Abortion

[Neophyte]

But the fetus lacks the qualities that define personhood; sapience, self-awareness, character, personality, the ability to think, the capacity for emotion, etc. It's just a glob of cells. The girl already has to live with the horrific trauma and emotional scars of rape for the rest of her life, so adding a cherry on top by forcing her to give birth would be totally sick and demented due to the extreme risk to her physical and psychological health.
Besides, babies aren't in short supply.

Here's an idea; instead of fretting over fetuses, let's focus our attention on the hundreds of thousands of real, actual children already here in the world who are abused, exploited, neglected, unwanted, unloved, starving, impoverished, homeless, orphaned, etc.

We should focus on those poor children as well. I never said we shouldn't. At the same time, this does not make it ok to take an innocent life. Neither does the fact an innocent girl suffered great trauma. I truly feel bad for her and am not trying to make light of her tragic situation. I would make whoever did that to her suffer greatly for that if I could, believe me! Still, I could not take an innocent life for that.

 

[Neophyte]

The biggest thing about your post that makes no sense is how the heartbeat makes it "alive".

The thing is, it is alive even before conception.
A LIVING sperm cell joins with a LIVING egg cell.
If either of the two is not alive, there is no conception.

OK, so you feel life starts at or before conception. That is fine. I do disagree since we always have living sperm and egg cells. They just die off and move on, and are reproduced. If you said, it starts at conception I would understand more.

 

[Neophyte]

:sorry1:I do not at all agree. If the child can not live outside of the mother, what makes it a living singular entity of any sort? It is not a living being until it can survive outside of the maternal parent, end of discussion IMO.

Give an infant a home, put some food in the freezer, and everything it needs to survive in the house, leave for two weeks, and come back. It will not survive. You cannot base it on it's ability to live. Look at mental-retarded people, some can be 30 years old and still not able to survive on their own, does that make OK to kill them? Of course it does not, same with this in this case.

 

[Neophyte]

People argue that it's life. Sure it is. So is bacteria.

Bacteria is not a person...we are higher up the food chain than that. That is not even a reasonable argument. If so, you would starve to death. One could even argue an apple has life in it so you could not eat it. Now the reality of it is the tree that produced the apple has life but the apple has seeds to bring forth new life. So lets try to stick to a real argument.

 

[Neophyte]

I used to agree with you. However, I've learned that simply because I feel it's wrong doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone. Fact is, no one knows what they would do until they are in that situation (God forbid)...everyone has a different tolerance level. Perhaps some women could carry to term and raise the baby herself, some could put baby up for adoption, but others may not have the capability to do so.

This is coming from someone who, upon seeing the + sign on my six EPTs thought of the "embryo" "my baby" each and every time, so I don't take ending life lightly. It's just unfair to place one's moral/ethical standards on everyone.

Chances are, if abortion is outlawed, these women will go underground and have unsafe, unsanitary abortions...and we'll lose two lives. Sad reality, but nevertheless, true.

I see what you are saying but at the same time I cannot go kill someone that I feel deserves it, like a rapist, and get away with it. Rapists deserve the death penalty! If I go an kill one I will still end up in jail. Why can everyone eases morals be placed on me then? They can because it is the law. The law will always go against some people morals because we will never all agree. It is the only way to set a standard. It may be wrong sometimes, but it is the best we can do. If I could, I would have abortion outlawed.

 

[beenie]

I see what you are saying but at the same time I cannot go kill someone that I feel deserves it, like a rapist, and get away with it. Rapists deserve the death penalty! If I go an kill one I will still end up in jail. Why can everyone eases morals be placed on me then? They can because it is the law. The law will always go against some people morals because we will never all agree. It is the only way to set a standard. It may be wrong sometimes, but it is the best we can do. If I could, I would have abortion outlawed.

The two are not comparable. One person is a criminal and one is inside the body of a raped woman.

 

[rusra02]

Let's say a 9 year old girl was raped and her mom died earlier than this, her dad was a poor, drunk. The girl had nobody else but her dad in that poor hillbilly place. Let's say her dad was a farmer who lived in a town by other farmers. One day while her dad went to milk the cows, one of the neighbors raped her, and nine months later she was pregnant.

Would it be fine for her to get an abortion?

The Bible gives God's view, the One who gives life (Psalm 36:9). Many girls and women are raped by wicked men and become pregnant. The unborn child is not responsible for the evil done to the mother. Exodus 21:22,23 shows the life of an unborn child is sacred and should not be ended.
In Psalm 139:16, God inspired these words; "Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed, and there was not yet one among them."
Thus God considers a child in his mother's womb as a living person, and science has shown that that is the case.
The difficulties unwanted pregnancies present are obvious. This is one reason of many that God condemns acts such as rape and incest, and will judge adversely those who do such things. He will also judge those who commit fornication and adultery, and then abort the unwanted products of such conduct (Hebrews 13:4).
Those who sincerely repent may receive his forgiveness, however.(Luke 5:32)

 

[Kathryn]

Let's say a 9 year old girl was raped and her mom died earlier than this, her dad was a poor, drunk. The girl had nobody else but her dad in that poor hillbilly place. Let's say her dad was a farmer who lived in a town by other farmers. One day while her dad went to milk the cows, one of the neighbors raped her, and nine months later she was pregnant.

Would it be fine for her to get an abortion?

Let's say a 24 year old woman who has been living with her boyfriend forgets to take a couple of her birth control pills. Her parents are both alive and all parties are living in decent housing and have jobs. The woman has friends and extended family living in close proximity as well.


One day her boyfriend comes home from work with a twinkle in his eye and she figures now's as good a time as any to give him the opportunity to closely inspect her nipple ring and her butterfly "tramp stamp." Due to her own absentminded behavior, she has forgotten to take her birth control pills a few times this month.

A few months later, she realizes she's pregnant, and...well, she just doesn't want to be.

Would it be fine for her to get an abortion?

Don't answer the question. That's not the point. My point is that whenever people want to justify abortion on demand, they use the worst possible scenarios. Most abortions are not performed due to rape, incest, or actual threat to the life of the mother.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Don't answer the question. That's not the point. My point is that whenever people want to justify abortion on demand, they use the worst possible scenarios. Most abortions are not performed due to rape, incest, or actual threat to the life of the mother.

Good point. And none of the scenarios trump a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Bacteria is not a person...we are higher up the food chain than that. That is not even a reasonable argument. If so, you would starve to death. One could even argue an apple has life in it so you could not eat it. Now the reality of it is the tree that produced the apple has life but the apple has seeds to bring forth new life. So lets try to stick to a real argument.

So you mean to tell me the child can not breath on its own or eat if given food, the same as a mentally challanged individual? The fetus remains an extension of the maternal parent's life until these abilities are manifest. It is obvious that the child is not at fault in any given situation of human cruelty (no matter what form), but that does not negate the facts. People are given a choice on a daily basis and they have to live with the choices they make. Why should anyone take this away, other than the One Who allows choices to be made? I can understand what you are trying to say but IMHO a "soul" is not granted until life can sustain itself enough to do what it takes to live, and that is breath and eat.

 

[horizon_mj1]

We should focus on those poor children as well. I never said we shouldn't. At the same time, this does not make it ok to take an innocent life. Neither does the fact an innocent girl suffered great trauma. I truly feel bad for her and am not trying to make light of her tragic situation. I would make whoever did that to her suffer greatly for that if I could, believe me! Still, I could not take an innocent life for that.

What if 2 forms of innocent lives are violated?;Say in the scenario of a challenged/innocent patient being raped, resulting with a pregnancy; you would say make the innocent go through something they can not even comprehend?

 

[Kathryn]

Good point. And none of the scenarios trump a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body.

Legally in the United States, you are correct. But as we all know, and as history teaches us so eloquently, "just because it's legal doesn't make it right."

I am not going to debate whether or not abortion is "right or wrong." That horse has officially expired due to excessive beating about the head and shoulders.

 

[McBell]

OK, so you feel life starts at or before conception. That is fine. I do disagree since we always have living sperm and egg cells. They just die off and move on, and are reproduced. If you said, it starts at conception I would understand more.

I say that life started a long long time ago and is a continous ongoing process.
Thus I find all the "Life begins at" arguments to be at best ill thought out and at worst self justification.

 

[ninerbuff]

You can "freeze" embryos for later use. You can't get the same results from freezing a baby.

 

[beenie]

You can "freeze" embryos for later use. You can't get the same results from freezing a baby.

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with aborting a baby of a raped woman. Can you clarify?

 

[Valjean]

(PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE READING MY POST! I do not feel that anyone who has had an abortion is a murderer [I think abortion doctor are though]. I do feel it is wrong. I feel very strongly about that. Please keep that in mind when you read this.)

Both are complicit in the destruction of the foetus. Why would the mother be less guilty?

I feel abortion is wrong no matter what. You see, I truly would feel bad for that girl. I would feel awful for what happened to her and all the trouble she would have to go through to give birth to the child. Here is the thing though, from day 18 of pregnancy a babies heart is pumping. It is a living being at that time. That being has a right to live. The baby did nothing wrong to deserve death. Now the girl can give the baby up for adoption if she so chose or use a morning after pill if possible. My problem is once the heart is going I feel it is wrong.

What's so magical about the circulatory system? The heart's just an organ like any other. Why not declare the foetus a person when the liver or kidneys begin working?

But the fetus lacks the qualities that define personhood; sapience, self-awareness, character, personality, the ability to think, the capacity for emotion, etc. It's just a glob of cells. The girl already has to live with the horrific trauma and emotional scars of rape for the rest of her life, so adding a cherry on top by forcing her to give birth would be totally sick and demented due to the extreme risk to her physical and psychological health.
Besides, babies aren't in short supply.

Finally someone's hit the nail on the head. The whole argument revolves around the concept of personhood and how that is defined.
Most people, IMO, are pretty slapdash in their concept of personhood and moral obligation toward other "people."

:sorry1:I do not at all agree. If the child can not live outside of the mother, what makes it a living singular entity of any sort? It is not a living being until it can survive outside of the maternal parent, end of discussion IMO.

A tapeworm cannot live independently, either, yet most would acknowledge it a discrete entity.
I'm not sure ability to survive independently is a valid criterion of personhood or moral obligation.
We are all dependent, to varying degrees, on extrinsic factors.

Good point. And none of the scenarios trump a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body.

Surprising it took this many posts for the "own body" argument to appear.
This makes a good talking point, but is based on a questionable assumption. In what way is the foetus part of the woman? A DNA profile would reveal two different individuals. True, a foetus is parasitic, at this stage of development, but it's a histologically different and distinct organism.

 

[Neophyte]

The two are not comparable. One person is a criminal and one is inside the body of a raped woman.

I was not comparing the two per say. I was making the point that some people feel it is wrong to give the death penalty to a rapist. If a rapist is then killed it goes against someone morals. In other words everyone has someone morals pushed on them sometimes (usually by the law). That was the point I was making. Besides, an innocent baby deserves the death penalty much less than a rapist.

 

[beenie]

I was not comparing the two per say. I was making the point that some people feel it is wrong to give the death penalty to a rapist. If a rapist is then killed it goes against someone morals. In other words everyone has someone morals pushed on them sometimes (usually by the law). That was the point I was making. Besides, an innocent baby deserves the death penalty much less than a rapist.

I understand.

 

[Neophyte]

Good point. And none of the scenarios trump a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own body.

Except the fact it is not her own body...it is the babies that someone no one here seems to realize. Apparently the baby has no right to decide. Guess everyone's morals can be pushed on him/her.

 

[Neophyte]

So you mean to tell me the child can not breath on its own or eat if given food, the same as a mentally challanged individual? The fetus remains an extension of the maternal parent's life until these abilities are manifest. It is obvious that the child is not at fault in any given situation of human cruelty (no matter what form), but that does not negate the facts. People are given a choice on a daily basis and they have to live with the choices they make. Why should anyone take this away, other than the One Who allows choices to be made? I can understand what you are trying to say but IMHO a "soul" is not granted until life can sustain itself enough to do what it takes to live, and that is breath and eat.

I am sure the baby would feel otherwise...