Is or can abortions constitute selfishness in some cases?

[ver 2-10]

logic/philosophy.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

othwrwise if we really need to know how happy a person can be and how they can still have joy despite hardships, there are many stories shared online. search for foundations and groups that rep. handicap, etc.

That's funny you can't quote anything from that list that debunks anything I say.

Here in Denmark we often have a solid foundation in reality thus we act accordingly to which rules and laws we pass. We have study cases out of those tragic children that grew up like I described earlier.

What laws and rules do you rely on? Your own philosophical laws and morals?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

how? definition of a person is an individual human. thats it. thats thw definition held for as long as the word existed.

so again. how?

Is a brain dead body kept alive by machines an "individual human"?

 

[randomvim]

No, that's incorrect. Perhaps colloquially, but the relevant concept here is the legal definition of "person," which is not synonymous with "human."

1. however law is in question. although law should use same terms as society (oxford dict. for example), some terms may change - where as if those terms change, do they rep. what is logical and valid? what is moral?

comparing to other countries/ events that limited the definition, there was an immoral and unjust outcome. humans were persecuted and not protected under the law where as they needed.

this lets us know, that legalities is not what we consider.

2. to tease the thought ....
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legal-definition-of-person

quickest explaination of legal definition of law. i invite a better link. but even in this basic explaination the child in a womb is included.

3. consider manslaughter and other crimes that include preborn as a person/human where as these exceptions are not considered for abortion. induced abortion is a fail in the system.

 

[Cearbhall]

1. however law is in question.

Of course. I'm just sharing my opinion that the legal definition of person should continue to not be synonymous with "human."

comparing to other countries/ events that limited the definition, there was an immoral and unjust outcome. humans were persecuted and not protected under the law where as they needed.

You'll have to be more specific.

 

[thesopranopiano]

I understand what you are saying,soprano. Help me to understand exactly about a mother aborting her baby to save her life. Maybe I am misinterpreting that, but are there any other reasons besides saving the mother's life why aborting a baby to save her life isn't comparable. I am just uncomfortable with anyone aborting or shortening a life of their unborn regardless.

I don't think they're comparable because allowing the mother to just die is far, far more tragic compared deciding to keep a child conceived through rape. Her husband has now suddenly lost his partner, their children (if they had any) are now suddenly without a mother, her parents no longer have a daughter, etc. A significant person to these people is now unexpectedly gone forever, along with all the excitement they had about her pregnancy. I just don't see the outcomes as equal. One is much worse than the other.

 

[randomvim]

Is a brain dead body kept alive by machines an "individual human"?

not sure of how or why my response changed but yes. that person is still human. just as a dead person is still human. just a dead human.

Of course. I'm just sharing my opinion that the legal definition of person should continue to not be synonymous with "human."

You'll have to be more specific.

really?
U.S. for example jim crowe, 2/3rds law, every injustice against native americans. italians are second most lynched ethnicity in u.s. various laws supported segregation as well as limit access to health, insurance, and many other accomities.

sometimes, despite how the law was written, law was missunderstood or outright ignored causing deaths of innocent citizens because of how they looked and act.

2. i provided examples to why law should identify person correctly. why should it not?

 

[randomvim]

I don't think they're comparable because allowing the mother to just die is far, far more tragic compared deciding to keep a child conceived through rape. Her husband has now suddenly lost his partner, their children (if they had any) are now suddenly without a mother, her parents no longer have a daughter, etc. A significant person to these people is now unexpectedly gone forever, along with all the excitement they had about her pregnancy. I just don't see the outcomes as equal. One is much worse than the other.

1. there is a moral and practical difference between trying to save both lives vs. doing nothing. no one is supporting no action. instead we recognize the hippocratic oath in medice. all doctors should follow a code that fights to keep all patients alive.

going in to kill a fetus and then remove that fetus just to then apply some other treatment to the mother does not follow society's need for moral doctors.

2. as for the rape comment. why commit to what the rapist wants and further the act of violence?

with proper support any woman can heal from her rape by ending the line of violence. to prevent another victimization.

this is not just my words, but words from a teen who had been raped and kept her child.

 

[Cearbhall]

really?
U.S. for example jim crowe, 2/3rds law, every injustice against native americans. italians are second most lynched ethnicity in u.s. various laws supported segregation as well as limit access to health, insurance, and many other accomities.

You seem to be determined to make this about everything but abortion.

 

[thesopranopiano]

1. there is a moral and practical difference between trying to save both lives vs. doing nothing. no one is supporting no action. instead we recognize the hippocratic oath in medice. all doctors should follow a code that fights to keep all patients alive.

going in to kill a fetus and then remove that fetus just to then apply some other treatment to the mother does not follow society's need for moral doctors.

Of course they fight to keep both alive, but when it's the pregnancy that is killing her, termination may be the only way to keep one person alive.

2. as for the rape comment. why commit to what the rapist wants and further the act of violence?

with proper support any woman can heal from her rape by ending the line of violence. to prevent another victimization.

this is not just my words, but words from a teen who had been raped and kept her child.

And I support her right to have made that decision. Although what works for one person does not work work for all.

 

[jayem]

2. to tease the thought ....
What is the legal definition of 'person'? - Quora

quickest explaination of legal definition of law. i invite a better link. but even in this basic explaination the child in a womb is included.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the legal status of a fetus is not addressed in the Constitution. So, under our system of laws, it becomes what the Supreme Court says it is. Even Justice Scalia--the favorite of conservatives--agreed that a fetus is not a person as that term is used in the Constitution. This is from a 2008 interview on 60 Minutes:

"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons," (emphasis mine)

Justice Scalia on the record

Sure, you may think that's reminiscent of Dred Scott and is highly unjust. There is a way to correct it. Scott v. Sanford was nullified by the 14th Amendment. And similarly, the proper way to recognize legal personhood for the unborn is to amend the Constitution.

 

[randomvim]

You seem to be determined to make this about everything but abortion.

last i check, I was asked to present examples to support my claim that relying on legalities is not sufficient. my examples provide that.

I also recognize attempts to deny who is human is not new to our history and have only been done to opress a group.

 

[randomvim]

Of course they fight to keep both alive, but when it's the pregnancy that is killing her, termination may be the only way to keep one person alive.

And I support her right to have made that decision. Although what works for one person does not work work for all.

1. may you provide an example of such a condition for discussion sake?

only example I know well is when the child becomes stuck in fallopian tube. There is still a difference ethically by our response.


2. even in above case, this doesnt explain why induced abortion should be legal to public at any given moment.


3. there may be a difference in some respect, but all can benefit from recognizing another's life and being active in that life's productivity. thats why this is suggested to people with depression. helping others have a great internal response.

 

[Cearbhall]

I also recognize attempts to deny who is human is not new to our history and have only been done to opress a group.

It's not about denying humanity. A human fetus is indeed a human fetus. It's about whether a person has the right to not be pregnant and not go through childbirth. I would say yes, I do have that right, just as I have the right to not give someone a kidney.

 

[randomvim]

It's not about denying humanity. A human fetus is indeed a human fetus. It's about whether a person has the right to not be pregnant and not go through childbirth. I would say yes, I do have that right, just as I have the right to not give someone a kidney.

except in one hand you are allowing a person a risk of death while waiting for a donor that does not need to be you.

the other hand, you are outright killing that person - and worst - the majority of reasons abortion is argued for is not even 10 % of all abortions.

yes we have an obligation to ourselves and our body but this does not deminish another person nor our obligation to them as parents.

denying the human being inside the womb denies humanity which induced abortion and its supporters have accomplished

 

[thesopranopiano]

1. may you provide an example of such a condition for discussion sake?

only example I know well is when the child becomes stuck in fallopian tube. There is still a difference ethically by our response.

That would be an ectopic pregnancy. Preeclampsia and placenta abruption are some other examples I found.

2. even in above case, this doesnt explain why induced abortion should be legal to public at any given moment.

In the above examples, when should an abortion be legally available? Do we base it in the chance of survival (which has room for error) or does the mother have to already be dying? Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland in 2012 when she was denied an abortion that could have saved her. She was having a miscarriage, but was denied an abortion because the baby still had a heartbeat. After she (and her baby girl) died, it turns out abortions to save the life of the mother was legal in Ireland, but the doctors were trying to make sure they were within the law, and were unable to do the procedure in time.

 

[Cearbhall]

except in one hand you are allowing a person a risk of death while waiting for a donor that does not need to be you.

Nope, that's not the point. Even if I'm the only match, I have zero obligation to donate.

the other hand, you are outright killing that person

Well, yes, that's effectively what happens, since the human in question requires my body to survive, just as a person on a donor list would.

yes we have an obligation to ourselves and our body but this does not deminish another person

You're correct, it does not. I can't forcibly use someone else's body, and likewise they can't use mine without my consent.

nor our obligation to them as parents.

We're speaking of the law. That obligation does not exist. I can use birth control, I can terminate a pregnancy, and I can give an infant up for adoption.

 

[randomvim]

That would be an ectopic pregnancy. Preeclampsia and placenta abruption are some other examples I found.

In the above examples, when should an abortion be legally available? Do we base it in the chance of survival (which has room for error) or does the mother have to already be dying? Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland in 2012 when she was denied an abortion that could have saved her. She was having a miscarriage, but was denied an abortion because the baby still had a heartbeat. After she (and her baby girl) died, it turns out abortions to save the life of the mother was legal in Ireland, but the doctors were trying to make sure they were within the law, and were unable to do the procedure in time.

thank you for adding two examples.

May you clarify?
Infections in Pregnancy: Septic Shock

in stories I have read, there is no indication as to how the mrs. developed her condition. I know bacteria is main reason, but how would there be a change if an abortion had been conducted if the bacteria could have been from utencils used?

there are gaps in the story.

I would question the methods used to determine the child's condition and time between that situation to end result.
Infections in Pregnancy: Septic Shock

now for any given situation, an error would first need to be present before action may take action. we can not heal a person who is already healthy. we do not take out apendixes or kidneys until it is necessary. doctors do not kill their patients at first sign of difficulty.

so in provoded 3 examples are situations where it appears to be improbable to guess or know when a condition may develope. There seems to also be measures to help prevent these conditions that may not require abortions.

Further study would be required to know all forms of responses however.

 

[randomvim]

Nope, that's not the point. Even if I'm the only match, I have zero obligation to donate.

yes it is the point. if you are analysing condition 1 based on condition 2. then condition 2 must be same. your obligations are different in these two situations. . furthermore, pregnancy can be a situation you place yourself in.

Well, yes, that's effectively what happens, since the human in question requires my body to survive, just as a person on a donor list would.

You're correct, it does not. I can't forcibly use someone else's body, and likewise they can't use mine without my consent.

We're speaking of the law. That obligation does not exist. I can use birth control, I can terminate a pregnancy, and I can give an infant up for adoption.

2. as stated above, an obligation during pregnancy is different when being considered as a potential donor.

the patient needing a single body part does not need your body as a whole.

3. consent is also an action. if you dont want another person to harvest your organs for donation, dont register as a donor list

4. yes we are talking about law which is why I have stated earlier that the law is insufficient. law does not always reflect what out to be.

do note you used adoption. this does not kill the child. that is the ultimate obligation to a childs health no?

 

[ananda]

I ask this because I was not sure on the Baptist Church's position on abortion. I understand that there are strong opinions on the subject, but would you or do you consider abortion a selfish act? I get that one may consider it in some cases, but on a personal note, I would keep my child or children. I have my own beliefs on abortion which may contradict yours as I don't believe women should abort their children, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. While it may seem to be an extreme position to some of you, let me explain. I don't think aborting a baby is the answer because even though rape and incest are egregious, vile, and horrible personal violations (forgive me if you agree with how I define rape and incest), the baby or babies are innocent.

I feel that even though women have a right to choose as far as individuals go, once she is pregnant, she is not to think of her own self, but her and the baby's or babies', with them first. I am only thinking of my own views, though I believe that vile people such as rapists and those who commit incest should get their just sentences (which doesn't happen in many cases). There are times when the justice system sucks (that goes without saying) , so the issue of abortion is truly a matter of justice as well as the lives of the mother and the unborn. Are the views abortion being selfish too strong or is there only a grain of truth to it? Is having an abortion or rather is it a selfish act since it is about ending the life of an unborn child? Are all abortions a selfish act, at least to you, or at least in some cases? I am interested in reading your answers.

On a serious note:
I would rather that the opinions and answers be civil as controversial subjects such as abortion can get heated to say the least. In other words, no racism, sexism, hurtful language, or name calling. I know that this is a Christian forum, but still, let us be civil, yet I am not a moderator, so it isn't my place to express this.

If a parent cannot properly care for a child (in other words, there is the prospect for a lifetime of great suffering for that child), then I am not against it.

For example, some mothers might be very poor mothers if they see their child and know on a daily basis that it is the product of a rape. How can such a mother be forced to carry her child, just to give that child a lifetime of suffering? That is incredibly selfish (on the part of those who insist that she be compelled to keep her child).

 

[Lik3]

If a parent cannot properly care for a child (in other words, there is the prospect for a lifetime of great suffering for that child), then I am not against it.

For example, some mothers might be very poor mothers if they see their child and know on a daily basis that it is the product of a rape. How can such a mother be forced to carry her child, just to give that child a lifetime of suffering? That is incredibly selfish (on the part of those who insist that she be compelled to keep her child).

I believe that there is an alternative to abortions. I understand your point of view but I believe instead of terminating her pregnancy, there are and should be options such as adoptions and counseling, even as far as what happened to her. I just find the idea of terminating a pregnancy rather scary as I was writing about what if it were me. When it comes to this hot button issue, it is hard to be objective. Sadly there are few options for women in any case, especially for women who are poor. I just have to see things from a fair and more "conservative" point of view.