abortion

[Marek]

what is pro-choice? Can I chose to be anti-choice?

I believe that being opposed to legally allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion would be considered anti-choice concerning the issue of abortion.

 

[Marek]

In the first part it makes sense, but that latter sentence doesn't since all people are equal by law.

But in the past, not all people were considered legal persons. The argument for slavery in the nineteenth century claimed that slaves were not persons to be protected under the law. Now in the twenty-first century, the argument for abortion is that fetuses are not persons to be protected under law. It is the same deal.

 

[kedaman]

Yes, but can I be pro-choice regarding choosing whether you should be pro-choice or anti-choice regarding abortion?

 

[Marek]

Yes, but can I be pro-choice regarding choosing whether I should be pro-choice or anti-choice regarding abortion?

Of course!

 

[Taake]

what is pro-choice? Can I chose to be anti-choice?

Pro-choice means people can make the choice to have their fetus abborted
Pro-life means abbortus is illegal, and every fetus should see the light of day
Pro-death means every fetus should be abborted, resulting in total selfdestruction of the human race. I never met someone with this imaginary opinion though...

 

[kedaman]

cool I just consider it a double standard to be pro-choice in one issue but not another.

 

[Taake]

But in the past, not all people were considered legal persons. The argument for slavery in the nineteenth century claimed that slaves were not persons to be protected under the law. Now in the twenty-first century, the argument for abortion is that fetuses are not persons to be protected under law. It is the same deal.

You have a point there, so from now on we shall discuss when a fetus becomes a person. I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that a fetus cannot think (cognito ergo sum) untill the ending of the second stage, and can therefore be removed before that.

 

[Marek]

You have a point there, so from now on we shall discuss when a fetus becomes a person. I believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that a fetus cannot think (cognito ergo sum) untill the ending of the second stage, and can therefore be removed before that.

Why should a being that can think have a stronger right to life than a being that cannot think?

 

[Taake]

Because a thing that cannot think cannot be harmed. I'll think about that statement next time I brutally mow the grass

 

[Marek]

Because a thing that cannot think cannot be harmed. I'll think about that statement next time I brutally mow the grass

So you think that it is okay to kill a person in a coma? They cannot think.

 

[Taake]

It would hurt their relatives. Other than that, it's ok with me if they really can't think. If I'd have no relatives that loved me and I were in a coma or unconscious, kill me, for no difference would be known. But if I would have no friends or relatives, I'd have killed myself before already. A fetus has no relatives, only his mother, and since his mother wants him dead...

 

[Lostangel8807]

I personally can't say I have a complete problem with abortion. Abortion is not for me, I don't think I could abort my child, no matter how it got into this World. But just because I couldn't do it, who am I to say what's for someone else? What right do I have to deny someone their own constitutional rights? In my line of thinking, it's none of my business to judge someone's actions or to then deny them their rights. So again, its not for me, but I'm not against it either.

 

[ZACTAK]

yes that is true...but im pretty sure the person would be happy that the mother didnt gave an abortion and so they got to live their life....whether their father was a rapist or not

I have to disagree. That child would be devastated to know how they entered this world and the psychological impact on them could be a horrible thing. The child would have to go to a psychiatrist, possible suicide, stuff like that as a result of it...

 

[jayem]

You have a point there, so from now on we shall discuss when a fetus becomes a person.

That is the real question. And personhood essentially consists of possessing certain rights, such as those defined in the 14th Amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

It's much too subjective to use brain function as a criteria for personhood. It's just not known yet how much cognition, awareness, or sentience a fetus has. And none of these things can clearly be determined in utero.

It's much better to use overall development. To me, the reason a fetus would not have rights independent of it's mother, is the fact that it is physically attached to her body and directly uses her organ systems. Unlike a newborn, who can be cared for by any motivated person, a fetus directly uses it's mother's lungs, kidneys, cardiovascular system, etc. Her right to consent to how her body will be used supercedes any rights of a fetus, up to point. And that point is, obviously, when the fetus has developed sufficiently so that it no longer requires her body for life support. This occurs: 1) When it is born. And: 2) If still in utero, when it is naturally viable (that is, when it can be expected to survive without high tech intervention--ventilators, lung surfactanct, IV feeding, etc.) And we have good, objective data on when this occurs. Lots of neonatal data from the old days, before high tech treatment was available. A preemie born at 25 weeks has just over a 50% chance of survival using only natural means of support--such as regular feeding, warmth, protection, etc.

So: I suggest that personhood be defined to occur at either of two points.

1) At birth, whenever that occurs. (And no matter how much life support a preemie needs, it is a person because it has been born--separated from the mother's body.)

2) If still in utero, it becomes a person when it is naturally viable. Which is when it reaches 25 weeks of gestational age.

I think this is a fair and rational compromise that takes into account the rights of both the mother, and a fetus.

 

[Monica02]

No, that's YOUR opinion as to what the christian way is. There's only one being who's entitled to decree whta the "True Christian teaching" is, and it ain't you.

Direct abortion is always wrong and is sinful - this is the teaching of the CHURCH, not just my opinion. Any so called "Christian" church that teaches otherwise is in error. God did indeed give authority to protect and teach His Truth to the Magisterium of the Church. You should get a copy of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church". This will help you to understand what the Church teaches.

 

[Heinrich]

I would like to disagree with your point of view on "personhood" of the fetus.

If I understand you correctly you try to firstly say that we can judge if a fetus is a person or not on it's level of development.
Now I understand that a 10year old child is more developed than a 2 year child. Does this somehow make the 2year child less a person?
If it does we can somehow argue we can kill the 2year old child right?
So I can not agree with you that the level of development can define the status of "person" of "blob of tissue"

Then if I understand you correct on your second argument you say that we can say a fetus is not a person because it "depends" on it's mother for survival.
You are correct a fetus is defnitely more dependant on it's mother for survival than a 2 year old child for example.
But if we say that because the fetus depends on it's mother for survival it is no longer a person and we can therefore kill it....
Then we can also say that a person plugged into a breathing machine in the hospital is no longer a person and we can gladly kill "it" ?
No I have to disagree with you and say that the level of dependency can not be used for a definition of personhood.

Your argument also extends to say that a baby that was born prematurely and is in some high-tech system that helps it survive it is not a person and we can gladly kill it right there.

There are 2 other differences between a fetus(the unborn) and a born child. Namely it's size and position(location).
And this also doesn't count to say that the fetus is not a person.


Reply for Lostangel8807:
If I understand you correctly you say: "I am abosulutely against killing my own children but I have no problem with other people killing there children."
Do you think this is really what you should believe or want to believe?
So if it's your child it's lucky but else well... bad luck I guess

Reply to NFsteelers:
Your reply was "
That child would be devastated to know how they entered this world and the psychological impact on them could be a horrible thing. The child would have to go to a psychiatrist, possible suicide, stuff like that as a result of it...
"
I would like to say "So what?"
Althought there is strong argument that this is not always the case ect.
I would like to ask you that how does the fact that the child would need to go to a psychiatrist justify us killing it?
There is many people in life going throught all sorts of bad things, can we just go and kill them to relief them of there "pain" and "problems"
I believe your argument to be invalid.

Reply to Taake:
I'm not sure quite sure what you are trying to say.
But in many murder cases the murderer hated the victem. Does that justify the crime?
If a person wants to commit suicide does that legalize me shooting the person in the head?
And lastly if you were to loose your legs and arms and sights and smell and all basic functionality and atop that loose consciousness, do you stop being you? Or do you become something else?

Thankyou for your time
-Heinrich

 

[jayem]

I would like to disagree with your point of view on "personhood" of the fetus.

If I understand you correctly you try to firstly say that we can judge if a fetus is a person or not on it's level of development.
Now I understand that a 10year old child is more developed than a 2 year child. Does this somehow make the 2year child less a person?
If it does we can somehow argue we can kill the 2year old child right?
So I can not agree with you that the level of development can define the status of "person" of "blob of tissue"

Then if I understand you correct on your second argument you say that we can say a fetus is not a person because it "depends" on it's mother for survival.
You are correct a fetus is defnitely more dependant on it's mother for survival than a 2 year old child for example.
But if we say that because the fetus depends on it's mother for survival it is no longer a person and we can therefore kill it....
Then we can also say that a person plugged into a breathing machine in the hospital is no longer a person and we can gladly kill "it" ?
No I have to disagree with you and say that the level of dependency can not be used for a definition of personhood.

Your argument also extends to say that a baby that was born prematurely and is in some high-tech system that helps it survive it is not a person and we can gladly kill it right there.

You misunderstand. I clearly state that anyone who is born no matter when that occurs, and no matter what level of medical treatment required, is legally a person, with all the rights that entails.

My argument only pertains to a fetus in utero. It is not meant to be generalized to any other situation. And that argument is, that until it is naturally viable, the rights of the mother to determine what can be done with her body supercede the rights of the fetus.

Again, this only pertains to the question of when a fetus has legal rights that are independent of it's mother. It is a rationale for making a necessary legal determination. The conflict over abortion largely results from the fact that there is no constitutional definition of "personhood." I don't necessarily expect anyone to agree with it, but I do want to make my reasoning clearly understood.

 

[Spherical Time]

Direct abortion is always wrong and is sinful - this is the teaching of the CHURCH, not just my opinion. Any so called "Christian" church that teaches otherwise is in error. God did indeed give authority to protect and teach His Truth to the Magisterium of the Church. You should get a copy of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church". This will help you to understand what the Church teaches.

You say that like there is only one Christian Church. There isn't.

And, even in the Catholic Church, many members do not agree with the doctrine set for in the catechism.

 

[Spherical Time]

Your argument also extends to say that a baby that was born prematurely and is in some high-tech system that helps it survive it is not a person and we can gladly kill it right there.

I am for the ban of abortion when a one week old embyro or older can be removed from a mother and raised to term without further human support.

In the mean time, I'd rather not see any of my friends die from coathanger tears.

And lastly if you were to loose your legs and arms and sights and smell and all basic functionality and atop that loose consciousness, do you stop being you? Or do you become something else?

I would say that if all that is left of me is a torso and head with no functional consciousness, with no chance of recovery I'm already dead and the plug should be pulled. I've left verbal instructions for this to be the case, and the next time I see my lawyer I'll have a talk about having this codified.

I don't think this bears much more than a sliver of relation to abortion, but I will say that I think that abortion is not murder, and neither is letting someone die at the end of their life.

 

[Monica02]

You say that like there is only one Christian Church. There isn't.

And, even in the Catholic Church, many members do not agree with the doctrine set for in the catechism.

There is only one Christian Church. There are many seperated sects which are not in FULL communion with the Church. All Catholics are required to believe in all Church dogma. To not believe in Church teaching is heresy. The fact that many do not agree with the Church does not elimiate or reduce the Truth of Her teachings.