Abortion Poll

[Rev. Smith]

With John Kerry trying to reconcile his pro-abortion stand with his Catholic faith, and President Bush opposed to abortion, but doing nothing about it, abortion issues will be part of our presidential race in the USA again this year. I am curious to know what, if any, rights Chrisitans are willing to afford to non Christian women in the abortion arena. (ALthough I'm sure it happens I think we can presume most abortions are not being had by Christian women)

So - which of these choices seems right to you, and why?

 

[Seeking...]

There was no option that really suited me - so I chose the limit I'm willing to place on abortion, but this is my answer.

Life begins at conception. Abortion until viable is allowable.

 

[Magisterium]

Actually, 10th grade biology puts all this "when life begins" nonsense to bed with impunity. The problem is that people muddle the simple facts with rhetorical dodges and pseudo-scientific extraneous information.

The fact is, life begins at conception. At this point, the previously inanimate egg, undergoes what biologists describe as an "explosive" reaction. From this point, the life processes begin. In fact, this new being not only meets the scientific criteria for life, but we also know without a doubt that it's human in nature and genetically unique.

It's a scientific law that when two members of a species copulate, the resulting offspring will necessarily be a member of that species. It is also a scientific fact that at conception, the new being growing inside the mother is genetically unique. Therefore, it cannot be scientifically called a "part of the woman's body".

What we really have here, is a rhetorical fallacy. We call it a woman's right when it's really a woman's ability. In order for something to be a right it must me morally just. Of course these days, everyone subscribes to differing moral standards, but even so, it cannot be reasonably called a right if it's "rightness" is in question.

That said, the fact that the tiny being is scientifically human and living, presents a problem. The problem arises because if something is human and living, our Constitution recognizes certain rights as applicable to this individual regardless of dependence or appearance.

Something similar to this was done to blacks in this country in order to allow slavery. You see, the same problem arises when one human being wants to own another. Our constitution again prohibits this. In order to justify slavery, it had to be asserted that blacks were less than a complete human being and therefore not entitled to the rights due a "person" under our constitution.

This same thing has happened again with abortion. In lieu of the objective scientific criteria which clearly define life and humanity, certain people prefer to adopt subjective criteria based upon feelings or appearance to determine life and humanity. Once the scientific truths are placed aside, one can assert subjective definitions of life and then assert that it's OK to deny this "thing" which is less than a person the right to life.

What's more, even if the definition of life wasn't scientifically discernable, when there's a question about whether or not rights are applicable, those rights are to be assumed to be present until such time that it's proven otherwise.

In the case of abortion, the opposite has happened. People say "well, we can't tell just when life begins, so we'll assume that it's not alive and thus has no rights". This is a legal and moral travesty of justice.

In closing, I am actually pro-choice! I believe in a woman's right to choose whether or not to get pregnant by engaging in sexual intercourse. In fact, I'll even extend that right to men too..

 

[porkwithrice]

I am going to concur with Magisterium. I couldn't have said it better myself, really I couldn't. It seems to me that in this day and age the life of an unborn endangered species is more important than the life of an unborn child. Save The Whales, Kill Your Kids has become new motto of our civilization. At the rate it is going pretty soon life will begin at 6 years old.

 

[Gallego]

In lieu of the objective scientific criteria which clearly define life and humanity, certain people prefer to adopt subjective criteria based upon feelings or appearance to determine life and humanity. Once the scientific truths are placed aside, one can assert subjective definitions of life and then assert that it's OK to deny this "thing" which is less than a person the right to life.

Which is the objective criteria for humanity? Life?

Then, is a seed a tree?

 

[oldrooster]

I would never have an abortion, that does not give me the right to decide for anybody else though.

 

[Dymphna3]

I would never have an abortion, that does not give me the right to decide for anybody else though.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

 

[TasManOfGod]

I thank God I was not aborted; therefore I would do unto others as they have done unto me

 

[usda_jack]

Actually, 10th grade biology puts all this "when life begins" nonsense to bed with impunity. The problem is that people muddle the simple facts with rhetorical dodges and pseudo-scientific extraneous information.

The fact is, life begins at conception. At this point, the previously inanimate egg, undergoes what biologists describe as an "explosive" reaction. From this point, the life processes begin. In fact, this new being not only meets the scientific criteria for life, but we also know without a doubt that it's human in nature and genetically unique.

The being grows and it has certain responses within its genetic makeup to shape its first few years. The child is living in its mothers womb, but is it awaken to its true senses, does it remember anything. I believe you cannot truly call it "alive" until it can remember what it does, it really is not concious, maybe its soul has yet to awaken. When the soul awakens though maybe more difficult to answer.

It's a scientific law that when two members of a species copulate, the resulting offspring will necessarily be a member of that species. It is also a scientific fact that at conception, the new being growing inside the mother is genetically unique. Therefore, it cannot be scientifically called a "part of the woman's body".

What we really have here, is a rhetorical fallacy. We call it a woman's right when it's really a woman's ability. In order for something to be a right it must me morally just. Of course these days, everyone subscribes to differing moral standards, but even so, it cannot be reasonably called a right if it's "rightness" is in question.

I 100% agree with this, the women should not have the right to abort.

 

[TrueQ]

You know, abortion isn't really something I like, killing people, under any guise, is not something I can support. However, abortion doesn't just change one life, it changes dozens, minimum, the mother, the father, their mother and fathers, siblings, employers, friends, and so on. And I do think all those lives should have a say into whether or not they are changed, specifically, the mother and father. I would certainly think less of parents if I heard they had aborted a child, but I am of the opinion that it is their call. If I heard one day that their had been no abortions in a year, even statewide, I would celebrate, if I heard one day that abortion was outlawed, I would be inconsolable.

 

[Why?]

I believe that life begins at conception, but this political race as way more issues than just abortion (which by the way, GWB has yet to make illegal, regardless of his stance).

 

[Magisterium]

The being grows and it has certain responses within its genetic makeup to shape its first few years. The child is living in its mothers womb, but is it awaken to its true senses, does it remember anything. I believe you cannot truly call it "alive" until it can remember what it does, it really is not concious, maybe its soul has yet to awaken. When the soul awakens though maybe more difficult to answer.

Again, here we go. discussion of "feelings" or a soul or memory are all extraneous to the scientific discernment of life. In fact, let me post the scientific definition of "life" as it relates to this discussion:

Main Entry: 1life
Pronunciation: 'lIf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lives /'lIvz/
Etymology: Middle English lif, from Old English lIf; akin to Old English libban to live -- more at [size=-1]LIVE[/size]

...1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction (emphasis added)

Notice that the scientific definition of life is the capacity for various activities. Therefore, all statements about development and at what stage of development constitutes life are false conjecture.

Then, is a seed a tree?

Though a seed does indeed have the capacity for life, it is not in an organismic state. An organismic state is indicated by the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent. In other words, there must be animation. A seed is directly analogous to the unfertilized egg. The temperature, moisture and nutrients of the soil are in turn directly analogous to the sperm in causing life to begin. Of course in the seed, this is a relatively slow process while in the fertilization of an egg is considered "explosive" and instant.

 

[Archivist]

This same thing has happened again with abortion. In lieu of the objective scientific criteria which clearly define life and humanity, certain people prefer to adopt subjective criteria based upon feelings or appearance to determine life and humanity. Once the scientific truths are placed aside, one can assert subjective definitions of life and then assert that it's OK to deny this "thing" which is less than a person the right to life.

Isn't it interesting that when people explain their interpretation of the evidence it is suddenly "objective scientific criteria" while an opposing reading of the same facts is "subjective criteria." It is, I suppose, human nature, as Magisterium has shown, to view evidence in a light most favorable to one's own position.

I have the feeling that Magisterium has never actually read the Roe v. Wade opinion. If I'm wrong on this point I will appoligize in advance. The opinion isn't based on the issue of when life actually begins. Roe is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion, written by a Republican (yes, I did say Republican as in GOP) justice that is based on a simple balancing test.

Contrary to popular belief Roe does not give a blank check to unrestricted abortion. It states that during the first trimester of pregnancy a woman's privacy interest is such that a state cannot prevent her from aborting a fetus. During the second trimester the state can impose some reasonable restriction on abortion but cannot ban it. During the third trimester the state can impose further restrictions but cannot go so far as to ban abortion in cases where it is determined that the women's life is in danger.

Do I personally favor abortion? No. Do I believe that abortion must remain legal? Yes. Does that make me pro-abortion? No, of course not, but it does make me pro-choice.

 

[Theresa]

I have the feeling that Magisterium has never actually read the Roe v. Wade opinion. If I'm wrong on this point I will appoligize in advance. The opinion isn't based on the issue of when life actually begins. Roe is a very thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion, written by a Republican (yes, I did say Republican as in GOP) justice that is based on a simple balancing test.

-I thought he addressed it here, the woman's right to her own body:

It is also a scientific fact that at conception, the new being growing inside the mother is genetically unique. Therefore, it cannot be scientifically called a "part of the woman's body".

What we really have here, is a rhetorical fallacy. We call it a woman's right when it's really a woman's ability. In order for something to be a right it must me morally just. Of course these days, everyone subscribes to differing moral standards, but even so, it cannot be reasonably called a right if it's "rightness" is in question.

Contrary to popular belief Roe does not give a blank check to unrestricted abortion

-but it should which is why it was legalized for further periods. If a woman has a right do what she wishes with her own body, why does she have the right to abort a fetus at six weeks and not thirty six weeks?

. It states that during the first trimester of pregnancy a woman's privacy interest is such that a state cannot prevent her from aborting a fetus. During the second trimester the state can impose some reasonable restriction on abortion but cannot ban it. During the third trimester the state can impose further restrictions but cannot go so far as to ban abortion in cases where it is determined that the women's life is in danger.

-why? Why is it a right to privacy in the first month but not necessarily the second or third?

Do I personally favor abortion? No. Do I believe that abortion must remain legal? Yes. Does that make me pro-abortion? No, of course not, but it does make me pro-choice.

-I'm sorry man, but saying it should be allowed is supporting it, of course you are pro-choice, for abortion. Whether or not you would have one or encourage others to have one means nothing.

​

 

[Anovah]

There's a huge problem with this poll. It asks when life begins, but within the potential answers you must also equate your belief in life with when you feel abortions would be appropriate.

At least in my philosophy, I take life every day when I eat meat or squash a spider (although I usually try and set them free). I'm even taking a life when I eat veggies (no, not vegatarians).

What I mean is, the question of "when life begins" means very little to me in the matter of abortion.

 

[Anovah]

oops...double post

 

[fijimermaid]

when babies are no longer left in dumpsters, i think that's when the debate about abortion can begin

 

[Gallego]

Again, here we go. discussion of "feelings" or a soul or memory are all extraneous to the scientific discernment of life. In fact, let me post the scientific definition of "life" as it relates to this discussion:

Main Entry: 1life


Though a seed does indeed have the capacity for life, it is not in an organismic state. An organismic state is indicated by the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent. In other words, there must be animation. A seed is directly analogous to the unfertilized egg. The temperature, moisture and nutrients of the soil are in turn directly analogous to the sperm in causing life to begin. Of course in the seed, this is a relatively slow process while in the fertilization of an egg is considered "explosive" and instant.

We are not debating if there is life, but if this life is human or not.

Cells are also alive, and it is not forbidden to kill some cells.

The seed has been fertilized before with male and female parts, so it only need the ground, water, temperature and so on.

The same for fetus: it has the 2 parts, but it needs for nutrients, temperature and some development to be considered as human.

 

[Magisterium]

We are not debating if there is life, but if this life is human or not.

Cells are also alive, and it is not forbidden to kill some cells.

The seed has been fertilized before with male and female parts, so it only need the ground, water, temperature and so on.

The same for fetus: it has the 2 parts, but it needs for nutrients, temperature and some development to be considered as human.

Look up the word human. It means belonging to the genus and species of homo-sapient.

Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)

As I stated before, when two members of a species procreate, the offspring will necessarilly be a member of that species. In other words, when two humans procreate, the offspring is necessarilly human. It's a scientific law! Further, if there might still be any doubt, the child's DNA will always confirm that.

As for determining when this human becomes a person, This is as well a non-issue. You see, according to our constitution certain rights, such as the right to life, are "recognized" by our country as inalienable. That means that the right to life is always applied to any human being regardless of citizenship, mental or physical state, or anything else.

In that respect, "personhood" in it's strictest legal sense really has no bearing on the right to life. If it's human (which it is) and it's living (which it is) it's recognized to possess the right to life.

 

[Ben johnson]

I thank God I was not aborted; therefore I would do unto others as they have done unto me

There was nothing wrong with this post.