Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits on Abortion
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 107 of 230 (387807)
03-02-2007 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NosyNed
03-02-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Start of personhood
NosyNed writes:
She told me then that a new born is not given a name or considered a part of the family in a real way until they are a year old.
Actually, there are wide-spread traditions which remember a day when infant mortality was so low that a one-year birthday was a bigger event than a birth, and you don't have to go to the jungle to find them. I recently was told the same story by a friend from Ukraine.
It is similar to the way pregnant mothers traditionally keep the 'secret' until after the first trimester; the chances of survival till birth are much greater after that milestone. But this tradition doesn't mean anyone considers the 3rd trimester the beginning of conception and growth.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NosyNed, posted 03-02-2007 6:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 108 of 230 (387809)
03-02-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by docpotato
03-02-2007 4:57 PM


docpotato writes:
appreciate how those aligned with the Pro-Life movement are always concerned about the all-too real dangers of human extinction...
Funny, in my experience here at EvC, it is the atheist evos who are extremely concerned with applying 'survival tactics' to any and all moral behaviours, including abortion.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by docpotato, posted 03-02-2007 4:57 PM docpotato has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 109 of 230 (387811)
03-02-2007 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
03-02-2007 5:49 PM


I think that you were mentioning harlequinism. It may be a mercy to spare these children from a life with disease, but eventually we will be able to foresee many diseases, as well as genetic predispositions to disease. As there are great advances already in treating harlequinism, and cures almost in sight, isn't the fact that people have allowed these children to live worth something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2007 5:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 2:31 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 139 of 230 (387902)
03-03-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
03-03-2007 2:31 PM


Crashfrog writes:
I wonder if you can address the contradictions that lie at the heart of the pro-life movement, then. Why is it that, despite claiming to oppose abortion, they promote policies that increase abortions and oppose policies that reduce the number of abortions?
If you want to be a bit more specific I can try to answer. If you are asking me to question why certain people don't actively participate in every possible cause related to their own, I can't answer that one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 2:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 3:17 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 4:45 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 154 of 230 (387974)
03-03-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
03-03-2007 3:17 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Straggler writes:
Those that oppose abortion are generally the same people who oppose contraception, sex education, publicly funded healthcare and liberalised adoption laws.
I understand the birth control part, and the two wrongs don't make a right idealogy. Sex ed seems a matter of personal preference; should the parent be the educator?, or the schools?, that type of thing...but I have absolutely no clue why a pro-life stance would affect the other two items. Well, maybe the publically funded healthcare is providing services that the tax-payer finds disturbing...but I can't picture any other reason.
I wouldn't worry about it, at least not to the extent that Crashfrog says this partly caused him to change his stance. I think we all can do a better job at reducing the number of abortions. Sex ed is great, but face it, the world is so filled with images that scream to young people about how to dress, etc...and honestly women don't see many role models who make modesty or anything close to it look desirable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 8:20 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 8:27 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 155 of 230 (387979)
03-03-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by docpotato
03-03-2007 7:05 PM


docpotato writes:
Just as I fault any mice or cockroaches that get inside my house or any tigers that try to eat me.
Most people don't open the door and let the mice and cockroaches in just so they can fault them.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by docpotato, posted 03-03-2007 7:05 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by docpotato, posted 03-03-2007 8:26 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 161 of 230 (387992)
03-03-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Straggler
03-03-2007 8:20 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Straggler writes:
As an anti abortionist for what I presume to be religious reasons (??) I would be interested in your take on the points raised in post 151 above?
If you ever get time, and assuming you have access, I think it would be easier to give you my views in chat...basically it is going to be hard, no matter what to deal with the issues of abortion, but I don't think over-analyzing the embryo is a real answer to the problem of 'soul'. It's more than that when it comes to an anti-abortion stance. It is more about respect for life than actual concern for the soul. If it were only about the soul, we could happily kill the embryo and baptize it somewhere on the way out...but quite clearly that does not make the fact that we were responsible for the death any easier on the conscience of the religious parent. Basically, if a thing has human life, it has been 'conceived'. It did not just come alive by accident. So, at the moment in which human life is started, the soul of a human is immanant. At the very least, human life is there, and this would still count as destruction of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 8:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 3:45 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2007 7:28 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 162 of 230 (387993)
03-03-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by crashfrog
03-03-2007 8:27 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Crashfrog writes:
Well, of course you wouldn't - because it's not about reducing abortions for you, it's about punishing sluts.
That's why you're more hung up on who's "responsibility" something is, rather than what can be done, practically, to reduce abortions.
Where do you get all this information about me from? I think you are presuming way too much, or confusing me with someone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 8:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 11:59 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 166 of 230 (388031)
03-04-2007 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
03-03-2007 11:59 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Crashfrog writes:
Look, I can read, Ana. Your posts are very clear. When people talk about "selfish women", that's a not-so-secret code for "sluts." And when people talk about "personal responsibility", that's a not-so-secret code for "punishing the sluts."
Don't forget that I was once pro-life, conservative, and Christian. I know the codes, Ana.
Maybe you can read, but you can't remember who wrote what you read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2007 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 11:56 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 170 of 230 (388047)
03-04-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Obvious Examples
ana writes:
...but I have absolutely no clue why a pro-life stance would affect the other two items. (which were adoption and public healthcare) Well, maybe the publically funded healthcare is providing services that the tax-payer finds disturbing...but I can't picture any other reason.
I think we all can do a better job at reducing the number of abortions. Sex ed is great, but face it, the world is so filled with images that scream to young people about how to dress, etc...and honestly women don't see many role models who make modesty or anything close to it look desirable.
Crashfrog writes:
Where, then, did you voice your overwhelming support for expanded access to contraception and health care?
I have not voiced either support or opposition to these things for myself. I was asked why pro-lifers generally are opposed to four things;
liberal adoption laws,
publicly funded health care,
sex ed in classrooms,
access to contraception.
I didn't say anything was 'trivial'. I said, in regards to 3 of the 4 items above, contraception being the exception, that I have no idea what the connection is between a pro-life stance and those other issues.
And it's also my recollection that you just framed the issue in terms of selfish women who need to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Is my memory in error? Or maybe you're the one who needs to be reminded?
If you would just cite me, you would not need to have your memory jogged. I put my post up there, so if anyone else would like to take offense to my statement that young women need some better role models to supplement what they have learned in sex ed, they may feel free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 11:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 12:59 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 172 of 230 (388050)
03-04-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Straggler
03-04-2007 3:45 AM


Re: Obvious Examples
In response to you and to RAZD, because you both make good points, without all that hatred and presumption ; I will try to tell you how religion feels about abortion, and why, but just please bear in mind that this does not reflect my personal stance, which is much more complicated.
Straggler writes:
Utterly arbitary but equally valid and with equally as much physical evidence (i.e. none - there is no evidence for the soul in a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, adolescent or fully formed adult)
We can not prove a soul, but we have no doubt that murder of a baby, toddler, child, adolescent, or adult is wrong. The question is not about the soul, only so far as the soul is what is thought by religious people to be the underlying cause for respect of human life. As is noted, those who are pro-choice have this same respect, and there are many many non-religious people who are absolutely opposed to abortion based on respect for life alone.
The question is still about human life, whether or not we believe in a soul, and the question is still; when does human life begin?
Now, you are all aware that we don't know....not exactly. Quite simply, if we don't know, we can't 'decide' for ourselves.
I am curious about where folks around here stand on partial birth or late term abortion? Is there some cut-off point where you all have decided human life is definitely present, or do abortion rights apply universally to any baby not yet born?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 3:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 12:56 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2007 3:01 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 173 of 230 (388052)
03-04-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
03-03-2007 5:41 PM


Re: Answering the detractors
1) irreversible instigation of circulator and respiratory functions,
So, would it be ok, according to this, to disconnect all babies in neo-natal care from their oxygen supplies? Just curious about how you feel.
an appropriate surrogate can refuse life-supports on behalf of the legally incompetent if there is sufficient reason to believe the patient would have refused treatment in the present circumstances. Because of this broad legal and moral right to refuse treatment, life-supports that are unwanted or are considered unhelpful -- including life-supports for permanently unconscious patients -- can be terminated without first declaring the patient dead.
And does a baby count as someone legally incompetant?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2007 5:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 03-10-2007 3:27 PM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 176 of 230 (388056)
03-04-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
03-04-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Crashfrog writes:
That they are policies often opposed by the nation's ostensibly anti-abortion organizations is the contradiction that I have asked you to address, with no response except a shrug.
As I said, I have no idea why people who are pro-life are also generally anti adoption agency, or anti public health care. I was asked for a response, and since I am not one of the opposers of either of these things, I am not the correct person to ask. How am I evil for admitting that I don't know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 12:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2007 1:45 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 177 of 230 (388060)
03-04-2007 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by ringo
03-04-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Ringo writes:
In my opinion, the dividing line "should" be when the fetus is capable of living on it's own,
To what extent? Many adults are not capable of living on their own, and many full-term babies are born with medical conditions that require life-long support.
Anyway, the thing is, we are all entitled to our little 'opinions' because we simply don't know any better, OR, none of us are entitled to our opinions for the same reason.
Before it becomes individually viable, the fetus is a "mass of cells", no different from a tumour or a gangrenous limb.
Wasn't there a time when all deformed, colored, or 'different' people were thought of in the same way? Wasn't there a time when all children that could not be self-sustaining after a certain point were thrown away, shipped to lives in circuses or over-crowded and rank asylums? Is it not just a tad hypocritical to use technological and medical breakthrough to save some and destroy others? I mean, really, we are going only by what the individual parent 'wants' to do in regards to saving her child. There are now ways to detect with some surety whether or not a child would be born with Downs Syndrome. A mother is given the option of aborting the fetus if she learns the child has Downs. With the advancements we have made, there are so many questions about what is ethical that it becomes a very very gray area to decide what is worthy of life and what is not. It is all about opinions, really, and either we have full say-so, or no say-so. It is either up to us, or up to God. Depends on who you ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 12:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 1:47 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 180 of 230 (388068)
03-04-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ringo
03-04-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Obvious Examples
Ringo writes:
At that point, it has no individual rights
Understood. Maybe we are arguing the potential rather than the immanant? Not that its a great point, but speaking for myself, the potential is what gets me when it comes to ending a life that we will never 'experience' in this world again...unless you believe in some recyling or reincarnation of life.
That sounds like something Rob would say.
Funny, but Rob doesn't even understand what I say half the time. I am not sure who to blame.
Once again, I am talking about the difference between separate organisms and parts of the same organism.
So, would you sorta be opposed to late-term abortions where the organism could live on its own with the appropriate support?
If a parent "wants" to throw his/her child away, society feels an obligation to step in and help that child. So where is the corresponding feeling of obligation on the part of anti-abortionists?
I don't know exactly what the issue is here, but I can only help if I have more specifics to understand what is or is not part of religious teaching. Adoption for instance is obviously not against Catholicism, so I am not sure how a religious anti-abortion stance affects adoption...I need to know more particulars about what is being opposed and who is opposing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 1:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 2:24 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 2:50 PM anastasia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024