|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The bible and abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
That's an excessive generalisation, Dan. A fetus will become a human if not aborted. Well, more or less baring a natural miscarriage, etc. A sperm, or an egg, won't. In fact it doesn't even contain a full genome. That's a significant difference.
I wrote my thoughts down on this issue elsewhere, I'll repost them now
"Mr Jack" writes: I'm going to start with a sentence that may be a little contraversial. Abortion has exactly zero to do with women's rights. That's right. Zero. The real issue is only one of the whether a fetus, or embryo, is a human being. If it is then killing it is wrong, and should be illegal. Whatever the mother feels or suffers. We do not allow someone to kill their baby because it screams, keeps them awake, puts a dampner on their social life, or any such thing. If on the other hand it is not 'human' then we should have no concerns. A Woman's 'right to choose' has nothing to do with it. So then, let us address the question of is a Fetus (or embryo) human or not? Some claim that a fetus is just a 'blob of cells'. This is clearly nonsense, by twelve weeks a fetus is recognisably human. You can see the feet, and hands, even make out the beginnings of a face. This is no 'blob of cells'. A zero-day old 'baby' is a bunch of cells, a freshly born baby is human. Along the way it slowly develops all of the features that make us human, many can be recognised from surprisingly early on. While still in the womb babies are known to respond to different sounds in the environment, and even what the mother is eating, or drinking. The question is at what point does it become a human? My answer is that there is no point. That zero-day old is 0% human, and that baby is 100% human, along the way it moves along that scale - probably not in a linear fashion. (Are premature babies fully human and all that?) Where does this leave abortion? I think abortion is not something we should ever take lightly. We should restrict abortion based on the age of the fetus, and attempt to use methods of abortion that do not inflict unnecessary pain on the fetus just as we attempt to slaughter livestock humanely. Finally I believe we should extend the time window for abortion for rape, and incest victims and in cases where the child is found to be disabled or malformed. This isn't too far from current abortion legalislation, at least in my country. But I think the window should probably be narrowed some, maybe down to 14, or 16 weeks. Although this may already have wondered off topic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Why stop at sperm though? When your girlfriend is eating her toast that toast could be contributing to a new life! It's clearly murder not to eat the toast!
How come? There is sperm in my testicles. There is an egg in my girlfriend's fallopian tubes. Keep adding sperm to egg, and it will become a human as well. By not combining the sperm with the egg, are we denying people the right to live? You are not intervening in an already started process. You are simply not starting that process. The two are in no way equivalent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Exactly, and in a multicultural country that is supposed to protect every individual's belief systems, which singular definition of "human being" are we to force on everyone else? Exactly the same argument can be applied to any and all legal issues. Charles Manson thought he was doing gods work when he was out a-murdering, some cultures believe in mutilating young girls genitals, and on, and on. As a society we have to make decisions about what we believe to be a solid level of morality and promote and enforce those morals.
About the only thing that is noncontroversial is to say at birth a child is 100% human being. That "sliding scale" you talk about a fetus having in the womb has NOTHING TO DO WITH OBJECTIVE REALITY, and only SUBJECTIVE OPINION. Firstly, and? Secondly, I disagree in any case. Some aspects of it are surely subjective, but I would argue that there are objective criteria we can establish (brain response, nervous system growth, etc.). The value you we attach to that is a moral argument but ALL MORAL ARGUMENTS ARE SUBJECTIVE.
You just said abortion has EXACTLY ZERO TO DO WITH WOMEN'S RIGHTS. So what do ANY of the above qualifications have to do with a fetus not becoming defined as a human being until later. No, they have to do with compassion, not women's rights. This isn't about a women's right to choose, it's about society's compassion towards a victim. This isn't about dealing with a failure to use proper contraception, or not wanting to have to deal with consequences of one's actions, it's about dealing with the the concequences of violence and abuse. As to the disabled and malformed, it's about not bringing someone into a life of suffering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
So, is it a woman's right to get raped and end up pregnant? Oh please. What a stupid statement. 1. No woman who is raped should ever fail to take a morning after pill.2. No woman who is raped should ever involuntarily carry a child beyond the first time she misses a period. 3. The VAST majority of abortions have exactly nothing to do with rape. It's a side issue to the main abortion question. 4. I specifically endorsed special abortion provisions for raped women later in my post. If a woman cannot bear the thought of having a child, is it her right to have to starve herself to miscarry instead of getting appropriate, readily available medical treatment - having the embryo develop far further than it normally would, making the woman suffer, and create serious health risks? Well since you're example earlier happened despite abortion being available, do you have a point? Also note that I support abortion anyway. Let me take another example. Suppose our hypothetical mother has the child, but finds it seriously harmful to her life, health (she ain't getting any sleep) and finances. How exactly is this different to your above example? Would you support killing the child in this case? No, of course not. Why? Because we consider a born baby a human being in it's own right and worthy of protection from being killed (in this case, murdered). It isn't about woman's rights. It's about whether we think its human and worthy of human rights.
I'd say it looks more like a cross between an alien and a tyrannosaur... Do you think it qualifies as a 'blob of cells'? That whole section refers only to that nonsense. A fetus is only a blob of cells for about a week. After that it's progressed beyond any such description, the same is true of a mouse.
Yes. Late in the 3rd trimester. Do you see us arguing for that? You're not. I have seen people argue for abortion up until birth, yes. Why is it that you don't support 3rd trimester abortion? Might it be because you think it has become sufficently human by that point? I'm guessing you don't think the woman's right to choose how her life goes doesn't drop off during pregnancy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
If abortion is not immoral in the case of rape, why is it immoral in the case of consensual sex? Maybe it's immoral in both cases, but it is more immoral to condemn a raped woman to carry the child of her attacker? Tricky questions of morality do not always resolve to a moral/immoral dichotomy, but instead to a more/less moral balance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Bud didn't you just say that abortion is wrong, "Whatever the mother feels or suffers."? Er, NO. If you read my first post. I said I think current abortion laws are about accurate, but perhaps the window should be narrowed slightly to about 14 or 16 weeks, rather than 18 (which it is in my country). I said abortion shouldn't be a decision taken lightly. No where did I say abortion is wrong whatever the mother feels or suffers. I said IF the fetus is fully human then it is wrong whatever the mother feels or suffers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
And that is *how* easy for a 14 old to come across (even if she knew how to deal with the situation)? There's the issue of parental consent requirements here. I believe it's available over the counter of every pharmacy, I think it's even free.
Excepting in the case of a threat to the mother's life. There is no miraculous "cutoff point" where the fetus becomes human. However, in the third trimester, cerebral brain activity becomes more than just sporadic; human thought has started to occur. It is still just the basis, but it adds a stronger moral issue. Meanwhile, the "right to choose" issue has significantly waned, since there has been ample time to choose (assuming that there aren't piles of restrictions in place by the anti-abortion crowd as a stall tactic). You know, Rei, I'm at a loss to what you are arguing with me about. That's practically my position on abortion re-stated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Think about this very carefully. You have now outlined that the fetus is a human being and so covered by law that covers everyone that has been born. Yet out of compassion for a mother that had been raped, her child can be killed. BY YOUR LOGIC a mother who had been raped can kill her new born child, or maybe even her toddler? Why should she be forced to have to take care of a child that was forced upon her, or have part of her walking around where she did not want that? Nope. I said the fetus is on it's way to being human. It's not there yet maybe it's only 50% of the way, as it goes along the road it's moral worth increases. At some point that moral value passes the woman's desire to avoid inconvenience, that point is further along in the case of rape. In no way does that carry on to applying to a fully human baby.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
In the US, there is no over-the-counter medication, free or not, that can be used as a morning after treatment. Really? That sucks. But you can get it from your doctor, and family planning clinics can't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I had no idea acquiring it was such an issue in America. I'd assumed it was as available there as it is here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
The vast majority of abortions are carried out not because of any health reason, or because of any violence towards the woman, but simply because the mother does not wish to carry the child to term, or raise a child. I call that a desire to avoid inconvenience, if you find that term insulting, perhaps you could suggest an alternative?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
So we can clarify your position a little, Holmes. It would seem from your argument that your believe abortion should be freely available right up until birth. Is that correct? If not, why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
How many unwanted, parentless babies have you adopted? None. Firstly, I don't like children so I'd find having to raise one inconvenient. Secondly, they are way more people trying to adopt babies than there are babies up for adoption. Last I heard it's getting on for a seven year waiting list over here.
If you have, then do you consider the child an inconvenience, or a major, life-altering addition to your world which has rendered said world changed in drastic ways, forever? Would you be happy if I changed to using 'lifestyle-choice' rather than 'inconvenience', then?
Also, why do you refuse to address the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is much more dangerous to a woman's health that undergoing a properly-performed abortion? I don't really see how it's an important part of the issue. I don't know of any women who make the abortion/not-abortion choice on this grounds. I've never heard of anyone saying "well, I'd like to carry to term, but it would be better for my health if I didn't." And I don't see how it makes much difference in any case; A relatively mild health risk still wouldn't outway a human life, were the fetus to be considered human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I can't effectively argue your position if I don't know what it is.
So I'll ask again: do you, or do you not, support abotion right up to the time of birth? And, if not, why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Who are you to decide that a woman should be forced by law to be subjected to any "health risk", no matter how mild? Who are you to decide that a human being should be allowed by law to be killed on the grounds of a health risk to another human being, or on the basis of a major lifestyle-choice? How do you get to 'forced' anyway? This is (except in the case of rape, which is a rare special case) a result of the woman's choices. These are the consequences of her own actions. I advocate allowing her the choice to terminate (in my country on taxpayers money, although I believe not in the US?) in the first half of pregnancy, but not after that on the basis of the moral value of the child. You're right, I am nobody. I have neither the right, the authority nor the obligation to decide anything for anybody. That's why we have this whole government, democracy and rule of law thing. So that some people do have the authority to make, and enforce, hard decisions. Advocating that they take certain lines on certain issues is, however, my right.
Yes you do. She told you about it on this thread. There was one mention of a specific health issue that would make pregnancy dangerous. Specific health issues are a different matter to the health risk of a normal pregnancy.
On the other hand, it's irrelevant who you know or don't know. No, it doesn't make any difference who I know, or don't know. But I was not speaking about people I know or don't know, I meant in general, I have never heard of it being a deciding issue.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024