A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
That would be a form of scientific analysis. The scientific investigation into what gravity actually is is ongoing, but progressing well.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion - is it wrong?
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
That would be a form of scientific analysis. The scientific investigation into what gravity actually is is ongoing, but progressing well.
A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
If the mother didn't ask them to, then obviously yes to the latter, and probably the former as well in many cases. If she did ask, then no, just as any form of surgery is not an assault.
(in cases where the mother is unconscious or otherwise unable to consent, the doctor would have to make a judgement call. He'd probably call it in favour of saving the mother over the unborn child in circumstances where he could not save both, and would be legally protected for having done so.)
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I agree with that, actually. Smoking "reefer" doesn't victimize or violate the rights of innocent people. Sure, it's arguably unhealthy and addictive, but so is fast food, which has probably killed many, many more people than marijuana ever has. Also, tobacco and alcohol are both far more addictive and harmful than marijuana, so it makes no sense that the two former are legal while the later is not.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I think the law should be changed to allow an abortion up to 18 years after birth.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Despite my tongue in cheek post above, I find late term abortion highly questionable for this reason, since they've likely developed many of the aforementioned features. That, and it's abject laziness and irresponsibility to wait that long to pop that thing out.
The difference is that they've already possessed personhood, which may still exist locked away in their dormant mind, and thus in some cases have the potential to regain it.
If it can't be explained, how can you measure the "progress" towards explaining it.
A. T. Henderson
R&P refugee
Fairly easily, largely because we're pretty sure that it can be explained. We already have a few hypotheses as to what gravity actually is, and we are progressing towards demonstrating which one is accurate. Some hypotheses have been shown to be less plausible, some more plausible. The LHC at CERN is likely to clear up most of the remaining issues, and finally give us a pretty clear explanation.
However, this is entirely off-topic.
I only have an opinion: I am pro-life. At the same time, It is legal. I was pro-life even before I found my faith, so it isn't necessarily a religious thing for me.
It is understandable in certain situations- rape or molestation, if the mother's life is in danger, if the baby has some serious defects, etc. but I can't condone it at all as a birth control method.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Why do you attach worth to a bundle of non-thinking cells?
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Late term abortions are almost always health-related or access related. Health related in that there is an issue with the health of the fetus or the mother - physical or mental health problems in the mother that make carrying to term unsafe, or genetic/chromosomal/other problems with the fetus. Some of these aren't apparent or don't arise until later. Less than 1.5% of abortions occur after 21 weeks. And almost every state that allows late term abortions ONLY allows them with some sort of medical/psychological exception.
Access has to do with money, distance, other waiting period or parental permission laws, and any other roadblocks in a woman's way - abusive relationship, L&O:SVU style faux clinics that keep a woman from getting an abortion, etc. Most states don't have any sort of exemption for this, so these may end up being illegal abortions if there's not a medical reason for it. (or the patient can't afford a legal one.)
It is rarely if ever a matter of "oh geez, I just don't have time for an abortion today, I have a mani-pedi"
No. Only because it'd be hard to tell what the motive was. The abortion should be done by hospital staff. If there's ground for assault then they should be charged for that. If it can also be shown that their intention was to kill the baby then further charges, like murder, can be pressed
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
In Norway, 12 weeks.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
The motive is the same as that of the doctor and the mother. To kill or murder the baby.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
Or it's different in that the mother wants to remove a fetus because she doesn't want to have a baby later. The doctor wants to assist the mother in doing so in the most safe way possible for her patient, the mother.
This isn't the same as injuring the mother with the intent of causing her body to abort the baby. Otherwise we'd consider a medical amputation the same as a legal charge of mayhem. (I find the charge of mayhem way 'cooler' than I should.)
One's biases will tinge this obviously, but we consider the intent in any crime as well as in many other actions.
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Why should the person not just be charged with assault. If it is just a fetus it is just a fetus right?Why is it considered man slaughter if it is not a baby yet?
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
I'm not really committed either way on the matter.
But we do take intent into consideration for crimes already, why would this be different?
Walkntune
Well-Known Member
Because the intent is the same as that of the mother and the doctor.
ooh that's a tough one. At the very least charges for the mugging can be pressed. As for manslaughter it's touch and go as she was planning to have an aborting anyway. I'd personally say that it is manslaughter. He killed someone without meaning to.
I'd say the motives might be different. Killing isn't a motive, motives result in the killing. In the doctor and mother case the motive is that the mother doesn't want the child. In other cases the motive may be the same but it's much harder to prove. It's why the abortions should be done somewhere where the mother can give her consent to it.