Abortion, What about it?

[Oneatatime]

I find some unease when the 'baby shape' is already there. I still would not say to someone that they needed to continue with it, but I find it very different terminated at a late stage compared to when it looks like a peanut.

I can understand your view but I am also interested in the level of development that has been reached and whether or not it can be considered self-aware yet.

 

[lunakilo]

The most common argument against abortion is that it is killing, and killing is wrong.
You can argue back an forth about when life actuallt starts, the truth is that knowbody really knows.

The way I see it the person who is best qualified to decide if an abortion is acceptable is the person who is pregnant. After all, she knows the circumstances better than enyone else.

 

[Oneatatime]

The most common argument against abortion is that it is killing, and killing is wrong.
You can argue back an forth about when life actuallt starts, the truth is that knowbody really knows.

The way I see it the person who is best qualified to decide if an abortion is acceptable is the person who is pregnant. After all, she knows the circumstances better than enyone else.

This is not true and I think many embryologists would take issue with being told that they don't know anything about the developmental process. Yes its extremely complicated but this doesn't preclude us form being able to identify at which point a developing baby is sufficiently neurologically developed to be aware of itself.

I also disagree that pregnant women are the best qualified people to make this judgement given that no qualifications or experience this field of science are needed to become pregnant. Its like saying that parents are the best people to decide what medical treatment a child needs by virtue of the child being their rather than them having any knowledge of modern medicine.

I feel that there needs to be a point at which the developing fetus is afforded legal protection so that it can't be terminated without good reason.

 

[Nerthus]

I can understand your view but I am also interested in the level of development that has been reached and whether or not it can be considered self-aware yet.

Interesting point.

I have never thought so, but you can never tell.

 

[Oneatatime]

Interesting point.

I have never thought so, but you can never tell.

Its obviously an emotive subject and I feel that its important for us to take a step back and be objective. That a fetus or embryo is baby shaped does not mean that it equates to a fully formed and functional baby. We need to take look far deeper than the immediate outside appearance and inspect the embryo or fetus as a whole.

 

[Nerthus]

That a fetus or embryo is baby shaped does not mean that it equates to a fully formed and functional baby.

I never said it did. Just that the idea of abortion when it actually looks like a baby unsettles me.

I am pro choice anyhow.

 

[Oneatatime]

I never said it did. Just that the idea of abortion when it actually looks like a baby unsettles me.

I am pro choice anyhow.

Fair enough and my apologies for misrepresenting your views

 

[Pegg]

I believe that God views the embryo in the womb as a human life, made in his image...one that he is even personally familiar with.

No life can exist without his knowledge. And from what the Hebrew scriptures show, he views the life of the unborn in the same way he views the life of a grown adult. No life can exist without his power, so when we take away the life of anyone, we are taking something away from God himself.

In the hebrew scriptures he imposed the death penalty on anyone who injured a pregnant woman and caused the death of her unborn child. "life for life" was a legal provision applied equally to the unborn.
Exodus 21:22 “And 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. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul
.

That child in the womb had legal rights because God viewed the unborn as a human with rights. The obvious problem is that not everyone accepts Gods point of view.

 

[lunakilo]

This is not true and I think many embryologists would take issue with being told that they don't know anything about the developmental process.

I am not talking about the developmental process, I am talking about defining when life starts.

Yes its extremely complicated but this doesn't preclude us form being able to identify at which point a developing baby is sufficiently neurologically developed to be aware of itself.

At present I am not aware of any scientific way to find out when a baby becomes self aware.
I am not sure a newborn is self aware.
I am not sure if self awareness is the criteria that determines if abortion is ok.
I am not sure of a lot of things.

I also disagree that pregnant women are the best qualified people to make this judgement given that no qualifications or experience this field of science are needed to become pregnant.

The pregnant woman knows how and why she bacame pregnant.
Was she raped by her uncle? Was she just careless?
The pregnant woman is the one who has to live with the consequences of her decision for the rest of her life. Who would be better qualified to make the desition than her?

Its like saying that parents are the best people to decide what medical treatment a child needs by virtue of the child being their rather than them having any knowledge of modern medicine.

This is a silly statement.
Very few abortions are performed due to medical problems.
Most (as far as I know) abortions are performed because the pregnant woman does not want to have the child for some reason. It has nothing to do with science.
Again, what knowledge/abilities are needed to make the correct decision in all cases?

I feel that there needs to be a point at which the developing fetus is afforded legal protection so that it can't be terminated without good reason.

I think most countries have that.
In mine you can have an abortion if the child is less tha 12 weeks old.
If it is older there has to be a good medical reason for the abortion.

 

[ninerbuff]

I believe that God views the embryo in the womb as a human life, made in his image...one that he is even personally familiar with.

No life can exist without his knowledge. And from what the Hebrew scriptures show, he views the life of the unborn in the same way he views the life of a grown adult. No life can exist without his power, so when we take away the life of anyone, we are taking something away from God himself.

In the hebrew scriptures he imposed the death penalty on anyone who injured a pregnant woman and caused the death of her unborn child. "life for life" was a legal provision applied equally to the unborn.
Exodus 21:22 “And 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. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul
.

That child in the womb had legal rights because God viewed the unborn as a human with rights. The obvious problem is that not everyone accepts Gods point of view.

So according to this, there are NO exceptions? That every pregnant woman CANNOT have an abortion?

 

[Oneatatime]

Lunakilo pleaase try to avoid fragmenting my posts because it misrepresents my argument by making it appear that each sentence was written in isolation which isn't the case. I know you probably aren't intending to this.

You content that there is no way of determining when a embryo or fetus can be said to be self-aware and are ultimately concerned with the point where life starts. Arguably self-awareness is only possible once the nervous system including the brain is sufficiently developed to function. The study of development can determine when these structures begin to arise and so can inform us of when the mind begins to form.

I also contend that there is no such as the begining of life because reproduction both sexual and asexual represents the continuation of life. The egg produced by a female is a resource rich haploid cell which following the addition of genetic material from the male sperm goes through the process of development and forms a human being. At no point during this process are the cells involved dead. Your application of the term life is therefore arbitrary and respresentative of what you want to believe rather than what is actually the case.

You said that the mother is the person most qualified to decide if an abortion is acceptable. Clearly this is an oversimplification of the issue because the mother does not have unrestricted right to abort the pregnancy at any time due to the cirumstances of the pregnancy. This is because we recognsie that at some point that developing fetus becomes a concious being in its own right and therefore we have to consider the rights of both mother and fetus. This point in development and the legality of it can only be determined by scientists and law makers with consultation with the general public where necessary. The stages of pregnancy when the embryo or fetus can't be considered as being a conscious is the period when the mother needs to decide whether she wants to keep that baby or abort it. My comment about parents and their childrens treatment was intended to highlight this point and had nothing to do with abortions for medical reasons.

I pretty much agree with what they have in your countries although I would be interested in the justifcation they give for twelve weeks.

 

[no-body]

Exodus 21:22 “And 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. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul

That verse is telling men who are fighting to be careful when doing it around a pregnant woman. I don't see how abortion rights could be extrapolated from that verse.

The closest thing I could find to abortion is:

Deuteronomy 27:25 'Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'

And I'm not exactly sure I want to take my moral direction from this God:

Psalm 137: 8Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

 

[Rakhel]

And I'm not exactly sure I want to take my moral direction from this God:

Psalm 137: 8Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

That verse is not saying G-d will do that or even that he wants them to do it. It is saying the Israelites are hoping he will do that.
I can say this because it says it this way in our books

Psalms 137:8. O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us.
9. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock.
Tehillim - Chapter 137 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

 

[no-body]

That verse is not saying G-d will do that or even that he wants them to do it. It is saying the Israelites are hoping he will do that.
I can say this because it says it this way in our books

Psalms 137:8. O Daughter of Babylon, who is destined to be plundered, praiseworthy is he who repays you your recompense that you have done to us.
9. Praiseworthy is he who will take and dash your infants against the rock.
Tehillim - Chapter 137 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

I always want to put an asterisks when I post from the old testament specifying the Christian interpretation because I really, really dislike it. I find the Jewish interpretation to be quite sane.

 

[David M]

I believe that God views the embryo in the womb as a human life, made in his image...one that he is even personally familiar with.

Which is the reason why God is fine with actually causing abortions in cases of adultery?

The only place the bible directly mentions abortion it not only allows it but abortion is god's will.

And you would need to account for all the miscarriages that happen, thats a far bigger number than there are medical abortions.

 

[Rakhel]

I always want to put an asterisks when I post from the old testament specifying the Christian interpretation because I really, really dislike it. I find the Jewish interpretation to be quite sane.

I hear ya and agree.

 

[Pegg]

Which is the reason why God is fine with actually causing abortions in cases of adultery?

The only place the bible directly mentions abortion it not only allows it but abortion is god's will.

what scripture are you referring to?

And you would need to account for all the miscarriages that happen, thats a far bigger number than there are medical abortions.

spontaneous miscarriages occur due to embryo not developing properly...it has nothing to do with God.

 

[Pegg]

That verse is telling men who are fighting to be careful when doing it around a pregnant woman. I don't see how abortion rights could be extrapolated from that verse.

The closest thing I could find to abortion is:

Deuteronomy 27:25 'Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.' And all the people shall say, 'Amen.'

the only difference between a pregnant woman and any other woman is that she is carrying a child... there are no mosaic laws stating that two men fighting must not harm a non-pregnant woman... so what was God trying to protect? The only reasonable answer is that the child in the womb was the one God was protecting.

he obviously views the fetus as a living being, otherwise why give it protection under law?

And I'm not exactly sure I want to take my moral direction from this God:

Psalm 137: 8Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

'Babylon' is symbolic of false religion...this verse is not speaking about people but religion with its 'infants' being its various sects.

 

[Rakhel]

Babylon was an empire in the Persian region. Babylon concurred Israel. Why can it not refer to literal children?

Wait. Let's run with this logic.

That would be like replacing the word "Babylon" with the word "Christianity." OR "Buddhism" OR "Americanism" OR "Britons" OR...hell, "Californication"

 

[ImmortalPhoenix]

Murder. What the hell did your baby do to you.