Definitive answer on abortion

[mpok1519]

'life' starts even before conception. A gamete is living tissue; ie, half of an undeveloped fetus.

still living. Still, 'human'; but lacking half the chromosomes.

remember the movie Look whos talking? when all the sperms were yelling obsceneties and whatnot. =P

If one person believes life begins once that said living tissue receives a 'soul', how would you prove that? I don't think you can, which is why I think this is one of the many issues that takes the spotlight perhaps too often.

heart-beat, brainwaves, epithelic mitotic reproduction? When does life begin?

I don't think there really is an answer for that.

 

[karisma]

Is there no responsibility to the unborn life having created it?

Even once that baby has left the uterus, it has no rights to their parents body. Scenario: If that baby had a rare blood type and needed an emergency blood transfusion, the parents are not legally bound to donate blood to save it. Or marrow. Or any other organ it could possibly need. And why stop there? Parents are not legally bound to donate a kidney to their adult child if one is needed- they still created that person. Why would it be any different in utero?

The old saying is, "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." The fetus has a right to life, but that right cannot be used to violate the right of the mother to her own body.

The law seems a bit inconsistent in placing value on the unborn life, for instance, if a pregnant woman is murdered, it's double murder, but if she aborts the unborn child, it's suddenly not a life anymore...

I agree, it is inconsistent.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

Even once that baby has left the uterus, it has no rights to their parents body. Scenario: If that baby had a rare blood type and needed an emergency blood transfusion, the parents are not legally bound to donate blood to save it. Or marrow. Or any other organ it could possibly need. And why stop there? Parents are not legally bound to donate a kidney to their adult child if one is needed- they still created that person. Why would it be any different in utero?

The old saying is, "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." The fetus has a right to life, but that right cannot be used to violate the right of the mother to her own body.



I agree, it is inconsistent.

I've been trying to understand abortion logically, not so much emotionally.

Since the uborn child is completely dependent on the mother, much like a born infant is, would neglect, harm etc be comparable? For instance, a baby needs mother's milk or some subsitute to feed. An uborn child needs the mother's organs and there's no substitue save early delivery. Is this comparable?

Thanks for chatting with me.

 

[karisma]

I've been trying to understand abortion logically, not so much emotionally.

That's my aim. It seems to me abortion is such a hot topic for people because we are talking about "babies," and people have an emotional response to that, without necessarily being logical.

Since the uborn child is completely dependent on the mother, much like a born infant is, would neglect, harm etc be comparable? For instance, a baby needs mother's milk or some subsitute to feed. An uborn child needs the mother's organs and there's no substitue save early delivery. Is this comparable?

No. An infant isn't feeding directly on a single person's bodily organs like a fetus. Infants can be fed formula by many caretakers, for instance.
Not sure if that answered your question.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

That's my aim. It seems to me abortion is such a hot topic for people because we are talking about "babies," and people have an emotional response to that, without necessarily being logical.



No. An infant isn't feeding directly on a single person's bodily organs like a fetus. Infants can be fed formula by many caretakers, for instance.
Not sure if that answered your question.

I still have my questions but I appreciate your input.

I'm just trying to be consistent with my moral stances. For instance, I am opposed to Capital Punishment, for gay marriage, am generally a pacifist, and then abortion came along...since the rest of my stances rested on the sanctity of life, my pro-choice-ish stance was open to attacks by others. Well, I do enjoy talking to gain a new perspective.

Thank you.

 

[PetersKeys]

Abortion should be allowed when

having the baby would directly be a cause for concern for the health of the mother e.g complications that are deemed too high in probability by a qualified doctor or midwife.

The mother is a victim of rape.

The baby's heart has not yet started to beat.

the baby is dead or dieing.

Banning abortion all together would lead to women inflicting damage upon them selves to kill the baby. It would also contribute to the murder of infants as the mother may feel resentment towards the child and later kill it.

This is not a perfect solution but it will have to do. Please stop killing each other over this beacuse it is not good.

No, all abortion should be illegal. Just because there are some women who would rather get illegal abortions rather than take responsibility of their child dosen't mean people should keep abortion legal.

If abortion were made illegal it would save alot of lives, and would hinder alot of women from thinking about infaticide. The illegal route scares alot of people, so it would drastically reduce the death rate of children. Which is the most important thing. Secondly, abortion is an extremely dangerous procedure even when its done legally. If a woman dies during an abortion she dies in a state of mortal sin, which would immediatly send her to hell. The child also dies unbaptized.

 

[cantata]

The law seems a bit inconsistent in placing value on the unborn life, for instance, if a pregnant woman is murdered, it's double murder, but if she aborts the unborn child, it's suddenly not a life anymore...

It's quite clear why it's a double murder: the foetus was wanted and was being considered a baby by the mother, and possibly also her family, friends &c.

A wanted foetus can be murdered; an unwanted one cannot - just as shooting a stray dog is not a crime, but shooting someone's beloved pet is. The foetus can't desire life, so its value is entirely the value that others place on it. Simple.

Would you want to live somewhere where it wasn't a crime to forcibly give a woman an abortion? It would be scary, no? That's why it's illegal: pregnant women want to think that if someone caused them to miscarry, via assault, for example, they would get a harsher sentence than if they attacked a non-pregnant person in the same way, because the pregnant woman's loss is greater than the non-pregnant person's. Conversely, a society where people are allowed to have elective abortions is not scary for anyone. If you don't want an abortion, you don't have one. No one's rights are put at risk; no one is afraid.

Really, I'm sick of the "double murder" argument. It's not that hard to see why the law behaves as it does.

ETA: I really don't know what you mean by "the sanctity of life". Where does it come from?

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

It's quite clear why it's a double murder: the foetus was wanted and was being considered a baby by the mother, and possibly also her family, friends &c.

A wanted foetus can be murdered; an unwanted one cannot - just as shooting a stray dog is not a crime, but shooting someone's beloved pet is. The foetus can't desire life, so its value is entirely the value that others place on it. Simple.

Would you want to live somewhere where it wasn't a crime to forcibly give a woman an abortion? It would be scary, no? That's why it's illegal: pregnant women want to think that if someone caused them to miscarry, via assault, for example, they would get a harsher sentence than if they attacked a non-pregnant person in the same way, because the pregnant woman's loss is greater than the non-pregnant person's. Conversely, a society where people are allowed to have elective abortions is not scary for anyone. If you don't want an abortion, you don't have one. No one's rights are put at risk; no one is afraid.

Really, I'm sick of the "double murder" argument. It's not that hard to see why the law behaves as it does.

ETA: I really don't know what you mean by "the sanctity of life". Where does it come from?

Hi there.

If I didn't find life sacred, I suppose I wouldn't take a stand on human rights issues.

I am opposed to Capital Punishment because though many of these criminals are horrible murderers, there is still value in a life, and they can live theirs out in a life sentence without parole. When I think of how Saudi Arabia decapitates people for instance, it's barbaric.

I support Gay marriage because I feel people should share equal rights in a society. If they want to marry, who are we to say they cannot?

I oppose most wars because they seem senseless, and innocents are killed in mass numbers. So many die for some misguided, puffed-up view of patriotism which is a whole nother matter here.

I'm just trying to be logically consistent with the value of life. What is it, disturbing condor eggs is a crime but aborting a human fetus is not? Or, NASA is concerned that astronauts may contaminate extra-terrestrial microbes so they are considering ways to use robots as explorers as to not kill off bacteria, but a human fetus is valued less? I'm just trying to see the logic in that.

By your example, I ascribe more value to a human fetus than a stray dog, though I love animals and would never shoot a stray dog either.

I'm open to any conversation, so I thank you for this exchange. Perhaps you will show me some logic in your position and I can consider it.

 

[MercuryAndy]

I thought this was about abortion.



Why will it have to do? What people are dying?

it is. If they don't love the baby then they have a tendensy to die beacuse of unexplained circumstances. Just like what happens in india or china.

 

[MercuryAndy]

Abortion is murder in the sight of GOD. There is no "need" for it. Those who commit this vile act of murder should be put to death.

Period. End of remark.

you are just being counter productive now. I don't know how much work it takes to make a human but I would guess it would be alot. Why would you destroy something god took lots of time to create?

 

[WarEagle]

having the baby would directly be a cause for concern for the health of the mother e.g complications that are deemed too high in probability by a qualified doctor or midwife.

I disagree. In that case, we should do everything we can to ensure that the mother's life is the priority, but we should not actively kill the baby.

The mother is a victim of rape.

Why punish the baby for something the rapist did?

The baby's heart has not yet started to beat.

So then, I assume you're against killing the baby after the 25th day?

the baby is dead or dieing.

You can't kill a baby who's already dead. If you favor killing a baby who's dying, then do you favor killing all human beings who are dying?

Banning abortion all together would lead to women inflicting damage upon them selves to kill the baby.

Tragic, but not an excuse to kill the baby.

It would also contribute to the murder of infants as the mother may feel resentment towards the child and later kill it.

So then, your logic is kill the baby now so the baby won't be killed later?

This is not a perfect solution but it will have to do. Please stop killing each other over this beacuse it is not good.

We're not the ones killing anyone. The abortionists are.

 

[selfinflikted]

Here's my take:

Abortion should be allowed when:

The woman feels it is necessary.

Reps for this. It really is this simple in my mind.

 

[stan1980]

Abortion is murder in the sight of GOD. There is no "need" for it. Those who commit this vile act of murder should be put to death.

Period. End of remark.

Haha, this is one of the most hypocritical remarks i've seen here in a long time.

 

[MercuryAndy]

I disagree. In that case, we should do everything we can to ensure that the mother's life is the priority, but we should not actively kill the baby.



Why punish the baby for something the rapist did?



So then, I assume you're against killing the baby after the 25th day?



You can't kill a baby who's already dead. If you favor killing a baby who's dying, then do you favor killing all human beings who are dying?



Tragic, but not an excuse to kill the baby.



So then, your logic is kill the baby now so the baby won't be killed later?



We're not the ones killing anyone. The abortionists are.

Is it not sick to let a baby marvel at the wonders of the world then drown it?

 

[WarEagle]

Is it not sick to let a baby marvel at the wonders of the world then drown it?

I notice that you completely ignored each of my questions. I don't blame you. Answering them would point out the hypocrisy in your position.

I wouldn't answer them either, if I were in your shoes.

 

[ReverendDG]

Abortion is murder in the sight of GOD. There is no "need" for it. Those who commit this vile act of murder should be put to death.

Period. End of remark.

so.. instead of teaching people to find other ways of doing something you dislike, we should just kill them?

oh and prove its murder, if killing is murder so is capital punishment by your "logic"

 

[katautumn]

No, all abortion should be illegal. Just because there are some women who would rather get illegal abortions rather than take responsibility of their child dosen't mean people should keep abortion legal.

If abortion were made illegal it would save alot of lives, and would hinder alot of women from thinking about infaticide. The illegal route scares alot of people, so it would drastically reduce the death rate of children. Which is the most important thing. Secondly, abortion is an extremely dangerous procedure even when its done legally. If a woman dies during an abortion she dies in a state of mortal sin, which would immediatly send her to hell. The child also dies unbaptized.

So should a woman whose life is in danger die because of a very risky pregnancy or birth? What if she has other children and a husband who need her? And if the "baby" goes to hell because the abortion means it was never baptized, does that mean women who have miscarriages have to feel guilt over their fetus whose soul is in hell?

 

[MercuryAndy]

I disagree. In that case, we should do everything we can to ensure that the mother's life is the priority, but we should not actively kill the baby.

If one of them has to die or they both will, who do you let live?



Why punish the baby for something the rapist did?

Would you like to have a reminder of a tramatic experiance growing within you. Would you like to be reminded of it every time you look into its eyes? Is it fair to thrust a child upon someone beacuse some sick minded individual raped them?


So then, I assume you're against killing the baby after the 25th day?



You can't kill a baby who's already dead. If you favor killing a baby who's dying, then do you favor killing all human beings who are dying?

There is dieing with hope then there is dieing with no hope. I am in favor of the latter.

Tragic, but not an excuse to kill the baby.



So then, your logic is kill the baby now so the baby won't be killed later?

pretty much. May as well kill the baby before it is fully developed rather than let it start its path of life then kill it.

We're not the ones killing anyone. The abortionists are.

 

[Asimov]

it is.

Then why are you bringing up murdering babies when I never mentioned it?

 

[KhlulHloo]

just as shooting a stray dog is not a crime, but shooting someone's beloved pet is.

Perhaps in YOUR country.
But the morality of YOUR country regarding strays does not apply across the board.

Of course, you knew that before you posted your statement.

so its value is entirely the value that others place on it. Simple.

Quite right
Simple as pie
I place no value on your life, as in the end, all you are going to do is feed others (like me!)
So are you saying I can kill you with impunity and based on your personal definition of "value that others place", you're okay with this pardigm of mine?

I seriously doubt it.
And to deny such is the height of humor

Really, I'm sick of the "double murder" argument. It's not that hard to see why the law behaves as it does.

Actually, yes it is
Not that I have a stake in this.
A tentacled non-Euclidian projection into 4 dimensional spacetime has opinions that really dont matter to mortal humans.

ETA: I really don't know what you mean by "the sanctity of life". Where does it come from?

Start by trying to define it in regard to your own life.
If you see absolutely no sanctity in regard to your own life...MORE power to you!
EDIT- perhaps the more appropriate term here is "right to life" Subsitute that in the above if you will

In the end, you're just food.