Abortion

[McBell]

And THAT is begging the question, isn't it? Yes, the law supports it. I've certainly never claimed it doesn't.

My claim is that the law is wrong. The law should NOT support it.

Or rather....perhaps not even that. My claim is that SOCIETY should not support it.

You realize, don't you, that there is no law on the books against stars revolving around the planet, right?
That's because a: no stars revolve around this planet and there is no chance that there ever would be, and b: we couldn't do anything about it if they did. Ergo, no law forbidding it.

THAT'S what I want to see: I want to see abortion--except under the most tragic of circumstances--be so unthinkable to any sane person that there doesn't need to be a law against it.

fair enough.
I just think you are going about it completely wrong.

 

[idav]

Seems this whole abortion debate is nothing but semantics.

Notice how pro-choice doesn't say pro-abortion.

 

[McBell]

Notice how pro-choice doesn't say pro-abortion.

Yes, I do.
That is because they are about the choice.
They believe woman should be able to choose either way.
It matters not if they choose to abort or choose to not abort.
Why?
Because it is about the ability to choose, not about the abortion itself.

 

[idav]

Yes, I do.
That is because they are about the choice.
They believe woman should be able to choose either way.
It matters not if they choose to abort or choose to not abort.
Why?
Because it is about the ability to choose, not about the abortion itself.

Thats why the whole zygote argument can sometimes even be besides the point.

 

[McBell]

Thats why the whole zygote argument can sometimes even be besides the point.

Seems to me that that is why most of the "arguments" against abortion are beside the point.

It is the Pro-Life side that is trying to force their beliefs onto everyone.
The Pro-Choice side wants abortion to be the choice of the woman contemplatiing the decision..

 

[idav]

The Pro-Choice side wants abortion to be the choice of the woman contemplatiing the decision..

You mean contemplating a choice to sin.

 

[Curious George]

"pulling the plug" is, in most cases, simply removing artificial means of extending a life already ended.

Can you elaborate on this please.

 

[McBell]

You mean contemplating a choice to sin.

If your chosen deity claims that abortion is a sin, then yes.

OASN:
Who are you to remove a persons free will?
Isn't "God can/will not interfere with free will" the excuse presented as to why god does not intervene in human affairs?

OASN:
if you want to open the can of worms referred to as "sin" with me, you should start another thread.

 

[dianaiad]

Notice how pro-choice doesn't say pro-abortion.

.....and pro-life doesn't say anti-abortion, but that's pretty much what it is.

In fact, I am very much 'pro-choice.' It's just that I believe that the choice in THIS area needs to be made before one engages in the activity that produces babies.

...........but will anybody in here who supports abortion allow me the use of 'pro-choice?" Nope...because 'pro-choice' is ALL ABOUT ABORTION, and nothing else.

 

[dianaiad]

Can you elaborate on this please.

From personal experience, having had to do this to/for my husband: 'pulling the plug,' or disconnecting life support, is done ONLY after the doctors determine that life has ended and the patient has essentially no chance of recovery of brain function.

It is NOT done to temporarily comatose patients for whom the docs expect recovery. It is not done to prevent comatose patients FROM possible recovery. It is done only when there is, essentially, 0% chance of improvement or recovery.

It is done in concert with medical opinion regarding the issue, because when someone 'pulls the plug' without that, it's called 'murder.'

It is also done when the patient has either given an advance directive (as I have) or has assigned someone else power of attorney with specific instructions to either not use extensive life support or to discontinue it at a certain point.

At no time is this considered for any patient who has a decent chance of recovery.

 

[idav]

.....and pro-life doesn't say anti-abortion, but that's pretty much what it is.

In fact, I am very much 'pro-choice.' It's just that I believe that the choice in THIS area needs to be made before one engages in the activity that produces babies.

...........but will anybody in here who supports abortion allow me the use of 'pro-choice?" Nope...because 'pro-choice' is ALL ABOUT ABORTION, and nothing else.

You may feel sinning is bad but making it illegal to sin doesn't take away the choice, nor is it feasible.

 

[dianaiad]

You may feel sinning is bad but making it illegal to sin doesn't take away the choice, nor is it feasible.

there is 'sin' and then again there is sin.

"Sin" is about doing something one firmly believes is wrong. For instance, I believe that it is wrong for ME to drink coffee. Why?
Because I promised not to do so, and breaking promises is, well, wrong and a sin.

However, drinking coffee isn't a sin for you (probably) because you didn't promise.

To bring this closer to the mark, I think that sex outside the marriage bonds is sinning big time; pre-marital sex and adultery simply cause a whole bunch of problems and doesn't make anybody happy, really. Too much stress...and yes, I believe that both things are pretty big sins. However, I can't see making either one illegal; someone else might not see it as a sin, stupid as that may be.

See, that sort of sin only affects those who engage in it, really.

However, when one commits a sin that DOES affect others negatively, most people call those sorts of sins 'crimes.' You know, like stealing, assault, murder, fraud...stuff like that.

Abortion affects...actually ends...a human life. It ends a life that did not choose to be where it is, did not choose to exist and exits only (in most cases) because of the consensual acts of two people who honestly should have been more responsible. So, to get out of their responsibility to this human they created, they kill it.

Excuse me, but I find that to be....considerably more than just a sin that affects only the person doing the sinning and his/her own belief system/ethical system. THAT involves another human, who absolutely did NOT volunteer to be killed to ease someone else's inconvenience.

Ah, well....I think I have lectured on my soapbox sufficiently for the moment.

 

[idav]

there is 'sin' and then again there is sin.

"Sin" is about doing something one firmly believes is wrong. For instance, I believe that it is wrong for ME to drink coffee. Why?
Because I promised not to do so, and breaking promises is, well, wrong and a sin.

However, drinking coffee isn't a sin for you (probably) because you didn't promise.

To bring this closer to the mark, I think that sex outside the marriage bonds is sinning big time; pre-marital sex and adultery simply cause a whole bunch of problems and doesn't make anybody happy, really. Too much stress...and yes, I believe that both things are pretty big sins. However, I can't see making either one illegal; someone else might not see it as a sin, stupid as that may be.

See, that sort of sin only affects those who engage in it, really.

However, when one commits a sin that DOES affect others negatively, most people call those sorts of sins 'crimes.' You know, like stealing, assault, murder, fraud...stuff like that.

Abortion affects...actually ends...a human life. It ends a life that did not choose to be where it is, did not choose to exist and exits only (in most cases) because of the consensual acts of two people who honestly should have been more responsible. So, to get out of their responsibility to this human they created, they kill it.

Excuse me, but I find that to be....considerably more than just a sin that affects only the person doing the sinning and his/her own belief system/ethical system. THAT involves another human, who absolutely did NOT volunteer to be killed to ease someone else's inconvenience.

Ah, well....I think I have lectured on my soapbox sufficiently for the moment.

You may feel that way but people who feel it is ok to allow the choice obviously don't think it's murder. I wouldn't want an abortion but it's not my call to choose how people live and believe. Besides God kills way more fetuses than humans anyway.

 

[Curious George]

From personal experience, having had to do this to/for my husband: 'pulling the plug,' or disconnecting life support, is done ONLY after the doctors determine that life has ended and the patient has essentially no chance of recovery of brain function.

It is NOT done to temporarily comatose patients for whom the docs expect recovery. It is not done to prevent comatose patients FROM possible recovery. It is done only when there is, essentially, 0% chance of improvement or recovery.

Essentially 0 is not 0.

It is done in concert with medical opinion regarding the issue, because when someone 'pulls the plug' without that, it's called 'murder.'

It is also done when the patient has either given an advance directive (as I have) or has assigned someone else power of attorney with specific instructions to either not use extensive life support or to discontinue it at a certain point.


At no time is this considered for any patient who has a decent chance of recovery.

I understand this. I am just going over the various times when we permit killing (or termination of life, if you prefer) to see if there is a common thread.

 

[Thanda]

because if people want abortions, they will get them.

Not necessarily - some will do a cost benefit analysis and determine that they are better of carrying the child to term

 

[Thanda]

As has already been said by a few here, abortion is only "murder" if the civil authorities pass a law to make it as such.

Secondly, if one views it as "murder", then are they also going to treat the woman who has an abortion as a "murderer", including the potential penalty for 1st degree murder that many states have it that she can be executed?

Thirdly, in Torah it states that if a person causes a woman to miscarry, (s)he can be fined, thus not executed. OTOH, if this person murdered a person, they could be executed.

Finally, even though I personally am against abortion except in the cases of the woman's health, I simply will not go to the point of telling a woman what she must do with that which is inside her. I would hope she would go forth and have the baby even if she didn't want to keep it, but I'm not going to demand she do as such. IOW, it's really none of my business.

It's also none of your business what happens in another man's house. I am certain then that you won't demand he stop beating his wife.

 

[Thanda]

I understand that you don't care for the act of aborting a fetus or a zygote. That is not what I am asking. I am asking you how you would treat the remains. Let's break this up a little bit. How would you treat the remains of a five year old child? How would you treat the remains of a zygote? Why would you treat them differently if they are equal?

Interestingly, part of the pain many women feel after having a miscarriage is caused by the fact that so many people tell her it's not so bad because it was just a fetus. In fact, I would wager that if society normalized (with attendant rituals) mourning for a miscarriage as much as they do for a newborn (or a human of any other, older, age) it would greatly assist women in their psychological and emotional recovery from the ordeal.

Another interesting point is that funeral insurance companies give much less for the funeral of a child - say a three year-old - than they do the funeral of a legal adult (over 18 or 21). So clearly humans are a bit ageist. But it may also have to do with the fact that a child knows and is known by less people than an adult - and therefore the expected number of people at their funeral is much less. In the same line of thinking then it may be that the reason they won't provide any funeral services at all for a fetus is because no one other than the mother has any direct relationship with the child.

The point is, all these reasons point to the fact that the reason fetuses are treated differently is not because they are not considered human. And there is actually a case to be made that it would in women's best interest for funerals to be normalized for fetuses.

 

[Thanda]

There is no scientific grounds to denying other people abortions. Even without religion, it relies on ethics and personal morals, which are beliefs. "I believe this is wrong, so what you're doing that has no effect on me should be illegal."

There are also no scientific grounds to denying people the right to kill their dog. But we do, because the law is nothing but the formalisation of society's belief system.

 

[Thanda]

To ME, anyway, someone who aborts a pregnancy simply because she finds it inconvenient to be pregnant is no less morally bankrupt than the woman who puts her newborn on a hill to die....for the same reason.

And, incidentaly, many women who fail to abort a child kill it as soon as it is born - here in South Africa at least.

 

[Thanda]

Abortion is merely the woman refusing the fetus the use of her body.

No, it is not merely... The fetus is usually killed while in the mothers womb and then removed. Thus what the woman actually does (or consents to be done) is kill the fetus.

But we may extend this. From time to time we have cases here where a woman places her new born baby in a dustbin. Often the woman has not actually killed the baby. She has merely done something she knows and believes is likely to result in the baby's death (sometimes it doesn't). However, even if we recognized, the mother's right to not support the child's survival after death we would still expect her to relinquish her guardianship in a safe manner. That is, we would expect her to give the child to someone who would take care of it.

Likewise then, even if the pro-life community were to concede that a mother aught not to be forced to carry a child in her uterus, they would likely still argue that she should only be able to extricate the child from her body when it was safe, from the child's perspective, to do so.