Abortion is obviously murder.

[icy_crusader]

No, I'm suggesting that if God has such deep concern for embryos, why does he allow so many to be naturally rejected? If you believe every embryo is a little human complete with soul, yet so many of them die (naturally) without ever developing as much neural activity as a slug, then God has a very peculiar habit of harvesting souls which have never been attached to an intelligent being, which seems rather in conflict with how we are generally expected to understand God's plans for humans - is this likely?

I'm saying that if, as a theist, you are looking for God's attitude towards embryos, surely it lies here, in the endless production of non-viable embryos which are sloughed off by womens' bodies. It surely looks as if embryos are produced on the basis of 'make lots, some will stick', IOW, a biological process which is not 'special' to God at all.

Has nothing to do with women acting as God, but women in charge of their own bodies and the biological products thereof.

I am old enough to have known a great many women who have had miscarriages or who lost very early embryos, self included, and including devout Christian women. It is a fact observable by anyone who knows a number of women through their reproductive lives that such early miscarriages rarely result in any particular emotional upheaval. Even a disappointed would-be mother is most likely to have a 'try-again' attitude. (There are exceptions, such as women who really want children and have repeated miscarriages.) But the general affect of such women is what one expects of a biological event, not the loss of a child.

Here is an interesting article regarding embryonic and foetal brain development. People tend not to understand what 'brain' and 'brainwaves' mean in the context of fetal development. This might help.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/books/chapters/0619-1st-gazza.html?pagewanted=print


My line of reasoning (and I support choice way past eight weeks) is that the production of embryos is a biological process that happens way more often than necessary, given that most women, even those who use no birth control at all, will have only a comparatively small number of children. It is common that reproductive systems act this way - a tree will produce thousands more seeds than necessary, fungi send out millions of spores, fish spawn hundreds of eggs/larva, and so on. Most embryonic creatures are not expected to reach maturity; their numbers are large to ensure some survive.

So, God or nature, I think far too much importance is attached to human embryos, and see no reason why the woman whose body is harbouring one shouldn't remove it if that is what she wants. It is her body. It is her biological product. It is her decision.

I forgot to mention your post as well. You opinion is well stated and logical. I understand your position, but obviously disagree. As a theist, I see that God takes lives away everyday. If I were to count the number of people who die a day and say that God does not value life because of how many people die I would be in error. For we also have to understand that through death we can appreciate life. The sacredness of life is actually seen through how many no longer have it. I can appreciate my life more knowing someone else doesn't have that chance. This is why someone else's life shouldn't be taken away simply for the inconvenience of their presence.

Also, I would like to see the numbers of how many of these embryos are being destroyed. My research only shows 15-20% percent of pregnancies ending in miscarriage. A large number, but not an overwhelmingly large percentage. Is there a biological occurrence I'm missing?

Also, remember that the embryo has it's own unique genetic code. It is not just an extension of the mother and a part of her body. Removing a fetus is not removing a kidney. It is removing a separate human being.

Your line of reasoning comes down to that since so many embryos are lost due to biology and God we should regard them with less importance. I argue that we should show even greater value to those that do survive and not treat them so trivially.

 

[SiderealExalt]

The universe is rather uncaring ultimately about humanity. Stupid people take this as some sort of excuse to do all sort of bad things because they are too immature and weak to take responsibility for themselves. REALLY stupid people think the universe is your special friend who talks to you and helps people do all kinds of silly things like win movie awards or make their team win a playoff game.

But you have to love the irony of our tiny planet.

I'll go with, Abortion isn't murder, but it's both a series personal decision and ultimately a serious issue. Far too serious of one to nonchalantly throw blanket statements at and think you've really done society a favor.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Seeing as how I found your unncessessary PM rather odious icy, I'll just reply here.

Did you start this thread? Did you give it it's particularly title? The answer is obviously no, so the answer to your question should be rather obvious.

If I had wanted to make a comment directly about something you said I'd have quoted you.

To get back on the subject matter at hand. If you squint your eyes and look REALLY hard, yeah you can basically tell I think that person who made the title thread, and seems to be trolling is in fact making blanket statements about Abortion.

 

[icy_crusader]

Seeing as how I found your unncessessary PM rather odious icy, I'll just reply here.

Did you start this thread? Did you give it it's particularly title? The answer is obviously no, so the answer to your question should be rather obvious.

If I had wanted to make a comment directly about something you said I'd have quoted you.

To get back on the subject matter at hand. If you squint your eyes and look REALLY hard, yeah you can basically tell I think that person who made the title thread, and seems to be trolling is in fact making blanket statements about Abortion.

I'm sorry if the PM seemed odious to you. I really just wanted to understand what your statement was about. It just confused me a bit, and I agree with you about the OP. I actually kind of regret getting involved here to the degree of how I seem to have associated myself with him now.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I agreed with your comments above mine. That's why I was irritated. I was confused because I didn't quote you and was attacking the title's words. It seems to me that blanket statements like the thread's title does a disservice both to people in the pro choice and pro no choice camps because it ultimately trivializes the social situation by throwing serious talk on the issue out the window.

 

[SiderealExalt]

For my part I'm pro choice for two reasons. One I don't feel that on this particular issue, my capacity to interject into someone else's personal decision on the matter of whether to have one or not is limited, and rightfully so. It's neither my place nor I think polite to attempt to so rudely make something so personal as that, MY business.

The second reason is I think that having options on something like this is important. It drives people to seek information on the subject and make an informed, responsible decision.

 

[Bombila]

Icy Crusader: "...My research only shows 15-20% percent of pregnancies ending in miscarriage. A large number, but not an overwhelmingly large percentage. Is there a biological occurrence I'm missing..."

I believe your figure reflects losses at a later stage of gestation. Assuming that a person objects to abortion from conception, I've seen rates of 50% to 80% quoted.

Most research is behind pay walls, or require journal.university access, which I do not have, but here are two matter-of fact statements about the figures.


http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html

(more than two-thirds down the page)

PROF. SANDEL: Thank you. I have two questions about the rate of natural embryo loss in human beings. The first is what percent of fertilized eggs fail to implant or are otherwise lost? And the second question is is it the case that all of these lost embryos contain genetic defects that would have prevented their normal development and birth?
DR. OPITZ: The answer to your first question is that it is enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.

http://countingcalifornia.cdlib.org/crs/ascii/95-910

Even with natural conception, where eggs are fertilized in the body as a result of intercourse and embryos implant naturally in the uterus, up to 60% of embryos are believed to fail to implant or miscarry once they have implanted.

 

[Corey]

There were a lot of replies from different people, but yours is the only one which seems to maintain logic, so I'll reply to you. [ship]

Shorter icy_crusader: There were a lot of replies to which I couldn't think of a response that wasn't "because I say so."

 

[Bombila]

I forgot to mention your post as well. You opinion is well stated and logical. I understand your position, but obviously disagree. As a theist, I see that God takes lives away everyday. If I were to count the number of people who die a day and say that God does not value life because of how many people die I would be in error. For we also have to understand that through death we can appreciate life. The sacredness of life is actually seen through how many no longer have it. I can appreciate my life more knowing someone else doesn't have that chance. This is why someone else's life shouldn't be taken away simply for the inconvenience of their presence.

Also, I would like to see the numbers of how many of these embryos are being destroyed. My research only shows 15-20% percent of pregnancies ending in miscarriage. A large number, but not an overwhelmingly large percentage. Is there a biological occurrence I'm missing?

Also, remember that the embryo has it's own unique genetic code. It is not just an extension of the mother and a part of her body. Removing a fetus is not removing a kidney. It is removing a separate human being.

Your line of reasoning comes down to that since so many embryos are lost due to biology and God we should regard them with less importance. I argue that we should show even greater value to those that do survive and not treat them so trivially.

I'm having a little trouble with the 'silent moderating bug', I think, which is why my reply to you about natural embryo loss is previous to this post (probably... if this one posts... sometime...)

You say you understand my reasoning, but then go on to again equate born humans with embryos. My point is that embryos should not figure in a person's reaction to the certitude of death and their luck in having so far escaped it, partly because embryonic humans are essentially (biologically) 'seeds', not persons.

An embryo's having a 'unique genetic code' is not enough to give it 'personhood'. There are surprisingly many instances where a human individual may exhibit two sets of DNA (unique genetic codes), for example in humans known as chimaeras. No one would consider such individuals to be 'two persons'. Also, regardless of the DNA present in the embryo, with the exception of half a normal cell (the initiating sperm), the embryo/fetus is grown entirely from the substance of the woman's body, hence it is overwhelmingly her biological product.

Your final argument, I concede, is reasonable from your point of view. I do not see it that way. I would far prefer that we should show even greater value to those that are already born and not treat them so trivially.

I expect and hope that unwanted pregnancies will eventually be done away with by further advances in reproductive science, leaving this endless debate in the past. Until that happens, I think every effort should be made by parents and educators to ensure that children reaching puberty and thereafter are carefully taught about reproductive health and are made aware of all the currently available options for birth control.

Edited to add link to chimaera definition.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/756619

 

[icy_crusader]

I'm having a little trouble with the 'silent moderating bug', I think, which is why my reply to you about natural embryo loss is previous to this post (probably... if this one posts... sometime...)

You say you understand my reasoning, but then go on to again equate born humans with embryos. My point is that embryos should not figure in a person's reaction to the certitude of death and their luck in having so far escaped it, partly because embryonic humans are essentially (biologically) 'seeds', not persons.

An embryo's having a 'unique genetic code' is not enough to give it 'personhood'. There are surprisingly many instances where a human individual may exhibit two sets of DNA (unique genetic codes), for example in humans known as chimaeras. No one would consider such individuals to be 'two persons'. Also, regardless of the DNA present in the embryo, with the exception of half a normal cell (the initiating sperm), the embryo/fetus is grown entirely from the substance of the woman's body, hence it is overwhelmingly her biological product.

Your final argument, I concede, is reasonable from your point of view. I do not see it that way. I would far prefer that we should show even greater value to those that are already born and not treat them so trivially.

I expect and hope that unwanted pregnancies will eventually be done away with by further advances in reproductive science, leaving this endless debate in the past. Until that happens, I think every effort should be made by parents and educators to ensure that children reaching puberty and thereafter are carefully taught about reproductive health and are made aware of all the currently available options for birth control.

Edited to add link to chimaera definition.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/756619

First of all, thank you for that information. I didn't get to read through the whole article, but I got the information you were citing and some more. It was very interesting.

I think you overstate the number of chimeras (having two or more distinct strands of DNA) currently in existence, but then again who knows how many of us could be a chimera. My point about the DNA is that it separates the fetus from the mother not making it her body. I would argue that before the two zygotes mixed together to make the single embryo that they were indeed two persons. As I said before, my definition of person is simply a human being. You seem to disagree.

I apologize for mixing my use of born humans and embryos in the midst of where I stated I understand your argument. As I said before, I simply disagree.

I think we have come to a point where we both clearly understand each other's ideas and cannot in anyway deter the other from those. I have enjoyed this debate/discussion with you and am willing to end on the cliche' of agree to disagree.

 

[Maren]

There were a lot of replies from different people, but yours is the only one which seems to maintain logic, so I'll reply to you.

Your general point seems to be that the unborn child's legal guardian and decision maker becomes the mother. While you are correct in your reasoning, there are some points I want to argue.

First, let's start with the living will. I would like to see some evidence as to when a health care provider has denied life support to a person with a living will which that in the event of imminent death or their being terminally ill that all measures should be taken to keep them alive was trumped.

And I can't give a specific example, only that the laws of some states allow the legal guardian the right to act on his judgment without regard for the specifics of the will. Beyond that, it really doesn't matter because this example does not fit abortion.

In the case of abortion, the "life support" comes directly from the mother. To do this, the mother takes on certain risks to her own life and health. While it is true that we've minimized most of the risks with modern science, those risks still remain. In out example of a "living will" there is nothing that allows the sick person or guardian to compel someone to donate anything, even a pint of blood that won't endanger the donor's life, to save the sick person's life. So why should we treat mothers differently?

Further points regarding the rights of the dead are irrelevant now. since we both agree that the unborn do have rights, then I think we should continue in a vein concerning what those rights are and why. This does not mean i concede them, just that I'm putting them aside as getting in the way and creating a mess. If you disagree, let me know.

Second, you point out a child doesn't get to choose their legal guardian. In some cases they do, some cases they don't. In the event of a divorce the child may choose, or a child may even be emancipated if they wished.

Actually, I don't know of situations in the US where a child is allowed to chose (though I might be wrong). Typically they must be of adolescent age to have a choice, and not all states even allow that. Regardless, the point still stands that not all people are allowed to pick or even have an opportunity to choose what they want done.

In fact, they could even be taken away from their parents at some point and then the decision would belong to someone else.

Just as if you pick a guardian or have your spouse as a guardian, they can be changed. The problem for your argument is that this change is by the courts who make the decision based on what is believed to be in your best interests, it will not be the choice of the sick person.

My point is that the unborn never have the chance to live a life that decides this who this person will be.

Just as most children will never have this choice, and definitely no newborn or toddler.

Everyone has the chance to write out a living will, if they do not then that is their own fault and suffer the consequence of having guardianship being passed to the closest relative in the case of death.

Again, no. Minors cannot write out a living will; and even the teenagers that are given an opportunity to choose a parent (most aren't), their choice is still limited to one of two parents.

I believe the unborn have a right to begin life just like anyone else. I think when we see that over 90% of these women choose to have an abortion because of the inconvenience of a baby in their lives that there is really no good reason to deny these unborn life with exception of a major medical condition (i.e. ectopic pregnancy).

Actually, I think "inconvenience of a baby" is a huge oversimplification. For most women the decision is far more than that, typically taking into account their living conditions and monetary situation, and what type of life the baby would live. Rather, your terminology is an oversimplification that does not reflect reality, instead it is designed solely to create an emotional response, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[FlamingFemme]

Actually, I think "inconvenience of a baby" is a huge oversimplification. For most women the decision is far more than that, typically taking into account their living conditions and monetary situation, and what type of life the baby would live. Rather, your terminology is an oversimplification that does not reflect reality, instead it is designed solely to create an emotional response, which is a logical fallacy.

QFT.

The problems I have with the 'pro-life'* position is that (1) most seem to believe that choosing to terminate one's pregnancy is an easy decision, and (2)the odd assumption (mostly by men) that pregnancy is simply an "inconvenience". Trust me, for most women, an unwanted pregnancy is FAR more than just an inconvenience. It's an intrusion on their bodies, their lives, and well-being. Pregnancy is serious business, and involves major psychological and physiological changes that may very well be detrimental to a woman's mental and physical health.
My position on this issue is fairly simple: I most likely would never choose to terminate my own pregnancy (in fact, I bore a child at 17 by my own choosing, and have never regretted it), however the choice to do so MUST remain legal - When it wasn't, women still had abortions, they just had them illegally, and VERY unsafely.
I may not ever choose to have one for myself, but I will defend the right to choose because no woman should have to die because she was desparate.

*I put this term in quotes because I find it to be a misnomer. To say that those on the anti-choice side are 'pro-life', indicates that pro-choice folks are 'anti-life', or even 'pro-death', which is not true. I am, technically, 'pro-life' - I like life, life is good, but I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

 

[Bombila]

I agree, that business of implying that women have abortions because a pregnancy is 'inconvenient' is annoying and far from reality. It's a rare woman who finds out she's pregnant and thinks, well, darn, this is inconvenient - I'll just run on down to the abortionist's after I get my nails done this aft!

More often, the immediate reaction to an unintended pregnancy is stark panic and fear. Allowing a pregnancy to continue is a life changing decision, so immediately this woman has to re-evaluate her current lifestyle, her economic situation, her family situation, her health, her future, in the context of having or not having a baby. Few men are forced to face such a sudden life change, such a serious choice.

 

[icy_crusader]

All right everyone, it has come to this. My posts are coming under attack now from multiple users and I feel that to keep defending my viewpoints in this thread on this issue would simply require too much fruitless debate.

I will concede that my use of "choice of inconvenience" is an oversimplified statement that actually refers to a much more complex argument. I agree this was unfair. An argument, which at this point will not get anywhere. I'm ceasing my activity in this thread from this point on. If you would actually like to share ideas and increase understanding, the reason I debate topics with people whose minds I know I won't change, then send me a private message and I'd be glad to discuss any topic with you.

I love you all, and thank you for the well-thought out debate.

 

[Autumnleaf]

All right everyone, it has come to this. My posts are coming under attack now from multiple users and I feel that to keep defending my viewpoints in this thread on this issue would simply require too much fruitless debate.

I will concede that my use of "choice of inconvenience" is an oversimplified statement that actually refers to a much more complex argument. I agree this was unfair. An argument, which at this point will not get anywhere. I'm ceasing my activity in this thread from this point on. If you would actually like to share ideas and increase understanding, the reason I debate topics with people whose minds I know I won't change, then send me a private message and I'd be glad to discuss any topic with you.

I love you all, and thank you for the well-thought out debate.

I think you are quitting too soon. Abortion is always for the mother's convenience. Otherwise she would not do it/have it done. Its that simple.

 

[morningstar2651]

I think you are quitting too soon. Abortion is always for the mother's convenience. Otherwise she would not do it/have it done. Its that simple.

Indeed, it was convenient to abort my girlfriend's ectopic pregnancy.

Exploded fallopian tubes are pretty inconvenient...and a tad fatal, too.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Indeed, it was convenient to abort my girlfriend's ectopic pregnancy.

Exploded fallopian tubes are pretty inconvenient...and a tad fatal, too.

Exactly. A convenience is a reason to do something. Some reasons are more palatable than others, but anything that makes us do something is more convenient than to not do it.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Abortion is killing a young genetically unique person by use of a coat hanger or other such sophisticated object. That person would have otherwise grown into larger person who would have been born, maybe married, may be had chilldren, maybe had grand children but would have been aborted before having children. Such is death or life.

and god illegal murders thousand of possiblilities every day. Those poor masses of cells that get fertilized and then flushed.... Dang you god.....

Not to mention those poor unfertilized eggs that get flushed or dont even get a chance... or those spermozoa that are wasted and never get to fully form a potential cell sack...

 

[Autumnleaf]

and god illegal murders thousand of possiblilities every day. Those poor masses of cells that get fertilized and then flushed.... Dang you god.....

Not to mention those poor unfertilized eggs that get flushed or dont even get a chance... or those spermozoa that are wasted and never get to fully form a potential cell sack...

When you say "God did it" you might as well say Santa Claus did it for all the credibility you'll get from me. God doesn't kill people. He has much more pressing things to do with his time.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Nature (ultimately, God, to a Christian) is the greatest abortionist of all. More than half of all conceptions fail to implant at all. Another ten to thirty percent are lost in the first several weeks of gestation. Some of these may be flawed embryos, but there's no guarantee of that. (I am tired of hunting out the stats and links on this issue every couple months - find it for yourself)

Why does God kill so many humans before they are even an inch long?

not to mention the flood...