Abortion to prevent increased suffering

[disciple Clint]

In any case, it had human DNA before conception as well. What is a sperm if not a packet of DNA? And the same for an egg. Do you hold an unfertilized egg to be as precious as a fertilized one? Do you cry out about women menstruating, claiming that it is an egg lost that could have been a child?

Once again it matters not what I do the question is what are the scientific facts but keep trying.

 

[St_Worm2]

...there don't seem to be enough people out there to adopt the children already in the system, let alone the new one that's about to be added.

Hello again Kylie, I thought that's what you meant. Thank you for making it clear for me

As for my reply, when I wrote this, that: "there are 100+ "qualified" couples looking to adopt a newborn baby for every newborn baby who is put up for adoption" these days, I was actually being very specific/saying exactly what I meant.

These 100+ couples that I was referring to are mostly infertile (or gay), or single people, who are still hoping to start and raise a family of their own, just like couples who are able to give birth to their own babies do, but by adoption instead. So, while there are certainly/sadly unwanted older children and teens out there today, there will never be a baby who is "unwanted" (because there are, as I said above, 100 times as many qualified couples who want to adopt a "baby" as there are babies for them to adopt).

--David
p.s. - being "unwanted" is only one of the many reasons that children end up in our foster care system.
.

 

[Kylie]

It is of no significance what I claim, what does science say.

If it does not matter what you claim, then we can discard your claim that a fertilized egg is a person.

 

[Kylie]

Hello again Kylie, I thought that's what you meant. Thank you for making it clear for me

As for my reply, when I wrote this, that: "there are 100+ "qualified" couples looking to adopt a newborn baby for every newborn baby who is put up for adoption" these days, I was actually being very specific/saying exactly what I meant.

These 100+ couples that I was referring to are mostly infertile (or gay), or single people, who are still hoping to start and raise a family of their own, just like couples who are able to give birth to their own babies do, but by adoption instead. So, while there are certainly/sadly unwanted older children and teens out there today, there will never be a baby who is "unwanted" (because there are, as I said above, 100 times as many qualified couples who want to adopt a "baby" as there are babies for them to adopt).

--David
p.s. - being "unwanted" is only one of the many reasons that children end up in our foster care system.
.

Ah, so there shouldn't be any newborn babies available for adoption at all then, should there?

Would you care to provide a source that the number of couples looking to adopt a newborn is a hundred times greater than the number of newborns available for adoption?

 

[St_Worm2]

Ah, so there shouldn't be any newborn babies available for adoption at all then, should there?

I'm not quite following you!(?)

That said, with that many couples out there hoping to adopt a newborn, there is no reason that a woman should feel the need to kill her baby by abortion because she thinks that he/she will not be wanted and/or have to struggle in this life to make it (any more than anyone else does, that is ).

Would you care to provide a source that the number of couples looking to adopt a newborn is a hundred times greater than the number of newborns available for adoption?

That's the figure that my wife and I were shown 23 years ago by our lawyer when we began looking into adopting a baby (so that we would not be too disappointed if it didn't happen), but with the large influx of gays and singles looking to adopt babies these days (because our birth moms are far more accepting of singles and gays as a parent or as parents for their babies today), the number of couples looking has increased, but I don't believe that the number of babies being put up for adoption has.

I'll do my best to locate the exact figures for today and get back to you with them.

--David

 

[Kylie]

I'm not quite following you!(?)

That said, with that many couples out there hoping to adopt a newborn, there is no reason that a woman should feel the need to kill her baby by abortion because she thinks that he/she will not be wanted and/or have to struggle in this life to make it (any more than anyone else does, that is ).

If there are a hundred or more couples who want to adopt a newborn baby for each baby that is available for adoption, why are there any newborn babies available for adoption at all?

That's the figure that my wife and I were shown 23 years ago by our lawyer when we began looking into adopting a baby (so that we would not be too disappointed if it didn't happen), but with the large influx of gays and singles looking to adopt babies these days (because our birth moms are far more accepting of singles and gays as a parent or as parents for their babies today), the number of couples looking has increased, but I don't believe that the number of babies being put up for adoption has.

I'll do my best to locate the exact figures for today and get back to you with them.

--David

Okay, but you do realise that what you've got is an assumed conclusion based on something a lawyer said more than two decades ago.

It's hardly enough to consider it accurate today, even if it was accurate back then.

 

[o_mlly]

Just whose imagined suffering does the mother who kills her unborn child intend to relieve, the child's or the mother's?

 

[Kylie]

Just whose imagined suffering does the mother who kills her unborn child intend to relieve, the child's or the mother's?

I have to wonder: is there any possible answer that you'd accept?

 

[Chriliman]

I would rather not try to rationalize killing an innocent unborn child especially when using incorrect facts, there is an unfilled demand for infants in adoption.

Problem is when you rationalize that abortion is murder you have to pick one of those 2 options, so which do you pick?

 

[o_mlly]

I have to wonder: is there any possible answer that you'd accept?

Possible answers? There are only two possible answers, i.e., the mother's or the child's. Which one is your answer?

 

[Kylie]

Possible answers? There are only two possible answers, i.e., the mother's or the child's. Which one is your answer?

Well, setting aside things like ectopic pregnancies where the pregnancy just isn't viable no matter what, who can say they are better able to judge the suffering of a woman forced to go through with a pregnancy she does not want than the woman herself?

Or do you discount emotional suffering?

 

[Chriliman]

Yes it is. I has human dna from conception, it is a human child and if it is allowed to mature that is exactly what it will be when it is born.

If this is true then IVF is also murder, even mass murder.

“On average most patients will have 70-85% of their mature eggs fertilize”

source:
Guide to IVF Lab Results | PCRM

I think it’s important to at least acknowledge the spectrum of value we put on human life and determine at what point a human embryo is conscious, can feel pain, and is viable to help decide when it’s actually murder.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, setting aside things like ectopic pregnancies where the pregnancy just isn't viable no matter what, who can say they are better able to judge the suffering of a woman forced to go through with a pregnancy she does not want than the woman herself?

Or do you discount emotional suffering?

Ectopic pregnancies are not in question, are very rare with many of them resolving via natural miscarriage.

It's clear you simply wish to dodge the question. Let's see if anyone is willing to answer.

 

[Chriliman]

Just whose imagined suffering does the mother who kills her unborn child intend to relieve, the child's or the mother's?

Well, a fetus at certain stages is not capable of suffering, so it’s mainly about how raising a child will effect the mother. Eventually, the child will suffer when it realizes it’s parents didn’t want it and depending it’s foster situation. So the answer is both.

Please consider all the other points I’ve raised in this thread as well. I’m only pro early abortion when all other prevention fails.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, a fetus at certain stages is not capable of suffering ...

The science has not come to that conclusion:
Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks? - FactCheck.org

... pain is a subjective experience and a fetus cannot indicate if something hurts. ... a firm starting point for pain in the developing fetus is essentially impossible to pin down.​

The science admits ignorance as to the beginning of human life. However, in the 21st century the timing of the event is earlier than previously thought. So, in ignorance, may one commit a lethal act upon another?

..., so it’s mainly about how raising a child will effect the mother. Eventually, the child will suffer when it realizes it’s parents didn’t want it and depending it’s foster situation. So the answer is both.

The reliable prediction of one's own feelings is problematic enough, let alone predicting the feelings of someone else. So, it's mainly about the mother's prediction of her own immediate suffering, not the child's suffering 10+ years out. The prediction that "eventually the child will suffer" is not only unfounded but as such ought to be considered as self-serving by a mother rationalizing the act of killing her unborn child.

Please consider all the other points I’ve raised in this thread as well. I’m only pro early abortion when all other prevention fails.

If a woman does not want to endure the discomfort of a pregnancy or she believes the child born of an unwanted pregnancy will inordinately suffer then celibacy will absolutely prevent the unwanted event.

If you are pro life at some stage of pregnancy then knowledge of the the exact time in the stages of pregnancy that a human life exists would be crucial, no? As science does not yet know that exact stage then it seems to me that direct abortions ought to be prohibited until science says with high certainty that no other human life exists in the mother.

 

[Chriliman]

The science has not come to that conclusion:
Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks? - FactCheck.org

... pain is a subjective experience and a fetus cannot indicate if something hurts. ... a firm starting point for pain in the developing fetus is essentially impossible to pin down.​

The science admits ignorance as to the beginning of human life. However, in the 21st century the timing of the event is earlier than previously thought. So, in ignorance, may one commit a lethal act upon another?

The reliable prediction of one's own feelings is problematic enough, let alone predicting the feelings of someone else. So, it's mainly about the mother's prediction of her own immediate suffering, not the child's suffering 10+ years out. The prediction that "eventually the child will suffer" is not only unfounded but as such ought to be considered as self-serving by a mother rationalizing the act of killing her unborn child.

If a woman does not want to endure the discomfort of a pregnancy or she believes the child born of an unwanted pregnancy will inordinately suffer then celibacy will absolutely prevent the unwanted event.

If you are pro life at some stage of pregnancy then knowledge of the the exact time in the stages of pregnancy that a human life exists would be crucial, no? As science does not yet know that exact stage then it seems to me that direct abortions ought to be prohibited until science says with high certainty that no other human life exists in the mother.

I agree and as I’ve said before, it’s important to determine at what stage a fetus is conscious, can feel pain, and is viable. From what I’ve read, scientist think pain may be possible between 12-24 weeks, but it’s not completely determined yet. I’m pro early abortion prior to that window until further evidence is found, and again, only as a last resort.

 

[Kylie]

Ectopic pregnancies are not in question, are very rare with many of them resolving via natural miscarriage.

It's clear you simply wish to dodge the question. Let's see if anyone is willing to answer.

I think you may need to read my answer again.

I very clearly said SETIING ASIDE things like ectopic pregnancies. By the way, I don't know what you're talking about saying they are very rare. There are almost 20 cases per 1,000 pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies are the leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester, making up 10 to 15% of maternal deaths. HERE is my source, would you care to share yours?

But anyway, as I said, I very clearly said I was setting that aside and was speaking of the emotional suffering. Such as a young girl who has to abandon her studies that would lead her into the role she's wanted ever since she was young. Say a girl who wants to be a doctor, but has to abandon her studies to raise a child. Or does that lifetime of regret not matter?

 

[o_mlly]

I agree and as I’ve said before, it’s important to determine at what stage a fetus is conscious, can feel pain, and is viable. ...

A sleeping newborn infant is also not conscious, feels no pain and is independently not viable. May we kill that child? If not, why not?

... I’m pro early abortion prior to that window until further evidence is found, and again, only as a last resort.

? So, in uncertainty one may kill another? The deer hunter sees something stirring in the bushes and fires his weapon. Later, upon approaching the bushes, the hunter sees he killed a human being, not a deer.

 

[o_mlly]

I think you may need to read my answer again.

I think you may need to read the OP again. It appears to me to be about elective abortions, not medical abortions.

 

[Kylie]

I think you may need to read the OP again. It appears to me to be about elective abortions, not medical abortions.

So? Is my point about the emotional suffering not valid in that regard?