Abortion question for the religious

[threebyfate]

TBF, I should also note here that when talking about the zygote, we are not claiming potential human life, but actual human life. Yes, cells, ova, etc. have the potential to become human life, but that is not a proper basis for their having a right to life--they aren't going to mature into a human-person on their own, as the zygote will.

 

Coming from you, TBF, this is really surprising. You have more knowledge than this and should easily distinguish the difference between a sperm or egg and the combination of the two that results in a life.

 

Neither one of you have acknowledged my post about spontaneous abortion.

[always_searching]

So women sin everytime they have a miscarriage? It's estimated that up to 25% of embryos are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body.

 

What? Of course not. A miscarriage is not an intentional killing of an individual human person. That's like comparing the death of an elderly person we are caring for who dies of natural causes with intentionally butchering the elderly person we are caring for--in both instances the person dies. However, in the former there is no intention to destroy the elderly person's life, whereas in the latter there is an intention to murder.

 

Sin is found primarily within intentionality.

[always_searching]

Neither one of you have acknowledged my post about spontaneous abortion.

 

See above post!

 

LOL, patience, TBF! And now I need to read for class...

 

 

I'll be back!

[JamesM]

From the mind of someone who will never carry a cluster of cells inside their body that might become a child. If I am pregnant and I die, so does that cluster of cells. Till I can die and that cluster of cells continues to live without me - it is not a person. If you could get pregnant, you'd understand that.

 

As someone who is a father of four children and someone who has intimately watched his wife endure five pregnancies, I say it with feeling and compassion. And to say that if I could get pregnant, I would understand (and implied...I would agree with you) is a slap to my wife and her friends who are very pro-life. My wife being a nurse is more pro-life than I.

 

As for dependency....the newborn baby is also dependent on someone else to even survive. Does that mean he or she has no rights to life? I think not.

 

I won't even entertain the rest of your post because you do not respect the rights of human beings.

 

Since I say that all humans should have rights, I do not respect any humans' rights? Interesting and false conclusion.

 

You only seek to get in on something you cannot experience.

 

Really? I have gotten as close as I could, and as many fathers say, I have incredible respect for all that my wife went through. But you are right...I cannot get any closer. However, those births were the most incredible experiences of my life. As many fathers will tell you, the emotions men experience are very deep even though we cannot carry the baby ourselves.

 

You - who would argue abortion as a method of avoiding child support. It is disgusting for you to make that argument and then try to turn around and say it is about the live of a cluster of cells.

 

No, I said that men should be a part of BOTH decisions or not a part of either.

 

Look how you bend and twist to try an get your opinion on the high ground!

Make up your mind at least - do you seek fairness for poor trapped men being victimized into fatherhood or do you seek to protect the thing that traps them?

 

I seek to protect the babies that are being killed even as I type this. I have four wonderful children that have an opportunity at life. I will do everything in my power to gve than what is best for them. Yet every day there are children who never even get the opportunity that they have because their lives are ended by the person who should protect them most.

 

I don't respect your argument, but I'd like to at least respect your resolve.

 

I respect yours, but simply do not agree with it.

[JamesM]

Neither one of you have acknowledged my post about spontaneous abortion.

 

That is because always searching beat me to it.

[northstar1]

Now, TBF, that is not the logical conclusion.

 

My skin cells, ovum, etc. is not the same thing as a zygote. We're not talking of a mere difference by degree i.e. skin cell, ovum, etc., as I have stated, but the zygote is something entirely different in kind. It is no longer just my DNA, but the DNA of the father and the mother fused together which created an entirely different being--the zygote has it's own unique individual genetic structure.

 

My ovum won't become a human-being without sperm or the nucleus removed and replaced by other genetic material (i.e. cloning). If nothing interferes with it's growth and development, that zygote will become a person--it is already a human-organism, mind you. However, if I allow it to follow it's natural course, it will develop into a person. The same cannot be said of my skin cells, ovum, etc.

 

It may have genetic structure as a zygote/embryo, but depending on which cultural or scientific viewpoint you examine decides on when 'personhood' begins:

 

Metabolic-

Genetic - after the potential for twinning ends

Neurological - it takes 25 weeks of gestation before there are formed neural synaptic pathways to show up on an EEG.

Ecological/Technological-

 

In rural Japan, 'personhood' is considered to commence when the baby utters its first cry.

In Ghana, it is 7 days after conception.

For some aborginal groups, it is not until the baby is named.

[threebyfate]

What? Of course not. A miscarriage is not an intentional killing of an individual human person. That's like comparing the death of an elderly person we are caring for who dies of natural causes with intentionally butchering the elderly person we are caring for--in both instances the person dies. However, in the former there is no intention to destroy the elderly person's life, whereas in the latter there is an intention to murder.

 

Sin is found primarily within intentionality.

So does this mean that if the woman were to not take care of her body by smoking, maybe risking it on extreme sports or physicality, that there was intent to spontaneously abort?

[northstar1]

What? Of course not. A miscarriage is not an intentional killing of an individual human person. That's like comparing the death of an elderly person we are caring for who dies of natural causes with intentionally butchering the elderly person we are caring for--in both instances the person dies. However, in the former there is no intention to destroy the elderly person's life, whereas in the latter there is an intention to murder.

 

Sin is found primarily within intentionality.

 

I am curious Always, does your viewpoint on this stem from your adopting of strong christian faith again? I ask because of your mentioning of sin.

[sally4sara]

Since you obviously do not believe in a God, then perhaps simple responsibility for actions can be considered. It is known that sexual activities makes a baby. Not using BC can end in a baby.

 

If a man cannot decide if the fetus will live, then why is it dumb that he MUST be responsible for its upbringing?

 

It is dumb to say a man shouldn't be responsible for a child's upbringing because he too, knew full well that having sex can create a baby. You can't admonish a pregnant woman seeking an abortion with "you knew this might happen so now I seek to punish you with an unwanted pregnancy" but then turn around and say "this guys who don't want to be a father to the baby some girl refuses to abort shouldn't be forced to pay child support"

 

These two parts of your argument show you do not follow what I said. If you want to talk about taking personal responsibility by the use of BC, then direct it to the men you think are victimized into fatherhood.

 

I got pregnant when my marriage was failing. I told him I didn't think we would work in the long run if things stayed the same. His point being that we couldn't work on the marriage if I removed intimacy. My point being I didn't want to risk having a kid with someone I felt had failed me as a husband. I asked him to wear condoms.

I got pregnant and stayed in that awful marriage for longer as a result. During one of our arguments, he claimed he sabotaged the condom.

 

I have personal views about abortion and when it is or isn't appropriate to abort a fetus. My choice was to have my son because I did not stop having my period and didn't not know I was pregnant till the end of my first trimester. My PERSONAL OPINION was that it was too far along. I would never dream of foisting my personal opinion on someone else EVER. Even though my choice worked for me, even though I'm glad I had my son, even if the someone else was farther along or not. I am not in their position no matter how similar to my position it appears to be. And no man can ever claim to be in the realm of a pregnant woman's position, so the views and opinions of any given man on this Earth don't mean squat on this subject.

[sally4sara]

As someone who is a father of four children and someone who has intimately watched his wife endure five pregnancies, I say it with feeling and compassion. And to say that if I could get pregnant, I would understand (and implied...I would agree with you) is a slap to my wife and her friends who are very pro-life. My wife being a nurse is more pro-life than I.

 

As for dependency....the newborn baby is also dependent on someone else to even survive. Does that mean he or she has no rights to life? I think not.

 

No one will ever come into your house and make your wife get an abortion against her will.

That is the point. It is a choice and should remain so.

A baby outside the womb of a viable age can be taken in by another person to raise till it can care for itself. No so easily remedies while it is still a not viable outside of the womb. Nice try though.

[northstar1]

I am always curious about the extreme anti-abortion groups who are so vehemently opposed to any sort of abortion, if they actually also give a thought to the all the babies born into squalid conditions, or terrible, unloving households, or given up to orphanages? Or does the concern just end as long as the baby comes down the birth canal?

[JamesM]

It is dumb to say a man shouldn't be responsible for a child's upbringing because he too, knew full well that having sex can create a baby. You can't admonish a pregnant woman seeking an abortion with "you knew this might happen so now I seek to punish you with an unwanted pregnancy" but then turn around and say "this guys who don't want to be a father to the baby some girl refuses to abort shouldn't be forced to pay child support"

 

You are missing my point. I think that men need to be a part of both decisions as they are responsible for any pregnancy.

 

These two parts of your argument show you do not follow what I said. If you want to talk about taking personal responsibility by the use of BC, then direct it to the men you think are victimized into fatherhood.

 

Again, as clearly as I can....men are responsible for the pregnancy as much and sometimes even more than women. This also means that they should take full responsibility for any decision regarding the pregnancy and the raising of the child.

 

so the views and opinions of any given man on this Earth don't mean squat on this subject.

 

Now that I understand a bit more of what you have gone through, I see why you feel as you do about men. I will not try to convince you of the obvious that all men are not like your ex, but they are. As I said, most men would actually choose an abortion not life.

 

I disagree. Men and women together have equal opinions in this discussion. If women did not need the sperm of a man to get pregnant or a man did not need the egg of a women to have a baby, then perhaps your opinion would be right. As long as both are needed to create a baby. then both viewpoints should have equal footing.

[JamesM]

A baby outside the womb of a viable age can be taken in by another person to raise till it can care for itself. No so easily remedies while it is still a not viable outside of the womb. Nice try though.

 

Missed point.

 

Dependency by a human life does not make it somehow less valuable. Even if a newborn is cared for by someone else. it still needs someone else.

[JamesM]

I am always curious about the extreme anti-abortion groups who are so vehemently opposed to any sort of abortion, if they actually also give a thought to the all the babies born into squalid conditions, or terrible, unloving households, or given up to orphanages? Or does the concern just end as long as the baby comes down the birth canal?

 

Just as with pro-choicers, there of course are differences. I cannot speak for all. Why this question needs to be asked of either side is always puzzling to me.

 

Personally, we give to charities that help children who are needy. We also came very close to adopting a child that was going to need a home. The mother decided to keep her.

 

Being that it costs ten grand to adopt, it is not as much of an option as we would like. Housing, money, and time are of consideration. Currenly our house is full.

 

In my real life, I could give numerous examples of people I know who have adopted children and are very anti-abortion.

[sally4sara]

Now that I understand a bit more of what you have gone through, I see why you feel as you do about men. I will not try to convince you of the obvious that all men are not like your ex, but they are. As I said, most men would actually choose an abortion not life.

 

I disagree. Men and women together have equal opinions in this discussion. If women did not need the sperm of a man to get pregnant or a man did not need the egg of a women to have a baby, then perhaps your opinion would be right. As long as both are needed to create a baby. then both viewpoints should have equal footing.

 

Ahhh JamesM, I know not all men are like my ex; he is a special brand of awful not so easily found in nature. Though to say what most men would or wouldn't choose is a flawed statement. Many of the men I know IRL, lament that they don't have as much ability to chose fatherhood. They might very well want to be fathers but they cannot do it on their own. They need to find a willing partner who is also willing to be a mother to a child that carries his DNA.

How long women need sperm remains to be seen, but it won't be long till they won't need it at all. I have linked the research on this in many many threads. Look into it.

Till then, all a woman needs to become a mother is to find a guy willing to have sex without BC. My less fun christian uncle found out he was a father to a 14 year old girl when I was pregnant. Turns out he got some woman pregnant right around the time he was proposing to my aunt/his wife but the woman never told him about it. It is as simple as that for most women.

[BUENG1]

Women have been having abortions since the dawn of time. It's not likely something that is going away. I do think it should be regulated heavily though. Religious views aside, my opinion is that the mother should be denied access to an abortion unless they are a rape victim. My reason behind this is because unless they were raped, it was their decision to have sex- and therefore they should accept the consiquences. Many will argue that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body, and I agree. But if that's the case, they have control over not having sex. A 12 year old knows what could happen. I think it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy simply because 'it's an inconvenient time for me' or 'oh I'm not ready for motherhood'.

 

IMO, rape victims are the only women that should have the option, since their pregnancy was the result of a violent crime, and not personal irresponsibility. There are enough laws and groups in place for women to get the support they need, be it social or financial. Hospitals now of days don't let the mom leave the hospital until they give the staff a name, the name of the father that is. Once they have the name, they do a DNA test, if it matches- he's paying child support, if not, they go back to the mom for another name until they find someone to pick up his share of the burden.

 

My .02 cents.

 

Your position is, is that the baby(or fetus) has a right to life and a mother should be forced to carry him/her/it to term if necessary, because of the baby's right to life? Correct?

 

If this is the case, why should the baby of a rape victim have less of a right to life? This seems to be a contradiction. If the baby's right to life is more important and supercedes the wishes/well being of the mother to make the choice of whether to carry the baby/fetus to term, then it doesn't make any sense for the baby's right to life to not supercede the wishes/well being of the mother if she is the victim of rape. In my opinion this is a pretty big contradiction on the side of the pro life crowd(who say abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape).

Edited October 26, 2009 by BUENG1

[TheLoneSock]

Your position is, is that the baby(or fetus) has a right to life and a mother should be forced to carry him/her/it to term if necessary, because of the baby's right to life? Correct?

 

If this is the case, why should the baby of a rape victim have less of a right to life? This seems to be a contradiction. If the baby's right to life is more important and supercedes the wishes/well being of the mother to make the choice of whether to carry the baby/fetus to term, then it doesn't make any sense for the baby's right to life to not supercede the wishes/well being of the mother if she is the victim of rape. In my opinion this is a pretty big contradiction on the side of the pro life crowd(who say abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape).

 

You should have waited for a response to this question before assuming anything and making your own statement.

 

My position has less to do with a right to life than it does personal responsibility. Only a court can decide when a person has living rights. My opinion though, is that if a woman is taking all the actions necessary to concieve, she has a responsibility (as does the father) to see the gestation through. There are only a couple of reasons a mother wouldn't want to have the child:

 

1) Fear of not being able to care for the child. Answer: give it up for adoption, lack of resources is never a good excuse.

 

2) Fear of altering her body (vanity). Answer: this is a BS excuse, but one I have heard a few times, there is no answer to this other than the woman is vain and cruel.

 

If the woman was impregnated not by her choice, or if delivery of the baby would be fatal to the mother- that is the point where I think it would be acceptable to abort (as soon as the pregnancy was diagnosed, no later than the first trimester).

 

My stance has nothing to do with punishing the mother for irresponsibilty- it's about giving life a chance. I have never been one to call abortion murder, you won't see that in any of my responses. I do however think it's extremely morally wrong to be wanton with your body and then refuse to give the life it creates a chance of survival- ESPECIALLY when there are many forms of precautions available (condoms, BC, surgical procedures for M & F).

[always_searching]

I am curious Always, does your viewpoint on this stem from your adopting of strong christian faith again? I ask because of your mentioning of sin.

 

In addressing TBF's concern, I was merely using the same terminology:

 

So women sin everytime they have a miscarriage? It's estimated that up to 25% of embryos are spontaneously aborted by the woman's body.

 

Regardless, sin doesn't necessarily indicate religion--one could sin against his or her own relativistic morality. So, if you believe that it is morally wrong to pass a stop sign without saluting, and yet you intentionally don't salute when you pass a stop sign: you are sinning against your own moral code. I only take sin to mean the intentional disregard of a moral/ethical code that an individual ascribes to.

 

Sin is not necessarily related to God.

[Toki]

Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?

 

Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.

[BUENG1]

You should have waited for a response to this question before assuming anything and making your own statement.

 

My position has less to do with a right to life than it does personal responsibility. Only a court can decide when a person has living rights. My opinion though, is that if a woman is taking all the actions necessary to concieve, she has a responsibility (as does the father) to see the gestation through. There are only a couple of reasons a mother wouldn't want to have the child:

 

1) Fear of not being able to care for the child. Answer: give it up for adoption, lack of resources is never a good excuse.

 

2) Fear of altering her body (vanity). Answer: this is a BS excuse, but one I have heard a few times, there is no answer to this other than the woman is vain and cruel.

 

If the woman was impregnated not by her choice, or if delivery of the baby would be fatal to the mother- that is the point where I think it would be acceptable to abort (as soon as the pregnancy was diagnosed, no later than the first trimester).

 

My stance has nothing to do with punishing the mother for irresponsibilty- it's about giving life a chance. I have never been one to call abortion murder, you won't see that in any of my responses. I do however think it's extremely morally wrong to be wanton with your body and then refuse to give the life it creates a chance of survival- ESPECIALLY when there are many forms of precautions available (condoms, BC, surgical procedures for M & F).

I never said you called abortion murder, and I never attributed my statement to you.

 

I guess the first thing to have a selective abortion ban is nearly impossible. If someone said you could have an abortion if you were raped, everyone who wanted an abortion would say they were raped by a 5'10 white male with a mask on wearing a white tee shirt. And of course everyone would be in front of a judge asking for permission for an abortion.

 

From my point of view, an abortion ban's sole purpose is to protect the unborn child. That is the only real benefit of this ban and off course the consequence is the mother is forced to carry the child to term. These are the two most important things that are in contention. Everything else, including the why's are secondary. Being reckless isn't the issue, no one would care if you had sex without a condom unless a baby was conceived. Personal responsibility is only as important as the consequences of recklessness.

 

The life of the fetus or baby is what the real issue is(versus the mother's choice to carry the baby to term), and consequently I can't see how a baby's right to life who is the product of rape is less important than one who was the result of a one time sexual encounter.

[always_searching]

So does this mean that if the woman were to not take care of her body by smoking, maybe risking it on extreme sports or physicality, that there was intent to spontaneously abort?

 

It depends.

 

If a woman is aware that her actions place the fetus/embryo in imminent danger, and she performs the actions to intentionally abort the embryo/fetus: she is intentionally killing the child and is morally culpable.

 

If a woman is aware that her actions place the fetus/embryo in imminent danger, does not intend to abort the fetus, yet she still continues to perform said actions because she enjoys them: she did not intend the death, but she is morally culpable as she saw the danger and chose to act against the life of the fetus for her own trivial enjoyment--this is an example where moral culpability deviates from intentionality.

 

However, if a woman is not aware that her actions are potentially harmful to the fetus/embryo: she is neither intending to abort, nor is she morally culpable.

[FleshNBones]

I'll give you one more link that you seem to have missed:

 

Human Being

 

From the first paragraph under "Life Cycle":

 

 

 

Most have it that one becomes a person AFTER birth. The primary reason is because the things that make us human, namely the development of a personality, self-awareness and the the ability for complex thought comes through interaction with our environment OUTSIDE of the womb.

So it is open season on lesser humans.

Nice.

[always_searching]

Well if you're so opposed to abortion, why don't you cough up the money to take care of a few of the unwanted children...?

 

Thats my biggest gripe about pro-life, they want you to have the responsibility of a child, but they don't want the responsibilities for themselves... this thread is rife with hypocrisy.

 

Responsibility is appointed to the one to whom the child belongs. So, you would rather the mother be burdened with the responsibility of having murdered an innocent person versus her being responsible for nurturing her child?

 

And please don't label all of us pro-life posters as being hypocritical. I find more hypocrisy in saying, "Abortion is moral, yet infanticide is immoral," or "We shouldn't use up our resources on these unwanted children, yet we should use our resources on the elderly and disabled." It seems to me that the pro-choice posters are entirely disregarding a whole group of people, which isn't very different from what other depersonalizing extremists have done. They are in full support of a genocide of an entire group of individuals, because they are unwilling to see their intrinsic personhood. If anything is , it's that.

 

Regardless, I know many pro-life individuals who donate time and money to help pregnant women and children in need. There are a ton of private organizations that provide for people looking for this kind of assistance.

[TheLoneSock]

I never said you called abortion murder, and I never attributed my statement to you.

 

I never said you did. You did quote me though, and then posed a question. So your statement WAS directed at me.

 

I guess the first thing to have a selective abortion ban is nearly impossible. If someone said you could have an abortion if you were raped, everyone who wanted an abortion would say they were raped by a 5'10 white male with a mask on wearing a white tee shirt. And of course everyone would be in front of a judge asking for permission for an abortion.

 

What a brilliant assumption!

 

From my point of view, an abortion ban's sole purpose is to protect the unborn child. That is the only real benefit of this ban and off course the consequence is the mother is forced to carry the child to term. These are the two most important things that are in contention. Everything else, including the why's are secondary. Being reckless isn't the issue, no one would care if you had sex without a condom unless a baby was conceived. Personal responsibility is only as important as the consequences of recklessness.

 

...Ok?

 

The life of the fetus or baby is what the real issue is(versus the mother's choice to carry the baby to term), and consequently I can't see how a baby's right to life who is the product of rape is less important than one who was the result of a one time sexual encounter.

 

Are you just talking to state your opinion? I see no questions, counter responses, or any indication as to who you are talking to here.

[Taramere]

You should have waited for a response to this question before assuming anything and making your own statement.

 

My position has less to do with a right to life than it does personal responsibility.

 

Predict outcomes of your actions and decisions, and ensure you're equipped to deal with them.

 

If society elected to criminalise abortion for all women - or for most women, excepting rape victims, then society would have a responsibility for managing the consequences of that decision. That seems fair, in accordance with your credo of taking responsibility for actions and decisions one makes.

 

I wonder how society would go about deciding who had really been raped, and who was just making up a rape allegation in order to get an abortion. How it would reassure men who lived in terror of the increased likelihood of rape allegations being made against them. Or rape victims who faced increasingly impossible odds when it came to bringing their attackers to justice.

 

We talk a lot about personal responsibility on this board....and that's fair. However, when it comes to social responsibility people often get tetchy. Perhaps that's also fair. Why, after all, should society take responsibility for an individual's choices, decisions and actions?

 

I would say that the more society interferes with that individual's freedoms, the more responsibility it has to take for the consequences of that interference. I'm not convinced society would do a great job of managing the various outcomes of effectively telling women "you don't have the right to an abortion, unless you've been raped."