Abortion

[WatersMoon110]

For those who are okay with abortion, I have a question. If we could somehow prove that the unborn baby is a baby and not a fetus, would you still be okay with abortion? I mean, is your feeling on the matter based on your supposition that the unborn baby is a fetus (or whatever word you want to describe it as)?

Call it whatever you like; this is the "baby = punishment for sex" defense. Are you really comfortable with that?

It's not punishment for sex unless you treat being pregnant as punishment instead of welcoming the baby as a blessing.

But, to a couple/woman who doesn't want to be pregnant, who don't have the time and money to properly care for a(nother) child - pregnancy is not a blessing. To them, being forced to remain pregnant against their will is a punishment. And do not, for a moment, fool yourself into believing otherwise - making abortion illegal will turn pregnancy into a punishment for many people.

I believe that a wanted pregnancy is a blessing. But I don't think that it is ethical or proper to force women/couples to remain pregnant against their will - and I don't think that they feel very "blessed" when they are considered abortion.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,
the same as I would killing a foetus, they are both life which wouldn’t have developed but for conception. The baby 5 mins after birth is no different from the baby 5 mins before birth. If you can make up reasons for a difference I am sure so can others and decide they can kill people.

Then I suggest you don't get a job performing abortions.

That’s like saying if you don’t like rape, don’t rape anyone, but don’t stop others who want to. No the point is people can make up their own ideas as you see.

Most people would suffer severe emotional trauma from killing a baby.

I know so why do they do it? They obviously think its worth it. (infact many are emotionally scarred for life because they were deceived into thining it was a choice) This is why the Lord Jesus Christ can forgive all guilt and shame.

You asked me why people have sex without wanting to conceive, and I told you.

Yet they don’t seem to respect that choice for others under their criteria.

Well, suppose two people are making a decision about something, and they disagree irrevocably. What are you going to do now?

Which decision?

A baby is a punishment?

Not for me, but obviously for some they see it that way, yet its their own fault in many cases, or mostly the pro-choice garbage they are deceived by.

Precisely. So the mother is the final arbiter of the decision about who has a say in the matter. Which is what I said before.

But not if the mother says the father is. It depends on the mother and father. You are talking about other people, they are father and mother and they decide who is arbiter not you. They may decide the father is final arbiter.

The mother must be the final arbiter of who will make the decision.

Nope, that’s up to the mother and the father not you.

What if she changes her mind?

tough the foetus/baby cant.

By "its owner" I mean the person whose life it is,

Ah you didn t say that exactly. Ok of the foetus owns its life the mother has no choice. Soits not about ownership at all.

 

[cantata]

That’s like saying if you don’t like rape, don’t rape anyone, but don’t stop others who want to. No the point is people can make up their own ideas as you see.

No, you miss the point. You said that you would be equally scarred by killing a foetus or a baby, so I suggested that performing abortions wouldn't be the right career choice for you. We were talking about the psychological effects of killing a foetus or a baby.

My point is that pretty much 100% of sane people would be emotionally scarred by killing a baby that was outside the womb. Meanwhile, only a proportion of people would be emotionally scarred by having or performing an abortion. That is why I suggested that there are psychological reasons not to kill post-natal babies, which don't exist for everyone in the case of abortion.

Yet they don’t seem to respect that choice for others under their criteria.

I wasn't commenting on the moral consequences. You asked a question and I answered it.

Which decision?

Any decision.

Any decision-making process requires a final arbiter.

Not for me, but obviously for some they see it that way, yet its their own fault in many cases, or mostly the pro-choice garbage they are deceived by.

"It's their own fault" amounts to a pregnancy-as-punishment argument.

But not if the mother says the father is. It depends on the mother and father. You are talking about other people, they are father and mother and they decide who is arbiter not you. They may decide the father is final arbiter.

The mother must decide whether or not she is going to take the father's opinion into account with regard to whether or not she keeps the pregnancy. She may decide to leave the decision entirely up to the father. But regardless, it is she who must decide to do that. The father cannot impose his view on her unless she wishes him to. Therefore she is the final arbiter of who will make the decision. I do not know how many times I need to repeat this. I am not saying that she is the only person who can have a say in whether to have an abortion. I am saying she is the only person who can have a say in who will make the decision about her pregnancy.

tough the foetus/baby cant.

What would you do if you had sex with a woman who said she was okay with getting pregnant, she got pregnant, and then changed her mind and said she wanted an abortion?

Ah you didn t say that exactly. Ok of the foetus owns its life the mother has no choice. Soits not about ownership at all.

ARGH

*hits head against wall*

As I said originally, this is the deal. A life can be valued by its owner (i.e. the person who is living the life), or by outsiders (e.g. relatives, friends, &c.). A foetus cannot value its own life. Therefore all its value comes from outside. Not complicated.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Cantata.
I hope you realise that you bullied me off this thread because I can't quote properly

Just so's you know. I'm taking intensive lessons. Don't think I've forgotten!!

 

[cantata]

I hope you realise that you bullied me off this thread because I can't quote properly

Just so's you know. I'm taking intensive lessons. Don't think I've forgotten!!

Aw, I'm sorry.

Come back soon! I miss you!

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

As I said originally, this is the deal. A life can be valued by its owner (i.e. the person who is living the life), or by outsiders (e.g. relatives, friends, &c.). A foetus cannot value its own life. Therefore all its value comes from outside. Not complicated.

Well it is slightly more complicated isn't it.
I thought you had ammended the argument so that it now read "It is OK to kill a human if their life is not valuable to anyone and they cannot be proven to find their own life valuable ... UNLESS ... It's all a bit too frightening for society; which, as luck would have it, means that abortion is OK because, whilst everyone at some stage was a foetus, no-one is ever going to become a foetus again so they don't have to worry that someone might kill them."

The society finds it too frightening argument isn't very good I'm afraid.

Before the abortion act of 1967 was passed in this country, many, many people were very frightened about killing non-valuable lives.
People get used to things pretty quickly. It's a survival mechanism.
It works especially well in this country because there are plenty of doctors willing to collude in frankly breaking the law and keeping things all mysterious and "medical". If we don't know about it, we can't get frightened, therefore it's OK.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Cantata.
I hope you realise that you bullied me off this thread because I can't quote properly

Just so's you know. I'm taking intensive lessons. Don't think I've forgotten!!

I did.

I realise also re-reading my posts on this thread that there is a little bit of unneccessary needle and sarcasm in them.

I should not direct it at you, and I apologise.

I's just that I am very, very fed up with some of my colleagues who flout(sp) the abortion laws and also the fact that I am told I can conscientiously object to having anything to do with abortion when the truth is I can't.

 

[cantata]

Well it is slightly more complicated isn't it.
I thought you had ammended the argument so that it now read "It is OK to kill a human if their life is not valuable to anyone and they cannot be proven to find their own life valuable ... UNLESS ... It's all a bit too frightening for society; which, as luck would have it, means that abortion is OK because, whilst everyone at some stage was a foetus, no-one is ever going to become a foetus again so they don't have to worry that someone might kill them."

That's pretty much it.

But it's not a matter of "society finds it too frightening". It's a matter of individuals who value their own lives not wanting to risk others having control over their lives in the future.

The society finds it too frightening argument isn't very good I'm afraid.

Before the abortion act of 1967 was passed in this country, many, many people were very frightened about killing non-valuable lives.
People get used to things pretty quickly. It's a survival mechanism.
It works especially well in this country because there are plenty of doctors willing to collude in frankly breaking the law and keeping things all mysterious and "medical". If we don't know about it, we can't get frightened, therefore it's OK.

Perhaps it is okay if no one knows about it!

Can you explain why it isn't?

I did.

I realise also re-reading my posts on this thread that there is a little bit of unneccessary needle and sarcasm in them.

I should not direct it at you, and I apologise.

Hey, it's okay. I can get pretty sarky as well. Glad you're back!

I's just that I am very, very fed up with some of my colleagues who flount the abortion laws and also the fact that I am told I can conscientiously object to having anything to do with abortion when the truth is I can't.

Are you a doctor? I didn't know.

Out of interest - are you forced to perform abortions?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To cantata,

No, you miss the point. You said that you would be equally scarred by killing a foetus or a baby, so I suggested that performing abortions wouldn't be the right career choice for you. We were talking about the psychological effects of killing a foetus or a baby.

no you have missed my point, people can make up their own ideas, you have shown this by expressing yours.

My point is that pretty much 100% of sane people would be emotionally scarred by killing a baby that was outside the womb. Meanwhile, only a proportion of people would be emotionally scarred by having or performing an abortion. That is why I suggested that there are psychological reasons not to kill post-natal babies.

I would say pretty much 100% of sane people are emotionally scarred by abortion. The lie that the foetus is not the same as a born baby can be seen in the argument that there is no difference in the life 5 mins before and 5 mins after birth.

I wasn't commenting on the moral consequences. You asked a question and I answered it.

ok.

Any decision.

then I suggest I don’t agree.

"It's their own fault" amounts to a pregnancy-as-punishment argument.

only for those who dint see it as their own fault. Its called denial

The mother must decide whether or not she is going to take the father's opinion into account with regard to whether or not she keeps the pregnancy.

That’s none of your business that’s up to the mother and father of the child.

The father cannot impose his view on her unless she wishes him to.

that’s up to them not you. The child is theirs not yours.

I do not know how many times I need to repeat this. I am not saying that she is the only person who can have a say in whether to have an abortion. I am saying she is the only person who can have a say in who will make the decision about her pregnancy.

No the father has a say too, they both caused the pregnancy. It’s the same argument as the same sex unions, those who can produce the next generation should decide what society that future generation is born into. Those who produce the child, the mother and father should get to say who decides whether they keep it or not. And if they decide not to they forfit the right to shape society.
Seems reasonable to me you cant win it unless you are in it.

What would you do if you had sex with a woman who said she was okay with getting pregnant, she got pregnant, and then changed her mind and said she wanted an abortion?

Tough! There is a chance with sex that there will be a conception, she has taken her chance and if she is that selfish she can swivel.
Anyone who conceives prays the child will be fit and healthy and that they can provide for it, anyone who thinks they can abort really is the height of poverty and without love.

As I said originally, this is the deal. A life can be valued by its owner (i.e. the person who is living the life), or by outsiders (e.g. relatives, friends, &c.). A foetus cannot value its own life. Therefore all its value comes from outside. Not complicated.

No that’s your deal, God values all that are conceived whether humans intend it or not. There is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy to God, no such thing as a child who isn’t loved by God despite what the parents think God’s gift to life came with conception.

 

[cantata]

I would say pretty much 100% of sane people are emotionally scarred by abortion. The lie that the foetus is not the same as a born baby can be seen in the argument that there is no difference in the life 5 mins before and 5 mins after birth.

Well, I know people who have had abortions who are fine with it.

then I suggest I don’t agree.

Why not?

How can two people be the final arbiters of a decision? What happens if they disagree irrevocably? Then what do you do?

only for those who dint see it as their own fault. Its called denial

What? If someone sees a pregnancy as their "fault", forcing them to keep it can't be a punishment? How's that?

That’s none of your business that’s up to the mother and father of the child.

that’s up to them not you. The child is theirs not yours.

If I respond in detail to these two remarks, I may say something rude, so I will simply say that I have addressed this repeatedly and you are either too obtuse or too stubborn to read what I have said properly.

No the father has a say too, they both caused the pregnancy.

So are you saying that if he wants to, a father can physically force a mother to have or not have an abortion?

It’s the same argument as the same sex unions, those who can produce the next generation should decide what society that future generation is born into. Those who produce the child, the mother and father should get to say who decides whether they keep it or not. And if they decide not to they forfit the right to shape society.
Seems reasonable to me you cant win it unless you are in it.

How is this relevant?

Tough! There is a chance with sex that there will be a conception, she has taken her chance and if she is that selfish she can swivel.

So, to get this clear, if it came to it, you would physically force her not to have an abortion if she refused to listen to you?

No that’s your deal, God values all that are conceived whether humans intend it or not. There is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy to God, no such thing as a child who isn’t loved by God despite what the parents think God’s gift to life came with conception.

Do aborted foetuses go to heaven?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Out of interest - are you forced to perform abortions?

I work as a GP.

On average twice per week a woman will request an abortion (not the same woman obviously).
I am legally obliged to refer her. What that means is that I am obliged to arrange everything. What i can conscientiously object to is signing the necessary legal documents.
For 99% of the women I see who request and abortion it is becuase they do not feel that it is the right time to have a baby for them. Some are pressured by family or partner, some aren't Some make this decision in a fit of panic at finding out they are pregnant, some don't.
I don't sign the documents, but two doctors have to.
For "social abortions" the doctors basically have to distort the truth and sign the clause on the form that says
"To continue with the pregnancy would be more detrimental to the patient's mental and/or physical health that to abort the pregnancy".

This was written in 1967. Obstetric medicine has changed radically since then.

The way it works here, I counsel the woman as to what the procedure involves (which depends on gestation) and will always give another appontment to be seen the following day so she can think about things. If she wants the abortion I refer her to a clinic.
In around 50% of these cases I will see the woman again within 3 months for psychological issues around what has happened.

The next very difficult time psychologically for the woman is if and when she gets pregnant again and wishes to continue with pregnancy.

Every abortion is a tragedy.
Abortion on demand (which is what essentially we have here) has caused a lot of women a lot of suffering.

If I am totally honest though, I don't know what the answer is. Society would have to change radically before we could consider changing the abortion laws. I can't honestly see that happening any time soon.

The whole thing is very sad for the women who feel they have to do it.
Obviously it would be completely unethical for me to discuss with them my religious views and I wouldn't dream of doing so.
I know some people who would condemn me for that.
The way I see it, these women are faced with a terrible decision. My job is not to make their decision for them (although some agonisingly ask what I think they should do). My job is to provide them with all the information that can inform consent/dissent and deal with the fall-out in (I hope) a compassionate manner.

 

[cantata]

I see. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

No problem.
But you can see that in moving from the general and hypothetical to the specific, my attitude changes.
This is the problem with abortion.

I have worked with a doctor (now retired) who practised as a GP prior to 1968 and has seen what can happen when an "abortion" is carried out in non-medical settings and it goes wrong.
Life-long infertility is about the best outcome and death is the worst.
If some women are so desperate as to take that sort of risk, I don't know what else would stop them.

 

[brightmorningstar]

A big thanks to oneofthedisapora for such an explanation.
Indeed that this is something the medical profession is legally obliged ot take part in is rather a good question for those who have said no-one likes abortions.

If I am totally honest though, I don't know what the answer is. Society would have to change radically before we could consider changing the abortion laws. I can't honestly see that happening any time soon.

This is true, but an answer would be to teach that sex should be within a marriage, as it is taught merely to take precautions and have sex no wonder there are so many unwanted pregancies. The level has increased even as the avavilablilty of contraception has increased.
Yet, the education of abstinance before marriage is practically ridiculed and those who teach it often classed as dangerous fundamentalists.
At the end of the day you ar right, but that shoudnt stop the campaign to stop pro-choice abortion for merely unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

This is true, but an answer would be to teach that sex should be within a marriage, as it is taught merely to take precautions and have sex no wonder there are so many unwanted pregancies. The level has increased even as the avavilablilty of contraception has increased.
Yet, the education of abstinance before marriage is practically ridiculed and those who teach it often classed as dangerous fundamentalists.
At the end of the day you ar right, but that shoudnt stop the campaign to stop pro-choice abortion for merely unwanted pregnancies.

I agree. I don't really know about the U.S. but here abortion was legalised and medicalised in this country because it was occurring anyway and killing women in so called "back-street" abortions.
Since its introduction the number of abortions has increased each year.
It was thought that the number of legal abortions would remain low and decrease down to negligble because of greater availability of contraception.
It just hasn't happened.

I am not being defeatist and I agree with your points quoted.
Once this particular can of worms is open, however, it is incredibly difficult to turn things around.
This does not mean that every single person should not try though.

I believe that life begins at conception. I reckon I could argue a pretty good case for this, but sooner or later the fact that I believe that God exists would come into it. But those who disagree with my religious beliefs would I think, still be keen to promote the ideas you suggest.
Even if the foetus is not a "life", the mother unarguably is; and the toll abortion can take on her can be brutal.

 

[cantata]

I have a question: what bearing does the number of abortions have on the ethics of legal abortion?

Why - and this is a philosophical question, I suppose - is it worse for two foetuses to be aborted than one?

 

[Skaloop]

This is true, but an answer would be to teach that sex should be within a marriage, as it is taught merely to take precautions and have sex no wonder there are so many unwanted pregancies. The level has increased even as the avavilablilty of contraception has increased.
Yet, the education of abstinance before marriage is practically ridiculed and those who teach it often classed as dangerous fundamentalists.
At the end of the day you ar right, but that shoudnt stop the campaign to stop pro-choice abortion for merely unwanted pregnancies.

The philosophy of abstinence education is fine, but its practicality and effectiveness is not. The fact is, well over 90% of people have sex before marriage. The other fact is, pre-marital pregnancy rates are highest in states with the most focus on abstinence-only sex-ed.

So it's a strategy that (a) barely anyone follows, and (b) leaves those who don't follow it unprepared.

It's an education policy that doesn't fully educate. Like teaching math, but ignoring addition, multiplication, and division to focus solely on subtraction.

If a young adult has the personal conviction to wait until marriage, good on them. Learning about condoms is not going to harm that at all. But if a young adult does not have that personal conviction, withholding valid sex-ed is indeed harmful. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, teaching kids as much as possible about how to prevent pregnancy is the best way to go. Abstinence-only clearly does not work.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Oneofthediaspora,
Yes indeed I fully agree with you And praise God for your posts.
However with regards to academic arguments it usually needs God to touch the hearts and minds of people with His truth, and before that His truth is irrelevant to people. On this issue however I believe the logical reasoning and evidence is so convincing, that it is probably pride and greed that is causing the problem. Sexual gratification can be a great god if one is enticed by it.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Skaloop,

The philosophy of abstinence education is fine, but its practicality and effectiveness is not.

The evidence shows it isnt. The more sexual activity is encourage the more the problem, the more the availability of contraception the more the problem.

The fact is, well over 90% of people have sex before marriage.

Of course because they are not only told they can they are encouraged by media and education.

The other fact is, pre-marital pregnancy rates are highest in states with the most focus on abstinence-only sex-ed.

I would suggest one needs to change the media and the education, and pre maritial isnt the exactly the same as abstinence.

It's an education policy that doesn't fully educate.

depends what you mean by educate. If education is causing record STD’s and abortions is it education?
As to personal conviction, yes and no. I don’t have to have personal conviction to keep to the speed limit if I don’t agree with it, the fine however will keep me to it.

 

[cantata]

I would like to point out again that married women have abortions too.