Abortion

[Valjean]

I wonder if people are desensitized to a fetus, or womb life to the point they don't feel anything for it? Does it seem right not to feel compassion or anything toward what is developing into human life? How do we decide when life is precious? If you start thinking of a fetus as being alive, then casually terminating it seems really terrible. I remember when I had to change my mind about abortion. I was horrified in a sense that I had been desensitized toward this living being enough that I had convinced myself that casual abortion is nothing.

If all life be precious, then would it be wrong to kill a chicken or harvest a cabbage? There's more to it than mere aliveness. I'd ask: what qualities make a life sacred? Is there something qualitatively different about hominens that makes them exceptional?

What makes a human sacred? Does a foetus have those qualities?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

If all life be precious, then would it be wrong to kill a chicken or harvest a cabbage? There's more to it than mere aliveness. I'd ask: what qualities make a life sacred? Is there something qualitatively different about hominens that makes them exceptional?

What makes a human sacred? Does a foetus have those qualities?

I think we have to be careful about getting too arbitrary, or we'll fall into a trap of apathy. I explained why in my worldview casual abortion is unideal. It's because you're destroying with no good reason and preventing a human birth in the cycle. Where's the line that a fetus becomes a life? If one supports abortion without hesitation and claims they're being humane- that is a question they need to answer. I didn't say a fetus wasn't life in the first place.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's questionable when abortion violates ahimsa (non-violence), but it's safe to say at least when a fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, and has neurons. That violates all Dharmas and Dharmic religions.

I know this statement may not please some people, but I cannot change the Dharma to suit private feelings about abortion. I will not call the Buddha mistaken- and as someone that respects Jainism and Hinduism also: I will not call Mahavira and the Sages wrong about an issue Dharmic worldviews have historically agreed on.

 

[Valjean]

I think we have to be careful about getting too arbitrary, or we'll fall into a trap of apathy. I explained why in my worldview casual abortion is unideal. It's because you're destroying with no good reason and preventing a human birth in the cycle. Where's the line that a fetus becomes a life? If one supports abortion without hesitation and claims they're being humane- that is a question they need to answer. I didn't say a fetus wasn't life in the first place.

A foetus is definately life, as is a sperm or ovum. Do they have equal claims to moral consideration?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's questionable when abortion violates ahimsa (non-violence), but it's safe to say at least when a fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, and has neurons. That violates all Dharmas and Dharmic religions.

I know this statement may not please some people, but I cannot change the Dharma to suit private feelings about abortion. I will not call the Buddha mistaken- and as someone that respects Jainism and Hinduism also: I will not call Mahavira and the Sages wrong about an issue Dharmic worldviews have historically agreed on.

If abortion is against your religion, don't get one and don't take a job that involves providing them. That's where the conversation should end.

OTOH, if you want to open the door to forcing people to live by the closely-held beliefs of others... then we can start having a new conversation: which of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder if people are desensitized to a fetus, or womb life to the point they don't feel anything for it? Does it seem right not to feel compassion or anything toward what is developing into human life?

Maybe you can get some appreciation for their viewpoint by considering the reasons behind your own lack of compassion for pregnant women.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

A foetus is definately life, as is a sperm or ovum. Do they have equal claims to moral consideration?

Do sperm and ovum by themselves develop into a human being?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I already said in my first statement in this thread @9-10ths_Penguin that I support a woman's right to obtain an abortion. I've merely stated my moral objections to it. If a woman I knew asked my opinion about abortion, I'd tell her my beliefs about it, but then I'd even go with her to the clinic as support if she needed it because it's her choice.

I've merely stated that from the outlook of Buddhism historically, abortion is unideal, and for no reason it's arguably immoral. It is the needless, pointless termination of a developing life, and that's putting it in layman's terms.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Abortion is killing, plain and simple. Whether it is justified killing is another story although I must say that if I cannot kill a stranger I cannot kill a baby. Abortion is truly abhorrent in this day of age and it saddens me it exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abortion is killing, plain and simple. Whether it is justified killing is another story although I must say that if I cannot kill a stranger I cannot kill a baby. Abortion is truly abhorrent in this day of age and it saddens me it exists.

This claim is rather hard to defend. I can tell that you have a strong personal prejudice that guides your feelings, but neither the Bible nor the real world gives very much support to this claim.

 

[dfnj]

Technically paying your taxes is contract killing because your taxes fund the militarys Killing Machine

Best post of the thread.

 

[Valjean]

Do sperm and ovum by themselves develop into a human being?

OK, a foetus can develop into a human being, but doesn't "develop into," imply that, like an ovum, it's not yet a human being?
2nd point: What does "human being" have to do with the issue? The salient issue is personhood, not species.

Abortion is killing, plain and simple. Whether it is justified killing is another story although I must say that if I cannot kill a stranger I cannot kill a baby. Abortion is truly abhorrent in this day of age and it saddens me it exists.

Baking a potato is killing. Killing's not the issue. We all kill.
The issue is, what justifies us in killing an apple or fish, but precludes us from killing a human?
Abortion is not killing a baby. I'd argue that it's not killing a person. So, what makes abortion abhorrent?

 

[dfnj]

I think late stage abortions are probably immoral. I think the rule should be if you cut the umbilical cord and the fetus lives then it is a human being with individual rights. It's just that the mother owns her own body that the umbilical cord is attached. I think a good compromise for public policy is abortion is illegal after 16 weeks. If you can't decide by then you've given up your rights. But I also think the morning after pill should be available over the counter like bubble gum.

All abortions may be immoral but a woman has rights over her own body must be taken into account. If abortion were illegal there would just be back alley abortions.

 

[columbus]

This claim is rather hard to defend. I can tell that you have a strong personal prejudice that guides your feelings, but neither the Bible nor the real world gives very much support to this claim.

I have no trouble defending @Sha'irullah claim. All it takes is basic science, a rational view of the real world, and fundamental modern ethics.

The science is very clear. When two haploid gametes merge to form a zygote a new human being comes into existence. S/he may well die before reaching the stage of development called birth, but there's no misunderstanding about the difference between a potential human being (a sperm and an ovum) and an actual human being.

The real world, at least in the first world, includes the knowledge of where babies come from. That's potentially fertile sex. Nobody is forced to do that generally, when they are it's called rape. It also includes a wide array of contraceptives, prenatal care, etc. It also includes a social safety net which includes adoption agencies. People who choose sex, but not any of the other available options, are choosing the situation. That's where the capital C Choice is being made. After that Choice is made, competent adults have some responsibility. Because everybody knows that fetal babies are not free floating parasites looking for a host to invade. They are put there by the parents, who could have Chosen differently.

This matters enormously because of the inherent worth of every individual human being. For nearly all of human history, humans divided themselves into categories. Most people weren't considered important to most other people, i.e. they weren't considered persons. Modern ethics are increasingly inclusive, we no longer tolerate casual destruction of people because of their race or socioeconomic class or gender or whatever. We extend personhood to more and more of our fellow human beings.
Unborn human beings are about the last classification of human beings that are considered disposable people. The issues involved are extremely complex and require nuanced responses, just passing legislation or something is far from a solution.
But I have no trouble at all defending the premise whatsoever.
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

Do sperm and ovum by themselves develop into a human being?

They are the haploid stage of the human life cycle. In that sense, they are 'fully human'.

The diploid stage of our life cycle is what you see walking around and is multi-cellular. But both stages are human.

 

[columbus]

OTOH, if you want to open the door to forcing people to live by the closely-held beliefs of others... then we can start having a new conversation: which of my closely-held beliefs should I be free to impose on you?

The ones that involve choosing death for another human being, or even large risk of death. That's when.

And that need not involve religion, in fact I think it better when religion is left out of the discussion. Religion is altogether too irrational and subjective to play a role in an issue like abortion.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no trouble defending @Sha'irullah claim. All it takes is basic science, a rational view of the real world, and fundamental modern ethics.

The science is very clear. When two haploid gametes merge to form a zygote a new human being comes into existence. S/he may well die before reaching the stage of development called birth, but there's no misunderstanding about the difference between a potential human being (a sperm and an ovum) and an actual human being.

The real world, at least in the first world, includes the knowledge of where babies come from. That's potentially fertile sex. Nobody is forced to do that generally, when they are it's called rape. It also includes a wide array of contraceptives, prenatal care, etc. It also includes a social safety net which includes adoption agencies. People who choose sex, but not any of the other available options, are choosing the situation. That's where the capital C Choice is being made. After that Choice is made, competent adults have some responsibility. Because everybody knows that fetal babies are not free floating parasites looking for a host to invade. They are put there by the parents, who could have Chosen differently.

This matters enormously because of the inherent worth of every individual human being. For nearly all of human history, humans divided themselves into categories. Most people weren't considered important to most other people, i.e. they weren't considered persons. Modern ethics are increasingly inclusive, we no longer tolerate casual destruction of people because of their race or socioeconomic class or gender or whatever. We extend personhood to more and more of our fellow human beings.
Unborn human beings are about the last classification of human beings that are considered disposable people. The issues involved are extremely complex and require nuanced responses, just passing legislation or something is far from a solution.
But I have no trouble at all defending the premise whatsoever.
Tom

Actually not much of a defense. Tissue is formed, that tissue could become a human being, but a human being is much more than mere tissue to me. There is no defense of a soul being present from birth, and that is what the Bible would be used for. By the most liberal definition of "human" you are correct, but that is mere semantics and very weak.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no trouble defending @Sha'irullah claim. All it takes is basic science, a rational view of the real world, and fundamental modern ethics.

The science is very clear. When two haploid gametes merge to form a zygote a new human being comes into existence. S/he may well die before reaching the stage of development called birth, but there's no misunderstanding about the difference between a potential human being (a sperm and an ovum) and an actual human being.

Actually, I would say that there is only a potential human being until fairly late in development (say 24 weeks).

Even after that, the fact that a woman should have control over who controls her body is of more impact than the abortion, although if the fetus can be saved, it is preferable morally.

The real world, at least in the first world, includes the knowledge of where babies come from. That's potentially fertile sex. Nobody is forced to do that generally, when they are it's called rape. It also includes a wide array of contraceptives, prenatal care, etc. It also includes a social safety net which includes adoption agencies. People who choose sex, but not any of the other available options, are choosing the situation. That's where the capital C Choice is being made. After that Choice is made, competent adults have some responsibility. Because everybody knows that fetal babies are not free floating parasites looking for a host to invade. They are put there by the parents, who could have Chosen differently.

Irrelevant until there is an actual person there.

This matters enormously because of the inherent worth of every individual human being. For nearly all of human history, humans divided themselves into categories. Most people weren't considered important to most other people, i.e. they weren't considered persons. Modern ethics are increasingly inclusive, we no longer tolerate casual destruction of people because of their race or socioeconomic class or gender or whatever. We extend personhood to more and more of our fellow human beings.
Unborn human beings are about the last classification of human beings that are considered disposable people. The issues involved are extremely complex and require nuanced responses, just passing legislation or something is far from a solution.
But I have no trouble at all defending the premise whatsoever.
Tom

I don't consider fetus prior to the development of the frontal cortex to be persons. We use brain death to determine death. I think we should use the same test on the other end to determine personhood. And the relevant brain structures simply don't exist until at least the 24th week of development.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This claim is rather hard to defend. I can tell that you have a strong personal prejudice that guides your feelings, but neither the Bible nor the real world gives very much support to this claim.

I am gonna be a bit harsh toward you but only because you have literally told the world you are a judgemental bigot.

I'm not saying this to be an enemy or entice you but because you made multiple fallacies and probably wouldn't realize it. I have seen smart people mess up here and I truly care for your opinions but you need to understand this first:

I'm NOT a Christian nor am I bias because by my own moral logic I should have received a harsher life.

This is a lesson in life to never judge people .
Anybody who knows me on this forum knows I'm not a Christian and that like most conservative minded people I'm not judgemental. I've seen you post before and I don't want you to put your foot in your mouth and ruin your credibility.

Again, I just wanna be fair to what you said and how other's would have taken it. And no I don't believe you're a bigot.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It isn't only Christians that object to abortion. Virtually all world religions do, but that's another subject. The Dharmic religions do because it violates non-violence, especially if it's done as some kind of expression of individuality.

That is the casual destruction of a developing life.

To follow the Dharma is to commit yourself to non-violence as your way of life. Women and men. I can't make anyone else's decisions for them, but as a Buddhist I'm told not to hoard up or hide the Dharma. I'm obligated to tell anyone that asks me that casual abortion is immoral. I can't call myself devoted to ahimsa and tell someone else violence is alright.