Abortion

[Cephus]

Does everyone else understand what the sentence actually means? I have no clue.

Murder. Theists need to look it up. It doesn't mean what they wish it meant.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, I am not playing with words. You are trying to say they equal. Just as a five year old can die of natural causes so too can a fetus die (if we consider them alive) of natural causes. The question remains are they equal. If they are I would expect people to act as though they are. So again, do you scoop and purchase a coffin and land, or do you flush?

Yes, a fetus and a five year old child are equal. They are both children.

I would not put it in such a gross manner. That's using images to create an illusion that just because it is fetus in a toilet it means less than a fetus in the womb. (Kind of like saying "it's already to kill John because he shot fifty people but it's not alright to kill Jane because she shot only one"...and realize that John is 11 and Jane is 40. On top of that, without knowing these things yet, John has never been convicted of a felony while Jane has many of times but can't be tried for the same crime more than once)

So, they are equal. I just don't care for the actual aborting/action of an unborn child.

 

[metis]

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.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, a fetus and a five year old child are equal. They are both children.

I would not put it in such a gross manner. That's using images to create an illusion that just because it is fetus in a toilet it means less than a fetus in the womb. (Kind of like saying "it's already to kill John because he shot fifty people but it's not alright to kill Jane because she shot only one"...and realize that John is 11 and Jane is 40. On top of that, without knowing these things yet, John has never been convicted of a felony while Jane has many of times but can't be tried for the same crime more than once)

So, they are equal. I just don't care for the actual aborting/action of an unborn child.

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?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

Zygote is a fertilized ovum?

If so, I wouldn't treat them differently. Both are children. Why would I see them differently? Life is life.

I still don't see how this relates to my original point about abortion. How does that relate to miscarriages and whether I see a fertilized ovum just as precious as a five year old child (which I Do) with abortion?

 

[McBell]

Are you referring to the word choice of "scoop?"

never mind.
I was fixated on my tangent when I read it the first time.
Since that post was not involved in my tangent, of course it would not make any sense as written.

 

[McBell]

Yes, a fetus and a five year old child are equal. They are both children.

Except that they are not.
Not legally, not medically....

 

[Curious George]

Zygote is a fertilized ovum?

If so, I wouldn't treat them differently. Both are children. Why would I see them differently? Life is life.

I still don't see how this relates to my original point about abortion. How does that relate to miscarriages and whether I see a fertilized ovum just as precious as a five year old child (which I Do) with abortion?

You would purchase a coffin and a plot of land in which to bury that coffin for a zygote?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

According to The Rage Pagan whom Im speaking with, there is none really.

My issue is I don't care for the actual aborting of a child from the moment of conception. I feel life is precious. The body naturally aborts but the abortion-argument is about a doctor actually tearing a part a growing human child. Miscarriages aren't in the same category nor is spontaneous abortion.

I honestly don't see how that relates to killing an unborn child.

You don't need to care for the act of abortion if it isn't taking place in your body or in the body of someone you love. To be frank, I don't think even pro-choice people care for it - they just view it as necessary to allow a woman the right to decide what happens inside her body. And of course miscarriages, spontaneous abortions and 'natural abortions' are in the same category - they all have the same end result.

Yes, a fetus and a five year old child are equal. They are both children.

That's not true. A foetus is no more a child than an acorn is an oak tree. A foetus has the potential to develop into a child ergo it is not a child.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You would purchase a coffin and a plot of land in which to bury that coffin for a zygote?

Haha. Going by context -that life is precious- not by content yes.

 

[Curious George]

Haha. Going by context -that life is precious- not by content yes.

I am not asking about context or content. I am asking what you would do in reality. People in reality do not purchase coffins for zygotes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You don't need to care for the act of abortion if it isn't taking place in your body or in the body of someone you love. To be frank, I don't think even pro-choice people care for it - they just view it as necessary to allow a woman the right to decide what happens inside her body. And of course miscarriages, spontaneous abortions and 'natural abortions' are in the same category - they all have the same end result.




That's not true. A foetus is no more a child than an acorn is an oak tree. A foetus has the potential to develop into a child ergo it is not a child.

My whole point is once conception has started, I don't feel it's right to abort. Whether we call it a child or fetus, that's up to the person. I don't define life by scientific and legal terms. If that be the case, I'd be so confused cause people have so many definitions depending on where you are and what country you're in.

Years years years years ago, I was pro-choice. I learned about abortion (not by pictures and commercials mind you) and practicing as a Buddhist, I thought about life more than legal and scientific terms. I go with the Catholics as well on this as well if one doesn't want to conceive, don't have sex. While the rape-card always pops up, again, I don't see the need to abort a child for someone else's fault.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am not asking about context or content. I am asking what you would do in reality. People in reality do not purchase coffins for zygotes.

Context, yes.

You're asking about content. No. I don't think you can hold a zygote in your palms, right? Petrel dish or something.

If your point isn't about what you meant/context, what are you trying to say?

 

[Curious George]

Context, yes.

You're asking about content. No. I don't think you can hold a zygote in your palms, right? Petrel dish or something.

If your point isn't about what you meant/context, what are you trying to say?

Yes you can hold a zygote in the palms of your hand. Chances are it will be clumped in with clotted blood and menstrual lining, but it is discernable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Haha... it is, obviously, a hypothetical. She is the lone survivor of a shipwreck. There, are you happy?

And yes, I understand that abortions have been attempted and have gone on throughout many ages. However, mainly what I was pointing to is how difficult it is for a woman to enact her own abortion. It makes it far less of a simple "choice". It's akin to my choosing to take out my own appendix. I can certainly choose to do so... but it is at my own peril, because I am most certainly messing around in an area I know very little about. We have allowed it to be simplified to a "choice", however, with the implements and advancements we have made. I am merely pointing out that if we were to take a few steps back toward our natural origins, making the "choice" is simply not easy from a physical point of view.

Plenty of our rights become meaningless if we're completely alone. This doesn't make them unimportant.

But if you're saying that reproductive care, including abortion, is analogous to other medical care, then I'd agree with you. It's hard for you to get the medicine or surgery you need if you're completely alone with no supplies, but again: this doesn't mean that the right isn't important.

 

[Curious George]

Context, yes.

You're asking about content. No. I don't think you can hold a zygote in your palms, right? Petrel dish or something.

If your point isn't about what you meant/context, what are you trying to say?

But if you prefer we can focus on an embryo instead.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes you can hold a zygote in the palms of your hand. Chances are it will be clumped in with clotted blood and menstrual lining, but it is discernable.

Well, when you're a woman, you tend to hold a lot of things disturbing throughout the years of ones life. My friend uses menstrual blood on her face because she says it helps with acne. I wouldn't be surprised if there are cultural norms for miscarriages and things of that nature.

 

[Curious George]

Well, when you're a woman, you tend to hold a lot of things disturbing throughout the years of ones life. My friend uses menstrual blood on her face because she says it helps with acne. I wouldn't be surprised if there are cultural norms for miscarriages and things of that nature.

So do you purchase the coffin?

 

[McBell]

Once conception begins, life does.

Except that it requires a LIVING sperm to fertilize a LIVING ovum....

 

[dianaiad]

A 21 week old fetus does not yet have the machinery to sustain a mind while a 8-9 month old fetus not only has the associated machinery but also very probably does have a mind (see my previous posts showing experiments of consciousness on infants). Once there is a mind, there is a person, a being that owns its own self and the body it resides in, an inalienable right so to speak. Before 21 weeks, its just an organic living body without a mind, and hence unowned by any mind within. Therefore the ownership of that living body remains in the hands of its creator mind, the mother, whose body is creating that fetus. Hence she, just like any creator, can choose to stop the creative process over material in her body she owns. But as soon as a mind forms (and the earliest is around 22-23 weeks when the basic brain circuits of the cortex that houses our minds begin to form), it own the fetal body and ownership transfers to the fetal mind from the mind of the mother. Then she loses her rights to stop the creative process apart from self-defense.
A non-existing person has no claim to ownership or potential thereof. Only an existing person has potential. That is the jist of it.

....and the only way to stop it from HAVING that mind is to kill it first.

I am constantly bemused at those who use this argument. It's so obviously circular, and very similar to that old black joke about the kid on trial for killing his parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court because--he's an orphan.