choice" to avoid discussion on the fetus status. As though this choice outweighs ethics of killing. Simply, to claim that a woman's choice supercedes everything else, it to say that a woman is too illogical/irrational to be held to the same level of ethical/moral standing as a man. That's sexist.Fair enough, but it is not my understanding of "pro-choice". Pro-choice puts the ethical dilemma on the women when all is said and done. She chooses, so she ensures that she is making the right choice. It is up to her to make the choice that sounds logical and rational to her (not her partner, priest, politician).

[The Atheist]

Not in Australia. An abortion was performed at eight months in a Melbourne hospital.I have no doubt that murder charges would be preferred here for that. At eight months, it isn't a foetus, it's an unborn child. I have a daughter who was born at 8 months, they're a bit smaller, is all. No medical intevention needed, a perfectly viable human.

The manslaughter case I mentioned in Texas was an 8-month pregnant woman, I think.

Yeah, only Hunt got suspended, even though he didn't mention a "fist fight".

[joobz]

Wish it were so cut and dry, black and white.
Do you think the following have equal standing:

Ovum being penetrated by a sperm.
The zygote that results from the combination of the nucleus of the ovum and sperm.
The zygote after the first division.
The zygote/blastocyst at 1 week (implantation into the womb).
The blastocyst/zygote after implantation.
The blastocyst/embryo at 4 weeks.
The embryo/foetus at 8 weeks.
The foetus/baby at 28 weeks (viability outside the woman).
The baby before birth at 40 weeks.
Pregnant women at the above stages.

If they do not have equal standing, there is a balance to be struck between the consideration of the zygote/foetus/embryo's life and the wishes of the pregnant women.
(my nomenclature may be off a little)
I recommend going back over the original point I was making. I think you may be just missunderstanding my position.

I feel that there is a point in human gestation where it is no longer a mass of cells or a collection of protoorgans. that there must be some point at which there is enough of a central nervous system to warrant a developing human as a person. this point in development must be tied to the gestational point of the fetus/child and not its location.

I think that it should be tied to cognitive development. Cognitiion is what we use to define an individual. The question is, what level of cognition is required. I do not pretend to believe that this will be an easy point to determine, nor one easily detected. But that shouldn't be a reason to avoid it.

Fair enough, but it is not my understanding of "pro-choice". Pro-choice puts the ethical dilemma on the women when all is said and done. She chooses, so she ensures that she is making the right choice. It is up to her to make the choice that sounds logical and rational to her (not her partner, priest, politician).
To me, if the fetus is not at that "point of no return" there is no dilemma. Choice is understood. But if it is determined medically that a fetus at 8 months is a truly a child (with central nervous system and all) than "choice" is no longer an issue. We do not allow a woman to kill her (full term) 1 week old baby for reasons of choice. why would this choice be allowable for a woman who is 1 week over due?

[The Atheist]

To me, if the fetus is not at that "point of no return" there is no dilemma. Choice is understood. But if it is determined medically that a fetus at 8 months is a truly a child (with central nervous system and all) than "choice" is no longer an issue. We do not allow a woman to kill her (full term) 1 week old baby for reasons of choice. why would this choice be allowable for a woman who is 1 week over due?
I'm 100% with that - once it is a viable baby, there should be only extreme circumstances outside of "No".

An unborn child at 8 months is every bit as fully human as that one-week old.

[BillyJoe]

..if it is determined medically that a fetus at 8 months is a truly a child (with central nervous system and all) than "choice" is no longer an issue. I'm pretty sure the first part of your sentence is correct, but obviously the second part is not - at least not for everyone. In my example above, the woman was 8 months pregnant with a baby who had dwarfism. The woman was suicidally depressed and it was judged that, if the pregnancy continued, she would kill herself. Therefore it was considered justified to perform an abortion. Of course, if she did kill herself, she would have killed tha baby as well, so this complicates matters. The medical board cleared the doctors involved and they were not legally charged. It saw the light of day only because of the efforts of an anti-abortion politician.

[joobz]

I'm pretty sure the first part of your sentence is correct, but obviously the second part is not - at least not for everyone. In my example above, the woman was 8 months pregnant with a baby who had dwarfism. The woman was suicidally depressed and it was judged that, if the pregnancy continued, she would kill herself. Therefore it was considered justified to perform an abortion. Of course, if she did kill herself, she would have killed tha baby as well, so this complicates matters. The medical board cleared the doctors involved and they were not legally charged. It saw the light of day only because of the efforts of an anti-abortion politician.
I'm not beyond supporting medical needs cases. Extenuating circumstances exist.

But suicidally depressed? So anyone is absolved of all ethical and legal responsibilities if they are deemed, "suicidally depressed?" I have no problem with people being considered emotionally incapable and therefore not responsible for their actions. BUt this should be a blanket issue. If you are in such a state, then you loose other rights as well; driving, voting, guardian status.

[Tricky]

Maybe Johnathan Swift had the right idea with his Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html).

[The Atheist]

Maybe Johnathan Swift had the right idea with his Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html).

Jonathan Swift and Elvis Costello!

Are you married?

[qayak]

If you are in such a state, then you loose other rights as well; driving, voting, guardian status.

Why? What does being deeply depressed over the prospect of bearing a severely challenged child have to do with one's ability to vote, drive a car, look after other children, etc.?

[joobz]

Why? What does being deeply depressed over the prospect of bearing a severely challenged child have to do with one's ability to vote, drive a car, look after other children, etc.?
and why does being depressed trump someone elses life?

[qayak]

and why does being depressed trump someone elses life?

Do you restrict the rights of those with cancer, the flu, or bunions?

[joobz]

Do you restrict the rights of those with cancer, the flu, or bunions?
If they were claiming that they needed to kill someone to get better, then yes. Your analogies fail for the lack of a tertiary party.

Would it be ok for a conjoined twin to kill his twin because of depression?

[thaiboxerken]

Abortion is not the act of killing someone, try again, Joobz.

[qayak]

If they were claiming that they needed to kill someone to get better, then yes. Your analogies fail for the lack of a tertiary party.

TBK answered this already.

Would it be ok for a conjoined twin to kill his twin because of depression?

You keep coming back to this as if it is relevent to the discussion. The fate of conjoined twins is almost always made by their parents and doctors because the twins themselves are not yet sapient. Often during seperation one twin dies. However, almost always the decision is based on the fact that if seperation is not attempted both will die, that not seperating the two will result in the twins effectively having no life or that there is a good chance both will survive.

So, seperation depends on many factors that the parents must weigh. Under certain circumstances seperation is the best choice and other others, it is not. Two examples based on my own beliefs. Your mileage may vary:

Seperate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPHLU2c7-sw

Do not seperate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KDvfkVvQg

But this doesn't change the fact that if the mothers of either of these sets of twins (Actually, the Egyption children are triplets) decided that they did not want ot carry the conjoined twins to term, they would have had medical reason for a late term abortion, in my opinion.

Abortion and conjoined twins are two different and unrelated issues.

[BillyJoe]

I'm not beyond supporting medical needs cases. Extenuating circumstances exist.Okay.

But suicidally depressed? So anyone is absolved of all ethical and legal responsibilities if they are deemed, "suicidally depressed?".Which ethical and legal responsibilities are they being absolved of.

[joobz]

Abortion is not the act of killing someone, try again, Joobz.
hasty generalization.
some abortions are, some aren't. depends on the status of the fetus. You haven't given me any reason to believe in the magic of birth.

[joobz]

TBK answered this already.
poorly, yes.



You keep coming back to this as if it is relevent to the discussion. The fate of conjoined twins is almost always made by their parents and doctors because the twins themselves are not yet sapient. Often during seperation one twin dies. However, almost always the decision is based on the fact that if seperation is not attempted both will die, that not seperating the two will result in the twins effectively having no life or that there is a good chance both will survive.

So, seperation depends on many factors that the parents must weigh. Under certain circumstances seperation is the best choice and other others, it is not. Two examples based on my own beliefs. Your mileage may vary:

thank you for the links. I agree, especially since the first example had the real danger of long term survivability. I would argue, however, that if the survivial hadn't been an issue and the second twin(third) twin was sapient (as they say in the video) than it would be unethical to seperate. If the second twin wasn't sapient, than there is no concern of seperation.


Abortion and conjoined twins are two different and unrelated issues.
yes they are. but the basis of medical ethics that are applied in each of these settings MUST be based on the same axioms of what life is.

[joobz]

Which ethical and legal responsibilities are they being absolved of.
accountability for killing. She was depressed because her child was a dwarf. Many children are dissappointments to thier family. Do we allow all of them to kill them to stave off depression?

I'm not saying there aren't points where such abortions would be warrented. cases of genetic defects which would result in signifigant pain and suffering to the child with a high likelyhood of death come to mind.

[Blutarsky]

Because the laws contradict which isn't unusual. Cable companies are not allowed to negative bill but banks are. Two different legal definitions for the same practice.

What a joke. I've been practicing law for years and that has to be the most laughable response to this issue I have ever seen. Such a poor analogy; in fact, so poor that no response is even appropriate.

Maybe you could try again and actually give me something to work with? There is a simpler answer and I'll give you a hint. It starts with the actual R v W opinion itself...you have taken the time to actually read the opinion haven't you?

[BillyJoe]

accountability for killing. She was depressed because her child was a dwarf. Many children are dissappointments to thier family. Do we allow all of them to kill them to stave off depression?It wasn't to stave off depression, it was in the setting of severe suicidal depression where the result was going to be death of mother and baby or death of the baby. The doctor agreed, the ethics committee agreed, the medical board agreed, and the law saw no reason to prosecute. The only problem here was a politician with a particular religious view which he wished to have forced onto others.

I'm not saying there aren't points where such abortions would be warrented. cases of genetic defects which would result in signifigant pain and suffering to the child with a high likelyhood of death come to mind.The details in this case have not become availsable except to interested parties. They all seem to have agreed with the decision - except the politican who was more interested in his own religious beliefs than what was best for the individual concerned.

[joobz]

It wasn't to stave off depression, it was in the setting of severe suicidal depression where the result was going to be death of mother and baby or death of the baby. The doctor agreed, the ethics committee agreed, the medical board agreed, and the law saw no reason to prosecute. The only problem here was a politician with a particular religious view which he wished to have forced onto others.

The details in this case have not become availsable except to interested parties. They all seem to have agreed with the decision - except the politican who was more interested in his own religious beliefs than what was best for the individual concerned.
I'm sure they felt they did best to minimize a disaster. You are right in saying I do not have all the facts and other considerations can play a part. however, I can formulate a logical opinion on the general example that was being set. Extreme distress is an acceptable reason for late term abortions, the killing of a viable, "sapient" life.

My problem with the whole distress thing, is that to believe that it is an acceptable state of a woman is to claim that women are not fully responsible for thier actions. Such rulings are in actuality a reversal of equality laws. It caters to the notion that women are morally lesser than men.

If we hold people as equals, than there should be some repercussions to her actions. Simply put, if she was in such a state that rendered her incapable of determining right and wrong, then she is no longer a productive member of society and should be protected from harming more. This should include stripping her of social freedoms where harm can be done. Voting, driving...etc.

[Foster Zygote]

Maybe Johnathan Swift had the right idea with his Modest Proposal (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html).

Now I want a sandwich.

[BillyJoe]

I'm sure they felt they did best to minimize a disaster. You are right in saying I do not have all the facts and other considerations can play a part. however, I can formulate a logical opinion on the general example that was being set. Extreme distress is an acceptable reason for late term abortions, the killing of a viable, "sapient" life."Killing" is correct, if strongly emotive. There are equally appropriate alternatives: We kill flowers by picking them. We kill ants by stepping on them. We kill "viable life" by ending it. Pick your verb according to your inclination or prejudice.
(Also, I'm not clear what you mean by "sapient")

My problem with the whole distress thing, is that to believe that it is an acceptable state of a woman is to claim that women are not fully responsible for thier actions.The only significance in her being a woman is that only women can be pregnant. Otherwise I fail to see how the sex of this person was relevant. And what actions was she responsible for? She decided on an abortion/termination. Others agreed this was a reasonable decision in the circumstances and others performed the actual abortion/termination.

Such rulings are in actuality a reversal of equality laws. It caters to the notion that women are morally lesser than men.I'm sure the doctors, ethics committee, and medical board didn't consider the ramifications of their actions on the equality laws in deciding this case. I'm sure they were interested only in resolving the distressing situation of this particular individual. And I'm sure that poor unfortunate woman would have been glad to have been a victim for woman's rights in her already distressed state.

If we hold people as equals, than there should be some repercussions to her actions. Simply put, if she was in such a state that rendered her incapable of determining right and wrong, then she is no longer a productive member of society and should be protected from harming more. This should include stripping her of social freedoms where harm can be done. Voting, driving...etc.I think you need to tell us what evidence you have that this woman's state of distress "rendered her incapable of determining right and wrong". In doing so perhaps you also need to tell us what you think was right and wrong in this case.

regards,
BillyJoe

[joobz]

"Killing" is correct, if strongly emotive. There are equally appropriate alternatives: We kill flowers by picking them. We kill ants by stepping on them. We kill "viable life" by ending it. Pick your verb according to your inclination or prejudice.
(Also, I'm not clear what you mean by "sapient")
you are equivocating a flower to a full term fetus. Do you really place equal value to a full term fetus as a flower or ant? Obviously you don't make this equivocation, since you hold to believing that abortion is allowable. So the next question is, where do you place importance of life? Do you believe that all fetuses are unimportant regardless of gestational age? How do you justify your stance? Is it based upon magical thinking that birth transforms a fetus to a baby or do you subscribe to a moral relativism that allows you to value one person's life as more important than another?

The emphasis on my comment wasn't on the killing, it was on the full term viable, sapient fetus.
I equate a full term fetus to a baby. there are logical reasons to do so. Gestational age being primary.
refer back to all posts on this topic. I've been clear about how I define viability and sapience.

The only significance in her being a woman is that only women can be pregnant. Otherwise I fail to see how the sex of this person was relevant. And what actions was she responsible for? She decided on an abortion/termination. Others agreed this was a reasonable decision in the circumstances and others performed the actual abortion/termination.Would a man be justified to kill his child if he was under extreme distress? Would a conjoined twin be justified to kill his twin for reasons of extreme mental distress?

The root of the situation is that there is a inherent sexism in believing women need special considerations in these settings. And her special considerations outweigh the value of any tertiary party involved. Such a view is an inequality intended to balance a presumed inherent inequity.


I'm sure the doctors, ethics committee, and medical board didn't consider the ramifications of their actions on the equality laws in deciding this case. I'm sure they were interested only in resolving the distressing situation of this particular individual. And I'm sure that poor unfortunate woman would have been glad to have been a victim for woman's rights in her already distressed state.what's your point here? You're simply appealing to authority.

I think you need to tell us what evidence you have that this woman's state of distress "rendered her incapable of determining right and wrong". In doing so perhaps you also need to tell us what you think was right and wrong in this case.
Obviously, you are selectively reading my statements. But I'll clarify again for you. Assuming that no other relavent information exists that would change my underlying assumption, That it is purely her depression over having a Drawf infant (who by any other measure is perfectly healthy and normal)...
at 8 months, the fetus is equivilent to a baby and deserves equal protections under the law. Therefore, the "correct" thing to do would be to deliver the infant. The mother can than offer up baby for adoption, if her distress prevents her from dealing with the child.

Where do you find the ethical lines exist? Are there ethical absolutes or is everything morally relative? What axioms do you use in deciding who lives and dies, or do you simply appeal to authority to decide?

[Tricky]

I generally tend to stay away from this question specifically because the question of "When is a Homo sapiens a person with rights?" is unanswerable, or more correctly, the answer is, "it depends on your point of view".

Points of view can range quite a bit. I know, this is moral relativism, but I honestly can't give you a better answer. My reference to Swift's bit of satire was to say that in extreme cases, we might not consider a Homo sapiens to have the right to life even for some years after birth. Yeah, that is satire, but in China it has been common practice for many years for some families to kill female babies until a male was born into the family. It was not even a crime.

So I honestly cannot see any way to pinpoint the answer to the question other than moral relativism. An organism has rights when the law says it does. I specifically use the word "organism" rather than "human" because not only does the definition of "human" vary widely, but also because there are many groups which claim animals other than Homo sapiens have legal rights. Do they? My answer is the same. If the law says they do, then they do.

ETA:
My own moral relativity says it is when they have higher brain functions.

[joobz]

I do not pretend to think that all positions of ethics are absolute. There is always a range at which we can look at things relatively.

however, when it comes to issues like defining life, I do not think that the ultimate view can be a relative one. Society must have firmer ground than this, otherwise it opens itself up to ideological corruptions. The original notion of america was on the tenet that there are Unaleinable rights. That the relative views of england did not lessen the import of the people in the americas. I think there are things that, as a society that values equality and social advancement, must be taken as absolutes. Your example of china strengthens this point.

I do not pretend it is an easy answer, but we must strive to come to some definition that is more than just a relative one, one of convienience. A definition that can be applied at all medical life/death issues will at least be axiomatically self consistent and rationally defendable. If we use relativism to define the terms, than anything may go.

[Tricky]

I think the issue of abortion is a very relative one. Biologists can't even say for sure what life is, although there are a number of check-lists. But the real question is not whether a zygote or a fetus or a newborn baby is alive. Of course they are alive. The question is, "what rights do they have?" Nobody would argue that a newborn has different rights than an adult (for example, they can't smoke or vote). It seems to me that it should follow that a fetus, especially one without higher brain activities, should have different rights than a newborn.

Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independance, said that everyone had certain inalienable rights, but it was pure rhetoric. Obviously some rights are alienable and, as a slave owner, he knew it. That original notion of unalienable rights only applied, at the time, to propertied males. We have since expanded it quite a bit, but there are still restrictions. A dangerous, mentally ill person does not necessarily have the right to freedom, even if he has never been charged with a crime. There are many many other examples. Jefferson's words were, IMO, meant as a general statement, not an absolute one.

The law, primarily our Constitution, gives Americans some rights. But they are not inalienable. The Constitution can be changed, with rights added or taken away. In the case of booze, both.

In my earlier example, China has vastly different values than the US, and England has significantly different ones. I see no absolutes anywhere. Maybe one means that within a society, there are absolutes, but I would even argue that this is not true. Think of a criminal case where the jury couldn't decide whether it was murder or manslaughter or mental illness. It is impossible to make a hard-and-fast rule that is correct in every case, whether you are talking about criminal courts or you are talking about abortion.

Having known a few people who had abortions, including some loved ones, I can tell you that to call it "convenience" is to disparage the gut-wrenching decision they had to make. I also have known some who chose not to abort, and though they love their children and would never think of saying they wish they weren't born, they live in poverty because they cannot afford child care and cannot take time off from parenting in order to learn a marketable trade. Again, some of these are loved ones. I help out where I can.

There is nothing about abortion that can be answered with an absolute rule. We all must grapple with this emotionally charged issue, and I cannot find it in myself to denounce those who come to different conclusions than I. But I will defend my point of view and I will work through the legal system to have my point of view be a part of the law if I can. And I will support Planned Parenthood with great enthusiasm.

[qayak]

I do not pretend it is an easy answer, but we must strive to come to some definition that is more than just a relative one, one of convienience.

It must also recognize what abortion is and what it is meant to do and allow that to take place in a relatively simple and easy manner.

A definition that can be applied at all medical life/death issues will at least be axiomatically self consistent and rationally defendable. If we use relativism to define the terms, than anything may go.

I don't think you can have one definition for all medical life/death issues. They are far too complex. A better way is to have a range of possibilities that allow people to make decisions based on their own beliefs. Abortion, euthanasia, conjoined twins, etc. are issues that people face everyday and the law should allow for different people to make different decisions that work for them and that they can live with.

[BillyJoe]

you are equivocating a flower to a full term fetus. Do you really place equal value to a full term fetus as a flower or ant? Obviously you don't make this equivocation, since you hold to believing that abortion is allowable.I was clearly comparing verbs, not nouns ("Pick your verb according to your inclination or prejudice.").

So the next question is, where do you place importance of life? Do you believe that all fetuses are unimportant regardless of gestational age? How do you justify your stance? Is it based upon magical thinking that birth transforms a fetus to a baby or do you subscribe to a moral relativism that allows you to value one person's life as more important than another?The importance for me is the emotional value of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/foetus/unbornbaby/bornbaby.
A mother make be completely devoted to her 4 week embryo and be completely devastated if she miscarried. Another mother make feel nothing for the baby she carries 4 weeks before term.

The emphasis on my comment wasn't on the killing, it was on the full term viable, sapient fetus.
I equate a full term fetus to a baby. They are not equivalent. The emotional connection between a mother and a baby one month before birth is different from that between a mother and a baby one month after birth. The emotional impact of a visible, moving, breathing infant is qualitatively different from the emotional impact of a baby still in the womb.

The root of the situation is that there is a inherent sexism in believing women need special considerations in these settings. And her special considerations outweigh the value of any tertiary party involved. Such a view is an inequality intended to balance a presumed inherent inequity.Are you talking about the father's rights here?
Very clearly the father can have an input into the mother's decision, but the final decision must surely reside with the mother who is actually preganant and would have to carry this pregnancy to term and deliver the baby and most likely raise it. The father can, and often does, walk away.

what's your point here? You're simply appealing to authority.Not an appeal to authority, just showing you what all of the people involved directly in the care of this woman decided in this particular case as opposed to others who wish to make her a victim for some cause such as equal-rights, in your case, or right-to-life, in the case of that politician.

...at 8 months, the fetus is equivilent to a baby and deserves equal protections under the law. Therefore, the "correct" thing to do would be to deliver the infant. The mother can than offer up baby for adoption, if her distress prevents her from dealing with the child.The correct thing to do is not to resort to someone else's idea of what is the right thing to do in circumstances-such-as-these, but what is the right thing to do in this particular case with this particular women.
Who are you, or anyone else, to tell her that the right thing to do is to deliver the baby and offer it up for adoption based upon some moral ideal that you or others may have and in complete disregard for the wishes of this poor woman in her particular situation.

And a baby one month before birth is not equivalent to a baby one month after birth. Consider this: Imagine there are circumstances where one has to die. You have the choice. The baby one month before birth or the baby one month after birth. Is your choice really in doubt?

Where do you find the ethical lines exist? Are there ethical absolutes or is everything morally relative? What axioms do you use in deciding who lives and dies, or do you simply appeal to authority to decide?No absolutes. No axioms. No authority. We have a woman caught up in a particular situation here. She is not interested in being a martyr for someone else's cause, she just wants the best solution possible for her distressing situation. Your axioms and absolutes are actually the easy way out. Much harder to apply yourself to the circumstance.

[The Atheist]

And a baby one month before birth is not equivalent to a baby one month after birth. Consider this: Imagine there are circumstances where one has to die. You have the choice. The baby one month before birth or the baby one month after birth. Is your choice really in doubt?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377451f74d05e792.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1714)

Can't agree.

A baby one month before birth is every bit as viable as a baby one month after birth. You could take either home to any house in the country and keep it alive and in comfort equally. I couldn't make a decision to pick one to live out of those two options.

In the depressed mother scenario you focused on, there was a fairly obvious option overlooked by all parties. Force labour and adopt out the child. She's rid of the kid, the kid lives and a couple would adopt the baby. Hell, a dwarf may have adopted it.

[Blutarsky]

Hell, a dwarf may have adopted it.

This is too funny...does that make me a bad person?

[BillyJoe]

A baby one month before birth is every bit as viable as a baby one month after birth. You could take either home to any house in the country and keep it alive and in comfort equally. I couldn't make a decision to pick one to live out of those two options.Evasion noted.

In the depressed mother scenario you focused on, there was a fairly obvious option overlooked by all parties. Force labour and adopt out the child. She's rid of the kid, the kid lives and a couple would adopt the baby. Hell, a dwarf may have adopted it.And of course you can't imagine any scenario where this would not be a solution for the mother. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't care - as long as your dogma triumphs. Too easy to stick by your rules than take the time to understand the particular circumstances faced by this particular woman.

[BillyJoe]

This is too funny...does that make me a bad person?A momentary smile at a private joke to relieve the tension in a serious situation is not always a bad thing.
But, if you would actually go up to that poor woman and say: "You must continue with this pregnency, give birth to this baby, and give it up for adoption - Hell, a dwarf may adopt it!", then, yes, you are a bad person.

[joobz]

I was clearly comparing verbs, not nouns ("Pick your verb according to your inclination or prejudice.").You tried to demean my point point by equating fetus or baby to a flower or ant.
Call it what you will. I don't see the comparison.
So we are clear, I take human life>>any other life.

You may disagree, and I know many PETA people do, but I see nothing wrong with placing us above everything else.

The importance for me is the emotional value of the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/foetus/unbornbaby/bornbaby.
A mother make be completely devoted to her 4 week embryo and be completely devastated if she miscarried. Another mother make feel nothing for the baby she carries 4 weeks before term.

They are not equivalent. The emotional connection between a mother and a baby one month before birth is different from that between a mother and a baby one month after birth. The emotional impact of a visible, moving, breathing infant is qualitatively different from the emotional impact of a baby still in the womb.
This is a very interesting view. I'll have to sit and think awhile to see if I agree. My gut reaction though is that you are placing the observer's opinion above the entity in question. Or at least the opinion of the mother above that of the fetus. So, if a mother was completely unintesrested in her children, does that allow her to kill them? In such a system, if I kill someone who I know nothing about or have no emotional connection to, then is that acceptable?

Are you talking about the father's rights here?
Very clearly the father can have an input into the mother's decision, but the final decision must surely reside with the mother who is actually preganant and would have to carry this pregnancy to term and deliver the baby and most likely raise it. The father can, and often does, walk away.Partially, yes. But not really. The issue of the fetus, if it can be killed, would be entirely between the mother and the fetus. If it isn't a protected thing, than she can kill it. If it is, than she can't.

the only issue I have is that your later statement isn't true. The father is ALWAYS legally bound to care for the children. His choice was lost after sex. Why that is considered acceptable by the "pro-choice" movement, I'll never understand.

Not an appeal to authority, just showing you what all of the people involved directly in the care of this woman decided in this particular case as opposed to others who wish to make her a victim for some cause such as equal-rights, in your case, or right-to-life, in the case of that politician.
It's an appeal to authority. "they made the desision, and their really smart, so it must be the right one."
You keep ignoring that I am not talking about that case in particular but rather the hypothetical case projected from that occurance. I do not have all the facts from that case.

The correct thing to do is not to resort to someone else's idea of what is the right thing to do in circumstances-such-as-these, but what is the right thing to do in this particular case with this particular women.
??? relativism without precident or axioms to base things off of? Does that really make sense to you?

Who are you, or anyone else, to tell her that the right thing to do is to deliver the baby and offer it up for adoption based upon some moral ideal that you or others may have and in complete disregard for the wishes of this poor woman in her particular situation.
We all incounter situations that make life unfair. Some situations are horrific beyond measure, but do we excuse actions because they had a hard life?

I'm stating simply that a 8month fetus and a baby born 1 month early are equivilent. Why is one not killable and the other is? If it is purely due to the location (in womb out of womb) than that feature is exterior to the fetus, meaning that your life defintion is arbitary and independant of the individual in question. Such a system (while practical) is ethically unsound.

And a baby one month before birth is not equivalent to a baby one month after birth. Consider this: Imagine there are circumstances where one has to die. You have the choice. The baby one month before birth or the baby one month after birth. Is your choice really in doubt?I missexplained if you see this as what I meant. I meant a 8month old fetus. one still in the womb the other born 1 month early.

Do you see a difference between them? really?

No absolutes. No axioms. No authority. We have a woman caught up in a particular situation here. She is not interested in being a martyr for someone else's cause, she just wants the best solution possible for her distressing situation. Your axioms and absolutes are actually the easy way out. Much harder to apply yourself to the circumstance.This makes absolutely no sense to me. you must have a very low opinion of women to believe that they are such weak fragile creatures that would allow you to think that they can kill a near full term fetus as though it was completely ethical. Why stop at the womb? Maybe the modest proposal is accurate in your world view.

[joobz]

It must also recognize what abortion is and what it is meant to do and allow that to take place in a relatively simple and easy manner.
sure. I see that as inherent in the definition of what life is or what "protected life" is.





I don't think you can have one definition for all medical life/death issues. They are far too complex. A better way is to have a range of possibilities that allow people to make decisions based on their own beliefs. Abortion, euthanasia, conjoined twins, etc. are issues that people face everyday and the law should allow for different people to make different decisions that work for them and that they can live with.
It is complex, but when does complexity mean we can't strive for it? I can't think of a situation where science backed away from something because it was "complex". I'm just asking for medical knowledge at it's current state to reevaluate when a fetus has enough neurological function to be considered protected.

Like I said, if there are solid rational reasons to believe that children up to the age of 5 are not "protected" then kill them. but that reason must be based upon the physiological status of the child not on an exterior factor.

My reason to believe that this dividing line extends into the womb is because all factors that would allow us to view a newborn as a "protected" individual exists in that newborn prior to birth, Only its location changed.

[Blutarsky]

A momentary smile at a private joke to relieve the tension in a serious situation is not always a bad thing.
But, if you would actually go up to that poor woman and say: "You must continue with this pregnency, give birth to this baby, and give it up for adoption - Hell, a dwarf may adopt it!", then, yes, you are a bad person.

Wow I didn't think I needed to warn people that that statement was a rhetorical question, but thanks for reply...;)

[qayak]

sure. I see that as inherent in the definition of what life is or what "protected life" is.

You have to make sure that abortion is freely available to the widest range of people wanting it as possible which has nothing to do with the definition of life or protected life. It has to do with what the definition of abortion is.

It is complex, but when does complexity mean we can't strive for it? I can't think of a situation where science backed away from something because it was "complex".

Abortion is not a science issue, it is a social issue. Making rigid definitions and rigid regulations on a complex topic, especially ones as restrictive as you want, means that the right of women to have control over their own body will effectively be eliminated.

I'm just asking for medical knowledge at it's current state to reevaluate when a fetus has enough neurological function to be considered protected.

Yes, and I am asking that it be re-evaluated so that a less restrictive process can be implimented. Anywhere from birth to full term.

Like I said, if there are solid rational reasons to believe that children up to the age of 5 are not "protected" then kill them. but that reason must be based upon the physiological status of the child not on an exterior factor.

Disagree. Even if you find a perfectly good scientific reason why 5 year old children should not be protected, I am going to argue with you.

My reason to believe that this dividing line extends into the womb is because all factors that would allow us to view a newborn as a "protected" individual exists in that newborn prior to birth, Only its location changed.

Are you suggesting that when a child dies during birth, the mother and doctor should be prosecuted? How about a woman who dies as a result of giving birth, should the baby and doctor be charged?

Like I said before. Everyone knows what abortion is. Most people understand why it is a necessity. Everyone has their own opinion on where the magic line should be drawn. You feel my opinion gives women too much freedom to decide. I think your opinion is far too restricting and will effectively prevent all abortions. Most people believe Roe vs Wade is an excellent compromise.

[joobz]

You have to make sure that abortion is freely available to the widest range of people wanting it as possible which has nothing to do with the definition of life or protected life. It has to do with what the definition of abortion is.
abortions should be free? NOw are you claiming that health care should be made available for all, or just abortions?


Abortion is not a science issue, it is a social issue. Making rigid definitions and rigid regulations on a complex topic, especially ones as restrictive as you want, means that the right of women to have control over their own body will effectively be eliminated.how is my proposal restrictive? You call trying to prevent unethical termination of sentient life restrictive?



Yes, and I am asking that it be re-evaluated so that a less restrictive process can be implimented. Anywhere from birth to full term.You have a conclusion and wish to find data to support it. very good.:rolleyes:



Disagree. Even if you find a perfectly good scientific reason why 5 year old children should not be protected, I am going to argue with you. Now why is this? What reason allows you to say a 5 year old can't be killed but a nearterm fetus can? Is there a methodology you use or simply random assignments?



Are you suggesting that when a child dies during birth, the mother and doctor should be prosecuted? How about a woman who dies as a result of giving birth, should the baby and doctor be charged? How do you figure? I don't hold doctors at fault if someone dies in surgery, why would this be different? Now if a doctor killed a patient intentionally, that's different.


Like I said before. Everyone knows what abortion is. Most people understand why it is a necessity. Everyone has their own opinion on where the magic line should be drawn. You feel my opinion gives women too much freedom to decide. I think your opinion is far too restricting and will effectively prevent all abortions. Most people believe Roe vs Wade is an excellent compromise.Most people do, but most people don't think about what really is being asked. No one (in western culture) thinks it's ok to kill newborns, but how are they different from the fetus it was moments before. Your use of ambiguity is a guise that woos commonly use and i just think it is equally unacceptable here as it would be in any other instance.

[ceo_esq]

Most people believe Roe vs Wade is an excellent compromise.

I'm not sure we know that most people do. It's notoriously difficult to gauge public opinion about Roe v. Wade, because (among other reasons) much of the public doesn't understand it, and pollsters have trouble adequately describing it. I'd say that most Americans are broadly what one might call pro-choice, but querying them on specific aspects of the Roe holding tends to reveal that (whether they realize it or not) they're not necessarily pleased with the "compromise".

[The Atheist]

Evasion noted.Evasion be buggered. You're positing a scenario which will never happen. Accordingly, there's no point discussing it. You want to discuss impossible hypotheticals for no purpose whatsoever, find a sap.
And of course you can't imagine any scenario where this would not be a solution for the mother. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't care - as long as your dogma triumphs. Too easy to stick by your rules than take the time to understand the particular circumstances faced by this particular woman.Nothing to do with dogma - I am a dogma-free zone.

Damn right I don't care about the mother. One of the risks we take every time someone gets pregnant is the risk of disorder. As long as those disorders aren't life threatening or the type requiring constant care, abortion should never be an option while others exist. The mother's wishes go out the window. She loses the child, as she wanted. Her circumstances are her problem and have nothing to do with the human life inside her.

Why was adoption not considered? Why did her situation preclude it? The way it happened, she might get even more depressed in the future when she realises that she killed a living human being. How would things have differed for her if she had been KO'd, induced and the baby taken away while she was out? From her point of view, nothing would have changed and a baby would not have been murdered.

[qayak]

abortions should be free? NOw are you claiming that health care should be made available for all, or just abortions?

No, freely available as in very little restriction although, I do think abortion should be covered under health care, which it is in Canada.

how is my proposal restrictive? You call trying to prevent unethical termination of sentient life restrictive?

This is why I think that you are not about "revisiting " the abortion issue no matter how much you claim to be. Instead you are all about banning it and your new restrictions are the first step.

You pretend that abortion is something it is not. Firstly, by definition, everytime an abortion is performed, a fetus dies so please stop pretending it isn't so, that you didn't know that, or that I didn't know that.

Second, abortion is not unethical. It maybe against your beliefs but that doesn't make it wrong. We all recognize that it is a trade off between the interests and desires of the woman carrying the fetus and the interests of the fetus itself.

Third, we often kill sentient life, that is hardly an issue.

So please stop using all these inflammatory words. We all know what abortion is and what it entails.

You have never addressed the fact that your new restrtictions are going to have a severe impact on the women who seek to have an abortion. How do you propose that issue be solved? You want to protect the fetus and the guy that got her pregnant but not once have you been concerned about the woman seeking an abortion.

[qayak]

Now why is this? What reason allows you to say a 5 year old can't be killed but a nearterm fetus can? Is there a methodology you use or simply random assignments?

A fetus isn't born yet. And don't give me that BS about location not being important. We know it is. Just read the other thread about the five people on the track and the single person on the siding with you having the power to throw the switch or not. Location is extremely important in moral issues.

[Blutarsky]

Second, abortion is not unethical. It maybe against your beliefs but that doesn't make it wrong.

What a rediculous argument. Who the hell are you to determine whether this practice is ethical or unethical?

This reminds me of the debate between between the agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston, Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and bad. Russell admitted that he did. Copleston then asked him how he differentiated between the two. Russell said that he differentiated between good and bad in the same way that he distinguished between colors. “But you distinguish between colors by seeing, don’t you? How then, do you judge between good and bad?” “On the basis of feeling, what else?” said Russell’s sharply.
Somebody should have told Russell that in some cultures people love their neighbors while in other cultures they eat them--both on the basis of feeling... I wonder if Mr. Russell had a personal preference?

[BillyJoe]

You tried to demean my point point by equating fetus or baby to a flower or ant.
Call it what you will. I don't see the comparison.
So we are clear, I take human life>>any other life.
You may disagree, and I know many PETA people do, but I see nothing wrong with placing us above everything else.We are talking past each other here. I didn't try to demean you point and I actually agree with what you say here. All I was saying is that we tend pick verbs depending on our prejudices. I'm willing to accept the blame for the confusion. Anyway I think we should move on...

This is a very interesting view. I'll have to sit and think awhile to see if I agree. My gut reaction though is that you are placing the observer's opinion above the entity in question. Or at least the opinion of the mother above that of the fetus. So, if a mother was completely unintesrested in her children, does that allow her to kill them? In such a system, if I kill someone who I know nothing about or have no emotional connection to, then is that acceptable? The foetus does not have an opinion, that is part of the point. The foetus has no meaningful experiences or memories. The mother has. In your other examples, there are two interested parties. The children have had and are having meaningful experiences and memories and qualify as "persons". The stranger likewise. So these situations are completely different.

the only issue I have is that your later statement isn't true. The father is ALWAYS legally bound to care for the children. His choice was lost after sex. Why that is considered acceptable by the "pro-choice" movement, I'll never understand.The father is legally bound to provide financially for his child. Even then many find ways of avoiding even this responsibility, especially if sex was just a one night stand. The father does not have a choice in the matter of abortion because it's the mother who has to carry to term, deliver and adopt or raise the child. Why is this unfair?

It's an appeal to authority. "they made the desision, and their really smart, so it must be the right one." Now you're putting words in my mouth. And do you think they would be more likely to right if they were stupid. In any case, what I was saying is that they would have more of a chance of making the right decision because they were intimately involved in the care of this woman.

??? relativism without precident or axioms to base things off of? Does that really make sense to you?.Experience is what counts here, and looking at the case before you, and compassion for a person in distress.

We all incounter situations that make life unfair. Some situations are horrific beyond measure, but do we excuse actions because they had a hard life?Your rules are what are unfair to this woman. You would add to her distressing situation by requiring her to abide by your rules.

I'm stating simply that a 8month fetus and a baby born 1 month early are equivilent.The same explanation as before applies. If you don't think so, tell me who you would choose to be killed in the same scenario. One must die - either the one in the womb or the one outside the womb. If you don't choose who is to die, a madman will kill both, and their mothers for good measure.

...you must have a very low opinion of women to believe that they are such weak fragile creatures that would allow you to think that they can kill a near full term fetus as though it was completely ethical. Why stop at the womb? Maybe the modest proposal is accurate in your world view.There is that verb "kill" again, showing your prejudice: The woman kills her near term baby. How about: The woman asks the doctor to perform a termination of her eight month pregnacy.

[BillyJoe]

Wow I didn't think I needed to warn people that that statement was a rhetorical question, but thanks for reply...;)Well, I don't think we've ever met, and I meet all sorts of people here with a wide range of sometimes bizarre views. You could easily have been one of them.

[BillyJoe]

Evasion be buggered. You're positing a scenario which will never happen. Accordingly, there's no point discussing it. Okay, sorry, you were't evading the point, you were missing it.
It doesn't matter if the scenario will never happen (even though similar situations have), the point was to demonstrate that there IS a difference between a baby one month before birth and a baby one month after birth (or joobz scenario if you wish)

Nothing to do with dogma - I am a dogma-free zone.Do you think so?

Damn right I don't care about the mother. One of the risks we take every time someone gets pregnant is the risk of disorder. As long as those disorders aren't life threatening or the type requiring constant care, abortion should never be an option while others exist. The mother's wishes go out the window. She loses the child, as she wanted. Her circumstances are her problem and have nothing to do with the human life inside her....Why was adoption not considered? Why did her situation preclude it? The way it happened, she might get even more depressed in the future when she realises that she killed a living human being. Not dogmatic enough for you?
And callous as hell, like all dogma.

How would things have differed for her if she had been KO'd, induced and the baby taken away while she was out? From her point of view, nothing would have changed and a baby would not have been murdered.Dogmatic and callous and now bizarre.

You're an interesting gentleman, atheist.

BJ

[Blutarsky]

Well, I don't think we've ever met, and I meet all sorts of people here with a wide range of sometimes bizarre views. You could easily have been one of them.

Who's to say I'm not...;)

[ceo_esq]

There is that verb "kill" again, showing your prejudice: The woman kills her near term baby. How about: The woman asks the doctor to perform a termination of her eight month pregnacy.

Then we'd have to ask: did the doctor terminate the 8-month pregnancy via a C-section delivery, or by killing the fetus?

[joobz]

We are talking past each other here. I didn't try to demean you point and I actually agree with what you say here. All I was saying is that we tend pick verbs depending on our prejudices. I'm willing to accept the blame for the confusion. Anyway I think we should move on...
then I apologize for missunderstanding your point. I do not use kill to inflame, only to describe what is happening in the simplest terms. I kill many animals daily when I do in vivo experiments and I call it thus. Some people will say "sacrifice" but I say kill.

The foetus does not have an opinion, that is part of the point. The foetus has no meaningful experiences or memories. The mother has. In your other examples, there are two interested parties. The children have had and are having meaningful experiences and memories and qualify as "persons". The stranger likewise. So these situations are completely different.
Ok, I can see your dividing point here. It is actually an interesting take. Capacity to record experience plus the act of experience is needed for protected status. However do you feel that the greater the experience the more protection that person is afforded? Anyway, there is enough evidence to know that near-term pregnancy fetuses can experience things. They respond within the womb. How does this factor into your definition?

The father is legally bound to provide financially for his child. Even then many find ways of avoiding even this responsibility, especially if sex was just a one night stand. The father does not have a choice in the matter of abortion because it's the mother who has to carry to term, deliver and adopt or raise the child. Why is this unfair?I agree with all those things. then why is the father legally bound to provide finacial support? If the ultimate responsibility lies on the woman then why does the man matter at all?

Now you're putting words in my mouth. And do you think they would be more likely to right if they were stupid. In any case, what I was saying is that they would have more of a chance of making the right decision because they were intimately involved in the care of this woman.Possibly. Or they were simply making the easiest choice to avoid legal concerns later on. Again, I don't care about the exact case, becuase we don't know everything. I can only address the hypothetical, So let's move on...:)

Experience is what counts here, and looking at the case before you, and compassion for a person in distress.

Your rules are what are unfair to this woman. You would add to her distressing situation by requiring her to abide by your rules.It's not "my" rules I'm asking her to abide by. But societies, their called laws. We have them to protect people from eachother. I'm against rape. But rapists aren't against it. So are we asking rapists to abide by "my" rules?

The same explanation as before applies. If you don't think so, tell me who you would choose to be killed in the same scenario. One must die - either the one in the womb or the one outside the womb. If you don't choose who is to die, a madman will kill both, and their mothers for good measure. Ok. In that scenario (assuming that no harm or damage occurs to the woman). I view the fetus and baby equal. So it's a crap shoot on that level.

If the mother carring the fetus' life became indangered as a result, than it becomes a matter of choosing 2 lives vs. 1. So I'd have to rule in favor of the mother/fetus combo.

There is that verb "kill" again, showing your prejudice: The woman kills her near term baby. How about: The woman asks the doctor to perform a termination of her eight month pregnacy.
see above. I don't mean to prejudice using inflammatory language, only typing "Kill" is easier than type "termination".:) they mean the same to me and have the same outcome. we know what we are talking about.

[joobz]

No, freely available as in very little restriction although, I do think abortion should be covered under health care, which it is in Canada.then, I disagree.



This is why I think that you are not about "revisiting " the abortion issue no matter how much you claim to be. Instead you are all about banning it and your new restrictions are the first step.You are telling me what my intentions are? that's rich.

You pretend that abortion is something it is not. Firstly, by definition, everytime an abortion is performed, a fetus dies so please stop pretending it isn't so, that you didn't know that, or that I didn't know that.what's your point? Who says I don't know this or think you don't?

Second, abortion is not unethical.On what grounds is it ethical? Simply by your assertion? Sorry if i remain unimpressed by this view.

It maybe against your beliefs but that doesn't make it wrong. We all recognize that it is a trade off between the interests and desires of the woman carrying the fetus and the interests of the fetus itself.Beliefs aren't part of this. at least mine aren't. I'm asking for rational inquiry and you are asking to stop it. I'm sorry, but you are sounding more and more woo like all the time.

Third, we often kill sentient life, that is hardly an issue.??!?? We do it, so it's ethical. That's a great reason.:rolleyes:

So please stop using all these inflammatory words. We all know what abortion is and what it entails. what inflammatory language am i using? Do you have some notion of guilt you wish to avoid considering?

You have never addressed the fact that your new restrtictions are going to have a severe impact on the women who seek to have an abortion. How do you propose that issue be solved? I've addressed it. abortions up to when a fetus is "medically sentient, sapient.." beyond that, it'd be murder. Women are logical rational human beings capable of making informed decisions. If they choose to wait till it's too late, they are responsible to see things through. I respect women and am in awe of them. you wish to provide them special circumstances based upon a notion of weakness in thier character.

You want to protect the fetus and the guy that got her pregnant but not once have you been concerned about the woman seeking an abortion.I consider all participants. It's the reason for my inquiry.

[joobz]

A fetus isn't born yet. And don't give me that BS about location not being important. We know it is. Just read the other thread about the five people on the track and the single person on the siding with you having the power to throw the switch or not. Location is extremely important in moral issues.
Your analogy isn't a question of location. The train example is of self-preservation. All participants are viewed as equally viable, sentient, sapeint individuals. There is no doubt of thier equal rights.

Abortion is an issue of termination for convienience sake. It is purely ethically allowable based upon the notion that the fetus has no inherent right. There must be a physiological reason for this assumption and that it must be tied to age of gestational development.

Otherwise, if I can infer from your inquiry, you claim that it doesn't matter if the fetus has this status, it is still allowable for the woman to terminate it. I can only hope you really don't mean that. Such a relativistic view of humanity is easily corruptable and should be blocked by any modern society.

[BillyJoe]

Who's to say I'm not...;)You, I guess. Unless you don't know who you are. :cool:

[BillyJoe]

Then we'd have to ask: did the doctor terminate the 8-month pregnancy via a C-section delivery, or by killing the fetus?Yep, choose your verb according to your prejudice. That was my point.

[ceo_esq]

Yep, choose your verb according to your prejudice. That was my point.

All pregnancies eventually terminate (generally after a maximum of about 9 months in humans). Either the fetus survives the termination, it dies of natural causes, or it's killed. If someone means the third kind of "termination", then I don't think it's particularly prejudiced to use the verb "kill". It is more specific to the case, whereas "termination" technically calls for additional clarification. (I note, in addition, how we almost always refer to a pregnancy being terminated, rather than an embryo or fetus being terminated.) And I don't think the term "kill" is overly evocative of a human person, either; most people are content to speak (or have their doctors speak) of killing a tumor, a parasite or a bacterial infection.

[BillyJoe]

then I apologize for missunderstanding your point. I do not use kill to inflame, only to describe what is happening in the simplest terms. I kill many animals daily when I do in vivo experiments and I call it thus. Some people will say "sacrifice" but I say kill.The word "kill" satisfies the definition, but perhaps not the situation. Anyway, I understand and accept what you are saying. We can probably leave this point.

Ok, I can see your dividing point here. It is actually an interesting take. Capacity to record experience plus the act of experience is needed for protected status. However do you feel that the greater the experience the more protection that person is afforded?These questions are not always easy ones to answer. For example, in the train track scenario mentioned by someone else here, suppose there is a mentally retarded, cerebral palsied child on one track and an unaffected child on the other. My choice would be clear. Other scenarios are obviously more difficult.

Anyway, there is enough evidence to know that near-term pregnancy fetuses can experience things. They respond within the womb. How does this factor into your definition?This is why I said "meaningful" experiences. I guess it's a question of what we might call "personhood". A person knows they are alive because they are having experiences and have accumulated memories. It's a matter of degree, but how conscious of it's own existence could an unborn child be. A person is also seen as such by significant others. Even the mother's view of her own baby after birth is qualitatively different from before birth.

I agree with all those things. then why is the father legally bound to provide finacial support? If the ultimate responsibility lies on the woman then why does the man matter at all?The financial aspects are probably more a social issue. However the father is responsible for the child's existence every bit as much as the mother. It's just that the mother has a greater role in the child's continued existence. The baby is growing inside her body. Her choice surely outweighs his. On the other hand, his opinion - given to her for consideration - could affect the choice she makes. For example, knowing that the father is emotionally bound up with the pregnancy and would be willing to stay the course could easily pursuade the woman not to terminate her pregnancy.

It's not "my" rules I'm asking her to abide by. Aren't they? Maybe they're not your rules, but certainly rules that others were trying to force onto this woman's situation. This woman's pregnancy was terminated, but there is a politician who considered this was against his rules and attempted to bring the purpetrators to justice in order to ensure no one else tried to disobey his rules in the future.

But societies, their called laws. We have them to protect people from eachother.Firstly, the law did not find there was a case to answer, so it seems you are wrong there. Secondly you are conferring "personhood" on the unborn child, which you have not yet justified.

Ok. In that scenario (assuming that no harm or damage occurs to the woman). I view the fetus and baby equal. So it's a crap shoot on that level.You still have to choose though. You are saying you would toss a coin? We are considering the status of the baby here, so assume no harm to the woman if her baby is killed. You are forced to choose, otherwise all three die. What do you do.
I'm not saying it's not difficult. If you really cannot decide, then what about the original scenario of the baby one month before birth and the baby one month after birth. Would you have any doubts about your choice here?

see above. I don't mean to prejudice using inflammatory language, only typing "Kill" is easier than type "termination".:) they mean the same to me and have the same outcome. we know what we are talking about.Yes, I think I have your meaning and intent now. :)

[The Atheist]

Okay, sorry, you were't evading the point, you were missing it.
It doesn't matter if the scenario will never happen (even though similar situations have), the point was to demonstrate that there IS a difference between a baby one month before birth and a baby one month after birth (or joobz scenario if you wish) Which point I have answered - I see the two as equal. There is NO difference between the two. Both are equally viable humans.

Do you think so?

Not dogmatic enough for you?
And callous as hell, like all dogma.If valuing human life has become a dogma, then I guess I might not be a dogma-free zone after all.

Since valuing human life is also callous, I have to plead guilty to callous as well, then. Obviously valuing human life is not a desirable trait - I've been misled, dammit!

Dogmatic and callous and now bizarre.Well, I guess if valuing human life is callous and dogmatic, it's assuredly bizarre.

You're an interesting gentleman, atheist.

BJHey, I resent that! Nobody ever mistakes me for a gentleman.

[Tricky]

Which point I have answered - I see the two as equal. There is NO difference between the two. Both are equally viable humans.
All well and good for your view of morality. But your personal morality is not the issue here. The issue is what is legal. If you can get enough people or the legislative bodies to agree with you, then your personal morality will also be law.

However, you certainly know that different categories of humans are assigned different rights under every legal system in the world.

If valuing human life has become a dogma, then I guess I might not be a dogma-free zone after all.
Is part of your dogma that all human life is of equal value? Maybe so, but I think I could propose scenarios where you would not be able to support that uncompromising position.

So lets just assume that there are certain situations where one human life is not as valuable as another. If those are to be part of legal code, then those situations must be defined, for example, it may be defined that your own life is more valuable than that of a person trying to kill you, therefore you are allowed to kill him in what is called "self defense". Now I am not even vaguely suggesting that this is the case with most abortions, I am only saying that the camel's nose is under the tent now. The law says it is legal to kill other humans in certain situations. Now the problem is to define what situations make it legal.

Since valuing human life is also callous, I have to plead guilty to callous as well, then. Obviously valuing human life is not a desirable trait - I've been misled, dammit!
Is it callous to make different value judgments about different humans? Are you telling me that you value each poster on these board equally? I should be greatly disappointed in you if that were the case. But of course, you are not trying to kill any of them either, let us hope. But since you do make value judgments about humans, you cannot shovel "valuing human life" into one whopping great pile and say that you value it uniformly. Yes, I value human life too. I value some examples of it much more than others. Some examples, I would even like to be discontinued, though this is a very small fraction.

Well, I guess if valuing human life is callous and dogmatic, it's assuredly bizarre.Hey, you can "dogmatically" value parenthood in general and still agree that there are some people who shouldn't be parents. It's not callous. It's observant.

Hey, I resent that! Nobody ever mistakes me for a gentleman.I promise you, I will try to never make that mistake.:D

[BillyJoe]

Which point I have answered - I see the two as equal. There is NO difference between the two. Both are equally viable humans.Are you saying you would toss a coin to decide between the two? Or are you still trying to evade the question? Remember, if you refuse to make a choice all three die. So which is it, the baby one month before birth or the baby one month after birth? Come on, an answer already!

If valuing human life has become a dogma, then I guess I might not be a dogma-free zone after all.You still haven't addressed the question of personhood. Does that not become a consideration? Is life sufficient? Experiences and memories don't make a difference? Being conscious of one's own existence makes no difference to you?

Since valuing human life is also callous, I have to plead guilty to callous as well, then. Obviously valuing human life is not a desirable trait - I've been misled, dammit!But see, you are selective like all dogmatic individuals. All heart towards the unborn foetus (even if only in the abstract), who doesn't yet know he even exists, but nothing but scorn for the mother (again, even if only in the abstract) whose experiences have left her in so much turmoil she wants to kill herself.

Hey, I resent that! Nobody ever mistakes me for a gentleman.Ah, but we've met elsewhere on the forum, so I know you're not all bad. ;)

regards,
BillyJoe

[qayak]

Your analogy isn't a question of location. The train example is of self-preservation. All participants are viewed as equally viable, sentient, sapeint individuals. There is no doubt of thier equal rights.

What does equal rights have to do with it. The fact is, the rights of five outweight the rights of one. By throwing the switch, you are a murderer and yet most people (97%) would throw the switch. What is the difference with abortion, except that it is not murder by definition.

Like the runaway train dilemma, abortion is a matter of deciding who's rights outweigh who's. The mother's rights outweigh those of the fetus. When a child is wanted, the rights of the fetus and the mother are one and paramount so that if someone else causes the death of the fetus, it can be considered murder.

Abortion is an issue of termination for convienience sake.

This is just your opinion, you have never domonstrated this to be true.

It is purely ethically allowable based upon the notion that the fetus has no inherent right. There must be a physiological reason for this assumption and that it must be tied to age of gestational development.

Why must any of these assumptions be true? Why isn't it simply a matter of the woman's right to want to abort outweighing the fetus' right to go full term?

Otherwise, if I can infer from your inquiry, you claim that it doesn't matter if the fetus has this status, it is still allowable for the woman to terminate it. I can only hope you really don't mean that. Such a relativistic view of humanity is easily corruptable and should be blocked by any modern society.

As long as the fetus is inside the woman, its fate lies in her hands.

[qayak]

Who says I don't know this or think you don't?

Then quit pretending to be shocked that abortion results in the death of a fetus and quit expecting that I should be. In case you haven't put it together, that's what abortion is.

On what grounds is it ethical? Simply by your assertion? Sorry if i remain unimpressed by this view.

And I am equally unimpressed by your view that abortion is unethical. Unethical would be unduly restricting abortions. As long as they are readily available to any woman who wants one, they are ethical.

I'm asking for rational inquiry and you are asking to stop it.

I am asking to stop nothing but I am stating that if we are going to open it up, I will argue that Roe vs Wade was far too limiting and I want abortion expanded to include removal of all restrictions up until the moment of birth so that woman can make their own choices.

We do it, so it's ethical. That's a great reason.:rolleyes:

Pay attention now. It is ethical because most people in our society and most other societies see it as being an important part of guaranteeing the freedom of 1/2 our population.

what inflammatory language am i using? Do you have some notion of guilt you wish to avoid considering?

I would suggest your use of inflammatory language has more to do with your trying to demonize something that you really can't justify than my guilt. I think your pretending naivette is laughable. Adults know that fetuses die in abortions. You keep trying to shock us with words like murder and killing. The fact is, abortion is the correct term for what we are discussing. If you really are unemotional as you say, why don't you use that word instead of the inflammatory ones? Or is that the only way you can make you irrationality make sense?

I've addressed it. abortions up to when a fetus is "medically sentient, sapient.." beyond that, it'd be murder. Women are logical rational human beings capable of making informed decisions. If they choose to wait till it's too late, they are responsible to see things through. I respect women and am in awe of them. you wish to provide them special circumstances based upon a notion of weakness in thier character.

Yes, women are logical and rational and if one of them says that they need an abortion at 8 months, who am I to argue? I say they know what is best for them so let them decide. I am not worried about the outcome because I am very sure they will make good choices.

By definition a fetus cannot be sapient.

Abortion by definition is not murder.

I consider all participants. It's the reason for my inquiry.

Funny that you disregard the wishes and rights of the most important participant and put those of the second and third place participants far ahead. Actions speak louder thn words.

[The Atheist]

All well and good for your view of morality. But your personal morality is not the issue here. The issue is what is legal. If you can get enough people or the legislative bodies to agree with you, then your personal morality will also be law.Fortunately, that is the law here.
Is part of your dogma that all human life is of equal value? Maybe so, but I think I could propose scenarios where you would not be able to support that uncompromising position.I'm sure you could, but the question asked was for two babies 1 a month prior to birth, the other a month after. I see no means of differentiating between the two and wouldn't try to.
So lets just assume that there are certain situations where one human life is not as valuable as another. If those are to be part of legal code, then those situations must be defined, for example, it may be defined that your own life is more valuable than that of a person trying to kill you, therefore you are allowed to kill him in what is called "self defense". Now I am not even vaguely suggesting that this is the case with most abortions, I am only saying that the camel's nose is under the tent now. The law says it is legal to kill other humans in certain situations. Now the problem is to define what situations make it legal.Yep. That's why we have laws. It's certain that I'm going to value a murderer lower than a burglar.
Is it callous to make different value judgments about different humans? Are you telling me that you value each poster on these board equally? I should be greatly disappointed in you if that were the case. But of course, you are not trying to kill any of them either, let us hope. But since you do make value judgments about humans, you cannot shovel "valuing human life" into one whopping great pile and say that you value it uniformly. Yes, I value human life too. I value some examples of it much more than others. Some examples, I would even like to be discontinued, though this is a very small fraction.LOL! I bet my list is bigger than yours then!

Sure, different values may apply. In the case of the Aussie chick, there need be no detriment to her, so I'm valuing a life against a mental illness. The life won.
Hey, you can "dogmatically" value parenthood in general and still agree that there are some people who shouldn't be parents. It's not callous. It's observant.Amen on that! I make that observation frequently.
I promise you, I will try to never make that mistake.:DI'm surprised anyone would!

[The Atheist]

Are you saying you would toss a coin to decide between the two? Or are you still trying to evade the question? Remember, if you refuse to make a choice all three die. So which is it, the baby one month before birth or the baby one month after birth? Come on, an answer already! Alrighty. If the choice was forced upon me, I would indeed toss a coin.
You still haven't addressed the question of personhood. Does that not become a consideration? Is life sufficient? Experiences and memories don't make a difference? Being conscious of one's own existence makes no difference to you?No it doesn't. For example, a one month old baby is no more aware of its surroundings than a terminal stage Alzheimer's patient. I would value the baby's life higher, however, even though neither has any more conception of "existence" than a baby in utero.

I contend that at the stage a foetus is a viable human being - usually at about 30-32 weeks, then it counts as a human being. That is pretty much the situation with the law as it stands here.
But see, you are selective like all dogmatic individuals. All heart towards the unborn foetus (even if only in the abstract), who doesn't yet know he even exists, but nothing but scorn for the mother (again, even if only in the abstract) whose experiences have left her in so much turmoil she wants to kill herself. No. No scorn for the mother, mental stress is every bit as debilitating - and can be as fatal - as cancer.

I just wonder whether alternatives were genuinely considered before someone went and got the knife. I'd be interested to know how the doctors involved equated the killing of a perfectly viable baby with their first commandment - "First, do no harm".
Ah, but we've met elsewhere on the forum, so I know you're not all bad. ;)

regards,
BillyJoeShhh! Don't start that - you'll ruin my rep.

[Tricky]

Fortunately, that is the law here. If your idea of morality is prevalent in Kiwiland, then that is probably as it should be. In ideal situations, the law should reflect the morality of the majority of its people.

You must accept, though, that where the morality different, the law is different. Is there anything inherently wrong with Swift's "Modest Proposal"? Well hell yeah. It goes against the morality of most of the world. But if it didn't...?

I'm sure you could, but the question asked was for two babies 1 a month prior to birth, the other a month after. I see no means of differentiating between the two and wouldn't try to. You sure as hell would see a difference if you were an embryologist. Merely acknowledging that you cannot tell a difference is hardly grounds for justifying your morality. Heck, most folks can't tell the difference between a one month old human embryo and a one month old pig embryo, yet we kill healthy adult pigs.

Come on, The, admit it. You value the embryo because of its DNA, not because of any physical or mental characteristics. Newborn humans are much more unaware of their environment than newborn rabbits or deer.

Yep. That's why we have laws. It's certain that I'm going to value a murderer lower than a burglar.
LOL! I bet my list is bigger than yours then!
Maybe. I try to be consistant in my disregard for human life because I know that life isn't fair. And while I wouldn't want to kill anyone myself, I agree with Mark Twain when he said, "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."

Amen on that! I make that observation frequently.
Good, good. The next step is to get you to accept that some fetuses are more valuable than others. Did you know that most fertilized eggs never advance very far? They are flushed out of the uterus naturally for any number of reasons. Do you weep for them?

[BillyJoe]

Alrighty. If the choice was forced upon me, I would indeed toss a coin....heads!
You just killed the one month old baby.
(The one being held in its smiling mother's arms, as it suckled on her breast)

No it doesn't. For example, a one month old baby is no more aware of its surroundings than a terminal stage Alzheimer's patient. I would value the baby's life higher, however, even though neither has any more conception of "existence" than a baby in utero.Not true. A one month baby is much more aware than a baby in utero. Its sensory input from skin, ears, eyes, nose and mouth have been much more varied and complex now for four weeks. Compared to in utero baby whose life has been positively boring, hardly registering, if at all, in its consciousness. At one month, a baby's eyes can fix on its mothers face. It prefers to look at a human face than inanimate objects. It brings its hands up to its face to examine them. It turns towards familar sounds and voices. It can focus on objects 30 cm away.

I contend that at the stage a foetus is a viable human being - usually at about 30-32 weeks, then it counts as a human being. That is pretty much the situation with the law as it stands here. The foetus is viable at 25 weeks depending on its weight. Overall about 80% survive if delivered at 25 weeks. Getting fuzzy? In the future, fertilised eggs may be able to survive outside the body. What then? I wouldn't go basing my opinions on what medicine is capable of. That can change from day to day.
Not sure where the law stands here, but, like the church, it always has a lot of catching up to do in area of ethics. I wouldn't go basing my opinions on what the law allows at the present time.

No. No scorn for the mother, mental stress is every bit as debilitating - and can be as fatal - as cancer.Well, I'm glad you 've changed your tune. :)
Remember this:

"Damn right I don't care about the mother. One of the risks we take every time someone gets pregnant is the risk of disorder. As long as those disorders aren't life threatening or the type requiring constant care, abortion should never be an option while others exist. The mother's wishes go out the window. She loses the child, as she wanted. Her circumstances are her problem and have nothing to do with the human life inside her....Why was adoption not considered? Why did her situation preclude it? The way it happened, she might get even more depressed in the future when she realises that she killed a living human being."

I just wonder whether alternatives were genuinely considered before someone went and got the knife. I'd be interested to know how the doctors involved equated the killing of a perfectly viable baby with their first commandment - "First, do no harm". Well, yes, they "killed the baby". Or they "terminated the pregnancy". Take your pick according to your prejudice. As for "First do no harm", the mother was going to kill herself - along with her baby. They were trying to minimise harm. That's as good as it gets sometimes.

[The Atheist]

If your idea of morality is prevalent in Kiwiland, then that is probably as it should be. In ideal situations, the law should reflect the morality of the majority of its people.

You must accept, though, that where the morality different, the law is different. Is there anything inherently wrong with Swift's "Modest Proposal"? Well hell yeah. It goes against the morality of most of the world. But if it didn't...?Yes, I find Jonathan Swift highly insightful. I was quoting from Gulliver's Travels just the other day.

Of course morality's subjective. It's just lucky that mine's right.

I was discussing a South African problem the other day. When the "reconciliation" hearings took place and black "terrorists" were released from various jails, a far smaller number of whites were also released under the same apartheid terrorist rules, despite the fact that they had killed as oppressors. Fitting morality into law into public opinion must be the hardest job going.
You sure as hell would see a difference if you were an embryologist. Merely acknowledging that you cannot tell a difference is hardly grounds for justifying your morality. Heck, most folks can't tell the difference between a one month old human embryo and a one month old pig embryo, yet we kill healthy adult pigs.I think you have me mixed up here. I'm talking about a baby one month before birth, not after conception. I am indeed too familiar with the various stages of pregnancy!

It's not being unable to tell the difference - a baby one month before birth is equally viable as a human being ex utero as a one month old baby.

Come on, The, admit it. You value the embryo because of its DNA, not because of any physical or mental characteristics. Newborn humans are much more unaware of their environment than newborn rabbits or deer. I don't value embryos at all. As you said, a huge number of them don't even reach the end of the first trimester. I have no issue with abortion up to at least 20 weeks.

One of my employees recently had a sister undergo an "abortion" for a 24-week foetus which had been diagnosed as having severe form of encephalopathy. The woman was induced into labour and she and her husband held the tiny foetus as it died in the space of a few minutes. I have no ethical or moral problem with that at all. Say the mother in BillyJoe's story had had a severe malformation, equivalent to the above, I'd have no problem at all. Dwarfism, as far as I understand it, is really little more than a cosmetic issue. They're short. Not severely retarded, not incapable of looking after themselves and certainly not incapable of taking a healthy part in society. (Can you imagine Willy Wonka without the Oompah-Loompahs??)

I value the foetus when it reaches the stage of being a viable human being without excessive specialist input. Certainly that lets the first two trimesters out.
Good, good. The next step is to get you to accept that some fetuses are more valuable than others. Did you know that most fertilized eggs never advance very far? They are flushed out of the uterus naturally for any number of reasons. Do you weep for them?There you go - all answered above.

[The Atheist]

...heads!
You just killed the one month old baby.
(The one being held in its smiling mother's arms, as it suckled on her breast)Yep. I have no remorse on the subject.
Not true. A one month baby is much more aware than a baby in utero. Its sensory input from skin, ears, eyes, nose and mouth have been much more varied and complex now for four weeks. Compared to in utero baby whose life has been positively boring, hardly registering, if at all, in its consciousness. At one month, a baby's eyes can fix on its mothers face. It prefers to look at a human face than inanimate objects. It brings its hands up to its face to examine them. It turns towards familar sounds and voices. It can focus on objects 30 cm away.All of which boil down to - it can see, while in utero it can't. Are we going to top all the blind people now? I don't recall any one month old baby turning its head towards sounds.

I could put a case for a baby in utero to be equally aware of its surroundings, comforted by its mother's heartbeat, movement and breathing.
The foetus is viable at 25 weeks depending on its weight. Overall about 80% survive if delivered at 25 weeks. Getting fuzzy? In the future, fertilised eggs may be able to survive outside the body. What then? I wouldn't go basing my opinions on what medicine is capable of. That can change from day to day.Ok, I've made this cl;earer in the meantime anyway. If major intervention is needed, I don't class that as viable. 25 weeks is still within the first two trimesters and I'd personally set the line a little beyond the start of T3.
Not sure where the law stands here, but, like the church, it always has a lot of catching up to do in area of ethics. I wouldn't go basing my opinions on what the law allows at the present time.I don't. It's happy convenience that this is a subject the law and I agree upon. There are lots we don't!

Well, I'm glad you 've changed your tune. :)
Remember this:

"Damn right I don't care about the mother. One of the risks we take every time someone gets pregnant is the risk of disorder. As long as those disorders aren't life threatening or the type requiring constant care, abortion should never be an option while others exist. The mother's wishes go out the window. She loses the child, as she wanted. Her circumstances are her problem and have nothing to do with the human life inside her....Why was adoption not considered? Why did her situation preclude it? The way it happened, she might get even more depressed in the future when she realises that she killed a living human being." I don't care about her wishes, I'm always going to care about her person. I didn't change my opinion at any stage. The answer I gave to Tricky regarding the deformity applies here.
Well, yes, they "killed the baby". Or they "terminated the pregnancy". Take your pick according to your prejudice. As for "First do no harm", the mother was going to kill herself - along with her baby. They were trying to minimise harm. That's as good as it gets sometimes.Can't agree. The option of adoption is a no harm, win-win-win. Mother wins - loses child. Medicine wins - no harm. Adoptive couple win - get a child.

As to terminating the pregnancy/killing the baby, prejudice doesn't come into it as much as facts of life. I do hope you realise that at eight months, the baby was a baby and would have had to be executed as surely as any convicted murderer. This isn't a "suck it out, flush it away" job, this is a living, breathing human being, as it would have started breathing immediately on exiting the uterus. I'd be interested to know how they killed it. Probably an anaesthetic via the umbilicus, but if you know, pass it on.

[melaniejane88]

I'll quote scripture on this one, quite clearly the bible states what should happen to one who causes an abortion. How much more serious if one chooses an abortion.
Well, then, what does God’s Word, the Bible, indicate? It shows that YHVH God has high regard for human life right from its very start. His law to ancient Israel stated:

"In case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul."—Ex. 21:22-25.

If you don't want the child, give birth to it and have it adopted, there are many desperate women who can't have children just waiting to adopt.

I have Strong feelings on this one, I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks and was Privileged to hold it. It was the size on my palm in perfect form, I could see the bone structure and had never seen anything more beautiful and delicate. How someone could choose to destroy such a delicate being/creation is beyond me.
But then what you can't see, can't touch, can't feel normally has no importance unless you want it.

As a Christian, following Gods Word is of utmost importance if you want to please God and have a relationship with him. Would you not agree?

opps sorry for the big writing, not sure what i've done to do this?

[BillyJoe]

If you don't want the child, give birth to it and have it adopted, there are many desperate women who can't have children just waiting to adopt.You are entitled to live by this rule, but you are not entitled to force it onto others. Some people believe that no more babies should be born because of overpopulation and environmental pollution. They are entitled to not have children if they wish. They are not entitled to force this view on you. The law, of course, will constrain our choices.

I have Strong feelings on this one, I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks and was Privileged to hold it. It was the size on my palm in perfect form, I could see the bone structure and had never seen anything more beautiful and delicate. How someone could choose to destroy such a delicate being/creation is beyond me.You know something, I couldn't do it either. But then that woman would say that I have never been in her situation, and I would have to agree. Everyone must decide for themselves what is possible or necessary for them to do in this type of situation.

But then what you can't see, can't touch, can't feel normally has no importance unless you want it.I agree with you there.
That's basically my whole argument.

As a Christian, following Gods Word is of utmost importance if you want to please God and have a relationship with him. Would you not agree?Probably, yes. But what if you don't. What if you aren't a Christian? What if you don't believe in God?

opps sorry for the big writing, not sure what i've done to do this?The bit you quoted was in size 5 letters. I have fixed this. It was also in Ariel type, which I haven't fixed, which is why it still looks different. Everything you wrote after the quote follows suite. You can change it using the boxes above the reply box.

[Ducky]

Melanie, perhaps you could quote scripture in a normal font size like the rest of the civilized internet.


Perhaps it is a mistake, but you seem to have started to establish a pattern with it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2310510#post2310510)

[BillyJoe]

Yep. I have no remorse on the subject.Well, I don't believe you. Of course you will have remorse for tossing that coin, as I would for selecting the in utero baby. You're not kidding me with your emotional detachment.

I could put a case for a baby in utero to be equally aware of its surroundings, comforted by its mother's heartbeat, movement and breathing.You could but you would be wrong. As someone said, you are entitled to your opinions but not your facts. The stimulation a born child receives through all its senses is qualitatively and quantitatively much greater than that of a baby in utero. The brain is more developed and the brain reaction to this stimulation is much more complex.

If major intervention is needed, I don't class that as viable.But what do you class as major intervention. Still a fuzziness here.

Can't agree. The option of adoption is a no harm, win-win-win. Mother wins - loses child. Medicine wins - no harm. Adoptive couple win - get a child.I'm not sure how you're going to adopt out a dead baby. And how does the mother win when she is dead (suicide). How does medicine win when both patients are dead, when they could have saved one.

As to terminating the pregnancy/killing the baby, prejudice doesn't come into it as much as facts of life. I do hope you realise that at eight months, the baby was a baby and would have had to be executed as surely as any convicted murderer. This isn't a "suck it out, flush it away" job, this is a living, breathing human being, as it would have started breathing immediately on exiting the uterus. I'd be interested to know how they killed it.I don't think you would. Google it if you must, but be warned. Suffice to say that the circumstances would have to be extreme to justify it. The details of this case are not available because of privacy concerns. However all that were directly involved in this case seem to have agreed with the decision.

[BillyJoe]

Melanie, perhaps you could quote scripture in a normal font size like the rest of the civilized internet....Perhaps it is a mistake, but you seem to have started to establish a pattern with it. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2310510#post2310510)She is probably copying and pasting from the same source. ;)

[Ducky]

She is probably copying and pasting from the same source. ;)

I see no reason to doubt that conclusion.

[Taffer]

Can't agree. The option of adoption is a no harm, win-win-win. Mother wins - loses child. Medicine wins - no harm. Adoptive couple win - get a child.

You seem a mite optimistic, mate. Adoptees >>> adopters.

[BillyJoe]

Here's a summary of the case from the MJA:


In 2000 a general practitioner referred a woman to an Australian teaching hospital at 31 weeks’ gestation because the patient requested pregnancy termination. Her fetus had been diagnosed with skeletal dysplasia, most likely achondroplasia. Staff who interviewed her — a geneticist, genetic counsellor, obstetrician, ultrasonologist and psychiatrist — agreed that she was acutely suicidal. Recently, the hospital’s lawyer noted that “rarely, if ever, had a woman in such a desperate state been encountered — she would kill herself or do anything not to have the baby she was carrying”. The patient rejected all other management options, including adoption. Support for abortion was obtained from the appropriate hospital medical administrator. Fetal intracardiac potassium chloride was administered, as recommended by the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG),1 (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_04_160804/dec10242_fm.html#i1085665) with rapid cessation of fetal heart movements and labour induced. The patient refused fetal autopsy, but a photograph of the fetus showed features of achondroplasia.

[ceo_esq]

You seem a mite optimistic, mate. Adoptees >>> adopters.

I'm fairly sure that, where healthy infants are concerned, it's the other way around - there's a baby shortage. Where the real adoptee backlog exists, I've heard, is for children in foster care who are more than four or five years old. Anyone have a link to a good source of adoption statistics?

[Taffer]

I'm fairly sure that, where healthy infants are concerned, it's the other way around - there's a baby shortage. Where the real adoptee backlog exists, I've heard, is for children in foster care who are more than four or five years old. Anyone have a link to a good source of adoption statistics?

I just find this hard to believe. If it was indeed the other way around, there wouldn't still be kids in foster care. The young children would be adopted, and by now the older ones would have grown up.

At least, in my opinion. I am, as always, willing to change my mind in the face of contradictory evidence. :D

[BillyJoe]

The child with achondroplasia would be nigh on impossible to adopt out.
However this American family adopted a Russian girl with this condition.

http://www.commonwealthadoption.org/images/johnston.jpg

The little girl on the right is the adopted child.
She had been living in an orphanage for two years.

Some stories have happy endings.:)

[joobz]

The financial aspects are probably more a social issue. However the father is responsible for the child's existence every bit as much as the mother. It's just that the mother has a greater role in the child's continued existence. The baby is growing inside her body. Her choice surely outweighs his. On the other hand, his opinion - given to her for consideration - could affect the choice she makes. For example, knowing that the father is emotionally bound up with the pregnancy and would be willing to stay the course could easily pursuade the woman not to terminate her pregnancy. exactly. the father IS equally responsible. Meaning the woman is JUST as responsible.

The reason for requiring finacial support of the child is to recognize what is best for the welfare of the child, a child who received personhood status. This status must be placed based upon the neurological/physiological state of the child. Once it reaches the point of no return, the woman becomes as responsible for its welfare. If it is determined that neurologically, this state change occurs in uetero...then abortion becomes unethical at that point.

Aren't they? Maybe they're not your rules, but certainly rules that others were trying to force onto this woman's situation. This woman's pregnancy was terminated, but there is a politician who considered this was against his rules and attempted to bring the purpetrators to justice in order to ensure no one else tried to disobey his rules in the future.

Firstly, the law did not find there was a case to answer, so it seems you are wrong there. Secondly you are conferring "personhood" on the unborn child, which you have not yet justified.I've given ample reason to explain why this needs to be addressed. Where do you address personhood, and on what grounds?


You still have to choose though. You are saying you would toss a coin? We are considering the status of the baby here, so assume no harm to the woman if her baby is killed. You are forced to choose, otherwise all three die. What do you do.
I'm not saying it's not difficult. If you really cannot decide, then what about the original scenario of the baby one month before birth and the baby one month after birth. Would you have any doubts about your choice here?

a baby of 1 month has less meaningful experiences than a baby of two month. a baby of two months is noticably less aware than a baby of 3...
Let n1 = baby1 age, and n2 =baby2's age., where n1<=n2.
and n2-n1=delta-n.

What value of delta-n and or absolute value of n1 and n2 do you feel age is no longer a useful measure to differentiate between the two?

what if baby1 and baby2 are both 2 months but baby1=black, baby2=asian. Which do you choose?

Yes, to me, it is a coin toss. You think a woman carrying a child for 8months wouldn't be devistated if it was killed?

[ceo_esq]

I just find this hard to believe. If it was indeed the other way around, there wouldn't still be kids in foster care. The young children would be adopted, and by now the older ones would have grown up.

I think you're assuming that most children in foster care entered it (and became eligible for adoption) as infants. I believe most foster care kids were not put up for adoption at birth; most come into the system later due to parental abuse, neglect or death. Working on a pro bono foster care case a few years ago, I was told (IIRC) that the typical foster care child enters at something like age four and doesn't become eligible for adoption until almost age eight. By then, their chances of being adopted (especially by someone other than the foster parents) aren't very good.

[ceo_esq]

I think you're assuming that most children in foster care entered it (and became eligible for adoption) as infants. I believe most foster care kids were not put up for adoption at birth; most come into the system later due to parental abuse, neglect or death. Working on a pro bono foster care case a few years ago, I was told (IIRC) that the typical foster care child enters at something like age four and doesn't become eligible for adoption until almost age eight. By then, their chances of being adopted (especially by someone other than the foster parents) aren't very good.

[ETA:] But with healthy babies, it's another matter. One reason why foreign adoption has become so popular is that the domestic supply of healthy babies available for adoption is exceeded by the demand.

[The Atheist]

ceo:

You're correct in every respect again.

There is an enormous waiting list here and in most other Western countries, for babies for adoption. Same as people buying pets - yes, there are some who get a dog from the pound but most people buy a non-owned one.

The fact there are unwanted kids in foster homes is no surprise and not at all linked to adoption of newborns.

[The Atheist]

Well, I don't believe you. Of course you will have remorse for tossing that coin, as I would for selecting the in utero baby. You're not kidding me with your emotional detachment.No, based on the scenario you gave, I would have no remorse at all. One of the children had to die in your scenario, which would have been saddening in itself, but which one makes no difference at all.

You could but you would be wrong. As someone said, you are entitled to your opinions but not your facts. The stimulation a born child receives through all its senses is qualitatively and quantitatively much greater than that of a baby in utero. The brain is more developed and the brain reaction to this stimulation is much more complex.Ok. Then provide some evidence from peer-reviewed studies that your premise is correct. Take for instance, the case of a two-month prem baby. When it's a month old,it would be identical in every respect to a child a month before its scheduled birth.

But what do you class as major intervention. Still a fuzziness here.Yes, this is a grey area. I class major intervention as requiring more than the usual midwife + paeditrician + anaesthetist and not needing intensive care at birth. This would tend to be around 28-30 weeks.
I'm not sure how you're going to adopt out a dead baby. And how does the mother win when she is dead (suicide). How does medicine win when both patients are dead, when they could have saved one. Why would the mother be dead? She got rid of the baby.
I don't think you would. Google it if you must, but be warned. Suffice to say that the circumstances would have to be extreme to justify it. The details of this case are not available because of privacy concerns. However all that were directly involved in this case seem to have agreed with the decision.Hey, great pick by me! They used the identical solution to kill the baby as they do for executing murderers! Interesting that USA has had to consider whether it fits the "cruel and unusual" criterion due to the pain an injection of potassium chloride causes. A baby one-month before birth is perfectly capable of feeling pain and distress, yet the doctors quite happily executed a baby with it.

<<I see your copy article posted later actually states that the foetus was 31 weeks, which is over two months prior to birth rather than the one month before birth originally stated. That does make a difference as you'll note, I said "about 28-30 weeks" above. In these circumstances, I'd probably go along with it as it's likely that the baby, being achondroplasic, may well have needed extreme care at that stage, being very small to start with.>>

[Cactus Wren]

Do you people realize it has taken me nearly half a day to read through this thread? I've picked out a few items to respond to:

I think your defining line makes more sense than "birth", but we still have Hunster's problem of how do we determine the cognitive awareness of the fetus? I do not know how accurate the video is(and knowing it is typical anti-abortion propoganda, i don't know if I can trust it), but that whole "Silent Scream" video shows a fetus (presumably in 8 weeks) pulling away as though in pain from being killed. Is that a sign of cognitive awareness? I don't know. I think that pain rejection can be a non-aware response, but I really am not sure.

I can't yet post URLs, but if you go to the Planned Parenthood site and search for "silent scream", you'll find an excellent article, The Facts Speak Louder Than "The Silent Scream":

Although riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies as well as misleading statements and exaggerations, The Silent Scream is still wildly popular with anti-abortion zealots. And it continues to be a key tool in their propaganda efforts.

* CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).

* FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.

An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.

What is termed "frantic activity" by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.

In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.

No abortion goes way beyond unethical. IT's down right evil and needs to be stopped! Just because it's legal doesn't make it right!!

I heard James Kennedy yesterday speak on this subject and it was quite informative. He said Americans are starting to really take a stand against abortion to the reality that now 70% of all Americans now agree that abortion is murder. I'm not sure where that stat comes from but I hope it is true and that abortions will be made illegal again very soon.

If the vast majority of Americans agree abortions need to be stopped in the USA then the politicians better start doing their jobs correctly.

70% of Americans "agree" that every woman who gets an abortion should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment? That's the penalty for committing murder.

It's not a semantic issue. I just deny the strawman that "pro-choice" invokes.You prefer the strawman that "pro-abortion" invokes, implying that I think abortion is a good thing and there should be more of it.

immoral by impractical? 2/3 a person compromise for a slave was practical, was it moral?What are you talking about? There has never historically been any such "compromise".

Unless the woman was raped, she allowed a man go "grow" inside her. His participation in a sex act was what got her pregnant."She chose to have sex, so she must be punished."

So you openly admit that under the current interpretation of the law handed down in Roe, the man has no say whatsoever whether or not his child lives or dies, even though if he doesn't want the child and the woman does, he will be responsible for financially supporting that child for at least 18 years?

In other words, he is legally forced into the responsibility (whether he wants it or not) that the woman is exempt from, but no power to decide anything?And once again, a "pro-lifer"'s argument comes back to money.

The woman chooses for him.

Correct?

And, like others on this thread, I suppose you'd call that "equality"? Complete equality. When his body is involved, he decides what to do with it. When her body is involved, she decides what to do with it. As soon as a child comes into existence (at birth), both are responsible for its care.

1) The gambler bought into the lottery. The fetus is completely innocent.Of what?

Abortion impacts society profoundly.

The Baby Boom Generation has successfully killed off an estimated 30-some million children. This coincides with the looming failure of the Social Security system.And of course, no woman who has an abortion ever goes on to carry a later pregnancy to term. Ever.

Immediate gratification. Sex without reponsibility.

There are always consequences. For the stupid, the consequences are harsh."She chose to enjoy sex, so she must be punished."

Pat Buchanan (who would be well and roundly dispised on this forum) has written about that very phenomenon, and how immigration is also linked, in "Death of the West".

The book has been denegrated by the usual and predictable host of clowns throughout the West, even though Buchanan's premise is nearly undeniable.That premise being, let me make clear (since you chose not to), "BREED! Breed as if your very life depended on it! THEY are out-reproducing us! BREED, lest OUR precious and sacred LILY-WHITE CHRISTIAN culture be drowned in a seething brown sea of THEM!"

"Race suicide" was nonsensical hysteria in 1900, and it's nonsensical hysteria today.

Nice dodge. I have adopted no position thus far, just responded to your rediculous statement. Could you please enlighten us as to why this man could possibly be charged with two counts of murder if that fetus isn't a human being?I'm not certain who "this man" is, but if he is a California resident, and has killed a pregnant woman, he may be chargeable under California Penal Code 187(a), which defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought" (clearly placing "human being" and "fetus" into separate categories).

Oh, and by the way, qayak. Abortion is absolutely classed as murder in more enlightened countries.And those would be specifically ...

An unborn child at 8 months is every bit as fully human as that one-week old.Who has argued that a human fetus is any other kind of fetus than human?

I'll quote scripture on this one, quite clearly the bible states what should happen to one who causes an abortion. How much more serious if one chooses an abortion.
Well, then, what does God’s Word, the Bible, indicate? It shows that YHVH God has high regard for human life right from its very start. His law to ancient Israel stated:

"In case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul."—Ex. 21:22-25.Even if this particular quote from a book of myths were relevant, which it's not, this particular translation is slanted and deceptive. Rabbi Balfour Brickner gave a more accurate assessment of this verse:The Hebrew Bible deals explicitly with the subject: "If men strive, and wound a pregnant woman so that her fruit be expelled, but no harm befalls her, then shall he be fined as her husband shall assess, and the matter placed before the judges. ... " (Exodus: 21.22).The meaning of this text is straightforward. Only monetary compensation is exacted from whoever causes a woman to miscarry. Since the unborn fetus is not considered a person, the one responsible cannot be held liable for the taking of human life and certainly not for murder.

If you don't want the child, give birth to it and have it adopted, there are many desperate women who can't have children just waiting to adopt.So let them adopt one of the 100,000 children waiting to be adopted in the United States right now.

[BillyJoe]

exactly. the father IS equally responsible. Meaning the woman is JUST as responsible.That's not really what I was trying to say:
Both are equally responsible for the fact that the woman has become pregnant (note this is a general rule and there are many exceptions: pregnancy as a result of rape; woman who secretly stops the pill; etc). However the woman has a much greater stake in whether or not the pregnancy continues. She therefore has the final choice.

The reason for requiring finacial support of the child is to recognize what is best for the welfare of the child, a child who received personhood status. This status must be placed based upon the neurological/physiological state of the child. Once it reaches the point of no return, the woman becomes as responsible for its welfare. If it is determined that neurologically, this state change occurs in uetero...then abortion becomes unethical at that point.What you are saying, if I understand you, is that, if it is determined by neurological studies that the baby attains personhood in utero, the mother cannot terminate the pregnancy after that time.
I think personhood is an important consideration but not the only consideration. If the baby does attain personhood in utero, it would be quite a rudimentary form of personhood. If the mother's personhood would be severely affected by continuing with the pregnancy - which seems to have been the case with the woman whose baby had achondroplasia (she was going to kill herself) - that is another consideration. The mother's fully fledged personhood would probably trump the baby's rudimentary personhood.

What value of delta-n [difference in age] and or absolute value of n1 [age of first baby] and n2 [age of second baby] do you feel age is no longer a useful measure to differentiate between the two?Do you mean in utero baby? The further the pregnacy has progressed the more difficult the decision, and the greater the reason to terminate would have to be. The mother in question was 32 weeks pregnant (seems it wasn't 8 months pregnant, which is 4 weeks before term, but 32 weeks, which is 8 weeks before term), but she was suicidal and this was judged by her medical attendants to be a sufficient reason to terminate.

what if baby1 and baby2 are both 2 months but baby1=black, baby2=asian. Which do you choose?I would not descriminate on the basis of race.

Yes, to me, it is a coin toss. You think a woman carrying a child for 8months wouldn't be devistated if it was killed?She would. But we have to consider this in comparison to the woman who has been looking after and interacting with her baby for a month (bathing it, feeding it, talking to it, and smiling at it etc etc).

[BillyJoe]

No, based on the scenario you gave, I would have no remorse at all. One of the children had to die in your scenario, which would have been saddening in itself, but which one makes no difference at all.Well you're a better (or worse) man than me, Atheist. ;)

Ok. Then provide some evidence from peer-reviewed studies that your premise is correct. Take for instance, the case of a two-month prem baby. When it's a month old,it would be identical in every respect to a child a month before its scheduled birth.I will trawl if I find the time.
Of the cuff though here are differences:

- It has been breathing through its lungs for 4 weeks.
- It has been receiving stimulation through all it's sense for 4 weeks.
- The brain develops partly as a result of sensory input into the brain.
- The emotionally attachment of the mother has been evolving for 4 weeks.

Why would the mother be dead? She got rid of the baby.According to all the medical attendants, she would have killed herself before the baby could be born.

.Hey, great pick by me! They used the identical solution to kill the baby as they do for executing murderers! Interesting that USA has had to consider whether it fits the "cruel and unusual" criterion due to the pain an injection of potassium chloride causes. A baby one-month before birth is perfectly capable of feeling pain and distress, yet the doctors quite happily executed a baby with it.The medical staff were in turmoil over it. They had to make a decision. They were in a no-win situation. If they had decided not to terminate, the woman may have suicided ending the life of both the woman and her baby.

<<I see your copy article posted later actually states that the foetus was 31 weeks, which is over two months prior to birth rather than the one month before birth originally stated. That does make a difference as you'll note, I said "about 28-30 weeks" above. In these circumstances, I'd probably go along with it as it's likely that the baby, being achondroplasic, may well have needed extreme care at that stage, being very small to start with.>>Seems the actual termination was performed at 32 weeks.

[BillyJoe]

Do you people realize it has taken me nearly half a day to read through this thread? $#!+, I just tagged on the end of it. :D

[BillyJoe]

...hey, that's 24 seconds per post!

(assuming you meant half a working day)

[Taffer]

[ETA:] But with healthy babies, it's another matter. One reason why foreign adoption has become so popular is that the domestic supply of healthy babies available for adoption is exceeded by the demand.

Well, if this is indeed correct, then I stand corrected. :)

[Cactus Wren]

$#!+, I just tagged on the end of it. :DI thought of doing that, but I was afraid of bringing up as if it were "new" some subtopic that had already been beaten to death, and I know I hate when others do that. (I was on alt.folklore.urban for the Great Gl*ss Fl*w Debate.)

...hey, that's 24 seconds per post!

(assuming you meant half a working day) Well, I did have some distractions. :blush:

[ETA:] But with healthy babies, it's another matter. One reason why foreign adoption has become so popular is that the domestic supply of healthy babies available for adoption is exceeded by the demand.
Well, if this is indeed correct, then I stand corrected. :)Actually it's "the domestic supply of healthy white-or-whitish newborns with compliant and non-drug-using mothers and with no defects that can't be easily corrected".

[Taffer]

Actually it's "the domestic supply of healthy white-or-whitish newborns with compliant and non-drug-using mothers and with no defects that can't be easily corrected".

Fair enough. I was just playing the advocate anyway. :)

[BillyJoe]

I thought of doing that, but I was afraid of bringing up as if it were "new" some subtopic that had already been beaten to death, and I know I hate when others do that.Yeah it's a hazard. I think joobz caught me out with the word "sapiens". He referred me back to the early part of the thread, obviously sensing I'd taken a cheapy. Frankly, I haven't had the time to go back, otherwise I would have. I don't usually buy in at a late stage, but the thread seemed in danger of dying anyway and the subject matter interests me a great deal. Difficult to discuss logically without sounding like a monster to people like Melanie, whose reaction I understand completely.

Anyway, I think I sort of got away with it this time. Except I wonder what the word....

[melaniejane88]

Hi, Melanie here again and I will try not to make the mistake of the big text again. sorry for that last time. and yes it was a mistake.

and don't worry about seeming like mosters to me, I love understanding what makes people tick, and I do also understand that sometime especially if rape is involved that a woman may choose to terminate the life growing inside and this will be part of her healing process.

What I do find intolerable is that one who does want their bit of fun, but do not want the consequences of the after effects. People get drunk and take the consequences of throwing up afterward as it is an involuntary motion. It goes with getting drunk, for those who do throw up that is.
Having unprotected sex can have it's consequences that can bring happiness/sadness/hardship/love but most of all a child that will grow maybe to be like their parents. In looks, behaviour and humor.

It may not be scientifically alive whilst growing, as it is only developing and has insignificat brain activity. But ones who choose to terminate a pregnancy miss a wonderful experience, the first flutter of the child moving inside you, to understand it's behaviour before it is born, it's sleeping patterns, for it to react to your voice as you speak/sing to it. Hey I know not everyone is in for this kind of feeling, but for ones who are considering termination just because of a one night stand or whatever, there are other options you can choose. Not wanting to force my opinion on anyone, but having had 3 full term pregnacies and 3 miscarriages, I do know what it is to feel both pregnant and to lose.

I understand it might be financial reasons, being too young, health problems, and I really do understand that it is a personal choice. We all have free will, but with our free will there is alway a consequence from the choices we make.

Many who do have abortions, especially if the child is more formed are not always happy with their descission afterwards and require counselling, which is why counselling is given to those who have abortions. A consequence.
Many who have abortions do have a higher risk of miscarriage later on if they choose or have another accident. Which at that time when they really want it they then suffer heartache as they are struggling now to keep pregnant. A consequence.
Many who have abortions may not be able to fall pregnant at a later time. A consequence.
All these consequences we regularly hear from women. Is it just that their body is not correctly working, or is it that they are suffering from the consequences of having an abortion. If so, sorry to sound harsh here, but they are suffering the consequences of their actions, so why moan about it.

so really given our free will, we choose to kill/terminate/have suction/inject our unborn child, because the time is not right for us now, but do not want to accept the consequences of our actions when we want to have a child later in life

I like to hear your comments, sorry if i've offended anyone.

Melanie :)

[Taffer]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, Melanie.

I fear that is specifically the point.

[thaiboxerken]

What I do find intolerable is that one who does want their bit of fun, but do not want the consequences of the after effects.

So you are anti-abortion in cases where the pregnancy is a consequence of poor decisions? Do you really advocate giving birth to a child as a viable punishment for what you consider bad decision? Is having a baby a tool to punish with?


It may not be scientifically alive whilst growing, as it is only developing and has insignificat brain activity.

Scientifically, it is alive the entire time until it dies.

But ones who choose to terminate a pregnancy miss a wonderful experience, the first flutter of the child moving inside you, to understand it's behaviour before it is born, it's sleeping patterns, for it to react to your voice as you speak/sing to it. Hey I know not everyone is in for this kind of feeling, but for ones who are considering termination just because of a one night stand or whatever, there are other options you can choose. Not wanting to force my opinion on anyone, but having had 3 full term pregnacies and 3 miscarriages, I do know what it is to feel both pregnant and to lose.

Appeals to emotion really dont' work in this forum.


I understand it might be financial reasons, being too young, health problems, and I really do understand that it is a personal choice.

I'm glad you understand that much. Some people actually believe that choice is a fallacy. Weird, huh? Anyway, what is wrong with keeping it a personal choice?


Many who do have abortions, especially if the child is more formed are not always happy with their descission afterwards and require counselling, which is why counselling is given to those who have abortions. A consequence.

Ok, if that's a consequence, why advocate making a person give birth as a required consequence? Either way, they are being "punished."


All these consequences we regularly hear from women....but do not want to accept the consequences of our actions when we want to have a child later in life


Shouldn't that be their choice? Instead of making laws to restrict choices, wouldn't it be better to educate people?

[joobz]

I can't yet post URLs, but if you go to the Planned Parenthood site and search for "silent scream", you'll find an excellent article, The Facts Speak Louder Than "The Silent Scream":Yeah, I never check to see the accuracy of that film. I knew it as propoganda and knew it had to be skewed. I was interested in hearing facts.



You prefer the strawman that "pro-abortion" invokes, implying that I think abortion is a good thing and there should be more of it.
It's more accurate to the situation. "Pro-choice" assumes what the fetus is. To act as though it's consideration is unimportant. I deny that assumption. It needs to be proven.


What are you talking about? There has never historically been any such "compromise".
wrong fraction. my apologies. 3/5ths not 2/3rds. But 60% instead of 66% wasn't the question. The ethics of the compromise was. Now, explain why this fractional error changes the ethics of this issue?

[ceo_esq]

What are you talking about? There has never historically been any such "compromise".

Yes, there has. I believe that joobz was alluding to the famous "Three-Fifths Compromise" enshrined in Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

[qayak]

. . . and I do also understand that sometime especially if rape is involved that a woman may choose to terminate the life growing inside and this will be part of her healing process.

I would agree with this until you put the "especially with rape" qualifier. that is a small percentage of abortion and should have no bearing on the issue.

But ones who choose to terminate a pregnancy miss a wonderful experience, the first flutter of the child moving inside you, to understand it's behaviour before it is born, it's sleeping patterns, for it to react to your voice as you speak/sing to it. Hey I know not everyone is in for this kind of feeling, but for ones who are considering termination just because of a one night stand or whatever, there are other options you can choose.

You counter your own argument. The fact that not everyone feels the same is the exact reason why people make different choices and choices are what abortion is all about.

The other fallacy in your argument is that you assume that a woman who chooses abortion doesn't understand what pregnancy is. They are as intelligent and aware as you are so I am sure they know.

Not wanting to force my opinion on anyone, but having had 3 full term pregnacies and 3 miscarriages, I do know what it is to feel both pregnant and to lose.

This is going to sound ignorant but I don't mean it that way. It is simply to point out the fallacy of your argument. You claim that there are consequences to people's actions and you listed several in this post and then said that everyone must face the onsequences of their actions.

By the same reasoning, aren't your miscarriages a consequence of you getting pregnant? Are we to tell you, to use an expression from your own post, "Sorry to sound harsh here, but you are suffering the consequences of your actions, so why moan about it."

Many who do have abortions, especially if the child is more formed are not always happy with their descission afterwards and require counselling, which is why counselling is given to those who have abortions. A consequence.

Many people require counselling for many reasons. To hold that against a person having an abortion is ridiculous. Many women need counselling after having a miscarriage. Is that a consequence and should they be told to stop moaning about it?

Wait a minute! Many women who give birth and put the baby up for adoption also need counselling. And women who don't put their children up for adoption but have problems with the stresses of raising those same children. Are these consequences and should the women be told to stop moaning about it?

The fact is, counselling is sometimes needed to help people get through tough points in their life. I think it is demeaning of you to only point to the issue of abortion as requiring counselling as a consequence and ignoring all the others. How about the parents in Columbine? I am sure many of them were helped by counselling, are you suggesting that we should tell them to stop moaning about it?

Many who have abortions do have a higher risk of miscarriage later on if they choose or have another accident.

All this is information given to the women before an abortion is performed so that they can make informed decisions. Nothing new here and nothing to support your argument.

so really given our free will, we choose to kill/terminate/have suction/inject our unborn child, because the time is not right for us now, but do not want to accept the consequences of our actions when we want to have a child later in life

No one in this discussion has suggested that there are not consequences to the process of abortion. This isn't a discussion about whether abortion should be banned, (Well, except for Joobz! :D ) it is a discussion about at which point they should be restricted to medical necessity.

[Nex]

I've done my best to read through and follow this very long thread, but I doubt I've caught everything. Apologies if I bring up something that's already been hashed over.

What I do find intolerable is that one who does want their bit of fun, but do not want the consequences of the after effects. [...]
Having unprotected sex can have it's consequences that can bring happiness/sadness/hardship/love but most of all a child that will grow maybe to be like their parents. In looks, behaviour and humor.
Every action and inaction has a consequence. An adult driving an automobile may have an accident -- should we deny her medical care and painkillers as "punishment?" We all know the risks involved in driving, so according to this reasoning she should just live with the consequences of her actions instead of trying to get help.
Also, a child is not an instrument of punishment. I feel very, very badly for any child who is looked at in such a way.

...ones who choose to terminate a pregnancy miss a wonderful experience, the first flutter of the child moving inside you, to understand it's behaviour before it is born, it's sleeping patterns, for it to react to your voice as you speak/sing to it.
But you forget the very real toll pregnancy takes upon the body. Being 9 months pregnant right now, I can't forget. Leached bones and teeth, weak immune system, back and hip pain and damage, constant sleep deprivation, heartburn and reflux (sometimes causing esophogeal ulcerations), urinary incontinence, UTIs, digestive problems, constipation, breast soreness and pain, nightmares (for me, absolutely horrifying ones that wake me screaming nearly every night), and more. Some women endure terrible complications like severe gestational diabetes or dangerously high blood pressure, or become restricted to bed rest for months on end.
If you don't want the child, why would you go through the work (the very real work) of growing it?

Pregnancy is certainly NOT all sunshine and lollipops -- it's exhausting, draining, painful, and a very real risk to the woman's health too. No one should be forced to endure it if they are unwilling or unable to.

[melaniejane88]

I've done my best to read through and follow this very long thread, but I doubt I've caught everything. Apologies if I bring up something that's already been hashed over.


Every action and inaction has a consequence. An adult driving an automobile may have an accident -- should we deny her medical care and painkillers as "punishment?" We all know the risks involved in driving, so according to this reasoning she should just live with the consequences of her actions instead of trying to get help.
Also, a child is not an instrument of punishment. I feel very, very badly for any child who is looked at in such a way.


But you forget the very real toll pregnancy takes upon the body. Being 9 months pregnant right now, I can't forget. Leached bones and teeth, weak immune system, back and hip pain and damage, constant sleep deprivation, heartburn and reflux (sometimes causing esophogeal ulcerations), urinary incontinence, UTIs, digestive problems, constipation, breast soreness and pain, nightmares (for me, absolutely horrifying ones that wake me screaming nearly every night), and more. Some women endure terrible complications like severe gestational diabetes or dangerously high blood pressure, or become restricted to bed rest for months on end.
If you don't want the child, why would you go through the work (the very real work) of growing it?

Pregnancy is certainly NOT all sunshine and lollipops -- it's exhausting, draining, painful, and a very real risk to the woman's health too. No one should be forced to endure it if they are unwilling or unable to.



I fully understand and have not forgotten at all the complications that are involved with pregnancy. Each time I fall pregnant, I am serverly ill for the full term, but the end result pushes that to one side. With the miscarriages, this was due to an un diagnosed illness and it was not until after having my 3rd child that I was told of this blood disorder that was causing the miscarriages. Shortly after I was steralised to prevent any further miscarriages. After having my 3rd child, i was diagnosed also with another disorder Lupus SLE, induced/flared with being pregnant which has change my life totally even 6 years after being pregnant. Which I accept has happened and deal with. But the result is my beautiful caring daughter which outweighs my illness.

There were lots of comments from my thread, thank you all for your input. I will say that I love life whether born or unborn. and for those who do believe in God, then I also believe that life is a gift from Him, so why throw a gift away. For those who do not believe in God, no probs that's your choice as this is what it is all about.

thank you thaiboxerken, Yes I agree and am aware that it is alive from conception until it dies and that influences my choices. I agree that eduction is best, which from my searching I find that many are not educated enough to make such an informed descision.

I'm not sure where punishment came into being a consequence. A dictionary definition is That which follows a result. Not a punishment!

If one seriously feels that having a child is a punishment, well for me that is one I will not understand.

The comment about counselling, before I made this comment I did alternate reseach on abortion and the effects it has on women, the comments I made were from Health experts across the world and not of my own opinion.
I didn't want to cut and paste again incase I got that big text.

Also in further searching it is also necessary for the doctors and nurses who perform the abortions also have to have counselling, due to having to have to watch babies die after the abortion, taking some 30 minuets for a fetus to die after it has been removed. with it breathing as soon as it leaves the womb and capable of making sound.

I also agree that counselling is required in all shapes and forms. But also usually counselling happens after an event and not before. Usually because the person is not handling their situation as they would like. So for one to have counselling after an abortion is usually a sign that they are not coping with their descsion and require help. I do disagree with sufficient information being provided before an abortion, you cannot predict how you will feel, so any explaination given beforehand will not necessarily be applicable to you. And how many people really listen and take in everything said before an operation or anything else for that matter.

As this is a religious sections also, I'd like to put in for those who do believe in scripute

2 Timothy 3 ver 1 to 4 From the websters version.

v1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times will come.
v2 For men will be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
v3 without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontient, fierce, despires of those that are good
v4 traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.

doesn't this describe many situations today and in history, is it not getting worse today?

As to when should a fetus be aborted as was pointed out the main reason for this discussion. Although I would not agree with abortion personally, Before it feels would be my answer.

If you hurt your child after it was born, it would definately feel it and that would be considered abuse. So why abort the unborn after it's senses to touch and pain have developed.

Melanie x

[Taffer]

So, you think no-one should have an abortion, Melanie, which is fine. But, do you think that the option should not even be there?

[thaiboxerken]

There were lots of comments from my thread, thank you all for your input. I will say that I love life whether born or unborn. and for those who do believe in God, then I also believe that life is a gift from Him, so why throw a gift away. For those who do not believe in God, no probs that's your choice as this is what it is all about.

Life is a gift? I thought you just said it was a consequence of poor decision.


I'm not sure where punishment came into being a consequence. A dictionary definition is That which follows a result. Not a punishment!

If one seriously feels that having a child is a punishment, well for me that is one I will not understand.

You stated that your position is that pregnancy can be a consequence of poor decisions and, thus, the woman should have to give birth. It becomes punishment when the choice to abort is taken away. For some people, having a child would be punishment.


The comment about counselling, before I made this comment I did alternate reseach on abortion and the effects it has on women, the comments I made were from Health experts across the world and not of my own opinion.
I didn't want to cut and paste again incase I got that big text.

Is this research found on pro-life, fundie-christian websites?


Also in further searching it is also necessary for the doctors and nurses who perform the abortions also have to have counselling, due to having to have to watch babies die after the abortion, taking some 30 minuets for a fetus to die after it has been removed. with it breathing as soon as it leaves the womb and capable of making sound.

I doubt this claim. Fetus are usually terminated inside the womb and then removed, not the other way around.


I also agree that counselling is required in all shapes and forms. But also usually counselling happens after an event and not before. Usually because the person is not handling their situation as they would like. So for one to have counselling after an abortion is usually a sign that they are not coping with their descsion and require help. I do disagree with sufficient information being provided before an abortion, you cannot predict how you will feel, so any explaination given beforehand will not necessarily be applicable to you. And how many people really listen and take in everything said before an operation or anything else for that matter.

The same can be said of giving birth.


As this is a religious sections also, I'd like to put in for those who do believe in scripute

2 Timothy 3 ver 1 to 4 From the websters version.

v1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times will come.
v2 For men will be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
v3 without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontient, fierce, despires of those that are good
v4 traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.

doesn't this describe many situations today and in history, is it not getting worse today?

Not really.



If you hurt your child after it was born, it would definately feel it and that would be considered abuse. So why abort the unborn after it's senses to touch and pain have developed.


It's not an independant life-form, it's just a growth, that's why.

[melaniejane88]

So, you think no-one should have an abortion, Melanie, which is fine. But, do you think that the option should not even be there?

The options has to be there for women to make a choice.

[melaniejane88]

[sorry duplicated

[melaniejane88]

Life is a gift? I thought you just said it was a consequence of poor decision.

Just because the results of unprotected sex can bring forth a child, does not take away the fact that a marvelous bonding and creation is happening in the womb. life is a gift and should be precious.



You stated that your position is that pregnancy can be a consequence of poor decisions and, thus, the woman should have to give birth. It becomes punishment when the choice to abort is taken away. For some people, having a child would be punishment.

That is a shame.


Is this research found on pro-life, fundie-christian websites?

No it was from the World Health Organisation and other notiable sites.



I doubt this claim. Fetus are usually terminated inside the womb and then removed, not the other way around.

Then you need more educating regarding the process of terminating the unborn. some women have to give birth to them first, without the support from it's mother, the fetus gradually dies. This is called Dilation and Evacuation, where labour is incuded and a fully formed child is born. This is accounted for around 2% of terminations. Mainly for cases where confirmation of deformaties exist. after D&E then suction is used to clear out anything left over.


The same can be said of giving birth.



Not really.




It's not an independant life-form, it's just a growth, that's why. Just like a mole on the face you mean! humm.

Melanie

[Nex]

So, you think no-one should have an abortion, Melanie, which is fine. But, do you think that the option should not even be there?The options has to be there for women to make a choice.
So... you're against abortion, but not against keeping abortion legal. If that's the case, then you and I are pretty much in agreement on this.

[Nex]

[...] life is a gift and should be precious.
And if all the shouldas, wouldas, and couldas in the world came true...

I agree with you that each child should be precious. But they're not, at least, not to parents who didn't want them and won't care for them or even outright abuse/molest them.

If you know anyone who works in child welfare, you should ask them about this. I guarantee they have stories about child abuse and neglect that will give you nightmares for months.

[kurious_kathy]

And if all the shouldas, wouldas, and couldas in the world came true...

I agree with you that each child should be precious. But they're not, at least, not to parents who didn't want them and won't care for them or even outright abuse/molest them.

If you know anyone who works in child welfare, you should ask them about this. I guarantee they have stories about child abuse and neglect that will give you nightmares for months.

Again you are focusing on all the negatives that happen because of the condition of this fallen world. All life has meaning or why would God have even wanted to create it.

We are missing a third of the people that would have been born had abortions never been legalized. It's high time we get that law terminated so God will see we don't want to keep taking his grace for granted. Our nation is in big trouble if it doesn't repent and fast.

The sins of the fathers are passed down to each generation until someone takes a stand for what is right. Abortion isn't right and really needs to be stopped! It's just become a conveneint homocide and people aren't taking responsibilty. Please God help us all put an end to this evil.

As far as I can see, we have become worse than Hitler when it comes to killing babies. Yah, all the Jews he killed was bad, but wev'e done even worse with the amount of innocent lives we took by allowing abortions to be legalized. Help, stop the insanity.

[qayak]

No it was from the World Health Organisation and other notiable sites.

Can you provide links please?

[qayak]

As to when should a fetus be aborted as was pointed out the main reason for this discussion. Although I would not agree with abortion personally, Before it feels would be my answer.

If you hurt your child after it was born, it would definately feel it and that would be considered abuse. So why abort the unborn after it's senses to touch and pain have developed.

The fetus does not feel pain until the third trimester, if at all.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml

"In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.[6],[7],[8] Although sporadic brain waves can be detected by about 21 weeks gestation, genuine continuous brain waves do not begin until about 28 weeks,[9] indicating that the nerve circuits needed to carry pain impulses to the brain are not connected till then."

[qayak]

All life has meaning or why would God have even wanted to create it.

We are missing a third of the people that would have been born had abortions never been legalized. It's high time we get that law terminated so God will see we don't want to keep taking his grace for granted. Our nation is in big trouble if it doesn't repent and fast.

The sins of the fathers are passed down to each generation until someone takes a stand for what is right. Abortion isn't right and really needs to be stopped! It's just become a conveneint homocide and people aren't taking responsibilty. Please God help us all put an end to this evil.

As far as I can see, we have become worse than Hitler when it comes to killing babies. Yah, all the Jews he killed was bad, but wev'e done even worse with the amount of innocent lives we took by allowing abortions to be legalized. Help, stop the insanity.
:bigclap

And the winner for "most hysteria in a post of three paragraphs or less" is. . . . . Kurious Kathy.

[thaiboxerken]

No it was from the World Health Organisation and other notiable sites.

Prove it.


Then you need more educating regarding the process of terminating the unborn. some women have to give birth to them first, without the support from it's mother, the fetus gradually dies. This is called Dilation and Evacuation, where labour is incuded and a fully formed child is born. This is accounted for around 2% of terminations. Mainly for cases where confirmation of deformaties exist. after D&E then suction is used to clear out anything left over.

I think that you are completely wrong about this. Feel free to provide evidence to support your claim.

[Taffer]

The options has to be there for women to make a choice.

Then that's fine by me. :)

[melaniejane88]

Prove it.



I think that you are completely wrong about this. Feel free to provide evidence to support your claim.


I thought you were making comments because you were educated in this. I have already educated myself, if you truely want to know more, then I suggest you educate yourself. only 98% of abortions in the USA are used via killing the fetus before it is removed. babies between the stages of 14 to 22 weeks are not always able to be removed this way and have to be born first.

You just have to put a search in for the World Health Organisation and abortions via D&E. If you have not already done this why should I make it easier for one who has not educated themselves. You do not belive me, that is your choice. I chose to educate myself before making the comment.

I take it from your comments to me that you are for abortion as much as I am against it. I love all life and I hope that many who are reading my comments will think twice and educate themselves fully before making the descision to kill life in the womb.

signing off from this thread now.
All the best to everyone.
Melanie

[melaniejane88]

The fetus does not feel pain until the third trimester, if at all.

"In fetal development, most major organs exist in rudimentary form by about 8 to 9 weeks. It takes several months for these organs to grow in size, complexity, and organization to the point they can function. For example, the myelin sheath—the insulating cover on nerve pathways that is required for efficient conduction of pain signals—does not begin forming around nervous system cells (neurons) in the spinal cord until about 24 weeks, and not till after birth in most of the cerebral cortex.[6],[7],[8] Although sporadic brain waves can be detected by about 21 weeks gestation, genuine continuous brain waves do not begin until about 28 weeks,[9] indicating that the nerve circuits needed to carry pain impulses to the brain are not connected till then."

thank you appreciated

[thaiboxerken]

You just have to put a search in for the World Health Organisation and abortions via D&E. If you have not already done this why should I make it easier for one who has not educated themselves. You do not belive me, that is your choice. I chose to educate myself before making the comment.

that is not how it works, You made a claim, you need to prove it. if you've looked it up on the world health organization web site, then provide the link.

[Nex]

And the winner for "most hysteria in a post of three paragraphs or less" is. . . . . Kurious Kathy.
Too right. It's like Chicken Little came running by and Godwinned himself, isn't it?

http://www.linternaute.com/sortir/cinema/diaporama/06/top-20-2005/chicken-little.jpg
http://www.linternaute.com/sortir/cinema/diaporama/06/top-20-2005/chicken-little.jpg