Argument for allowing early Abortion

[Subduction Zone]

I don't find that analogy to be proper.
It would be more like: You leave your house unlocked, then you act in a way that is conducive to someone entering your house (sex). Someone decides to come over and enter the house (zygote). Then you put a bomb on his body and the trigger is him leaving the house within the next 6 months. Now you want to force him to leave your house.

You have to try soooo hard!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right... and this gives away the fact that they don't actually consider fetuses to be people and it's just a convenient line to use when it suits them on the abortion issue.

Edit: on a personal note, my ex-wife had several miscarriages when we were together, all at 1 to 2 months. Never on any of them did my "pro-life" in-laws respond as if an actual child had died. Same with my ex's Catholic church: we weren't ever offered a funeral or anything else that would normally happen with the death of a child.

If one looks into the history of the antiabortion movement one can see that it was adopted to get the single issue voters supporting it. At the time churches were split on the issue. Even the Southern Baptist church admitted that at times an abortion was sadly preferred.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If one looks into the history of the antiabortion movement one can see that it was adopted to get the single issue voters supporting it. At the time churches were split on the issue. Even the Southern Baptist church admitted that at times an abortion was sadly preferred.

The Southern Baptists used to be pretty pro-choice. Until the 1970s - even after Roe v. Wade, IIRC - they saw being anti-abortion as something "too Catholic" for them.

It's been a few years, but I remember Tracie Harris talking about this on the Godless *****es podcast: when she left the Baptists, they were generally fine with abortion. A while later, she got talking to one of her Baptist relatives about abortion and was genuinely surprised that they had taken an about-face on the issue.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't find that analogy to be proper.
It would be more like: You leave your house unlocked, then you act in a way that is conducive to someone entering your house (sex). Someone decides to come over and enter the house (zygote). Then you put a bomb on his body and the trigger is him leaving the house within the next 6 months. Now you want to force him to leave your house.

That's why we have modern medicine: to help prevent such circumstances.

 

[nPeace]

The question of when - or whether - a fetus should be considered a person are irrelevant to most arguments for pro-choice laws.

BTW: I'll ask you the same question I asked @Wildswanderer : what's the citizenship of a fetus?

The question of citizenship is irrelevant. So is the question of what the person will become.
Some give the expected one a name, and prepare a room for them... like birds do... except for the name part.

If you think that procreation is the only purpose of sex, then I pity your wife.

It was a former member here who first pointed out some things to me that I'll now point out to you:

- there are lots of examples in the animal world of "going into heat" - i.e. only being interested in sex when fertile. Humans aren't like that - we're interested in sex even when the female partner isn't ovulating.

- there are lots of examples in the animal world of overt ovulation - i.e. an outward physical sign that a female is fertile. Humans aren't like that - we have covert ovulation.

If we're going to infer our "designer's" intent from our "design," what do you think we should infer from the fact that we're apparently designed to have lots of non-procreative sex?

I have not inferred this. Genesis 1:28; Genesis 4:1; Genesis 4:25; Genesis 16:1-4
They didn't think like men do today.
Why do you think it was chaste to remain a virgin until marriage. They were not like the "animals in heat" we have living today.

The thing is, because of the world, and the hard living conditions, as well as the pervasive influence around, marriage today among the virtuous does not involve sexual relations for procreation. Infact, many do not get children for good reason, so they enjoy the joys that come with their God given gift. Proverbs 5:19

However, if you like the thought of inference...
We eat. Why? To live.
The fact that we have a tongue with trillions of receptor, allowing us to enjoy various flavors tells us what?
That eating was to be something enjoyable, even though it is for the purpose of nourishing the body to keep us alive.
Same goes for drinking.

Is there another purpose for eating and drinking, which I don't know about?

Because the sexual organ were designed to make sex enjoyable, that does not take the focus off the purpose.
As regards your examples, here are a few of mine - masturbation is not normal because it happens. Same as rape.
These are due to behaviors that... I'll use something you can relate to... evolved. we have come a long way in our deviation from the original design.

Fangs, venom, etc... all these may well be things that were never intended - like the thorns and thistles. Genesis 3:18 - if everything was as it will be...

 

[nPeace]

There is no originator of the moral law or mathematical law or logical law. Abstract structures are eternal and non-contingent entities. Uncreated.

So you believe. You have only a belief in that regard, like anyone else.

You really quoted to me a Catholic medical journal did you?
Here is the scientific concensus on fetal pain... not before 25 weeks.

Fetal Pain.

Catholic medical journal?
It came from the same place yours came from.

What are you trying to say, that no Catholics are allowed to write a paper? Where did yours come from?

You linked to an article by Susan J. Lee, Henry J. Peter Ralston, Eleanor A. Drey.
One is an oral surgeon; one an obstetrician-gynecologist... What makes them so special?

There is no consensus in the scientific community about when a fetus can experience pain.
Besides, you are arguing about consciousness as though consciousness defines life. seriously?
One does not need to be conscious, to be alive.

 

[nPeace]

People now view a fetus as someone living inside them whom they can demand to leave. What a sick world we now live in. There simple is very little natural affection left... as prophesied, anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you believe. You have only a belief in that regard, like anyone else.


Catholic medical journal?
It came from the same place yours came from.
View attachment 62790
What are you trying to say, that no Catholics are allowed to write a paper? Where did yours come from?

You linked to an article by Susan J. Lee, Henry J. Peter Ralston, Eleanor A. Drey.
One is an oral surgeon; one an obstetrician-gynecologist... What makes them so special?

There is no consensus in the scientific community about when a fetus can experience pain.
Besides, you are arguing about consciousness as though consciousness defines life. seriously?
One does not need to be conscious, to be alive.

Can someone tell nPeace that he has to do more than read the headline and quote one sentence out of context. When one reads the entire article it seems that they claim that there is a consensus about pain, thought there are still those that disagree. A consensus is not claiming that everyone agrees, just a sizable majority.

 

[nPeace]

Pain is the most well studied parts of the brain due to century long research on anasthesia and pain mitigation.
Your less than rational opinion on the consensus of thousands of medical science professionals does not really have weight.

Please provide a list of a dozen of those thousands of medical science professionals.

Here is what they say the science says.
Fetal Pain: What is the Scientific Evidence?
Previously, 24 weeks gestation was the earliest fetal pain was thought possible due to the timing of connections forming between the thalamus (which receives information from peripheral pain receptors via the spinal cord), and the cerebral cortex. However, there is now evidence that pain does not require the cortex, subcortical structures are sufficient.3,18,25,29 These subcortical structures include the brain stem, basal ganglia, amygdala, and the hypothalamic-pituitary axis, all of which may be capable of processing pain-instigated impulses from noxious stimuli several weeks prior to the development of thalamic-cortical connections.25,29,30 Because subcortical processing of pain occurs without conscious intent, these impulses are, by definition, reflexes. However, not all reflexes are the same. Instigating the patellar reflex can amuse grammar school children, triggering subcortical pain processing by noxious stimulation can affect an immature human’s development.29

Relying on connections to the cortex for the existence of pain is also refuted by clinical evidence in adults suggesting that neither ablation nor stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex alters pain perception.18 Reliance on the cortex for pain is also disproved by infants who are either missing or have minimal cortex (anencephalic and hydranencephalic babies) who have been exposed to painful and consoling stimuli and then respond appropriately.18,30 Taken together, the findings of these studies suggest that definitions of pain which hinge on possessing a mature conscious capacity requiring cortical functioning and connectedness, are outdated.

CONCLUSION

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide a list of a dozen of those thousands of medical science professionals.

Here is what they say the science says.
Fetal Pain: What is the Scientific Evidence?
Previously, 24 weeks gestation was the earliest fetal pain was thought possible due to the timing of connections forming between the thalamus (which receives information from peripheral pain receptors via the spinal cord), and the cerebral cortex. However, there is now evidence that pain does not require the cortex, subcortical structures are sufficient.3,18,25,29 These subcortical structures include the brain stem, basal ganglia, amygdala, and the hypothalamic-pituitary axis, all of which may be capable of processing pain-instigated impulses from noxious stimuli several weeks prior to the development of thalamic-cortical connections.25,29,30 Because subcortical processing of pain occurs without conscious intent, these impulses are, by definition, reflexes. However, not all reflexes are the same. Instigating the patellar reflex can amuse grammar school children, triggering subcortical pain processing by noxious stimulation can affect an immature human’s development.29

Relying on connections to the cortex for the existence of pain is also refuted by clinical evidence in adults suggesting that neither ablation nor stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex alters pain perception.18 Reliance on the cortex for pain is also disproved by infants who are either missing or have minimal cortex (anencephalic and hydranencephalic babies) who have been exposed to painful and consoling stimuli and then respond appropriately.18,30 Taken together, the findings of these studies suggest that definitions of pain which hinge on possessing a mature conscious capacity requiring cortical functioning and connectedness, are outdated.

CONCLUSION

Close but no cigar. That only said that it is likely that there was pain reception before 24 weeks. It does not say how far back that goes. @sayak83 's article had an even earlier date of 21 weeks. To have a valid point you must demonstrate pain prior to 21 weeks. Not some time before 24 weeks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

o me a life has begun in the moment the seemen and eg have attached to each other.

I disagree. But for the sake of argument I'll grant it.

How does this override the right to bodily autonomy?
In that point, it matters not when life begins.

A fetus occupies / leeches of a woman's body.
That is in essence no different from a person requiring a kidney and forcing you to give that person your kidney because you happen to be a match.

If you refuse, did you then "kill" that person?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because taking life is wrong.

How about forcefully using another's life to survive?
Is that wrong?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why rare?
I do not see a difference in killing a fetus/baby inside a mother that killing someone on the street, both are killings. So it is wrong to me.

FYI: an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not the killing of anything.

A woman refusing to let her uterus be used by another is not "murder".
Just like you refusing to let someone take your kidney isn't murder either.

 

[Spirit of Light]

How about forcefully using another's life to survive?
Is that wrong?

Yes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans do not live air alone, i chose to eat veg3tarian and not animals/meat if others choose to eat meat that is up to them, i have no need to tell others what is right for them

Here's the thing though.......
In this thread, you have almost literally said that people who have abortions are murderers.

So while you like to proclaim that what others believe is not your business, at the same time you are calling them murderers.

 

[Spirit of Light]

FYI: an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not the killing of anything.

A woman refusing to let her uterus be used by another is not "murder".
Just like you refusing to let someone take your kidney isn't murder either.

I do not say orctell others what to do or feel about this topic, I only say my own view of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nobody owns my body, it is just a body, but i do not allow harvest of my organs

That seems incredibly inconsistent with your views on abortion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Here's the thing though.......
In this thread, you have almost literally said that people who have abortions are murderers.

So while you like to proclaim that what others believe is not your business, at the same time you are calling them murderers.

I do not tell others what to hold as views

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, but that doesn't address what I asked.
Then you argue that there is no absolute truth, only relative. Yes? So truth changes, and there are no laws governing the universe. Yes?

You say "okay" and the go on to assume the opposite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People now view a fetus as someone living inside them whom they can demand to leave. What a sick world we now live in. There simple is very little natural affection left... as prophesied, anyway.

Appeal to emotion.