abortions

[tericl2]

Originally posted by Hank
When does life start?

From the link provided earlier i think it is safe to assume that it at least is already started by 21 weeks of gestation. Started enough to allow for basic motor function. Who knows what else, but if there is motor function then it is more than probable that there is also brain activity.

I could look up info on the net for more detail, but if your question denotes a real search for knowledge you can do that just as easily as I can.

What is your definition of life?

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by tericl2
What is your definition of life?

Honestly, got no clue, that's why I am asking.

 

[tericl2]

Originally posted by Hank
Honestly, got no clue, that's why I am asking.

The reason I asked for your definition is because it is common for those that believe abortion is okay to say that the fetus is unable to support itself. I was wondering if that were your position.

Whether that is your position or not, there are many that say and believe this supremely illogical statement. Why is it illogical? Because my 1 year old cannot sustain her own life, and i hope we never reach the point where it is okay to dispose of anything that hampers a possible preferred lifestyle. (and believe me kids hamper anyone's lifestyle!! )

Are you open to biblical reasoning or are you only looking for wordly logic on this matter?

 

[Miss Shelby]

Hank is uncertain at what point an embryo becomes a human life. The Bible tells us it is at conception. Hank will undoubtedly not consider the Bible useful resource.

Further, Hank doesn't seem to be convined that abortion is murder.

Here's another link for you, Hank. If this doesn't convince you that life starts and conception and that abortion is murder, then nothing will.

Note: It is a pretty graphic website. Fair warning.

http://www.abortionno.com/

Michelle

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Mid
Would someone kill their two month old if they decided that they did not want it? I certainly hope not.

 

If Peter Singer (the founder of PETA) had his way, parents would be able to 'abort' their children up to approximately 6 months of age (post birth).  See, his reasoning is, is that children this young are still not "human" because they possess no intellect and act only on instinct, wanting food and warmth. 

“A ‘person’ is a being who is capable of anticipating a future, having wants and desires for the future, which are cut off, thwarted, if that person is killed … Newborn babies have no sense of their own existence over time … Killing a newborn baby—whether able-bodied or not—I think, is never equivalent to killing a being who wants to go on living.” - Peter Singer Religion and Ethics Newsweekly interview, 6/24/99 

Of course, this is the same man that would condemn you for wearing leather shoes, because... you know, cows are so intelligent.

 

[nyj]

"Argument about vivisection has often missed the point because it has been put in absolutist terms: would the abolitionist be prepared to let thousands die if they could be saved by experimenting on a single animal? The way to reply to this purely hypothetical question is to pose another: 'Would the experimenter be prepared to experiment on a human orphan under six months old, if it were the only way to save many lives?' . . . A negative answer to this question indicates that the experimenter's readiness to use nonhumans is simple discrimination, for adult apes, cats, mice and other mammals are more conscious of what is happening to them, more self-directing, and, so far as we can tell, just as sensitive to pain as a human infant."

-Peter Singer (Animal Liberation)

 

[seebs]

I'm not sure that life begins "at conception". Yeah, God knew me in the womb. God knew me before the first humans walked on this planet. So... I still don't know *exactly* when in the process "I" entered the picture; I tend to think that souls imply some kind of brain and nervous system, but I could be mistaken.

The PETA guy is not alone, although I think he's wrong. I can see reasonable arguments for anything from "slightly before conception" (it's one of the arguments against birth control) to "ability to conceive of self as distinct from other".

In the end, it's a tough issue. One of my thoughts on the issue is that we are probably mistaken to treat "life" as a boolean property. My life isn't on-or-off; it's a longish period of continued experience. Depriving me of any *part* of it is taking some portion of it from me. Similarly, quality counts.

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by strathyboy
The only exception I can think of is if the mother will lose her life giving birth to the child. In such circumstances, I believe it might be better to save the mother, instead of the child.

 

http://www.gianna.org/

(Click on "The Sacrifice")

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by nyj
"Argument about vivisection has often missed the point because it has been put in absolutist terms: would the abolitionist be prepared to let thousands die if they could be saved by experimenting on a single animal? The way to reply to this purely hypothetical question is to pose another: 'Would the experimenter be prepared to experiment on a human orphan under six months old, if it were the only way to save many lives?' . . . A negative answer to this question indicates that the experimenter's readiness to use nonhumans is simple discrimination, for adult apes, cats, mice and other mammals are more conscious of what is happening to them, more self-directing, and, so far as we can tell, just as sensitive to pain as a human infant."

-Peter Singer (Animal Liberation)

I have to grant one part of this: The argument from physical complexity ("babies have thumbprints just N days after conception!") is insufficient without some assumed distinction between human and animal - at which point, how do we decide how much complexity counts?

I can present a creature which has a heartbeat, a functioning nervous system, a brain, the ability to wiggle its toes, and all those things, and which most people would kill without much consideration. It's called a "cat".

Now, I happen to think that human life is more important than cat life - but I also think that killing animals for no reason is also killing, and probably inconsistent with a decent level of respect for life.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by tericl2
The reason I asked for your definition is because it is common for those that believe abortion is okay to say that the fetus is unable to support itself. I was wondering if that were your position.

No it’s not related. Biology has also a definition of life, using it, murder would start at conception.

Originally posted by tericl2
Whether that is your position or not, there are many that say and believe this supremely illogical statement. Why is it illogical? Because my 1 year old cannot sustain her own life, and i hope we never reach the point where it is okay to dispose of anything that hampers a possible preferred lifestyle. (and believe me kids hamper anyone's lifestyle!! ) [/b]

Do they? I assume also you love your child(ren). Like I love my girlfriend, thus one can view it as an intrusion or as an extension of one’s life. - I still don’t have children on my own, so I spend time as a volunteer the Youth Street Help Centers. There I see what happens when parents became parents who were not able to be such.

Originally posted by tericl2
Are you open to biblical reasoning or are you only looking for wordly logic on this matter? [/B]

I am a free thinker thus open to reason irrespective to its source.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by nyj
 

http://www.gianna.org/

(Click on "The Sacrifice")

I'm not sure what exactly that was intended to prove, beyond the fact that one woman elected to save the baby instead of herself. I'm sure I can find you a story about a woman who elected to save herself instead of the baby, and then went on to have many more children, all of whom would never have existed otherwise. My point is that individual stories for one side or the other should not be the basis for a general philosophy on abortion.

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by Miss Shelby
Hank is uncertain at what point an embryo becomes a human life. The Bible tells us it is at conception. Hank will undoubtedly not consider the Bible useful resource.

Further, Hank doesn't seem to be convined that abortion is murder.

Here's another link for you, Hank. If this doesn't convince you that life starts and conception and that abortion is murder, then nothing will.

Note: It is a pretty graphic website. Fair warning.

http://www.abortionno.com/

Michelle

It is amazing how much people know me already. You and Morat are on my special friends lists. LOL

Thanks for the link. As I said, reality does neither shock nor disturb me. In Toronto, at Gerard and Parliament is an abortion clinic, across the street I see anti-abortionists with the same message and huge posters almost daily. Down the street off Parliament on Queen Street are the Crack/H dealers and their customers, some as young as twelve. I do not see the anti-abortionist there. I guess they know janitor Hank will clean up the mess on Queen Street.

Or I ask you, abortion is out, the girl gives birth, who helps her then?

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I offer a recycled post:

I (an orthodox Jew) quote from a book I have on the (orthodox!) Jewish approach to various medical issues by Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich:

"Judaism regards the killing of an unborn child to be a serious moral offense. An abortion may be performed only for the gravest of reasons, and even then, only subsequent to consultation with a competent [orthodox] rabbinic authority...The life of the mother takes precedence over that of the unborn child. Thus, when 'hard travail' of labor endangers the life of the mother, an embryotomy may be performed in order to save her...The fetus' right to life is subordinate to that of the mother, and hence the life of the unborn fetus may be sacrificed in order to save her...The performance of an abortion may be warranted for purposes of preserving maternal health as well as maternal life. No [orthodox rabbinic] authority permits an abortion which is non-therapeutic in nature. There are early rabbinic authorities who expressly declare that ritual laws such as Sabbath observance and fasting on Yom Kippur are suspended in order to preserve the life of the fetus. Suspension of such significant religious observances is clearly incompatible with indiscriminate license to destroy fetal life. Both the argument that a prospective mother may seek an abortion for any reason because denial of this right would interfere with her 'right to privacy' as well as the argument that the decision to abort is entirely a matter between a woman and her physician must be rejected as incompatible with Jewish teaching...Judaism teaches that man does not enjoy unrestricted proprietary rights with regard to his own body, much less so with regard to the body of an unborn child...The Talmud teaches that embryo is endowed with a soul at conception. Moreover, the Sages taught: 'There are 3 partners in the generation of man - the father, the
mother and God.' Accordingly, a decision to terminate pregnancy is not one which is within the exclusive domain of the mother...It is well established that the quality of life to be anticipated if the fetus is carried to term is not, in itself, a sufficient reason for the performance of an abortion...Physical or mental abnormalities do not affect the human status of the individual or his
right to life...Most authorities rule that termination of pregnancy resulting from rape is not permissible. However, the immediate post-coital contraceptive measures undertaken prior to fertilization of the ovum present a different but complex Jewish-law question. Immediate removal
of the sperm by means of a suction device...would be warranted."

Thus, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism absolutely rejects abortion as a means of birth control. I certainly object to government funding for abortions that are non-therapeutic in nature.

However, we would completely reject vigilante violence against doctors, nurses, etc. who are involved in abortions (as well as inciting to violence against them) & to bombing clinics. Opposition to non-therapeutic abortions must be carried out within the bounds of the law.

I will recycle another old post & quote from "Be Fruitful and Multiply: Fertility Therapy and the Jewish Tradition" by Dr. Richard V. Grazi (published by Genesis Jerusalem Press, 1994):

Nontransplanted embryos fertilized artificially in vitro have no standing as fetuses in Jewish law. Former Tel Aviv Chief Sefardi Rabbi David Halevi rules that "all eggs fertilized in vitro have no standing as embryos...and one may discard them if they were not chosen for implantation, as the law of abortion applies only to procedures in the womb...But in vitro, as was said, there is no prohibition at all."

A similar ruling is offered by former Chief Sefardi Rabbi of Israel Mordechai Eliyahu, who writes that, "all fertilized eggs which are destined to be implanted in the mother's womb should not be destroyed, as a live fetus will yet develop from them. But those eggs which have not been chosen for implantation may be discarded." Neither authority offers any detailed analysis of his legal ruling, apparently considering the position to be obvious and noncontroversial from the perspective of Jewish law and ethics. Indeed, Rabbi David J. Bleich has pointed out that...even an aborted fetus in the early stages of gestation does not require a funeral.

Questions?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by stillsmallvoice
Thus, normative (i.e. orthodox) Judaism absolutely rejects abortion as a means of birth control. I certainly object to government funding for abortions that are non-therapeutic in nature.

Questions?

I got one. (I hope it was not asked before) Judaism is a religion. If you are part of said religion then premarital sex is also forbidden, is it not? Thus abortion would not be an issue, with proper parental supervision. If one is not part of Judeasim, would it matter what a gentile does still? (Except using your tax dollars btw, taxes are a hot subject with me also for other reasons)

 

[seebs]

Hank, forbidding premarital sex does not do *ANYTHING* to keep abortion from being a problem:

1. Some people who are married use abortion as a form of birth control.
2. Not all sex is consensual.
3. Not all children are fully obedient to their understanding of God's law.

All three of these can result in cases where the question of whether or not abortion is acceptable must be considered, even if premarital sex is frowned upon by your culture or religion.

 

[tericl2]

posted by hank
No it’s not related. Biology has also a definition of life, using it, murder would start at conception.

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Biology isn't my strong suit!! That is interesting though. I find it strange that so many are so adamant about science having all the answers (origins, etc.) but would ignore such scientific opinion as this. Very interesting indeed!

 

[tericl2]

posted by hank
Or I ask you, abortion is out, the girl gives birth, who helps her then?

This is one of my biggest problems with Christendom today. We gripe and complain and write letters to politicians, but what do churches do to physically help these women? We should play a greater role.

That said, there are though, quite a few organizations that do help those women out. I wish the media would give them a little more publicity so more women could see that there are alternatives.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by tericl2
Really? I wasn't aware of that. Biology isn't my strong suit!! That is interesting though. I find it strange that so many are so adamant about science having all the answers (origins, etc.) but would ignore such scientific opinion as this. Very interesting indeed!

The biological definition of life turns out to be obviously incompatible with the way we feel about morality, in general.

Trivia point: The majority of embyos (zygotes, perhaps, is more precise) never implant in the uterine wall, and are simply flushed out in the regular menstrual cycle.

So... If, indeed, those are living people, *WHY DON'T WE NAME THEM AND MOURN THEM*?

I don't see why "barely existed long enough for modern medical science to prove that it was there" should be a barrier to recognition.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Originally posted by Hank
It is amazing how much people know me already. You and Morat are on my special friends lists. LOL

Thanks for the link. As I said, reality does neither shock nor disturb me.

Which is a shocking testimonial to how desensitized our culture has become to the flagrant disrespect for human life.

Or I ask you, abortion is out, the girl gives birth, who helps her then?

She can put the baby up for adoption.  If she wants to keep the baby she could very well be in for a tough road to hoe.  However, it is not appropriate for her to kill her child simply because her child is inconvenient.

And before you launch into a sermon about people who have had it tough, believe me I know.  I know what it is like to live in poverty with a mother who had no job skills, no motivation and no help from outside family.  Her husband was a ba stard who left her to fend for herself. Not only that, he left his children. Abandonded them.  We didn't hear from him for years.    Would I be better off today, had she had an abortion?  I don't think so.  I am living  proof that  your excuses hold no water.  

Michelle

 

[Mid]

just because abortions are legal, doesnt make them right.

To me, life starts the second that the sperm and egg merge together. Even at one cell, that one cell is a living organism just as you or me.