Photonic
Ad astra!
Does....not...compute
-
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
- Thread starter TheChap
- Start date
Does....not...compute
There are always give and takes in life. If the husband wants the baby he should be entitled but the woman should also be given her due. This method is fair. If no one wants the baby abortion is allowable, for medical reasons abortion is allowable.
The pay does not have to be modest. I only used 7.75 as an example. Of course all medical expenses must also be covered by the person that wants the baby.
Sorry big fingers small calculator 55,800 close enough you can understand plus I would advocate at least six figures.
Another thing the life argument will never work. Because as soon as it is fertile it is alive. Can I say it is human no but you will be arrested for cruelty to animals. Certain bugs in my area are protected and you are fined up to $1000.00 for killing them.
Are you saying that the embryo is some how worth less than a bug.
Are you saying that the embryo is some how worth less than a bug.
Draka
Wonder Woman
A being with human DNA and therefore biologically classified as human. Seems the most basic scientific definition, doesn't it?
Photonic
Ad astra!
Well, that and the fact that he would basically take control of the womans body without her consent. She does not deserve to be treated like human fertilizer.
It should be consent between the two of them. There are other ways to get a baby than to force a woman to carry yours.
Photonic
Ad astra!
Wow, in that case, blood may no longer be drawn, as it is a living organism with Human DNA, and it cannot be allowed to die.
Oh, sperm must be used, every last bit of it, it is living and has Human DNA. All sperm must be combined with an egg or you're committing murder.
I could go on for hours on how that doesn't work.
Unless it was forced (which could be another exception) she consented to take the Risk. Each risk has consequences. All women and men would be made aware of said consequences and be held responsible for their decisions.
Last edited:
work in progress
Well-Known Member
This sounds like the "life begins at conception" argument...although the scientists who study this field inform us that there is no exact point of "conception" in the fertilization process. Nevertheless, let's assume there is, and ask whether it is a good idea to award full human rights on the basis of having a brand new, unique DNA signature. There is nothing in a zygote that we recognize as human: appearance, conscious awareness -- the new life has no awareness of having any interests, and of course is totally dependent on its mother for survival and to grow into a baby that can live outside the womb.
All of the arguments for extending human personhood to this early stage revolve around the potential that it will grow to become human. Should all potentials be rewarded? God or mother nature doesn't do so, if we follow the evidence that at least 50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, in a process that tries to screen out the weaker, less resilient zygotes and embryos, that would likely have birth defects.
Does every pregnant woman and society at large have an obligation to ensure that all potentials are guaranteed? Especially when it is a potential life that is dependent on someone else. If the pro-life groups were really serious about their arguments besides using them for leverage on other issues, this would be extremely costly....higher birth rates, an explosion of children raised in poverty.
Is it really moral or ethical to demand that more babies be brought into this world by mostly young, teenage girls, and face a bleak future of life in poverty, depending on already overburdened social services that are being slashed by the same political parties that promote anti-abortion legislation?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Why should people be held responsible for their decisions?
Photonic
Ad astra!
Should they be held responsible for consequences that no longer need to be consequences?
Draka
Wonder Woman
That's overkill and you know it. Blood is not an individual being. It is a component of a being. Sperm is not an individual being, it is a DNA transporting component of a being. An individual uniquely coded being with human DNA would include a zygote and all following. It can be easily enough argued that all humans are in a state of progressing to the next stage. Once a zygote is formed, a uniquely DNA coded individual being, it begins its progress to the next stage. Just as a toddler grows to a young child to an adolescent to a young adult to a mature adult to an elderly adult; a zygote grows to an embryo to a fetus and to a newborn infant and so on. They are all stages of human development. What particular value people place on those specific stages of development seem to be what is really questioned, not whether they are human. Biologically, scientifically, human life does indeed begin at conception. To deny that fact just so one can personally hold to a belief that abortion does not take a human life is really just trying to justify supporting the act of abortion as if no life is taken. Life is indeed taken. Now, how a person values that life is what is the issue.
Draka
Wonder Woman
To this I have to say "So?" Why must we recognize certain attributes in order to realize it is human? And yes, of course it is dependent upon the mother for its incubation. Again, so? It's supposed to be. That's nature.
If a miscarriage happens for those reason then it happens. Really doesn't have anything to do with elective abortions though.
Just because a life is dependent upon someone else it doesn't matter if there is any potential? What of those in comas or disabled and in need of care? Does their potential not matter because they are dependent?
Really, what is the most moral and ethical thing to do would be to arm people with true reproductive knowledge and contraception methods. Until that is done we simply have to deal with what we have in the methods we have available. Demands need not be made, but education should be. How a person comes to terms with and values human life in different forms and stages is something they need to deal with internally. It is not something that can be forced universally no matter how many disagree with it.
IsmailaGodHasHeard
Well-Known Member
I am sorry but I disagree. The only time that abortion is okay is if the mother's life is in danger and the fetus/baby is too young to survive. Otherwise, the mother can just have a c section.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
And if the mother doesn't want to remain pregnant long enough for that to be viable?
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, if we're going to be reduced to baby factories, minimum wage is better than nothing....
work in progress
Well-Known Member
Why! Because mere human tissue is not evidence of personhood; otherwise the HeLa cells used in medical research, would have to be given the same human rights that anti-abortion crusaders want to grant to embryoes.
Then that makes it "contingent" life -- or life that cannot exist without the consent (or lack of consent) of the person who is keeping that person alive. Nevermind that in the abortion issue, we are talking about life that has no sense of awareness, even if it was conscious life, there are still ethical problems with forcing someone to keep a dependent person alive. Back in 1970, just before the Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down -- which removed restrictions on early stage abortions, a Harvard ethicist named Judith Jarvis Thompson, constructed several thought experiment problems to give outsiders a little insight into the problems of competing interests.
One of them -- The Violinist presents a scenario where someone in the hospital for a simple operation, wakes to discover that their IV tube is connected to another man in the next bed....and we're informed that this man is a renowned concert violinist who needs our blood, and will die if we refuse to stay connected for the next....let's say....nine months! Even though this is a fully conscious human by any definition, are we obligated to forego are own privacy and freedoms to save that other person?
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.
Only because there is no human agency involved. I ask the question, because as in many other cases, people who believe in active, involved, personal gods, do not hold those gods to the same standards of morality as they do to people.
And as the population ages, some of us who are in our mid-50's and older, and attending more and more funerals and visiting sick relatives in hospitals and nursing homes, are more concerned about these "sanctity of life" issues at the other end of the life's journey. That's actually where I've done most of my reading, and are most concerned about -- because the same rhetoric and bad arguments that demand that pregnant girls give birth to their rapist's babies are used to deny the terminally ill or those in chronic pain to end their lives when they wish to do so!
If I can use one of the Palin daughters as an example -- children who are told to be abstinent and never have sex, are the most likely to end up as teenage moms. So, what do you do after the horses are already out of the barn? Saying 'you should have used contraception is of no value.....it should be noted that the most fanatical anti-abortion groups are also against most forms of contraception because of alleged abortifacient capacities....so a future run by the Rick Perrys and Michelle Bachmanns, or others on the far right, will turn back the clock, and future generations can learn why this, like so many other rightwing reactionary arguments create a horrible reality that past generations learned from and thought they had changed for the better! Failure to learn from history means repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
Draka
Wonder Woman
You're arguing two different things now. Now you must define "personhood". It appears you just dislike the definition of a human being and are now wanting to change the playing field with another word. So what? You admit that zygotes and embryos and fetuses ARE, in fact, human beings, BUT they are not "persons" and therefore it doesn't matter if they are human beings? Is that your argument? Because that's what it sounds like to me.
"Contingent life", nice choice of words there. Let's make this clear...ALL life in its beginning forms is "contingent" on someone else. In fact, a newborn's life is "contingent" upon the care it receives from someone else. It cannot exist without someone else consenting to take care of it. A baby, a small child, even an elderly disabled adult all fall into that category of being contingent upon the consent of another to care for it. With your argument about there being ethical problems with forcing someone to keep a dependent person alive (which by the way there you just recognized an unborn child as a "person") then you open the door for allowances to not require someone to take care of a baby or disabled person or comatose person and so on and so forth.
Honestly this is so all over the place I'm left wondering what your real points are in the short and sweet of things. You give different unimaginable hypotheticals trying to liken pregnancy to them and they are rather absurd.
Again, this is why I said things shouldn't be forced. Or did you miss that? I push for more thorough education in general in regards to reproduction and contraception. This is not only at the school-age level, but hopefully for all. This is to say that unless adults can be reached as well we are still going to deal with these issues. You are right that many of the same people who are against abortion also have issues with contraception and the illusion that just saying "don't have sex" is going to actually keep people chaste and safe. These issues need be dealt with on a whole throughout society in order for us to move past the idea that abortions are somehow a need in our world. However, also try to remember that there are also plenty of people who disagree with abortion that are not against contraception and sex ed in general. That there are people against abortion personally and wouldn't choose it for themselves, but still find it within themselves to know that they are not other people and try to step back and let others make their own decisions. Stances about abortion are not as black and white as some like to think. It is possible for people to see a bigger picture. To have facts and opinions about those facts and yet not expect other people to live adhering to those opinions. Judging by your response to me, I don't think you have any idea where I stand. Do you think you have any idea now?
work in progress
Well-Known Member
A person is more than a fertilized egg cell. If there is no capacity for self-awareness and agency, then the "life begins at conception" crowd only have the argument that there is the potential for a zygote to become a human person....provided the mother that it is solely dependent on shares the same interests.
They are human tissue, and could become persons if the mother desires to make it possible.
Are you referring to human life here? Because that would be self-evident.
They are not contingent on ONE specific person in order to live. That is the point -- if the mother dies in childbirth, a surrogate can take care of the newborn...same with the old farts in the nursing home -- but, prior to a certain stage of development (I forget which week of gestation), a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. So "protecting life" out of necessity means denying the pregnant woman the freedom of choice to decide whether or not to bring a baby into the world.
There are two separate arguments regarding whether an embryo/fetus qualifies as being a person, and whether a pregnant woman should be obligated to carry it to term. And again...babies and the disabled are not contingent life. It's a whole other ethics issue whether brain-dead and similar examples of people who have lost any capacity for enjoying life should be kept alive at all costs.
The indented paragraphs are from Judith Jarvis Thompson's example of the "Violinist" which had a link if you want to read the full text. It's not mine, so take it up with her if you don't understand her reasoning. For myself, it seems plain and simple -- if it is possible for one person, and only that individual to save another life, should they be obligated to do so, against their will?
Okay, that's better than abstinence-only education, but it still doesn't deal with women who have been raped, or date-raped, or have changed their minds about having a baby because of a change in relationship or economic circumstances (the guy left or they've lost their job etc.), or there is a high probability of birth defects or risks to the mother's health if pregnancy is continued.....this is about more than contraception. A pregnant woman may have her own reasons for not wanting to carry a pregnancy to term, and there are only a few situations where the state might be justified in denying her choice to end the pregnancy.
You're in favour of birth control, but against abortion!