The bible and abortion

While I must admit the majority I have seen are, that was not what I was saying. Most certainly the ones using Biblical references to support their argument are Xtian. That was the whole point of this thread; examining where the Bible condemns abortion. My response in that post was directly refering to that question.------------------
holmes

I don't think your reply did justice to my post at all.You simply took a reductio (which was not necessarily the most important argument in the post) then restated your position (though slightly altered) which does nothing to disarm the arguments I made.Let us start from the beginning once more...To you a human being is 100% covered by protection of the law. If the fetus is 100% a human being, then it is covered by the law. Your first post laid this out quite clearly.But the status of the fetus as a human being is unknown. It is moving to that state, and as it does so gains in moral worth.At some point that moral value exceeds the woman's desire to avoid "inconvenience."For some reason rape either diminishes the fetus' moral value, or makes the woman's "inconvenience" great enough that it exceeds the moral value of the fetus. You referred to this as "compassion" before.You have also stated that the malformation of the fetus does the same. In this case it was "compassion" for the suffering of the child after birth.Let's leave my reductio alone.I also argued along your same lines of "compassion."Why is there to be no "compassion" for the "inconvenience" of a woman whose husband/boyfriend dumped her, or she just lost her job, or has realized she is not psychologically/emotionally capable of going through with the pregnancy.Why is there to be "compassion" for children who have Down's syndrome (they do not "suffer" though they are limited in mental capacity), but no "compassion" for the potential suffering of a fully developed child born into the life of an orphan, or a home where they were not wanted and act as a hardship?I state once again, all of your terms to date have been nothing but subjective terms. Human being, compassion, inconvenience.I understand that it might feel nice for YOU to get a say in what others do, to have your definitions count. Unfortunately there is no way that you or I can create such definitions that their results will be superior to throwing darts at a list of definitions.However, the mother is always 100% a human being. That starts the ball rolling in protecting her rights over an entity whose human beingness or "moral worth", while growing, is never quite known.She also has a more intimate connection to the life growing within her. Why is it so odd to say then that each mother has the more credible position to say when the fetus has become a child?But more important than any of this, the mother knows the specific situation that child is going to be born into. It is HER reproductive cycle. Why should she not be able to choose that her offspring not be born into conditions she would not want for them?To some mothers who have chosen to carry malformed children to term, your claim it is somehow compassionate to abort them would seem inhumanly cruel. Should their view on this override the wishes of mothers who would not wish to have their own children be deformed?If you say they should not, then how do you argue that your definitions based on the conditions you'd be willing to have YOUR child born into, should be instated and mothers disagreeing with you be viewed as inhumanly cruel?I personally understand the position of a mother not wishing to have a child born into poverty or an unloving home. I admittedly do not understand why a woman would wait so late to have an abortion (especially if her reason was to "avoid inconvenience") but I do not presume to know every possible situation or person's emotional states.Please deal with this more important argument against your position.------------------
holmes

It is. Although the case I was referring to was Canada. I wish Brits would come to realize that their country, as well as most of Europe, is much more liberal than America (and, depending on the issue, sometimes Canada, sometimes not). An American liberal typically matches up with a European moderate. A British conservative would be a moderate in America. Over here, our current government has been cutting all aid to international programs just because they provide abortions as one of their services. They've even been heavily cutting programs that provide birth control. The radical religious right has a strong influence in America.In addition to the availablilty issues, there's also the knowledge-level issue if we're talking about a young pregnancy, and the shock issue if we're talking about a rape.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

At some point that moral value passes the woman's desire to avoid inconvenience,

---

Inconvenience?Your repeated implication that women are interested mainly in "convenience" with regards to abortion is insulting and belittling to all the women who do not take aborting a fetus lightly and struggle with the descision to have an abortion or not.It is much more risky to a woman's health to carry a baby to term and give birth to it than it is for her to have a properly-performed abortion.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-25-2003]

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?

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?

Jack - you completely dodged what she said. Carrying a child to term is more than an inconvenience. It is dangerous to the mother's health - childbirth not only carries health complications up through giving birth, but also gives the woman higher risk factors for a wide variety of health conditions for the rest of her life. And caring for a child is more than an "inconvenience" - it involves the dedication of a good portion of your entire life, your entire earnings of the course of your entire life. And if the womam isn't willing to do this? You've brought a suffering child into the world, and made a woman suffer in the world, instead of making no change to the world.Please stop trying to distort patently obvious facets of reality with your false term "inconvenience". An inconvenience is leaving your keys in your car. You can't get much more of the opposite of "inconvenience" than this. If you consider devoting your entire life to something merely an "inconvenience", I'd love to hire you, you'd make a great employee In short, you're arguing for something with questionable (and, for 1st trimester, very very limited) moral value, versus something of clear and heavy negative moral value (not addressing the other issues I've raised - such as the "when they do it anyway..." case). What kind of weighting is this?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

No. My position is irrelevant right now. The argument at hand is one against your position. You have dodged it twice now.Third time's the charm?Deal with my criticisms against YOUR position.After that we can deal with criticisms against MY position, and I will happily make them very clear for any attack you'd like to use at that time.------------------
holmes

quote:

---

I haven't tried to nail down the exact point at which it becomes human. As I said earlier, the second trimester is a little too hazy for my tastes. But early enough on, you can definitely say, "that isn't a person."

---

There is no exact point in which it becomes human. That's just an arbitrary dichotomy in a continuum. I think you know this though. That's why I don't think you can arbitrarily define one point as "human" and then base its moral status on that.

quote:

---

However, if we work under the assumption that it is human all along, I still have to bring it back to asking why the separate egg and sperm are not human as well.

---

I'm not sure we can act on the assumption that its a human all along, i.e. going to back to egg and sperm. I'd say the odds of a zygote becoming a fully developed are good enough for it to be considered a human. Of course then I'll have to dichotomize the continuum of odds as "good enough" and "not good enough". So we are basically back to the initial problem: we have to make an arbitrary dichotomy. Very unsatisfactory.How would you decide whether it is human enough to forbid its termination? Say we let the end of the second trimester be that point, then what about a day before that? Doesn't that seem absurd that one day we can abort then the day after we can't?

quote:

---

You and I don't have the right to throw it out. But the painter certainly does. I don't care if they've already bought the canvas and started mixing paints. They are under no obligation to give the world a masterpiece if they don't want to do so.

​

It's a bad analogy though, because the painter also has the right to throw the painting out after it can be called a masterpiece.

---

Yes, I guess I didn't mean analogy. I was just trying to show an example that you shouldn't measure the value of something based on what it is at one point when it is developing into something else.

quote:

---

Cool. I hope you post the paper when it's done.

---

It's not due til December, so don't hold your breath. It has to be 15-20 pages long, so I figured I'd better start thinking and discussing it now.JustinC

"inconvenence" -- a 16 year old trying to raise a child would find it more than inconvenient.An unemployed women with one or two children whose husband has run off would find it more than a inconvenience.Raising a child well is not easy thing. If an individual believes they are not ready too then it is very appropriate for themselves, for society and for the potential child that they choose not to.

quote:

---

There is no exact point in which it becomes human. That's just an arbitrary dichotomy in a continuum. I think you know this though. That's why I don't think you can arbitrarily define one point as "human" and then base its moral status on that.

---

There are different ends of a spectrum though, with "definitely human" at one end, and "definitely not human" at the other. It's somewhere in between where things get hazy. But that doesn't mean you don't have a good long stretch of "not human" at the beginning.

quote:

---

How would you decide whether it is human enough to forbid its termination? Say we let the end of the second trimester be that point, then what about a day before that? Doesn't that seem absurd that one day we can abort then the day after we can't?

---

Think of it as the same as driving laws. Is it a little silly that on your sixteenth birthday you can drive, and the day before you couldn't? Sure. But you've gotta make the cutoff point somewhere, right? We can't have two year olds trying to drive cars, because that would be downright silly and dangerous.So we cut it off where we know it's safe. Sixteen and up? Yeah, you can trust them behind the wheel if they've been taught right. Fifteen... eh... kinda hazy. Probably varies person to person. So we'd better play it safe and stick with sixteen.

quote:

---

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?

---

I have a question for you.How many unwanted, parentless babies have you adopted?If you haven't done so, why not? If it is simply a matter of a little "inconvenience", then most of us would have adopted a couple orphans at least, right? Kind of like getting a dog from the pound.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?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?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-26-2003]

quote:

---

There are different ends of a spectrum though, with "definitely human" at one end, and "definitely not human" at the other. It's somewhere in between where things get hazy. But that doesn't mean you don't have a good long stretch of "not human" at the beginning.

---

I do agree with this, though I must ask what it means to be 'human'. I'm kindof leaning towards when it becomes viable outside the womb to be the cutoff point. But can babies at the end of the second trimester survive outside the womb without intensive medical care? I have yet to research this, so I really don't know.

quote:

---

Think of it as the same as driving laws. Is it a little silly that on your sixteenth birthday you can drive, and the day before you couldn't? Sure. But you've gotta make the cutoff point somewhere, right? We can't have two year olds trying to drive cars, because that would be downright silly and dangerous.

​

So we cut it off where we know it's safe. Sixteen and up? Yeah, you can trust them behind the wheel if they've been taught right. Fifteen... eh... kinda hazy. Probably varies person to person. So we'd better play it safe and stick with sixteen.

---

I do think that the law is silly because age isn't necessarily an indicator of driving abilities. I think the criterion should be more pertinent to the function or status.So I think I'm kindof giving up on the potential view because you come to the same problem as dichotomizing the continuum from zygote to human. It almost seems more arbitrary seperating enough potential from not enough potential.Also, wouldn't it be like treating kids the same as adults because they are developing into adults?I think the cutoff shouldn't be an age though, it should be a quality that the fetus possesses. Though you can pick an age where every fetus posseses these qualities. But if it is a late developer, I'd say you'd have to be allowed to abort it still. The major question is, what are the qualities that make one human?JustinCAnythoughts[This message has been edited by JustinCy, 09-29-2003]

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. Would you be happy if I changed to using 'lifestyle-choice' rather than 'inconvenience', then? 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.

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?