Argument for allowing early Abortion

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes

How is that different from a pregnancy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not tell others what to hold as views

You imply it, by passing judgement on them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

You imply it, by passing judgement on them.

I do not pass a judgement, only stating my personal view on abortion. What others do is non of my business. I have zero right to tell a woman what she can or can not do with het body

 

[nPeace]

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.

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


What did he do. kill the would be taker of his kidney?
What a bizarre comparison. Absolutely.
There is no relation whatsoever between the two of those statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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


What did he do. kill the would be taker of his kidney?
What a bizarre comparison. Absolutely.
There is no relation whatsoever between the two of those statements.

You screwed up your response badly. How could you misread that post so badly? I hope that you are face palming yourself out of embarrassment.

The person that did not get the kidney died because of that. The embryo or fetus removed from the uterus died because of that. No difference.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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


What did he do. kill the would be taker of his kidney?
What a bizarre comparison. Absolutely.
There is no relation whatsoever between the two of those statements.

In both cases a third party requires use of parts of your body in order to survive.

 

[sayak83]

Again, it depends on how 'little' that inconvenience is.

Does it put my own life at risk? My health? my sanity? Then there is no obligation. That covers abortion nicely.

Do I have the skills to actually help? Can I find people that do? Maybe all I can do is offer comfort.

How invasive is the help? Do I have to give blood immediately? a kidney? if so, no obligation.

Again, there is a huge difference between an obligation and something that is just a good thing to do and maybe even something expected of a decent human being.

let's also face it, if you take on the project of helping all those that nobody else is helping, you will be doing nothing else. Which, if that is your decision in life, is a good thing. But it is not an obligation.

Blood donation is very little inconvenience. So why should it not be obligatory for very rare blood types?

I agree that even normal pregnancies are greater inconvenience. But for late 2nd and 3rd trimester, where the fetus is well developed, why would there not be a moral obligation when the pregnancy is developing normally and the mother's health is not endangered?

 

[Polymath257]

Blood donation is very little inconvenience. So why should it not be obligatory for very rare blood types?

Because a person should have the right to decide what happens to their body in a case like this,

I agree that even normal pregnancies are greater inconvenience. But for late 2nd and 3rd trimester, where the fetus is well developed, why would there not be a moral obligation when the pregnancy is developing normally and the mother's health is not endangered?

And I think there may be a moral responsibility to see if there is a way to deliver the fetus. But whether or not that is possible, the woman should have the right to require the fetus be removed from her body.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights.

Your paper is from a journal run specifically by catholics to discuss the intersection of catholic theology with medicine. Just google the "about" for the journal you quoted from. It's like me writing an article on a journal called "Hindu theology and western medicine". That is how it is.
Mine is from the most widely circulated and cited medical scientific journal in the world. Again just google the journal rankings on clinical medicine.
Apart from the basic quality of the review, where there is large difference, the basic difference is one was well researched enough to be accepted in a top journal and another was specifically written to promote a Catholic argument rather than an unbiased review of the science.

 

[Heyo]

And I think there may be a moral responsibility to see if there is a way to deliver the fetus. But whether or not that is possible, the woman should have the right to require the fetus be removed from her body.

In principle, yes. But I think it is legit to ask the woman to make that decision within a reasonable time frame. That should also be in her own interest as late term abortions are much more dangerous.

 

[Polymath257]

In principle, yes. But I think it is legit to ask the woman to make that decision within a reasonable time frame. That should also be in her own interest as late term abortions are much more dangerous.

Almost no late term abortions are purely elective. They usually involve high risks to the life of the woman.

 

[nPeace]

Living things do not have rights de facto. Then a cockroach has rights. Capacity for complex consciousness is what makes a living thing a holder of rights.

Your paper is from a journal run specifically by catholics to discuss the intersection of catholic theology with medicine. Just google the "about" for the journal you quoted from. It's like me writing an article on a journal called "Hindu theology and western medicine". That is how it is.
Mine is from the most widely circulated and cited medical scientific journal in the world. Again just google the journal rankings on clinical medicine.
Apart from the basic quality of the review, where there is large difference, the basic difference is one was well researched enough to be accepted in a top journal and another was specifically written to promote a Catholic argument rather than an unbiased review of the science.

Doesn't matter where the paper came from, or where it is published. It's still one opinion against another at the end of the day, with those opinions being wrong.

A cockroach does have rights, according to the animal rights supporters.
Doesn't criminals and murderers have rights... or can you just out their lights as you wish?
No you can't. They too have ights according to the State.

 

[Heyo]

Almost no late term abortions are purely elective. They usually involve high risks to the life of the woman.

Another reason it doesn't hurt to have a limit.

 

[nPeace]

In both cases a third party requires use of parts of your body in order to survive.

The "third party". requiring a kidney to live, is being compared to a living being requiring "life support"?

Which part does the one carrying the offspring cut off?
Oh. She murders the "third party".
While the one who keeps his kidney does not murder anyone, but leaves room for another person donating to that "third party".
Meanwhile the other "third party" - living being - does not even stand a chance of someone else's support.

Still does not relate. One murders. The other does not, but simply gives away to someone else.
We just circled back to where we started.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "third party". requiring a kidney to live, is being compared to a living being requiring "life support"?

Which part does the one carrying the offspring cut off?
Oh. She murders the "third party".
While the one who keeps his kidney does not murder anyone, but leaves room for another person donating to that "third party".
Meanwhile the other "third party" - living being - does not even stand a chance of someone else's support.

Still does not relate. One murders. The other does not, but simply gives away to someone else.
We just circled back to where we started.

No, she does not murder. She merely evicts.

 

[sayak83]

Doesn't matter where the paper came from, or where it is published. It's still one opinion against another at the end of the day, with those opinions being wrong.

A cockroach does have rights, according to the animal rights supporters.
Doesn't criminals and murderers have rights... or can you just out their lights as you wish?
No you can't. They too have ights according to the State.

No. The expert knowledge of a 1000 specialist vs a few religiously biased voices does not have equal standing. In this case, as well as in other cases like evolutionary biology.
To stand as established science it does matter where it is published and if it's accepted by scientists or not as being correct and definitive.
Both the paper you quoted and the opinion piece article you later linked ( that refers to a long discarded 1965 theory) fails on those two points.

Does a morally evil person not have a sense of self, consciousness and a complex mind? How is this a rejoinder to the example of a cockroach not having a right to life because of the absence of a complex mind??

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because taking life is wrong. But as i said, i dontvtell others what to believe or think about this topic

What about the woman's life? Does that count for anything? Or is it just zygotes and fetuses whose lives matter?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The "third party". requiring a kidney to live, is being compared to a living being requiring "life support"?

Both require body parts of another in order to live / survive.

Which part does the one carrying the offspring cut off?
Oh. She murders the "third party".
While the one who keeps his kidney does not murder anyone, but leaves room for another person donating to that "third party".

There is no other person. You are the only match. There is no time to find another. You are the dude's last hope.
Why is one murder while the other is not?
In both cases refusal to use ones body results in death.

Meanwhile the other "third party" - living being - does not even stand a chance of someone else's support.

Neither does the first.

Still does not relate. One murders. The other does not, but simply gives away to someone else.
We just circled back to where we started.

And where we started, is you dancing all around and being hellbend on skewing the analogy just so you can ignore the obvious.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What about the woman's life? Does that count for anything? Or is it just zygotes and fetuses whose lives matter?

All life count exaxtly the same. Unfortunatly we humans do not deside who live or die.

 

[nPeace]

No. The expert knowledge of a 1000 specialist vs a few religiously biased voices does not have equal standing. In this case, as well as in other cases like evolutionary biology.
To stand as established science it does matter where it is published and if it's accepted by scientists or not as being correct and definitive.
Both the paper you quoted and the opinion piece article you later linked ( that refers to a long discarded 1965 theory) fails on those two points.

What opinion piece article is that? This? You are saying that is not true science?

Does a morally evil person not have a sense of self, consciousness and a complex mind? How is this a rejoinder to the example of a cockroach not having a right to life because of the absence of a complex mind??

Huh? Are you referring to something I said, or is this a trick question?