Abortion

[coffee4u]

The other opposing ethical issue, comes about when we acknowledge this is not a black and white issue. There are many justifiable reasons for abortion - An array of medical conditions for a start eg A pregnant woman who discovers she has cervical cancer warranting hysterectomy, a woman requiring chemotherapy of radiotherapy that will inevitably bring about spontaneous abortion or kill the foetus, severe pre-eclampsia... these are a few of many conditions that will give rise to abortion being recommended.

Do you know how rare it is that the mother's life is at risk and the only possible way to save her is via an abortion?
So rare as to be basically non-existent.
https://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/pba/HowOftenAbortionNecessarySaveMother.pdf

“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukaemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.
Medical technology has advanced to a point where even women with diabetes and kidney disease can be seen through pregnancy safely by a doctor who knows what he or she is doing. The idea of abortion to save the mother's life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure -- but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking.”

Premature babies now survive from as young as 21 weeks. This isn't the 1960's any longer and this lie of the mothers life as being a large proportion of abortions needs to be brought to light. Most abortions are done instead of using birth control.US abortion statistics U.S. Abortion Statistics
approximately 890,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016

One of the rare times it would take the mothers life is an ectopic pregnancy. In 2% of all pregnancies the egg implants in the fallopian tube where it will grow and burst the tube with a high chance of taking the mothers life and its own. The fact that women are left no choice but to agree to the murder of their embryos is on doctor's heads.
What they should be doing is researching ways to surgically removed embryos from the fallopian tube and reimplanted them in the uterus. If this had been actively researched and tried maybe by now this would be an available option.

For mothers with mental disorders, termination is not some salve.
(I can't get this link to work)
"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders"

Both lives should have equal standing no matter how far into the pregnancy the mother is. The baby is not a part of the mother's body and half of the time won't even be the same gender as her. If measures are tried and the baby should pass away, this was an unsuccessful attempt at preserving the life of both. The baby was not exterminated or treated like a piece of trash but treated with dignity.

 

[coffee4u]

Which "means" did you have in mind exactly?

I don't have a problem with birth control methods that are not abortifacient. However, many on the pro-choice side do not count the use of abortifacient treatments as abortions, so it's hard to have a productive conversation with them about this.

All chemical forms of BC can cause abortion.
Can Birth Control Use Cause an Abortion?
Hormonal birth control makes it difficult for the embryo to implant because of changes to the endometrium. It may very well also raise the odds of ectopic pregnancy.
Contraception and ectopic pregnancy risk. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Sketcher]

Do you know how rare it is that the mother's life is at risk and the only possible way to save her is via an abortion?
So rare as to be basically non-existent.
https://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/pba/HowOftenAbortionNecessarySaveMother.pdf

“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukaemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.
Medical technology has advanced to a point where even women with diabetes and kidney disease can be seen through pregnancy safely by a doctor who knows what he or she is doing. The idea of abortion to save the mother's life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure -- but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking.”

It's not zero, though. Any law that would tighten up access to abortion has to allow for those edge cases, and not make it harder for doctors to treat pregnant women. Otherwise, you're looking at two people dying when you could have saved one of those lives, and that's not pro-life. We need to responsibly seek out the right balance of restriction and protection.

 

[coffee4u]

It's not zero, though. Any law that would tighten up access to abortion has to allow for those edge cases, and not make it harder for doctors to treat pregnant women. Otherwise, you're looking at two people dying when you could have saved one of those lives, and that's not pro-life. We need to responsibly seek out the right balance of restriction and protection.

But its extremely rare and all effort should be made to save both lives. If the baby must be born preterm all effort should be made to save his or her life as much as the mothers.

For all those Planned parenthood/ Margaret Sanger fans. You might find this interesting, especially if you are against racism. If you haven't heard of her than you should, the Margaret Sanger Award is still being given out.

This is your hero?

Margaret Sanger
“On the other hand, the mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.”

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” ~Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble, December 10th, 1939

Margaret Sanger: Racist, Planned Parenthood Founder

 

[Sketcher]

But its extremely rare and all effort should be made to save both lives. If the baby must be born preterm all effort should be made to save his or her life as much as the mothers.

I agree that all effort should be made to save both lives. Because of that, doctors shouldn't be overly restricted.

For all those Planned parenthood/ Margaret Sanger fans.

I'm not one.

 

[stevevw]

What makes it right for God but wrong for the woman? Whatever their respective motivations, the baby's just as dead either way.

How do you know that any particular abortion doesn't line up with God's decision anyway? There's plenty that happen on their own - maybe God appreciates some of the dirty work being taken off his hands.

I think there is a big difference in motivation between God and a human. God is all good and sinless so whatever the motive it is for good reason and I don't mean as we understand in our limited view of what we think is right or wrong. So any killing from Gods position was done justly and there were no innocents killed. We don't understand Gods mind and why He acts the way he does but we do know he is all good and therefore acts for good.

Do you know what the term 'the principle is the same' means? It means that regardless of the individual differences between two entities carrying out an action, the basic reason they are carrying out the action are the same.

That may apply to humans but not to God. Two different beings and situations. God also acts divinely which we do not understand.

Women get abortions because they think life will be worse if they don't.
Same reason God takes out people with things like the Flood or when he commands his followers to wipe out a culture or whatever. He thinks life will be worse if they aren't killed.

I mean, I guess I'm presuming that's why God is supposedly doing it. I'm often told God is good and has a plan and that if he kills someone it was for a greater good. I guess it's possible that he's doing it for some other reason.

I think you are right that there is a greater good or consideration. As mentioned God acts divinely and I don't think that can be compared to the limited worldly perspective. A person may have many factors that influence how they see things and they may not reflect the truth of the situations because they are not able to know everything and what the outcome may be. That's compared to God who may be concerned with a greater issue for human kind.

But women don't get abortions because its a fun way to spend an evening, they do it because they feel as if its the best decision they can make given their circumstances. It's a terrible thing to be in that situation, and they strive for the greater good, even if it requires doing something awful.

IMO I think it is a matter of perception. If a fetus is not life then people will believe an abortion is OK even if it is hard to do. But I am not sure everyone truly believes that a fetus is not life. I think some choose to hold onto to the belief that a fetus is not life as this goes along with how modern day living is based on individual needs and rights.

Ideas like the right to autonomy, reproductive health rights are used to focus on self above all else and deny any possible language that refers to the fetus as being life so that it makes people feel OK about abortion.

Just like with the Flood. Same principle - an awful action for a greater good.

I don't think it is the same. It comes back to whether the fetus is life. If the fetus is life then this changes the justification of abortion being a greater good. Is a life more valuable then a career or the struggle to bring a child up. If people value the fetus as life then wouldn't they think twice about getting pregnant in the first place. Gods greater Good is justified as he is all good and all knowing as to the actions he takes. It may be a matter of the existence of the human race or allowing evil to go unpunished.

Providing you believe something like the Flood was really for a greater good. I really don't see how someone can think the Flood was good while also thinking that a desperate woman getting an abortion out of dire necessity is bad. Countless deaths seems worse than one death, and God doesn't have the excuse of being a limited mortal woman.
Gross.
But they are both doing it, ultimately, for the same reason - to attain a greater good. Both are fundamentally the idea that some humans need to die to attain a greater good.

Also, why do people always make the point that the baby has 'done no wrong?' No one gets an abortion because they think the baby has 'done wrong'. The get an abortion to not be pregnant anymore.

If God took the action to take many lives we can be assured it was for good reason and no innocents were taken. People often emphasize the minority situations with abortions such as a women is facing a life and death situation but the majority of abortions are done for convenience. If abortion is not seen as taking a life then it can become a convenience backup way to avoid pregnancy and people will take it less seriously. At 125,000 abortions a day worldwide I don't think it is all about life and death situations. Even so it would have to be a pretty grave situation to be willing to kill a potential life through abortion.

 

[Zoii]

Do you know how rare it is that the mother's life is at risk and the only possible way to save her is via an abortion?
So rare as to be basically non-existent.
https://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/pba/HowOftenAbortionNecessarySaveMother.pdf

“Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukaemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.
Medical technology has advanced to a point where even women with diabetes and kidney disease can be seen through pregnancy safely by a doctor who knows what he or she is doing. The idea of abortion to save the mother's life is something that people cling to because it sounds noble and pure -- but medically speaking, it probably doesn’t exist. It’s a real stretch of our thinking.”

Premature babies now survive from as young as 21 weeks. This isn't the 1960's any longer and this lie of the mothers life as being a large proportion of abortions needs to be brought to light. Most abortions are done instead of using birth control.US abortion statistics U.S. Abortion Statistics
approximately 890,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2016

One of the rare times it would take the mothers life is an ectopic pregnancy. In 2% of all pregnancies the egg implants in the fallopian tube where it will grow and burst the tube with a high chance of taking the mothers life and its own. The fact that women are left no choice but to agree to the murder of their embryos is on doctor's heads.
What they should be doing is researching ways to surgically removed embryos from the fallopian tube and reimplanted them in the uterus. If this had been actively researched and tried maybe by now this would be an available option.

For mothers with mental disorders, termination is not some salve.
(I can't get this link to work)
"Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders"

Both lives should have equal standing no matter how far into the pregnancy the mother is. The baby is not a part of the mother's body and half of the time won't even be the same gender as her. If measures are tried and the baby should pass away, this was an unsuccessful attempt at preserving the life of both. The baby was not exterminated or treated like a piece of trash but treated with dignity.

You've confirmed everything I've said - thats is, this is not a black and white scenario and there are instances when abortion is medically required. As you suggest- a carcinoma requiring hysterectomy, is by its nature, going to abort the foetus.

Also be aware when using terms like "Murder", you are not being either accurate or truthful - thats not being ethical. You and I both know that destruction of an embryo, is not legally termed murder. So please be accurate in your replies.

Please bear in mind that offering stats from the USA, does not help when you live in Eritrea, Pakistan or Naru.

The other issue is of course that you are looking at this from a Christian perspective that, by and large, uses kantian ethical principles. This discussion though takes on board all ethical paradigms including utilitarianism and the viewpoints of those not Christian. While you may argue that all non-Christians MUST take on Christian ethical ideologies, those not Christian argue - why should we. I have values that I believe are ethical and sound to make me a good person.

Lastly - I challenge Christian ideology - at least when it comes to the very predominant USA Christian views on refugees and those starving and dying outside of the USA. My witness to statements frequently made here, is that the precious life espoused when discussing abortion - is not so precious when that life exists in Ethiopia or Syria. Im sure you understand my point.

To the OP - as you can see, this is not black and white, and you were right when quoting biblical references that saw God commissioning the death of whole villages including children (born and unborn)

 

[NxNW]

I think there is a big difference in motivation between God and a human. God is all good and sinless so whatever the motive it is for good reason and I don't mean as we understand in our limited view of what we think is right or wrong. So any killing from Gods position was done justly and there were no innocents killed.

"God did it so therefore it's good" isn't a valid argument. If morality is absolute, then the same rule against killing the unborn applies equally to God. Otherwise you have to concede that there are no absolute morals. Which is it?

If a fetus is not life then people will believe an abortion is OK even if it is hard to do. But I am not sure everyone truly believes that a fetus is not life.

So much misinformation here. A fetus is life, but the vast majority of abortions are on embryos, not fetuses. Is an embryo a human being? I've never heard a compelling argument that it is.

If abortion is not seen as taking a life then it can become a convenience backup way to avoid pregnancy and people will take it less seriously. At 125,000 abortions a day worldwide I don't think it is all about life and death situations. Even so it would have to be a pretty grave situation to be willing to kill a potential life through abortion.

First you say it's a life, and then in the last sentence you say it's a *potential* life, meaning it's not yet a life. If you're destroying something that's not a life, then it's not a killing or a murder.

 

[coffee4u]

"
First you say it's a life, and then in the last sentence you say it's a *potential* life, meaning it's not yet a life. If you're destroying something that's not a life, then it's not a killing or a murder.

And that doubt that people have over when life starts and what conception is was caused by Planned parenting and Margaret Sanger who redefined conception. It's in one of my links above. At the time when the Pill came out they made it legal by redefined conception as being 'after implantation' and before that as 'potential life'. This was done so they could sell the pill legally as only preventing pregnancy. So it isn't their fault they are confused, this seed was planted many years ago and is still filtering down today, which is why people make statements like that.

 

[NxNW]

And that doubt that people have over when life starts and what conception is was caused by Planned parenting and Margaret Sanger who redefined conception. It's in one of my links above. At the time when the Pill came out they made it legal by redefined conception as being 'after implantation' and before that as 'potential life'. This was done so they could sell the pill legally as only preventing pregnancy. So it isn't their fault they are confused, this seed was planted many years ago and is still filtering down today, which is why people make statements like that.

Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with it. Large segments of the world population had varying beliefs, including Christianity, and still do. The pro-life movement started essentially in ~1980 when the Moral Majority got involved with politics.

 

[jayem]

So any killing from Gods position was done justly and there were no innocents killed. We don't understand Gods mind and why He acts the way he does but we do know he is all good and therefore acts for good.

Really? Of the 230,000 people in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand, who were killed in the Boxing Day tsunami (Dec. 26, 2004,) about 1/3 were estimated to be children maybe 15 years old and younger. So I take it you're saying that the deaths of all these 70,000+ children were just and righteous. Because if God allowed this natural disaster to happen, then it must have been for the good. How about the 1993 Oklahoma City bombing? 19 children, from 5 years to 6 months were killed. Or the Sandy Hook shooting where 20 children, all between 6 and 7 years old were murdered. But since God is all good, these, and everything that happens must be for the good.

Professor Pangloss is smiling.

 

[coffee4u]

Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with it. Large segments of the world population had varying beliefs, including Christianity, and still do. The pro-life movement started essentially in ~1980 when the Moral Majority got involved with politics.

Of course they did, Margaret Sanger was the founder of what would later become Planned parenthood. Her goal wasn't only for women's liberation it was also to commit eugenics on black, Hispanic and native women who she saw as unfit. But mostly Sanger’s original goal for Planned Parenthood was to “help kill black babies before they came into the world.”
In a Dec. 10, 1939, letter, she wrote that "We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs."
Can Birth Control Use Cause an Abortion?

To deal with their morally-awkward dilemma, ACOG simply changed the definition of "conception." By saying "conception," but meaning "implantation," it became possible to market hormonal birth control pills as contraceptives—as something that prevents "conception."

Originally they got the pill through by calling it a drug to regulate menstruation with a warning on the bottle saying "May prevent pregnancy" of course it was for the 'side effects' that the majority took it. Later they redefined when conception was to be able to market the pill as birth control because by then it was legal so long as it was only preventing pregnancy.
History of US birth control A Brief History of Birth Control in the U.S. - Our Bodies Ourselves

1950 While in her 80s, Sanger underwrote the research necessary to create the first human birth control pill. She raised $150,000 for the project. (at this point it was released as something to regulate menstruation not as birth control with the warning on the bottle)

1960 The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as contraception. (at this point they changed when conception takes place to get it approved as birth control, but it had already been on the market for 10 years before this but simply not defined as birth control.)

 

[ewq1938]

Of course they did, Margaret Sanger was the founder of what would later become Planned parenthood. Her goal wasn't only for women's liberation it was also to commit eugenics on black, Hispanic and native women who she saw as unfit. But mostly Sanger’s original goal for Planned Parenthood was to “help kill black babies before they came into the world.”

Thanks for the information. Do you know what RU486 means? It's an abortion medicine of course but the letters and numbers mean something.

 

[coffee4u]

Thanks for the information. Do you know what RU486 means? It's an abortion medicine of course but the letters and numbers mean something.

That's the French abortion pill, mifepristone.
The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) publications

RU stands for Roussel Uclaf, the French company that first produced the steroid. The 486 is just a code for identifying a particular experimental compound: 11B-[p-(Dimethylamino)phenyl]-17B-hydroxy-17-(1-propynyl)estra-4,9-dien-3-one.

"Are you for 86?" (86 is US slang for getting rid of something) or "Are you for killing someone?" has been attributed but that may be wishful thinking.

 

[stevevw]

"God did it so therefore it's good" isn't a valid argument. If morality is absolute, then the same rule against killing the unborn applies equally to God. Otherwise you have to concede that there are no absolute morals. Which is it?

But an objective moral can be justifiably breached without undermining its objectivity. If the object moral is not to kill and a person kills someone by defending their family then this is also a moral objective to protect life especially you family. When two objective morals clash then one can take precedent. This will apply even more so to God as he is said to be all good and all knowing so he will be in a position to make the ultimate right act whatever that may be. God is the one who sets the objective morals and the one we measure objective morals by so I am not sure we can compare ourselves in the same league. One is the creator and the other the created.

So much misinformation here. A fetus is life, but the vast majority of abortions are on embryos, not fetuses. Is an embryo a human being? I've never heard a compelling argument that it is.

I find the argument that tries to separate a human being from what is regarded as life and when life begins has no basis. According to the American College of Pediatricians Life begins at conception.

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
When Human Life Begins

The issue I see is that people thought that a fetus was not life not too long ago and many still do think that way. Many think it is not really life at full term until it can live independently outside the womb and that has probably been the main argument for abortion. So the law makes no distinction between the stages of pregnancy. But as we are seeing we gain more understanding of what is happening and many of the arguments for abortion are being shown to be wrong.

But still abortion advocates persist with their position and for me it more than about the science but an ideology and social agenda. I think because this is a serious issue about life or possible life and we have been wrong in the past about what is life we should err on the side of caution and give the embryo and fetus the benefit of the doubt and treat it as life.

First you say it's a life, and then in the last sentence you say it's a *potential* life, meaning it's not yet a life. If you're destroying something that's not a life, then it's not a killing or a murder.

I only use the term a stage in forming life and that the term potential life is usually used as life outside the womb. Some make out the embryo and fetus are not really life and I am saying it is still a stage of life that has potential.

 

[stevevw]

Really? Of the 230,000 people in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand, who were killed in the Boxing Day tsunami (Dec. 26, 2004,) about 1/3 were estimated to be children maybe 15 years old and younger. So I take it you're saying that the deaths of all these 70,000+ children were just and righteous. Because if God allowed this natural disaster to happen, then it must have been for the good. How about the 1993 Oklahoma City bombing? 19 children, from 5 years to 6 months were killed. Or the Sandy Hook shooting where 20 children, all between 6 and 7 years old were murdered. But since God is all good, these, and everything that happens must be for the good.

Professor Pangloss is smiling.

Who said God is responsible for these things. Did he reach down and control the finger on the gun of the shooters or change the weather patterns or help the bomber build his bomb. God gives people free will and if they choose to do evil that is not his fault. The earth exists in a universe that is governed by a number of factors such as physics but also human activities such as climate change associated with extreme weather patterns. This in turn can also be affected by our ability to stop people doing evil acts or mitigate natural disasters through early warning systems. So there are many factors involved.

 

[Desk trauma]

Who said God is responsible for these things.

By claiming a deity is omnipotent you saddle it with responsibility for anything that takes place or does not take place.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Who said God is responsible for these things. Did he reach down and control the finger on the gun of the shooters or change the weather patterns or help the bomber build his bomb. God gives people free will and if they choose to do evil that is not his fault. The earth exists in a universe that is governed by a number of factors such as physics but also human activities such as climate change associated with extreme weather patterns. This in turn can also be affected by our ability to stop people doing evil acts or mitigate natural disasters through early warning systems. So there are many factors involved.

If God is good and omnipotent and omniscient, whence evil?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

If God is good and omnipotent and omniscient, whence evil?

As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

ST Ia Q. 2 — Aquinas 101

 

[NxNW]

Of course they did, Margaret Sanger was the founder of what would later become Planned parenthood.

Irrelevant, of course. As I mentioned previously, the embryo was generally not believed to be a human being many centuries before Sanger came along.