Abortion

[jpcedotal]

Just as a hypothetical, what if it was not an "Innocent life"? what if it was a guilty life, would it still be worth 9 months no matter what the circumstances?

I used innocent just to make the distinction between a proven guilty murderer on death row. I am just saying new every human life should be given the chance to live....sorry for the confusion. I don't think any new life is born guilty, a sinner sure, but not guilty in the sense of doing something wrong.

 

[jpcedotal]

going with that for a minute.. Arent we all born sinners?

Innocent and guilty from your worldly point of view...

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

Yasic,
Yes that is true. But what makes the woman have more rights than the fetus? Is it correct that you said, "she does have a right to stop supplying nutrients to the child which indirectly results in the child's death", that is basically saying she has the right to kill the child which means that both the child and the woman do not have a right than.
I would like to state that both the woman and the child should have a right and they both are a separate person because the woman and child are separate outside of the womb, making them separate inside the womb as well.
As supplying the needs to the child, this could also bring up the topic of Euthanasia...do you believe that a person who is hooked up to a machine has the right to have the plug pulled on them even though they are unconscious? Just as euthanasia is, abortion is the same. You are essentially pulling the plug on the child who is unconscious.

 

[Belk]

I used innocent just to make the distinction between a proven guilty murderer on death row. I am just saying new every human life should be given the chance to live....sorry for the confusion. I don't think any new life is born guilty, a sinner sure, but not guilty in the sense of doing something wrong.

No confusion. Just trying to point out that innocent is superfluous to your argument and should likely be discarded.

 

[yasic]

Yasic,
Yes that is true. But what makes the woman have more rights than the fetus? Is it correct that you said, "she does have a right to stop supplying nutrients to the child which indirectly results in the child's death", that is basically saying she has the right to kill the child which means that both the child and the woman do not have a right than.
I would like to state that both the woman and the child should have a right and they both are a separate person because the woman and child are separate outside of the womb, making them separate inside the womb as well.
As supplying the needs to the child, this could also bring up the topic of Euthanasia...do you believe that a person who is hooked up to a machine has the right to have the plug pulled on them even though they are unconscious? Just as euthanasia is, abortion is the same. You are essentially pulling the plug on the child who is unconscious.

If you give birth to a child, and complications arise resulting in the child lacking blood, and you are the only person with a compatible blood type, even with a 99% success rate, you cannot be compelled to give your blood except with consent.

The same (should) apply within the womb, otherwise the law should be re-written to apply outside the womb.

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

.

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

If you give birth to a child, and complications arise resulting in the child lacking blood, and you are the only person with a compatible blood type, even with a 99% success rate, you cannot be compelled to give your blood except with consent.

The same (should) apply within the womb, otherwise the law should be re-written to apply outside the womb.

Yes I believe that what you're saying can be correct, but all people should have a right and even a fetus has a right, stating that a fetus should not be forced to die because it is unconscious and therefore cannot agree to it. Just as a person who is giving blood should not be forced to give blood unless it agrees to do so. A fetus should be more or less known as an unconscious person, it is not ethical for someone to kill someone who is hooked up to a machine, same as a fetus in a womb.

 

[jayem]

Yes I believe that what you're saying can be correct, but all people should have a right and even a fetus has a right, stating that a fetus should not be forced to die because it is unconscious and therefore cannot agree to it.

Do you think abortion could be justified for medical reasons?

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

What are you meaning for medical reasons?

 

[plindboe]

Again, I am no biologist, but I was of the impression that sperm lack too many features of a cell to be considered one. In all honesty, I would simply take the position here of the highest ranking biologist to correct me, and simply state my "I don't know jack on this subject" disclaimer every time someone asks me about sperm.

I almost have my bachelor degree in biology, so hopefully that will give me a decent ranking. In any case, one easy way to convince yourself is to go here, use the search function and count the number of times the word "cell" appears.

Either way, eggs are alive, so life happens prior to conception.

Indeed. Life started about 4 billion years ago and all life since then has been a continuation of it.

Peter

 

[jayem]

What are you meaning for medical reasons?

I work in health care. I'll tell you about a real case.

The mother was about 6 weeks pregnant when she was found to have a lymphoma. It appeared to be a fairly high-grade malignancy, but in an early stage. With prompt treatment, it was estimated she had at least a 70-80% chance of remission. But the intense radiation and chemo she'd need could very likely cause a miscarriage, with possibly uncontrollable hemorrhage, or other serious complications. The oncologists would not risk treating her while she was pregnant. She would have to abort to begin treatment ASAP. Or she could wait until the baby could be safely delivered, and then start treatment. But a 5 or so month delay could allow the cancer to progress to an incurable stage. Add in the fact she already had a young child. If she delayed treatment to give birth, she risked leaving 2 children motherless. Or she could terminate this pregnancy, and give herself the best chances for being cured. She was being treated in a top rate university medical center BTW, with highly qualified specialists in their fields. Getting more medical opinions would probably waste time and not really add anything.

Do you think she would be morally justified if she aborted?

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

I understand what you're stating,
I knew this woman who was pregnant and also found out that she was going to have cancer. The doctors asked if she wanted to abort and she said no because she wanted to keep the baby. The doctors said she might die if she does not have abort the baby but she refused to.
I think that the doctors can also misdignose a person but that's just my opinion on the topic. That is a hard topic to deal with and I'm not sure of my stance on it.
I just believe that both the woman and the fetus have a right to live.

 

[Belk]

I understand what you're stating,
I knew this woman who was pregnant and also found out that she was going to have cancer. The doctors asked if she wanted to abort and she said no because she wanted to keep the baby. The doctors said she might die if she does not have abort the baby but she refused to.
I think that the doctors can also misdignose a person but that's just my opinion on the topic. That is a hard topic to deal with and I'm not sure of my stance on it.
I just believe that both the woman and the fetus have a right to live.

How can you have a "right" to something that will eventually be taken from you no matter what?

 

[Skaloop]

I understand what you're stating,
I knew this woman who was pregnant and also found out that she was going to have cancer. The doctors asked if she wanted to abort and she said no because she wanted to keep the baby. The doctors said she might die if she does not have abort the baby but she refused to.

Ah, so she was able to choose which direction she wanted to go. Crazy idea, that.

I think that the doctors can also misdignose a person but that's just my opinion on the topic.

They can also diagnose correctly. And in the case mentioned, if the woman chose to have an abortion and the doctors were wrong in their diagnosis, then a fetus was aborted. If they were right, then a fetus was aborted. But if they were right and she didn't abort, then the mother likely dies and two small children have no mother.

Now, different people will likely weigh those consequences differently. Which is why it should be up to the mother (with, if possible, input from the father) to choose whether she gets an abortion or not.

I just believe that both the woman and the fetus have a right to live.

And in a case where it is quite literally one or the other? Whose right to live takes precedence?

 

[jpcedotal]

You pray and put it in God's hands ... and say no to the abortion.

 

[Skaloop]

You pray and put it in God's hands ... and say no to the abortion.

That's fine if you're a Christian who believes in God. If that's how you decide, so be it.

But for the rest of us, we'll make our own choices.

 

[yasic]

Yes I believe that what you're saying can be correct, but all people should have a right and even a fetus has a right, stating that a fetus should not be forced to die because it is unconscious and therefore cannot agree to it. Just as a person who is giving blood should not be forced to give blood unless it agrees to do so. A fetus should be more or less known as an unconscious person, it is not ethical for someone to kill someone who is hooked up to a machine, same as a fetus in a womb.

But that right cannot be made without infringing on an equal right of another person.

When 2 rights come in conflict, the choice where a person walks away from an arrangement triumphs over one where one must continuously work.

As such, a woman can 'walk away' from supporting the child.


If it were possible to keep the child alive without it residing in the womb I would be all for it* however this simply is not the case.



*I add the asterisk because I do not believe a fetus is a person till the 21/22 week mark and as such I see no reason to force it to remain alive if the owner (woman in question) does not wish so.

 

[IzzyPop]

You pray and put it in God's hands ... and say no to the abortion.

Wow. And what is the 5 year survival rate for prayer?

 

[Jaycee.Forte]

But that right cannot be made without infringing on an equal right of another person.

When 2 rights come in conflict, the choice where a person walks away from an arrangement triumphs over one where one must continuously work.

As such, a woman can 'walk away' from supporting the child.


If it were possible to keep the child alive without it residing in the womb I would be all for it* however this simply is not the case.


*I add the asterisk because I do not believe a fetus is a person till the 21/22 week mark and as such I see no reason to force it to remain alive if the owner (woman in question) does not wish so.

Yasic,
I feel that both of us have different views on this subject and I am willing to see your side and respect it. What you have said is that woman have a choice whether or not to get an abortion and I have stated that the woman and fetus are both separate so the woman doesn't have a choice necessarily to have an abortion. I see that both of our sides have brought up valid points from both sides and I respect your opinion and beliefs on this subject. Not to dodge the question or anything but I want to bring up another question about abortion...Does abortion lead woman to emotion, physical and psychological risks?

 

[LyraJean]

A woman's integrity or her right to choose does not supersede the right of an unborn child to live.

Sorry no way no how. Argue that the child is not a child or life is not present at a certain point, but not that the woman has some extra right to kill because the child is in her body.

It's an ectopic pregnancy where bringing the child to term: 1. the child will die anyway 2. It would kill the mother in the process.