Abortion

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

Either morality applies to God, or it doesn't.

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.

Click to expand...

Now you're saying that (1) morality isn't absolute, but merely an arbitrary decision made by God, and (2) God operates under a different set of rules, which again implies more than one set of rules.

According to the American College of Pediatricians it is life and a human being and cannot be separated.

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

Click to expand...

The claim that human life beings at conception is clearly untrue in the case of identical twins or triplets, who come into existence AFTER conception.

It's hard to define what a human being is, but one aspect is that they are distinct and quantifiable. If you can't count them, they ain't human. At the moment of conception, you have a single cell. You are unable to determine at that moment if that cell will later turn into a single human being, or if it will split days later and produce twins or triplets. (Odds are it will miscarry and nothing will result.) My point is that at conception, you cannot quantify the number of humans that will result. Therefore, by definition, a human being (or beings) are not present. It's living tissue, but you can't assign "human being" status to it.

Desk trauma said:

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

Click to expand...

Why are not humans also responsible. You are taking away our freedom and independence and making people like robots with no mind to think for themselves. There is a video I watch that answered this question that I would like to quote.

God created the universe which is governed by the laws of Physics so at least in our reality things have laws and run to a certain logic. We understand these laws and we know they are important and they make sense in how things work. In that sense God cannot create anything. He cannot create a square hole. So what if when God created us he wanted us to be free. We know that freedom is good and something worth fighting for.

But if humans are free they cannot be forced to obey God because freedom without choice is like a square circle and a logical contradiction. The bible says the first people abused their freedom and made the wrong choice and since then the consequences of many other wrong choices by people have rippled across the world. Therefore God is responsible for the fact of freedom but it us humans who are responsible for the act of freedom. In that sense it is humans are responsible for the evil in this world and not God.

God may be all powerful but to have free humans who can know love God has to allow them to be free to make their own choices. Otherwise we may as well not exist at all. I don't know about you but I am glad I am here and have the chance to live and love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN53uHzOoXs

But even if we say that God is all powerful and responsible for everything that happens you would have to come up with an argument that shows it is impossible or improbably that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for why bad things happen. Therefore you would have to know the consequences of all the ripple effects of all choices and actions that were associated with each individual bad outcome to be able to make a conclusive argument. So far no atheist has been able to come up with such an argument.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ps36TV_vI

stevevw said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is getting off topic. But if God is sovereign, can anything happen that isn't part of his grand plan for the universe? If God allows natural disasters, and mass murder, then it's a logical conclusion that God is using these events for his purposes. Which as you said, are beyond our understanding. So how do you know abortions aren't also part of God's will?

jayem said:

This is getting off topic. But if God is sovereign, can anything happen that isn't part of his grand plan for the universe? If God allows natural disasters, and mass murder, then it's a logical conclusion that God is using these events for his purposes. Which as you said, are beyond our understanding. So how do you know abortions aren't also part of God's will?

Click to expand...

I guess because God made us with free will where we don't have to do Gods will. If there is good then there is evil and people can make the choice as to which way they want to go. As for Gods grand plan we don't know what that is so it is only speculating. But I do know that part of it was for Christ to come and be our savior so that we could overcome evil. I agree it is getting off topic.

Desk trauma said:

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

Click to expand...

Also who said God didn't have a good reason not to act. Do you know for certain that God did not have sufficient moral reason not to act and change things.

stevevw said:

I guess because God made us with free will where we don't have to do Gods will. If there is good then there is evil and people can make the choice as to which way they want to go. As for Gods grand plan we don't know what that is so it is only speculating. But I do know that part of it was for Christ to come and be our savior so that we could overcome evil. I agree it is getting off topic.

Click to expand...

We think we have free will, but isn't it possible that at times we are acting at God's direction? In Exodus, didn't God harden Pharaoh's heart--on more than one occasion--against releasing the Hebrews? So that God could show his power by punishing the Egyptians with more plagues. Which included the death of every first-born. Some of which no doubt were babies and young children. You may believe as a matter of faith, that abortion is against God's will. But I don't know of any way to demonstrate that objectively.

I think a woman should have an absolute to have an abortion before the foetus is viable, if she has no wish to have a child. Far better though to try to ensure her contraception is adequate.

pleinmont said:

I think a woman should have an absolute to have an abortion before the foetus is viable, if she has no wish to have a child. Far better though to try to ensure her contraception is adequate.

Click to expand...

Agree. And for clarity, viability should be defined as natural viability. This is the gestational age where a fetus—if it was born—has at least a 50% chance of survival without high-tech artificial life support. Or in other words, it’s reached the point where nature has prepared it to live outside the uterus with the usual care given to any full term newborn. The baby can breathe on its own, and can take oral feeding and hydration. This may appear arbitrary, but it’s important to specify natural viability because this point is biologically fixed. Viability with life support will be a continually moving target as neonatal intensive care advances. Also, the time of natural viability can be determined with some objectivity. Going back to the old pediatric literature—before lung surfactant, ventilators, total intravenous feeding, etc. were available—preemies born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival. (Birth weight affects survival too, but that can’t be determined reliably in utero.) So for legal purposes, up to 24 weeks of gestational age, abortion should be a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor. After 24 weeks, a state can restrict abortion to life-threatening maternal or fetal health reasons. And at this point, if the pregnancy had to be terminated, it would almost always be by C-section, or induced labor.

Joshua S said:

This was a paragraph I found from the website regarding abortion:

We know that God killed millions of unborn children and their pregnant mothers-to-be in the Noachian deluge, the conquest of Canaan, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah and in 20 major slaughters described in the bible. The critical feature of these horrific events is that all people were exterminated. Whenever entire communities were massacred, we can be sure that pregnant mothers-to-be and their unborn children were among the victims. Moreover, there are no stated exemptions for this specific segment of the population.

Click to expand...

Or the god backed test for unfaithful women that results in an abortion if she's guilty as described in Numbers 5:11-31. I don't get how people say abortion is anti-christian when the god of the bible performs them in the book via the bitter water curse.

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - New International Version

NxNW said:

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

Click to expand...

People also use to believe the man's sperm contained a tiny human and the women merely incubated it and that the world was flat, what of it? We are not talking about them, we are talking about the history of the contraceptive pill and how Sanger managed to get it passed the current laws of the time. First as a cycle adjuster and later as something to prevent fertilization while concealing it also affected implantation. They knew very well by the middle of the twentieth century that life begins at fertilization.

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."

Click to expand...

So no, they already knew it was life, human life, and they already knew it interfered with implantation. That was what they wanted. By preventing pregnancy Sanger hoped to lower the birth rate of the poor/black/Hispanic and Native communities.

I'm not even sure what your argument is about, I am merely sharing the history of the contraceptive pill.

jayem said:

Agree. And for clarity, viability should be defined as natural viability. This is the gestational age where a fetus—if it was born—has at least a 50% chance of survival without high-tech artificial life support. Or in other words, it’s reached the point where nature has prepared it to live outside the uterus with the usual care given to any full term newborn. The baby can breathe on its own, and can take oral feeding and hydration. This may appear arbitrary, but it’s important to specify natural viability because this point is biologically fixed. Viability with life support will be a continually moving target as neonatal intensive care advances. Also, the time of natural viability can be determined with some objectivity. Going back to the old pediatric literature—before lung surfactant, ventilators, total intravenous feeding, etc. were available—preemies born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival. (Birth weight affects survival too, but that can’t be determined reliably in utero.) So for legal purposes, up to 24 weeks of gestational age, abortion should be a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor. After 24 weeks, a state can restrict abortion to life-threatening maternal or fetal health reasons. And at this point, if the pregnancy had to be terminated, it would almost always be by C-section, or induced labor.

Click to expand...

So in your world a baby delivered at 23 weeks will lie there dying because you wouldn't incubate and tube feed even though the child given these things would probably live? Does this also follow that infants being born full term with some kind of life-threatening condition will likewise receive similar treatment? What happens if they are not sure on their dates and the infant is actually a week or two older than what they think it is?

Given that natural viability can change at any point in a person's life, why define birth as being any different? The reason that viability with life support is an ever-moving target is because the baby is a human life no matter whatever gestational age it's born at. Why does one child deserve to be intubated and tube fed and to have pain relief while the other does not?

Okay so up to 24 weeks, which is well passed when nerve pathways dealing with pain is developed, a human being who fully feels pain can have their arms and legs torn off and their skull crushed? Just want to be sure we understand exactly what you want.
*warning graphic* Pathologist traumatized after seeing 3-pound aborted baby with expression of 'horror' on his face

Quote from an abortion worker.

One incident really freaked me, it was a boy fetus, at least 3+ pounds, around 24+ weeks. It sat decomposing because the rest of the staff was AFRAID of it, I’m not joking. Then the chief of staff told me to deal with it because I was the FNG (f-kcin new guy) so I went to work.

Pulled out two well-formed arms and then the torso, headless. The head was at the bottom of the container, when I pulled it, he had this expression of such utter horror it flipped me wayyyy out, my PA saw it and ran, literally left work and went on disability (I’m serious here). It was like a headless screaming baby, like it had been born at least for a split second to realize it was screwed and let out one agonal yelp. The story of this reverberated around the department… I woke up once shortly after that in a cold sweat with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] running down my leg….

Click to expand...

Oh, of course, in your world they would only be aborted like this up to 24 weeks right? Forgot that makes so much difference.

Just as well there is no reason after 24 weeks to have an abortion to save a mother's life then isn't it? The baby can be delivered and like any ill human being, they can be treated.

coffee4u said:

So in your world a baby delivered at 23 weeks will lie there dying because you wouldn't incubate and tube feed even though the child given these things would probably live? Does this also follow that infants being born full term with some kind of life-threatening condition will likewise receive similar treatment? What happens if they are not sure on their dates and the infant is actually a week or two older than what they think it is?

Click to expand...

Where did you get that? You completely misunderstand. I'll try to make it clear: the 24 week threshold only applies in utero. And it only defines the upper limit of when an abortion decision is left as a private medical matter between doctor and patient. Once a neonate is born, no matter how premature, it is no longer a fetus, and it should receive whatever medical care is appropriate.

Given that natural viability can change at any point in a person's life, why define birth as being any different? The reason that viability with life support is an ever-moving target is because the baby is a human life no matter whatever gestational age it's born at. Why does one child deserve to be intubated and tube fed and to have pain relief while the other does not?

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Here's some personal experience. I worked 40+ years as a health care provider. I'm not an OB-GYN and I never performed abortions, not did I have any partnership or business relationship with an abortion provider. Though I have had a number of patients who did terminate their pregnancies. In my practice, I can only recall one patient who had a 2nd trimester termination. And that was for very cogent medical reasons. She had a serious heart attack at about 10 weeks, and developed congestive heart failure. Even under the care of cardiologists experienced in treating heart disease in pregnancy, there was real concern about her prognosis. Pregnancy puts a demand on the heart. Cardiac output must increase steadily by 30-50% up to the 5th month, when it levels off. This poor woman was only in the 3rd month, and her heart was barely keeping up even with maximal treatment. (Not to mention that some of the drugs she needed could be toxic to the fetus.) It was a very sad and unfortunate situation. There was really no option but to terminate this pregnancy and allow her heart to recover. She could then get cardiac rehab and in a year or so, hopefully get pregnant again. When still in training, I saw a woman who was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma at about 12 weeks. The intensive radiation and chemotherapy she needed could very possibly cause a miscarriage, or severe fetal damage. No oncologist would treat her while pregnant. She could wait 5 months or so until the baby could be safely delivered, and then start treatment. But her lymphoma could progress to the point where her chance of remission might be nil. She already had 2 young children. Should she forego immediate cancer treatment to have this baby, at the risk of leaving her husband a widower and 3 kids without a mom? These are the kind of cases where 2nd, or later term abortions are done. They are private matters between a pregnant woman, her family, and her medical team. And are very difficult. It's no business of the government.

And for the record, I have personally never known of any reputable, conscientious OB-GYN performing a 2nd term or later abortion for purely elective reasons.

jayem said:

There was really no option but to terminate this pregnancy

Click to expand...

Yes, things like this happens, I understand.

jayem said:

We think we have free will, but isn't it possible that at times we are acting at God's direction? In Exodus, didn't God harden Pharaoh's heart--on more than one occasion--against releasing the Hebrews? So that God could show his power by punishing the Egyptians with more plagues. Which included the death of every first-born. Some of which no doubt were babies and young children. You may believe as a matter of faith, that abortion is against God's will. But I don't know of any way to demonstrate that objectively.

Click to expand...

I think the verse saying God hardened the Pharaohs heart is a misinterpretation or understanding that God hardens peoples hearts. There are commentaries that say the Hebrew word does not indicate who hardened whose heart.
The Hebrew verb for “became hard” (pronounced, khazaq) is not passive, nor does it indicate who is initiating the action (it’s called a “stative” verb, meaning it doesn’t say whether it’s Pharaoh or God).
Why Pharaoh's Heart Grew Hard | The Bible Project

This seems to fit with other bible verses that say people harden their own hearts
1 Samuel 6:6
Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? After he had dealt severely with them, did they not send the people away, and they departed?

Pharaoh was not a blank sheet and he had his own beliefs and views which influenced his choices. He already had his own mindset against God so God would nit have had to do much persuading to harden his heart. We have free choice but this can be impacted by our views and life experiences which can make it harder to go along with things and make the best choices which can then take our freedoms away. But at the end of the day we can still make the choice to make things right.

As mentioned earlier you cannot say that God did not have a morally good reason for what he does because you cannot know the mind of God. But by judging his actions as morally wrong aren't you taking an objective moral position. If God is responsible for objective morality then this would mean you are borrowing from Gods morals to say that he is wrong because a subjective atheist view has no moral basis to determine what is truly right or wrong. Only Gods morality could be used to measure objective morals.

NxNW said:

Either morality applies to God, or it doesn't. Now you're saying that (1) morality isn't absolute, but merely an arbitrary decision made by God, and (2) God operates under a different set of rules, which again implies more than one set of rules.

Click to expand...

But here it seems the criteria you want to use to say that God is immoral is by using Gods own moral objectives. That actually provides support that there are objective morals and that God is responsible for them. Otherwise you have no argument if you use your viewpoint of what is right and wrong as there is no basis to do so. Even so as mentioned God may have sufficient moral reasons for what he does that you are not able to understand so it would be hard to make a case against him.

Also we cannot really measure or compare God with the way we think about morality. For one God is the creator of life. He created the babies who you say he has killed so as the creator of life he can also destroy that life. The moral responsibility is completely different to us as the created in taking another created life. Some who painted a picture or designed something has the right to destroy it as opposed to someone who did not create it.

Also for Christians babies/children don't die, they just move from one life form to another. So the taking of a life is a completely different context to atheists who see this world as the be all and end all. In that sense the taking of a life has much more significance and consequence to atheists. God sees life as we know in the blink of an eye compared to eternity. And as the bible says when babies and children die they go to be with God so they move onto a better place.

The claim that human life beings at conception is clearly untrue in the case of identical twins or triplets, who come into existence AFTER conception.

Click to expand...

It's hard to define what a human being is, but one aspect is that they are distinct and quantifiable. If you can't count them, they ain't human. At the moment of conception, you have a single cell. You are unable to determine at that moment if that cell will later turn into a single human being, or if it will split days later and produce twins or triplets. (Odds are it will miscarry and nothing will result.) My point is that at conception, you cannot quantify the number of humans that will result. Therefore, by definition, a human being (or beings) are not present. It's living tissue, but you can't assign "human being" status to it.

Click to expand...

Fair enough and that is your view and that is what subjective morality is all about. I think the article was saying that life begins when that life is first formed whether that be at conception or later when it splits into additional embryos. That is its beginning and the article is saying that though there are different stages of development the nature of it being life is still the same and it cannot be separated.

These are pediatricians who say this and they are the scientists who are experts in this field. So if there was any position that I would have some faith in it would be theirs rather than a lay person or someone who has vested interest that may bias their view.[/QUOTE]

NxNW said:

The claim that human life beings at conception is clearly untrue in the case of identical twins or triplets, who come into existence AFTER conception.

Click to expand...

A zygote is alive, if it were dead it wouldn't be splitting at a rapid rate with its sex already determined. Normally the fertilized egg stays as one life, splitting into two or even three simple adds two or more lives into the same space.

Joshua S said:

I think I've been misled this whole time. Currently New Zealand is debating whether Abortion should be less strict than it currently is. Now, I always said Abortion should never happen as I thought that my personal opinion aligned with God. However, I just read something regarding Abortion (I've never read the Bible although I should) on a website and apparently Anti-Abortion is a Zealot Following. Are Zealots Christians? I know they believe in a God but I'm not sure if they're followers of Jesus Christ or if they follow the Bible.

I also heard that God wasn't entirely pro-life and the website I looked at used Bible Quotes and used references to when pregnant women were killed, etc.

So, my debate is around Abortion. Is Abortion really bad?

Click to expand...

I've been to Christian abortion recovery groups.
Believe me -- abortion is a terrible sin.
The guilt one lives with later -- runs very deep.
M-Bob

I think it better to abort an embryo in the first trimester rather than bring an unwanted infant into this world, especially if it was the product of rape.

pleinmont said:

especially if it was the product of rape.

Click to expand...

How many abortions are preformed
because of rape?
1% ----------- 2% ---------------------?
Hardly worth mentioning.
Yet, that's where they always go.
M-Bob

No unwanted child should be brought into this world, far better to terminate the pregnancy a.s.a.p.