|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The bible and abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
crashfrog writes: The real issue is only one of the whether a fetus, or embryo, is a human being. 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? In this whole argument I see much equivocation on the terms "human" and "being." 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. So why not allow for abortions right up till birth? Because it would offend your definition of human being? Personally I find it offensive that people would have abortions after the 2nd trimester. It shows a blatant disregard for one's personal health. But who am I to talk about anyone else's life like that? When do I get a say over what is gestating in someone else's body? Doesn't the mother have a better say over when she considers the fetus within her has become a human being, than someone standing firmly outside that part of the cycle of life? Even two mothers will not have the same feeling of when her fetus has become her child. I think we have to accept the reality that some will make odious choices to our own minds when the very nature of the choice relies on wholly subjective interpretations of reality. About my only agreement with you is that it should be done cleanly and humanely. If you know it has a nervous system and is likely to "feel pain", whether it is able to understand it or remember it is beside the point, less "pain inducing" methods should be employed.
mrJack writes: 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. And this is the perfect example of why arguments on this topic, which rely on a fetus' quality of "human beingness" are nothing but transitory, subjective assertions. 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. Those seem to have everything to do with the feelings of the woman in question, and not subjecting her to the emotional distress of carrying a child that has been forced upon her, or in the last example one she would not care to take care of. In fact that last subject matter really blows my mind. Are you saying that improper development makes it less than a human being? If so, then why not less than complete development? I realize I posted a lot of question marks and capitalized words. Please don't take this as my yelling at you. But I do mean it firmly. I think the logic of this debate usually ends in emotional appeals that have nothing to do with rational assessments of what a human being is, because there will never be such a firm definition that can apply to an ongoing process which BY NATURE may end in miscarriage or even still birth. If it must come down to anyone's emotional appeal, I'd say leaving it with the woman carrying the child is the only HUMANE thing to do. The fetus, even if 100% human being by my standards, is unlikely to understand whatever is going on, or care. Let the woman decide, she is 100% human and it will impact her ongoing life the most, even if I find her decision personally repellent. And you can make your irrational choice whenever you get pregnant. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: So, is it a woman's right to get raped and end up pregnant? 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?
quote: First off, you're talking about the second trimester, which is actually somewhat controversial. Secondly, I have to disagree. http://216.158.44.119/brochures/art/10-12wks.jpg I'd say it looks more like a cross between an alien and a tyrannosaur. All kidding aside, even at twelve weeks, there is no thought. And the "potential" for thought is no more the same thing as thought than the potential for part of New York City to end up underwater from global warming is the same as part of New York City ending up underwater from global warming.
quote: I can do that, and more, with a mouse. And depending on how you define hands, I can do that with a water flea. The brain is what's relevant.
quote: Yes. Late in the 3rd trimester. Do you see us arguing for that?
quote: Good for you Now if you could just get the religious right to follow... Seriously, though, do you think that any significant number of people are arguing for the right to have 3rd-trimester abortions, in all except life-threatening situations? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Yes, but I'm not sure you can equivocate semen and sperm. I'd say you have to look at the odds of each sperm becoming a full human being, and then decide whether its immoral to stop this sperm from becoming a human. I realize this is a shakey argument, I'm just throwing stuff out there though. quote:I was talking about hypothetical humans, which again is shakey. I just had a nephew born, and it seems ludicrous that someone could of stopped this human from being born once fertilization took place and its potential to become a full grown human was immense. quote:It does exist though. Its on its way to become just like you and me. quote:You are making the extremely low oddsof one of your sperm fertilizing an egg zero. To me, this seems different than making the very high odds of a zygote becoming a human zero. JustinC [This message has been edited by JustinCy, 09-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:Do you really think there is a dichotomy in the continuum between fertilized egg and new born baby where it becomes a "human life"? And that until we find this out we should be on the safe side? It's just a developing human, no reason to apply a label to certain times of that development and act as if its "human life" during this stage and not in that stage. [This message has been edited by JustinCy, 09-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
The beginning of recognizable brain waves, the mechanisms in place for the perception of pain, viability outside the womb...all these happen around the end of the 2nd trimester/beginning of the 3rd trimester. I don't think anyone here is arguing for the right to abort at this stage. Prior to this it can only be left up to the moral/ethical belief system of the mother.
------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: And so would be any combination of sperm and eggs. Is it a tragedy that they did not occur? Would you make this argument to someone who wanted to be a monk or nun - that they're effectively destroying what would be people in the world by deliberately avoiding marriage? By the way, just some food for thought: The majority of embryos abort before the woman even knows she's pregnant. If that clues you in to how much value a God must place on the survival of an embryo... ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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: 8.7 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
MrJack writes:
quote: It's a question of concept. If abortion is not immoral in the case of rape, why is it immoral in the case of consensual sex? Why do the circumstances surrounding the creation of the fetus have an effect on whether or not it is moral to abort it? I'm reminded of the (apocryphal?) story wherein Winston Churchill asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds. When she agreed, he asked her if she would sleep with him for five pounds. When she reacted with shock saying, "What kind of woman do you think I am?" he responded with, "Madam, we have already determined what kind of woman you are. We are merely negotiating the price." If abortion is nothing to deny somebody in one case, why does it matter how the fetus came into being? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Do you realize that the second part of this contradicts the first? I mean... yes, there is a thing there. It is certainly a collection of cells. But no human exists at that point.
quote: The odds of one of my sperm fertilizing an egg are not low. If my girlfriend and I have unprotected sex every day, I will impregnate her. So by not doing so, am I denying the right to life to the child we would have? [This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-24-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
mrJack writes: Exactly the same argument can be applied to any and all legal issues. Your argument along this line is inaccurate. A fetus is something vastly different than any person who has been born. They are in a process from simple tissue to human being. Where this line gets crossed is totally subjective. It is correct that we can start defining physical aspects of development in an objective way, and that may help people draw their own lines, but those lines are still subjective. The "similar" situations you outlined were not similar at all as all of this involved violent and painful actions against clearly living human beings. They were not gestational organisms and so (reasonably) fully under the protection of government bodies. I DO believe we restrict many cultural belief systems in ways that we should not, but this has nothing to do with the case of abortion. Let us look at this situation much more closely. The fetus at every state of DEVELOPMENT is an objectively unknown entity, with subjective opinions coming into play on where it is FULLY DEVELOPED as a human being. The mother at every state of the fetus' development is an objectively known entity. No subjective opinions are necessary in this case. Why should ANYONE'S opinion other than the mother's count? She is the gestational host. Should her moral opinion not count more than anyone else's? Is she not in the best position to determine when her fetus has fully developed? You began by arguing it had nothing to do with women's rights. It is all about the rights of human beings. Then reversed yourself by talking about compassion. If it is all about the civil rights of the human being/fetus, then compassion for the mother has nothing to do with anything. Why should a human being be punished for how it was developed. 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? But let's say you reject the above argument. The reality is you HAVE accepted the idea that compassion for the mother is a valid reason to override the rights of the "human being" inside her to be born. What about compassion for a mother who is not in a position to continue carrying the child? Let's say her husband or boyfriend dumped her at the last minute. Or that she has become overwhelmed psychologically/emotionally with the impending reality of having a child. What's even stranger is that you say the reason to abort the "malformed" is that it is out of compassion for not briinging a child into a world of suffering. Children with Down's syndrome are definitely malformed but don't suffer much. In fact, it could very well be argued that an unwanted child born directly into orphanhood and shuttled between foster homes suffers quite a bit. Do we have no compassion for a child that will be born into unfortunate circumstances? I know that if I was a mother (well even as a father) i would not want my child knowingly being born into such conditions. It seems once again that we are down to picking and choosing on totally subjective criteria. In this case what compassion is "acceptable" to remove the rights of a "human being." I would argue that with such layering of picking and choosing in this situation, the moral and legal judgements of others should fall back into darkness. No wholly subjective moral judgement we can make FOR OTHERS is ever guaranteed to end in happiness. And to force someone to carry a child and bear it against there will is tantamount to rape. It is removing power from someone at a point where they are incredibly vulnerable, for our own psychological gratification. Let the women choose. Give them information to make the best choice, for sure. Encourage and empower women not to get into such a situation in the first place. But once in that situation let it go. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: 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.
quote: Those trying to ban abortion disagree with you.
quote: Even though you haven't, the religious right has been pushing to prevent these cases as well.
quote: And I commended you for it.
quote: That's the thing: Due to restrictions emposed by the religious right, abortion *isn't* so available in many cases.
quote: Have you missed out on virtually all of this thread? Read: Brain activity.
quote: It's certainly a lot closer to a 'blob of cells' than it is to the standard acceptance of what is human (or even a mouse). I haven't seen anyone walking down the street that looks like a cross between an alien and a tyrannosaur lately...
quote: And I have seen people argue for rescinding womens' right to vote, and have seen people argue for restarting slavery. So? You need to look at what the average supporter of abortion is asking for: Complete freedom in the first trimester, restricted but still present rights in the second, and only in the case of a threat to the mother's life in the third.
quote: 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). ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:No, because the odds of them becoming a human were very low to begin with. Once you have a zygote, the odds of it becoming a human are much higher. quote:I'm an atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JustinC Member (Idle past 4844 days) Posts: 624 From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA Joined: |
quote:No contradiction. Its a human at a different developmental stage than us. Do you think at one point it becomes a 'human'? And that one day before this its alright to abort the baby? You shouldn't just look at what it is, you should take into account what its becoming.
quote:I was referring to the odds of an individual sperm impregnating an egg are low. I guess you can't really say the same thing about an egg though. The fact that there is a continuum from non-life to life is pretty troubling though. There's never going to be a satisfactory answer because of this. Say someone is painting a masterpiece. Can we just look at it halfway through and say, "This isn't a masterpiece, so I'm going to throw it out." You have to look at what its becoming, and not what it is. I think there is an analogy there...(probably not) JustinC FYI, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. I have to write a biomedical ethics paper soon and am just throwing around some ideas. [This message has been edited by JustinCy, 09-24-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024