Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Yes. The more the better.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it okay to kill this?
- Thread starter neves
- Start date
Yes. The more the better.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Well if that's the case, I think abortion should be illegal after 6 weeks. I'm willing to have it be even earlier depending on what we learn about their functions and development at that stage. For instance, if it's got a CNS and can thus perceive, it is practically alive as far as I'm concerned.
My attitude towards it does vary form time to time, sometimes I feel more "liberal" about it, other times I think that if you don't wanna get/her pregnant - use a condom and practice safe sex FFS!
Don't be a reckless gambler when someone's life is involved!It's been a while since I've read up on the issue, but I don't think they've managed to figure out a point where the baby is able to feel pain.
I should warn you ~ the common pro-life challenge to this (if you haven't heard it already) is that the ability to feel pain can't be the criteria that determines life or death, otherwise we could go ahead and kill off all the people who are currently temporarily unconscious and unable to feel pain.
In the end, I fear science will be unable to help decide the issue, and society will just have to come up with what's legally fair ~ as best as possible ~ to all involved.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Aye, that's always the case though, isn't it? We attempt to "look up" to certain things for moral guidence, take religion for example. With science, we won't be an closer to "morality", so yeah deciding on matters like these will never be easy
I guess having to take such gambles on moral issues like this is what truely makes us who we are.
dust1n
Zindīq
Indeed; life, eyes, hands, heart... but the baby is still not conscious, at least not anymore than a rat.
Lots of things we kill have the qualities you list, we kill them all the time.
Perhaps, considering the consequences, a woman would not want to wait around about it - much more dangerous/painful. But I can imagine scenarios when necessary. I will let whoever determines it necessary to act that out.
Then again, perhaps it is best I am neither a woman or a voter.
So it is in fact quite conscious?
Do you have sources that explain when the human becomes consicous and also one that explain how a rat is not conscious?
Tanuki
Taking a hiatus
Sorry Smoke, but unless the woman was a victim of a sexual assault then the law shouldn't give a damn about at what time it is ethical to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term. At 23 weeks the foetus is a child, it could theoretically be born and survive.
Very controversial:
If the woman didn't want a baby she should have either kept her legs closed, or used protection.
It might be controversial but I agree. People should take responsibility for their actions.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Mm-hm, deep down I pretty much feel the same. We simply have to be responsible with stuff like this. Keep your clothes on or wear protection!
Smoke
Done here.
If a fetus is to be considered a child with rights, what possible difference could it make whether the woman was raped or not?
Smoke
Done here.
I agree. For instance, it's ridiculous to give medical treatment to people who are fat and sedentary, smokers, drinkers, or eaters of fast food.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
From a moral standpoint, I think it's horrible.
However, for personal reasons, I no longer feel like it's moral to stand against a woman's right to choose for herself.
I believe that life is precious from the the beginning and I've practiced what I preach in my personal life. I've been pregnant twice and have carried both babies to term. That was MY choice. I can't dictate the path of others.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
A woman can be pregnant by some guy who fifteen minutes after they put their clothes back on is killed in an accident, and guess what - that baby is his legal heir.
Someone can kick a pregnant woman (at any stage of pregnancy) in the stomach and cause her to lose the baby/pregnancy and they can be charged with manslaughter.
As technology advances, we've been able to save premature infants at earlier and earlier stages. So - when is a person a person again? I mean, twenty years ago they were a person at 28 weeks and now they're a person at 22 weeks? As we advance and can possibly save babies at 18 weeks, does that magically make them babies at an earlier stage?
I've always found it ironic that a doctor can wait on one patient who is desperately trying to stop premature labor at, say, 24 weeks...and then he can go into the next room and inject a woman's uterus with a salt solution that basically scorches the skin off her 24 week old "fetus" to induce labor (an abortion). Both babies on both ultrasounds would be kicking and sucking their thumbs - the only difference is one is desperately wanted and the other is about to have it's skin burned off and then thrown in a hospital waste incinerator.
I agree with Smoke on the inconsistent "logic" of whether or not the child of a rape victim is really a child with rights or not. Personally, I think that regardless of the way the child was conceived, it's still a child. However, we as a society are so far removed from protecting the rights of the unborn, that I am willing to "give" a bit in that area (abortion rights for rape, incest or true danger to the mother's survival) in order to cut down the sheer number of abortions in this country.
Yes, but at the end of the pregnancy - a rat is still a rat. Are you honestly saying you see no difference between a rat and a human? What about termites - they're alive? Is their life just as sacred as that of a human? What about fire ants? Why can we kill them but we can't go kill the neighbor's kid who just broke our windshield with his baseball?
Where do you draw the line?
Personally, I believe that as humans, it's our responsibility to guard our planet wisely, and to treat animal life ethically, but I have no problem differentiating between treating the animal kingdom well, and protecting human life.
Someone can kick a pregnant woman (at any stage of pregnancy) in the stomach and cause her to lose the baby/pregnancy and they can be charged with manslaughter.
As technology advances, we've been able to save premature infants at earlier and earlier stages. So - when is a person a person again? I mean, twenty years ago they were a person at 28 weeks and now they're a person at 22 weeks? As we advance and can possibly save babies at 18 weeks, does that magically make them babies at an earlier stage?
I've always found it ironic that a doctor can wait on one patient who is desperately trying to stop premature labor at, say, 24 weeks...and then he can go into the next room and inject a woman's uterus with a salt solution that basically scorches the skin off her 24 week old "fetus" to induce labor (an abortion). Both babies on both ultrasounds would be kicking and sucking their thumbs - the only difference is one is desperately wanted and the other is about to have it's skin burned off and then thrown in a hospital waste incinerator.
I agree with Smoke on the inconsistent "logic" of whether or not the child of a rape victim is really a child with rights or not. Personally, I think that regardless of the way the child was conceived, it's still a child. However, we as a society are so far removed from protecting the rights of the unborn, that I am willing to "give" a bit in that area (abortion rights for rape, incest or true danger to the mother's survival) in order to cut down the sheer number of abortions in this country.
Yes, but at the end of the pregnancy - a rat is still a rat. Are you honestly saying you see no difference between a rat and a human? What about termites - they're alive? Is their life just as sacred as that of a human? What about fire ants? Why can we kill them but we can't go kill the neighbor's kid who just broke our windshield with his baseball?
Where do you draw the line?
Personally, I believe that as humans, it's our responsibility to guard our planet wisely, and to treat animal life ethically, but I have no problem differentiating between treating the animal kingdom well, and protecting human life.
MissAlice
Well-Known Member
I haven't been following through in this thread so I'll just respond to the OP. No I don't believe this baby should be killed. It is obviously a fully formed human being which means this baby while not cognitively developed like ourselves, will still feel physically.
When questions revolve around morality, I really don't know what to say. Everyone seems to encompass their own sets of morales and values. Some people value human life over animal life while others may or may not value both. I'm not saying my set of morals are necessarily "right" considering other factors that would prompt someone to take their babies life. In slavery women would sometimes kill their children off so they wouldn't suffer in the same fate as themselves.
But judging from a perspective where this child is neurologically in full development, I'd have to say no. However I'm not about to condemn it from a moral perspective but rather a human one. I'm not very big in seeing life forms that are able to feel physically get killed.
When questions revolve around morality, I really don't know what to say. Everyone seems to encompass their own sets of morales and values. Some people value human life over animal life while others may or may not value both. I'm not saying my set of morals are necessarily "right" considering other factors that would prompt someone to take their babies life. In slavery women would sometimes kill their children off so they wouldn't suffer in the same fate as themselves.
But judging from a perspective where this child is neurologically in full development, I'd have to say no. However I'm not about to condemn it from a moral perspective but rather a human one. I'm not very big in seeing life forms that are able to feel physically get killed.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
[youtube]6LP3XkeeZuk[/youtube]
YouTube - Baby Born Alive in Abortion Clinic
This is not some emotionally-manipulated video showcasing fetuses at different stages of development, or some heart-rending story by a woman who did or didn't have an abortion.
This video is an actual 9-1-1 call from an abortion clinic where a "fetus" was born alive rather than dead as planned, and the mother changes her mind and wants to try to save the baby.
YouTube - Baby Born Alive in Abortion Clinic
This is not some emotionally-manipulated video showcasing fetuses at different stages of development, or some heart-rending story by a woman who did or didn't have an abortion.
This video is an actual 9-1-1 call from an abortion clinic where a "fetus" was born alive rather than dead as planned, and the mother changes her mind and wants to try to save the baby.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Images like these are exactly why I think surgical abortion will go out of style.
The fetus used to be an unintelligble garble on a black and white ultrasound screen or picture -- now it's a tiny human that can look like a child in the womb.
The more women celebrate and treasure 3D color images of their unborn children with other women, the less we'll see of surgical abortion.
What will remain popular is chemical abortion that prevents pregnancy in the earliest stages.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Personally, I think that this is fake. There is no way that a fetus can survive an abortion.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Depends. How old does the fetus have to be before it can commit apostasy?
So you allow for the plan 'B' pill, perhaps, but prohibit most abortions. Say a woman doesn't suspect she's pregnant until she's a week late. That puts the pregnancy at five weeks, which only gives the woman one week to confirm the pregnancy, decide what to do, find a clinic, find the money to pay the clinic (if it's not covered under some form of health insurance), get there (which can be a task in itself if she's in a rural area or has to come in from another jurisdiction), and actually obtain the abortion.
If she has an irregular menstrual cycle, she might not even realize she's pregnant until after the 6 weeks have passed.
Does this sound reasonable?
Why do you think that "it's got a CNS" implies "it can perceive"? Capacity is not the same thing as ability.
A fetus becomes conscious at birth.
Actually, slightly after birth, when the mental and physiological changeover from fetal circulation to post-natal circulation occurs and the baby takes its first breath. Until that moment, the brain is in a suppressed state where even many normal autonomic functions don't occur. This is why fetuses don't suffocate in the womb. It's also why comparing a premature baby with a fetus of the same gestational age is something of an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I tend to take the ole liberal stance on abortion. Even if I don't agree with it sometimes, it's the woman's decision, and she must bear the consequences of her actions, not me. Who am I to deny the woman a right to her own body?