-
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 yoda89
- Start date
I propose that all pregnant women be subdued and placed into comfortable and tastefully decorated harnesses, unable to leave, to insure that they and the child stay healthy and prevent them from seeking abortions until they give birth. Its a little bit overprotective, but at least no children will be aborted. :angel2:
McBell
Unbound
How do you feel about miscarriages?
averageJOE
zombie
It's simple Mestemia. Abortion is murder. Miscarriages are manslaughter. But it will be up to the courts to decide if it was involuntary.
Duh.
McBell
Unbound
Would that make periods serial killings?
averageJOE
zombie
:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:
:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:
Very few post make me laugh out loud!! Bravo!!
:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:
Very few post make me laugh out loud!! Bravo!!
MD
qualiaphile
I'm pro choice for 4 weeks, after which time I would define life begins since the heart is forming at this time. But even then it's very difficult as to when we can define when life begins or even what life is. So I will say once the fetus is viable, abortion should be illegal. To say that a fetus should be aborted even when it's viable is akin to murder and most people who support this are brainwashed.
I've seen a few live abortions and a fetus is not an embryo at 4 weeks. Ultrasounds show the fetus moving and playing at a few weeks time, scientific studies have shown the fetus to have an enhanced sense of nociception and with more and more scientists accepting animals and birds have consciousness it would be impossible to deny fetuses have it either. Yet until we define when life begins scientifically I cannot give a timeline as to when abortion should be illegal.
Unfortunately this topic has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and militant feminists instead of scientists and physicians. Future generations will note this as one of the dark aspects of our time and who knows how many hundreds of millions of viable fetuses were murdered brutally in their mothers wombs in the name of liberalism (not to mention the billions of animals brutally murdered for meat and factory farming).
I've seen a few live abortions and a fetus is not an embryo at 4 weeks. Ultrasounds show the fetus moving and playing at a few weeks time, scientific studies have shown the fetus to have an enhanced sense of nociception and with more and more scientists accepting animals and birds have consciousness it would be impossible to deny fetuses have it either. Yet until we define when life begins scientifically I cannot give a timeline as to when abortion should be illegal.
Unfortunately this topic has been hijacked by religious fundamentalists and militant feminists instead of scientists and physicians. Future generations will note this as one of the dark aspects of our time and who knows how many hundreds of millions of viable fetuses were murdered brutally in their mothers wombs in the name of liberalism (not to mention the billions of animals brutally murdered for meat and factory farming).
Last edited:
So... since many (most?) pregnancies aren't discovered until after 4 weeks, you're effectively anti-choice except for things like Plan B.
MD
qualiaphile
Haha anti choice, such a cute little term. I don't know what the stats are with regards to what percent of pregnancies are detected during which time, but I would define life as when the heart starts to form. However I would support policy which prevents abortion beyond the earliest viable week.
This is becoming more of a secular issue, rather than something the catholic church used against feminists in the 70s. As our understanding of consciousness increases and we can support fetuses that are born earlier and earlier, the argument for a term limit on abortion will only grow.
McBell
Unbound
What is it before it reaches the point you define it as life?
It's accurate. The only terms I've found for that side of the debate that aren't loaded with euphemisms and extra baggage are "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice".
Gestational age is measured from the previous menstruation. An "average" menstrual cycle is 28 days... 4 weeks. However, this can vary from woman to woman. A pregnant woman might not even realize that she's missed her period until week 5 or 6, depending on how regular her cycle is.
IMO, it makes absolutely no sense to use viability as the point where a woman would be obliged to continue the pregnancy. The implicit message is that the woman only has obligations to the fetus once the fetus is no longer dependent on the woman. The implicit reasoning is bizarre and doesn't match any other approach that I've ever been able to find for any other issue.
If viability is going to be used as some sort of demarcation point at all, the only approach that's logically coherent would be to use it as the dividing line between ending the pregnancy with an abortion vs. ending it with induced labour.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I respect the anti-abortion stance when it comes from people who have adopted unwanted/parentless children. Anyone else is simply full of hot air and empty bluster.
MD
qualiaphile
Maybe I should have been more specific, I define it as human life. Before that it is a collection of cells and tissue.
MD
qualiaphile
Perhaps I should call people who pro choice after the viability of an infant as pro murder. Would you think that's fitting?
Again the 4 week mark is MY definition and I would never support it in policy because it's not really based on anything concrete aside from the development of some organs.
According to pro choicers the woman has no obligations to the fetus whatsoever, only to herself. That's the whole argument behind 'choice'. The viability argument atleast gives the fetus a chance. As an atheist one would think you would appreciate the rare opportunity a fetus has at sentience, in an otherwise cold, dark, godless purposeless universe.
The fetus which becomes an infant is dependant on the woman for a long time. One can argue that children are highly dependant on their moms for many years after birth.
What people fail to realize is that sex is a reproductive function, even though our society has commodified it into something else. To allow the killing of an uborn human especially one that is viable and conscious is akin to murder.
Agreed that's what pro lifers should be focusing on. And in general as more neuroscientific studies prove that fetuses have increased nociception, sentience and some sort of rudimentary consciousness the weeks will be pushed back. Thalamocortical junctions which are responsible for more higher forms of consciousness appear in the 24th week. I'm sure more primal rudimentary forms of consciousness appear much earlier. If a fetus is conscious on some level when it's killed then this is murder, straight up.
Ask any of the people picketing in front of the abortion clinic if they're opposed to allowing women to choose abortion, and they'll say yes. If you ask a pro-choice person if they're in favour of murder, what do you think they'll say?
Well, I'm glad you wouldn't want to impose your arbitrary line on others.
What are you talking about?
A baby is dependent on people, but not necessarily the mother specifically.
What about the "killing" of someone long after birth? If a leukemia patient will certainly die without a bone marrow donation and the only available donor doesn't want to give up his bone marrow, his right to bodily security trumps the leukemia patient's right to life... despite the fact that the guy with leukemia is unquestionably sentient, sapient, and expressing a will to live.
And even if the donor agrees, he can change his mind. Even after they've collected the first sample of bone marrow, if he decides that he doesn't want to give up any more, he has the absolute right to end the process.
Heck... even if the donor dies, if he doesn't want the bone marrow to be harvested after death, the bodily security of his cadaver still trumps the leukemia patient's right to life
Why would you want to deny pregnant women a right that we even grant to corpses?
No, it's not... it's not murder any more than refusing to donate a kidney is murder.
And what studies have you been reading? The ones I've seen have indicated that neural activity is suppressed until the switchover from prenatal to neo-natal circulation. Higher-order brain function and even the breathing reflex are "switched off" until that first breath, regardless of gestational age.
Edit: ... though this is a side issue, since the level of sentience of a fetus is about as relevant to abortion as the level of sentience of a blood recipient is to the freedom not to donate blood.
McBell
Unbound
Now I am even more confused.
What was it before it became "human life", murine?
The sperm and the egg have to both be alive for conception to happen.
If either or both are dead, then conception can not occur.
Since we are talking about human conception it only stands to reason that both the human sperm and the human egg create a human zygote at conception.
You seem to be saying that it is not human until it reaches a certain point in development.
Is that what you mean?
McBell
Unbound
Only if you can get the definition of murder changed.
Wait, are you claiming that the fetus is viable at 4 weeks?
No they aren't.
They are dependent on help, but it does not need to be their mom.
Only if you change the definition of murder.
You keep using that word "murder".
I do not think it means what you think it means.
adi2d
Active Member
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, a miscarriage is just a natural bodily process and is neither moral or immoral.
esmith
Veteran Member
I look at it this way. First I am pro-choice with restrictions. Second I am against tax payer subsidizing abortions under certain circumstances but subsidizing under others. If you look at the following chart: from CHART you will see that the majority of the country approves of abortions under certain circumstances. Thus I see no reason for tax payer money not to be spent to subsidize abortions under certain circumstances. No, at this time I do not have a total understanding of what "under certain circumstances" would be.
