Topic awaiting preservation: Abortion (Page 1 of 4)

I'm back from my surgery. Everything went well. Certainly my knee hurts, but I'll survive.
You all know by now I have a penchant for words. Please excuse my longwindedness. I hope it starts a decent conversation.
So, without further ado, let me introduce to you "Why, and In What Circumstances, Should Abortion Be Legal"

Abortion is an issue on which it seems everybody has a stance. It is often difficult to discuss anything of 'controversy', more so when the topic is one as heated as this. Let's start with some common ground. I think this is common ground. If this is not common ground, then consider them my assumptions going into this discussion.

1. There is a difference between a human being and a potential human being.
2. While all human beings are life, not all life is a human being.
3. Neither sperm nor eggs are a human being.
4. Each sperm and egg has potential to be a human being.
5. Day 1 of baby being born, baby is a human being.

So, sometime between -1 month, and 9 months there is a change from potential life to a human being. The big question that constantly surrounds the abortion issue is 'when does that change occur?'

We would all agree (I think) that keeping a potential life from happening is not bad -- for instance, we are not required to have sex every single month with a desire to impregnate every single egg a woman produces in her lifetime -- and we would all agree (again, I think) killing a baby is not good. So, when is the change from potential human being to human being?

Obviously this is an extremely difficult question and everybody has a different answer. We all 'know' what a human being is, but can we define it? Can we make it exclusive to other life?

For years philosophers, secular and otherwise, have attempted to define the point a fetus becomes a human being. Many did not have the same technology we have today, but they used what they did have (their senses and logic) to try to find an answer. They came up with lots of answers, I have outlined five below.

"Conception"
The modern Roman Catholic position, started by, as far as I can tell, Pope Pius IX, states that conception is the start of human life.
Many Christians, Roman Catholic and otherwise, hold to this belief today.

"Appearance as Human"
Aristotle wrote in "History of Animals" that the fetus has a human soul at 40 days after conception for a male and 90 days after conception for a female. This is based on his (apparent?) experience that, if a fetus is aborted prior to 40/90 days, its features are not recognizable as human.
St. Augustine (some 6 centuries later) agreed with Aristotle's take on the situation and argued in "On Exodus" that an abortion before 90 days was not murder because no soul was destroyed.
St. Jerome wrote that the fetus gradually becomes a human in the womb. Abortion, for him, did not count as killing a human being if the fetus had not yet acquired limbs and the 'appearance' of being human.

"Movement of Fetus"
Thomas Aquinas (we're now in the mid 11th century) said that a fetus was not a human being until it moved in the womb.
Pope Innocent III offered a ruling on the case of a monk that had arranged for his (the monk's) lover to have an abortion. The pope wrote that it was not murder because it had happened early enough the fetus had not started moving yet, thus did not yet have a soul.
Pope Gregory XIV (around 1600) said that a fetus is not a human until it moved in the womb.

"Breath"
Some Jews and Christians, taking their cue from Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.", argue that a fetus is not a human being until the baby takes its first breath.
Jewish Law defines when a fetus becomes a human as the point when "the head emerges from the womb."

"Thought"
Carl Sagan argues in "Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium" that conscious, higher level thought is what defines a human being, so a fetus should not be considered a human being until it has a developed frontal cortex and a significant amount of neuron activity.

This is a relatively short list when compared to the long history of people trying to answer this question of 'when does a fetus become a human life?" but I think it shows an important point -- everybody has a different answer.

As for my thoughts:
A human being has a few qualities that are distinctive:
1. Ability to live
2. Self-conscious
3. Rational thought
4. Capacity for moral behavior

A fetus has zero chance of living outside the womb before 24 weeks. It is not until that time that the lungs have developed to a point that they can actually pull oxygen from the air and deliver it to the blood.
The last three go together. The brain does not begin to have significant neuron activity (the beginning of both logical and moral thought) until somewhere in the realm of 24-27 weeks. This is the first time that the fetus realizes itself, it is the first time there are enough neurons in place and working together that the senses work. Sometimes a little sooner than 24 weeks -- 21-23 weeks -- but often near the 24 week mark is the first time that the brain releases electrical energy enough to move muscles.
These factors together convince me that a human being does not exist until sometime around 24 weeks. I'm willing to concede that some fetus become human beings more quickly than others, so maybe an extreme case of 20 weeks should be the standard of the title 'human being'. I think that abortion should be absolutely legal up to the 20th week of pregnency, regardless the reason. I'm also in favor of allowing abortion past the 20 week mark for those cases where a doctor thinks it is needed to save the mother from death or significant harm.

One of the pieces of the Roman Catholic doctrine that causes me so much trouble is the ease with which it allows the destruction of women. For, in the eyes of the church an abortion is not OK, even if the doctors know both the child and the mother will die if the abortion does not take place. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy -- a pregnancy in which the fertilized egg becomes stuck in one of the fallopian tubes instead of traveling all the way down to the uterus -- a doctor is not allowed to intervene according to the church.
You see, in the course of a ectopic pregnancy, the fetus will grow and eventually the fallopian tube will burst, causing massive internal bleeding for the woman. If the body is not cut open, the fetus removed, and the bleeding stopped, the woman will die (thus the fetus will die.)
According to the Tribunal of the Holy Office, a doctor is not allowed to preform this prcedure to save the life of the woman because doing so would instantly destroy the fetus. This is irresponsible.
Even if I were to concede that the fetus at this point is a human life (I don't) it is still irresponsible to destroy two lives over one. It is not logic or compassion that drives the church to this stance, it is a stubborn clinging to rigid dogma, come the proverbial hell or high water.

All of that being said, what I think doesn't matter.
My main goal here was to make it clear that people have various opinions about exactly when a fetus becomes a human being -- the crux of the entire abortion issue. That is why the law can not rule on this issue. This question of "when does the fetus become a human being?" is not an issue that can be solved by science (at least not yet). There is not scientific test that can determine what a soul is, nor can we do any sort of analysis to see if one exists. It is an issue that is personal...and issue that is religious. The state can not take a stand on this, except for to be as liberal as possible.

The issue must remain solely in the hands of the woman, her doctor and her god. If the state takes the contemporary Roman Catholic view (the most limiting) that a fetus is a human being from conception, it is taking a stand that being a Jew is wrong...that being a Humanist is wrong...that following Jewish custom (which allows for abortion) can actually result in imprisonment or execution at the hands of the state.
If the state takes the most liberal stance and keeps abortion safe and legal, then Jews, Humanists, Protestant Christians and Roman Catholics -- everybody -- can each still practice what they believe without fear from the state. Keeping abortion legal is not the same as mandating it.

Though I have done so, my point is not to argue that abortion is right or wrong, but only that the state should not outlaw abortion until science comes up with a clear way to show when a fetus is and is not a human being.

Always enjoy your posts Mobrul. My simplistic view holds that the decision to abort should be entirely up to the woman. To paraphrase a well worn quote...' the day men can get pregnant abortions laws will be aborted.'

mobrul: A tricky issue. Having been brought up a Catholic I'm still uncomfortbale with abortion and other aspects like stem cell research but I think you have steered a sensible course through tricky waters.

I think access to more education, contraception and discussion of alternatives can go a long way to reducing the number of unnecessary abortions.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

mobrul I agree with you 100%

Mobrul; you seem to have covered it nicely... my view on it is that, even though uncomplicated, even just after conception a baby can be called alive.

There's a complication though. The form of life is hardly more complicated than a multi-celled organism. As the growth continues, one could compare the fetus to more 'developed' creatures like insects, small mammals, apes and so on. Most people wouldn't think twice about killing an ant.

While this seems like an awfully cold view on the issue, I think this is how it is. The difference between the pro and contra side of this argument is the question "Are you killing what is, or are you killing what could have been?"

In any case, you are taking a life. It depends on your point of view which life you take.

(I hope I've worded this clearly enough....)

As has already been said, I think it's up to the person in question.

[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 04-09-2003).]

In situations like discussion of Abortion, you really have to think of the outcome of what you're voicing an opinion on. Otherwise you're pretty much just thinking blindly. You have to think hard on the results of what might happen if Abortion were legalized or illegalized.

Personally, with what I know and studied, I think that legalizing abortion (in the US at least) would send our economy down.

We'd have teenage mothers left and right sucking money from the goverment by living on welfare. And to think that at a little cost of defying reason millions could live better.

On the other hand... Many precautious teens would think twice before having even protected sex, because then they'd know that if in the rare instance they bacame parents, they couldn't just turn to abortion. They wouldn't have that thought "if all else fails, we'll just have an abortion."

But my first statement still stands, I think that is what we'd really have to think about when we consider these things.

Nice topic Mobrul.

quote:

---

I think that legalizing abortion

---

You don't mean "making abortion illegal"?

No that would be illegalizing .

Nice apostrophe there mahjqa.

InSiDeR, abortion is currently legal in many states in the US. It's just beseiged by anti-abortionist groups. And I think in some states, if the woman requesting an abortion is a minor, she must have the permission of her parents and the courts in order to have the procedure.

Being a woman, I feel very strongly about my personal right to decide when and where to raise a child. Raising a child is a very important thing to me, and I would want to give that child all of the things that it needs to grow up to be the beautiful human being that it is capable of being. I couldn't do that when I was 13, 14, 15, 16... I wasn't stable: mentally, emotionally, or fiscally at that point to be able to provide for a child. In the event that I had become pregnant, I probably would have opted for an abortion. Just because I knew that I couldn't give that child the things that it needed. These days, I'm older, I'm married, have my own place, my own money (a little bit, anyway) and if I became pregnant, would probably have the child. On the principal that at this point in my life, I should be able to provide for it. (Not that I have ANY plans for having children. I personally prefer to give them back to their parents after a few minutes...)

My youngest sister became pregnant when she was just out of high school. She had an abortion. It was a very difficult decision for her, because she really wants to be a mother. She has always wanted to be a mother. But she knew that she was not emotionally or fiscally capable of providing for that child. In any way shape or form.

Now, both she and I have been well educated about all forms of birth control. We also both take precautions against becoming pregnant since we are neither one of us desirous of a child at this time. But the only 100% form of birth control is abstinance. Even using birth control, accidents happen. That's what happened to her.

There are really only two factors to consider in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. (Well, ok, 3 if she's married...) The woman, and the unborn child. The mother needs to ask herself if she's physically and emotionally able to sustain a full term pregnancy. She needs to ask herself, in the event that she is able, whether or not she is in a position to successfully raise a child. She also needs to ask herself, if she's able to sustain the pregnancy, whether or not she would be emotionally able to give the child up for adoption. That sort of thing can break a woman mentally if she's not stable enough to handle it. You can't bring a child into this world lightly. You cannot bring a child into this world and not be prepared to provide for it for a minimum of 18 years.

On the other hand, I do agree that abortions should not be used as a method of birth control in and of themselves. The process for abortion is very difficult to deal with both physically and emotionally. My sister named her unborn child, and still gets teary-eyed at the thought of it, even though it was years ago now. But she, myself, and the rest of my family, including the father of the child (they never got married), all agree that she made the right decision. I shudder to think of what things would be like for her if she had been forced to have that child then. I still sometimes wonder about her capability to raise a child, even though she is married now. In the event that an unwanted pregnancy occurs, all options must be weighed before a decision is made.

The best thing ever is to never get yourself in that position in the first place. But the option should be available if it's needed. My body is my body. If I choose to bear a child, that choice is between me, my husband and my doctor. No one has the right to tell me whether or not I should devote 9 months and my body to a pregnancy. Pregnancy puts tremendous stress on a womans body. Hormones, muscles, bones and joints, and in the event of a long-term disease like diabetes, a whole host of other things need to be considered. A mishap in the delivery room can kill a woman. Ask yourself this question: If you have to choose between the life of your wife/girlfriend and the life of her unborn child, which would you choose?

The option for abortion must remain legal. And I second that quote about if men could get pregnant, abortion laws would be aborted!

As for when a fetus becomes "human" or "alive", I don't even want to think about that can of worms... It should always be up to the woman bearing the child to decide whether or not she is capable of bearing and raising a child, and if not, to decide what to do about it.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-09-2003).]

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-09-2003).]

I am reading this thread at work and will have to go home to post.

I myself believe that my body does not belong to me but to God.
But I will post a more lenghtly post when I get home.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-09-2003).]

Bodhi, I know that it is legal. My point was, that those are some results to consider if it were deemed illegal, in all states.

Hmmm...I'm curious to see how Bugs answers this one. Mighty curious, actually.

As for me, I feel it is the right of the woman, to choose...and to bear the consequences (which are not small). I solidly believe that a persons body is their own, and that right should not be taken away. After all, you really wouldn't like it, if someone decided to pass a law, saying that one of your eyes had to be removed...whether you wanted to or not. Obversely, you also would very much like to have the right, to have a cancerous growth removed from your body. In fact, I think there would be an amazing uproar, if that were not the case. Or how about piercing? Or tattoos? Or any other thing that one can do with their body...

There is nothing like a prison of your own flesh.

wow! good topic!

when i was younger, i was completely against abortion. Now that i've gotten a bit older, my views on this subject have changed a bit. i think a fetus is a 'baby' at about 70-90 days.
i am all for abortions that are medically necessary and also for rape/incest victims.
i am for abortions if tests have shown the baby is going to have something wrong with it...mentally or physically.
i am against abortion as a means of birth control, especially since there is quite a few ways to prevent pregnancy. I don't think that an unborn child should pay the price for someone's irresponsibility. Adoption is an excellent alternative.

I also don't like the idea of it being totally the female's choice either. I think that since it took both to make it....both should have a say in any decisions. in most places, you need the father's signature to give a baby up for adoption....but you don't to have it aborted....that makes no sense to me whatsoever! if a girl gets pregnant and keeps the baby and the guy doesn't want it, he's screwed....he's now paying for that for the rest of his life. there are plenty of women out there who only get pregnant with the hopes of keeping they guy they're with. but if he wants it and she doesn't....he gets no say so! as far as i'm concerned, when a woman no longer needs a man to make a baby (the old fashioned way)...then men shouldn't get a voice...but until that time....it should absolutely be the decision of BOTH parents.

having said that....i don't think abortion should be against the law. i would hate to see things go back to pre-abortion rights times when women were dieing because of shotty back alley abortions. i also don't think that my views on this should be forced on other women. accidents do happen, as bodhi has pointed out (thanks for sharing that) and i would hate to see young girls like her sister being FORCED to raise a child should she not find it in herself to give it up for adoption. as it now, since i am (mostly) against abortion....i don't have to have one...but it's still a viable option for those who do believe in it.
i'm also in favor of "the morning after" pill. but, if you believe a baby is a baby at conception, then it wouldn't be a good alternative.



__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

InSiDeR, it was difficult to tell in your post. Thanks for clarifying!

Lacuna! I totally forgot about the morning after pill! I wish that had been an option for my sister. Unfortunately, she found out about the pregnancy a little late for it... to my knowledge, it's not legal in the US except where a rape is concerned, not for general distribution.

In a marriage situation, or in a seriously committed relationship, I agree that the man should have a say in it. But in the event that the father isn't an "interested" party - I don't think it should be mandatory to have his say so on the matter... Certainly, discussing the issue with the man involved is one of those many considerations that should be taken in prior to making the decision to abort the fetus... My sister actually did discuss it with her boyfriend at the time, and neither one of them was up for the task of raising a child, much less financially able to afford the pre-natal care involved in caring for a full-term pregnancy only to end it in adoption. That was one avenue discussed... My mother had a particularly hard time with that one, as she is fond of grandchildren... In some situations, it's the only alternative.

But please don't mistake what I mean. I do not support abortion as birth control. It should only be used as a last resort.

Bodhi - Cell 617

Mbl

I am glad you are doing ok and all is well.

I found it interesting that you used 2 popes, 3 catholic philosphers, the catholic church and one atheist in your post. I am glad you posted this subject and will post a view on how I see the act of abortion in a spiritualistic view as this is the only way I am able to see it.

I am opposed to abortion because I believe it goes against the 5th commandment. "Thou shall not kill". To me, its the murder of an innocent who cannot speak for itself. Its the slaugher of an innocent whos cries cannot be heard. I don't understand how the United States Judicial system can make a determination on this as they have no business in this moral law. They cannont play God in determining who should live and who shouldn't (I am against capital punishment as well). In determining when a fetus becomes a human person is Godly business.

I do believe all life comes from God as he authors it. God distinguished who is to be and why as each life serves his purpose and fulfills a certain destiny. To me, the body & soul work together to work out its salvation. Therefore our bodies are a temple of the spirit, given us to by God sort of like a suit that fits. Whatever the flesh determines affects the soul. And vice versa. To me, it goes against the laws of nature to work itself out. So who ever tampers with this nature is subjet to grave spiritual consequences in they tamper with the creationist intent.

Touchstone Magazine present the pro life view:
(Contains all major christian religions views magazine)

The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengence. Always in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

All fertilized eqq, embryo and fetus are considered as fully human
beings. They thus have an equal right to its life with its mother, therefore neither the mother, nor the medical practitoner or any other human being can lawfully take that away. That evil is never done that good can become of it or that an end cannot justify a bad means.

A reflective scripture on this is:
Matt: 28-31 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to take the soul, but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? one of them shall not fall on the ground without you for the very hairs on your head are numbered. Fear ye not therefore ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Jeremiah: 1 Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to all nations.
How does abortion destroy women?
I understand your concern for the women that are living but how about the concern for the women that were to come? Could there be a possiblity that God was sending a being that was to find the cure for cancer but we aborted it. A being that could make a diffenence in this world? I myself would gladly give my life so another might live.

Did anyone see that segment on TV where this couple had been married many years and could not have children and all their efforts were fruitless? The wife finally gets pregnant and the couple was so overjoyed. Into the pregnancy the wife started experiencing problems and had to be hospitalized. The doctor told them the baby would not live. They were so overcome with sorrow. The father went home cried and cried. That nite into his sleep, he heard someone calling him dad, dad. He woke up from his sleep and saw a teenage boy standing in his bedroom dooway. One thing he noticed is that the boy had red hair. The boy told the father that he talked to his sister and they agreed that he couldn't come right now and the sister said it was Ok. And that he would come later. The image went away. Further down the road the wife became pregnant again and delivered a beautiful baby girl with red hair. Later the wife got pregnant again and the couple knew already they were having a son. Sure enough, it was. And this son had the same red hair also. The two children look so much alike they are mistaken for twins and are very very close. The parents felt so blessed as God had interviend in their sorrow and sent them a message that all would be ok. This is a true story.

Today the abortion industry is unregulated. The abortionist workers are lying to the teens and misrepresenting what the actual fetus is. I know there is a case now where 700 plaintiffs are suing for damages done by abortion clinics. The plaintiffs are suffering from emotional depression, despair, drug abuse and alcholism due to the abortions they had. No doubt that it leaves an emotional impact on the heart & soul.

I am amazed how society today protects all kinds of animal rights and endangerd species. How the rights of dogs and cats in the way they treated has more attention that the way the human life is protected and cared for in the womb. Throwing a fetus that look like small humans in trash cans for containment has to be the most abusive treatment for human life. We even have cemeteries for pets, but not for the aborted fetsus. What kind of world are we living in?

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-10-2003).]

jade:

quote:

---

In determining when a fetus becomes a human person is Godly business.

---

But you are working from a whole series of unproven (and largely unprovable) assumptions - the chief one being that God exists at all.

Essentially you are imposing your belief system on people who may not share it - is that acceptable?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This has to be a legal issue, not a moral issue, and definately not a religous issue. We can't be a society that claims to have fredom of religion, and then base our laws on scriptures specific to one religion, or general to most, or even all religions. You have the right to believe any religion you want, or to not believe any of them, therefore if you personally believe it is wrong to have an abortion, than you have the choice to never have one, but you do not have the right to take away anyone elses right to have one.

I think we can all agree that a fetus is alive, therefore, it deserves the same protection that we would give to any other life - be it a plant, a pet, or an animal we raise for food (believe me though, I'm not suggesting we eat fetus'). How do we determine what protection this is, and give the fetus this protection? We have to determine, as a mtter of law, not religion, whether or not a fetus is a human. Or when it becomes a human. Why? Because as a society, we don't protect the lives of living thing that arn't human. We may protect them against cruelty, and we protect their species as a whole, but killing non-human life is not illegal. So, we must determine, as a matter of law, when a fetus is a human being.

..and that's not something I want to do right now.

well, for what it's worth...abortions are performed regularly on animals also.

i don't want to turn this into another 'does god exist' thread...but if he's as all knowing as he's supposed to be...then wouldn't he know that the woman was going to have an abortion?? and knowing that, why would he drop the future human that was going to cure cancer into her womb??

as for the morning after pill....here's a link. apparently, it's different from the french ru-486 pill (which i don't believe is available in the u.s.).

while looking for info on the pill i came across this. i just skimmed it but thought i would drop it in. it's about when a baby becomes a human.....or something like that anyways.



__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

some good stuff in here. bohdi hits an interesting point:

quote:

---

Raising a child is a very important thing to me, and I would want to give that child all of the things that it needs to grow up to be the beautiful human being that it is capable of being. I couldn't do that when I was 13, 14, 15, 16... I wasn't stable: mentally, emotionally, or fiscally at that point to be able to provide for a child.

---

i work with teenagers and i absolutely agree. the thing is, by having sex you are assuming that potential risk and therefore the responsibility imo. do the crime, do the time, to put it simply. if you deem yourself mature enough to be sexually active you must also accept the physical and emotional repercussions that may result.

i personally am against abortion for several reasons, one of which includes my faith as i believe that every life is created with a purpose and plan for it no matter what the parents' intention. in a more practical sense, i think we'd all agree that killing a child is wrong, correct? in that case, rather than argue at what point a fetus is or isn't alive, in posession of a soul, etc., i present a different question: at any time is that entity not a potential human life?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I don't see how you can compare human life to a plant, a dog or cat. Abortion is all a matter of conveience & money. Money for the abortion clinics or people not having a child because it cannot be afforded or a single womens desire not to be saddle with a life or in the case of a young teenager, too young to fool with a handicap of a unwanted life. Why do these people not want to live with the consequence of their actions? The action of abortion is tragic.

No. I am not imposing my belief on anyone. But because the United States Supreme Court determined a womans right to choose, does not make it a right moral decision. It takes away the right of a human person to have the right to live.

How did the US determine when the fetus is a life? Did they leave it up to the mother? the doctor? So the US Supreme Court, the mother, the doctor have the power over life and death in this country.

What about if the fetus is born alive and is killed. Which is the case before in the abortion clinics. It is outside the womb. Isn't this murder?
Or the case where a teenage couple, that killed their newborn, threw it in the dumpster and were sentenced to prision for murder. If she would of killed the baby inside her womb alittle before her term, it would be an abortion. So they would be free today. Does this make any sense?

Lets take religion out for a minute and see how we can sit by and let humans decide who lives or dies in the womb?

I have held a dead fetus in my hand and it had all its limbs. It was perfect. You could see its heart inside and I am sure before it was aborted its heart was beating. It was heartbreaking.

[edit: Holy crap lots of people posted here while I was writing! This is a response to the ^^ previous post to Jade's, just before Emps up above...need to type faster...]

Very interesting from you Jade. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
I'd like to respond, if I may, to a few of the things you wrote.

quote:

---

I found it interesting that you used 2 popes, 3 catholic philosphers, the catholic church and one atheist in your post

---

While it is terribly 'convienent' for me to use respected church leaders to illuminate my point, I assure you it was not by design (I'm simply not that tricky...boy I'd be dangerous if I was...but I digress )
The fact is, during much of know Western History the leaders in the church were basically the only literate, philosophising people that existed. If you weren't clergy, you had to worry about farming or smithing or something else...not writing books. Simply a matter of history.
I will admit to a bit of 'trickery' in that I included that scripture from Genesis and the note on Jewish law with a specific purpose. More on that later.

quote:

---

I am opposed to abortion because...

---

Just as I am and Aristotle was and Pope Innocent III was, you are more than welcome to your opinion. That's pretty much the whole point of my post. I want to discuss this further with you and others, for sure, but I wanted to take this moment to assure you that, while we don't agree, I absolutely respect your opinions and conviction.

quote:

---

I don't understand how the United States Judicial system can make a determination on this as they have no business in...moral law

---

Perhaps I spoke too early about this 'not agreeing' we're doing, because with this statement I 100% agree.
1 pt for agreement

quote:

---

Today the abortion industry is unregulated

---

This is simply not true. Not just anybody can perform an abortion. An abortion is a medical procedure and the medical industry is arguably the most regulated, controlled, overseen industry in the US. Besides the medical aspect of the situation, most states have a date (normally around the start of the third trimester) beyond which abortions are illegal, except to save the life of the woman.

quote:

---

We even have cemeteries for pets, but not for the aborted fetsus

---

While this may be true, it is also true that (in general...may be isolated incidents of otherwise) the Roman Catholic church and its priests will not hold funerals or any of the associated traditional death rituals for aborted fetuses either.

quote:

---

No doubt that it leaves an emotional impact on the heart & soul.

---

This statement is one with which I will not argue. I have no doubt that there are people who are seriously affected by such a difficult decision. That being said, alcohol can "[leave] an emotional impact on the heart & soul" and we do not outlaw it. Simply put, there are lots of things that "[leave] an emotional impact" and that is all part of the decision making. Please don't think that I take abortion lightly, that people should run around willy nilly abortion abortion abortion...
...but serious decisions with serious consequences are exactly what shapes who we are. Outlawing serious decisions simply because they require thought and introspection and possible serious consequences is bad, bad news.

Now, on to why I included the comment on Jewish law. You mentioned the 5th commandment and you said, "Thou shall not kill." In fact, the commandment is "Thou shall not murder." This is significant because the Jews (to whom this and its nine brother commandments were given) do not regard a fetus as a human being until "the head emerges from the womb"...thus, abortion = no murder. Now, this is according to the Jewish custom and law, but it was their commandment first and it would be tough to argue the commandment was given without regard for the contemporary customs without a specific mention.
How did Jesus (the 'transition', if you will, from Jew to Christian) change this definition of when a human being begins? Why should it be any different for Christians than it is for Jews?

Though I'm terribly interested to read your response to those two questions, even this tangent of discussion only addresses the religious aspect of abortion and only from a Christian or Jewish perspective; not any other religion and certianly not the legal aspect.

I think we are in agreement on the legal aspect -- that is, the law has no business in the issue. Right?



[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 04-10-2003).]

I think that abortion should be a choice made purely by those involved, the mother, the father, and whoever they deem necessary to make their choice. Anybody elses influence is just tampering and harmful to the people involved in such a difficult decision.

I think there need to be limitations placed on legalize abortion. It IS NOT a birth control option. After a minimal number of 'convenience' procedures the woman should be sterilized. She obviously doesn't want children or is incapable of protecting herself from getting pregnant.

While I understand the arguements for people being responsible for their actions and accepting the consequences of said actions, not everyone asked for or is actually responsible for their situation. Rape victims come instantly to mind. If anyone tries to tell me that, in some way 'they were asking for it', I'm gonna have to shoot you. I can think of no worse way to further punish someone then to force them to have a child that will forever remind them of a horrific experience that will traumatize them for the rest of their lives.

quote:

---

Exodus:21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (Or she has a miscarriage) but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

---

This is from an Online Bible so I'm not sure as to its level of acceptence by the masses, but here it seems that the value is placed on the mother not the unborn child.

Just thought I'd toss that in.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-10-2003).]

I've written more than enough today...maybe tomorrow...
but for now I do want to address one question

quote:

---

How did the US determine when the fetus is a life?

---

Abridged opinions from Roe v Wade
The full text from the six is very very long (the abridged is long too, don't let me fool you).
I've tackled the full opinions twice before...may do it again someday, but not soon. 'Til then, the abridged is a good read if you really do want to know on what the Supreme Court based their decision.
the real deal



[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 04-10-2003).]

ok, let me make a few comments.

first, something general.

personally, i do not feel it is my place to judge someone who adheres to a different belief set to mine.

for example: i believe that sex before marriage is wrong, hence i do not do it. what about all the other folk, who think it is perfectly fine? Well, they have made a decision, often well educated, and acted on that decision.
If they agree with me that it is wrong, yet still do it, then i feel i am able to pass some sort of judgement (please, do not misinterpret that word, i do not mean it in terms of 'condemn', but 'rebuke' or 'correct').

The same applies to abortion. If someone were to hold the same beliefs as me, and still abort a child (for the reason of unwanted pregnancy), i would question how strongly they hold to their beleifs.
They made a decision to have sex, accepted the possibility that it may result in pregnancy (and determined what level of possibility that was, by selecting their contraceptive), yet are unwilling to face the consequence.

do i think that laws should be passed to support these beliefs? by all means, no. I need not expand too much on this, emps and dan put it well enough.

however i do believe that laws should be put in place to protect society. Personally, i think it is far too complex - and reliant on predispositions - to determine when the foetus becomes a member of society, and thus, should be protected, so it should be formed on another factor:

how would the termination or continuation of the baby's life affect the mother's wellbeing?

this is in regard to the health of the mother, as well as the mental state of the mother.

for example, if research shows that abortions after 150 days cause extreme mental anguish on almost all mothers, than that is where the limit should be set.

however, the exception should also be laid: if the continuation of the pregnancy puts the mothers life in certain, or probable danger, then the termination is also allowed.

anything more than that should be up to the mother to decide (upon consultation of those whose opinions she holds as important, whether they be the father, her family, a doctor, or God).

At the risk of sounding harsh, or even redundant:
If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.
But please don't demand that everyone in the world adhere to your same principles. It's just not going to happen.

Women have been aborting fetuses for as long as they have known there are natural herbal abortifacients in existence. Women have always known and used these methods to control their number of offspring. You will not stop women from having abortions just because you make it illegal or place restraints and limitations on them. Women will again opt for the less safe methods of aborting the fetus before they simply decide to give in and have the kid. Be serious now.

Settling the issue of when a fetus becomes a human being won't stop the debate or the practice. Women will continue to exercise this type of control over their bodies. They will continue to have children when and where they want to. Obviously, not every woman, but you must know, where there is a will, there will always be a way. We must be sensible, and keep this process a legal and available part of medical practice. If only to save the lives of women who might attempt other, less safe ways of aborting their unwanted babies!

GD - sterilizing women who've had multiple abortions? That's a little harsh, don't you think? Granted, perhaps they need to be further educated about other methods of prevention, and perhaps those methods should be made more available to them. But sterilization?

Bodhi - Cell 617

Thank you for that voice of reason, bodhi23. As a man, it's hard for me to speak for women. I think you really hit the nail on the head. Nice post. I agree with you all the way.

I usually steer clear of posting in threads like this, mostly since the arguments in them is very often based on religious views that I personally do not share in the same way as a lot of people here.


However, this is a very, very important issue for foremost the whole female population of this world (the men also but not in the same way).

Dan said this in an earlier post:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has to be a legal issue, not a moral issue, and definately not a religous issue. We can't be a society that claims to have fredom of religion, and then base our laws on scriptures specific to one religion, or general to most, or even all religions.

---

Thank you!
I could not agree more!

My personal views in the religious aspecet of this is that the bible says that "God gave man free will" or words to that effect. This is used by people to justify or explain a lot of different actions taken by man. Especially as an answer to why God doesn't stop wars and similar cruel things.

On the other hand, on issues like this, "God gave man free will", it seems like it's not even applicable.

Another thing that disturbs me immensly is the fact that the religious leadership in most, if not all religions are men, societys leadership is by large composed by men.

Men, as we all know will never ever experience the ups and downs with a pregnancy in an even remote way similar to a woman. We, as men will also never share the same type of bond with a child as a woman does through life.

Yet it is the men in our priesthood and society that decides whether it should be legal or not, or under what circumstances it is ok or not with an abortion!
Perhaps this is the way it is because it is the way it was, but it does NOT make it right!

To me, to accept that a man alone should decide whether a woman should carry a child or not is just as unacceptable as if the man should be the only one deciding when to have sex regardless of the womans whishes.

The last half of the statement above is regulated based on the fact that a woman has the right to say no to sex in every imaginable situation, break that and it's rape.
Now, should a woman not have the same right to say no to a pregnancy that she knows will not work to the future childs best?

That's it for me on this subject.
(And thank you all for beeing able to discuss this without resorting to foul language and such! Superb series of posts!)
/Dan

{cell 260}
-{ a vibration is a movement that doesn't know which way to go }-

bodhi: perfect!! thank you! i'm just going to start following your posts with a "yep, what she said!!"

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Bodhi23 - No, I don't. If a woman is into the abortion clinic every couple of years for an abortion for 10 years in a row I think there are some obvious tendencies there. The first being she doesn't want children. The second being she is not able to prevent herself from getting pregnant. (at elast every couple of years or so) It runs in the same vein as my belief that death row inmates should only get a certain number of appeals before they can't do anything about it anymore. If you can't fix your problem, be that prove you are innocent or figure out how to stop getting pregnant, in three to five attempts, you should be forced to deal with the consequences of your actions because you aren't learning anything otherwise.

Now, of course, I'm not saying that women who have had abortions because of health issues or rape cases should be sterilized. Those are... legitimate reasons for an abortion. Before anyone jumps down my throat, abortions soley for the sake of not wanting a child are legitimate as well, but they are born of other wants and needs. I think where I am really going with this is that after a certain number of abortions for purely convenient kinds of reasons the suggestion should be made and the services should be available. I'm not saying they should be forced to be sterilized but I'm not beyond some heavy urging for it to be done.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-11-2003).]

quote:

---

It is often difficult to discuss anything of 'controversy', more so when the topic is one as heated as this.

---

You can say that again. I'm finding it hard to post with any objectivity to this thread and that is the main reason I haven't posted thus far.

GD - As long as you qualify the situations in which that would be appropriate, I understand your point. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I'll think on it, given the qualifiers.

Bugs - I'm actually interested to hear what you have to say on the subject. You seem a reasonable fellow, but I get the impression you tend towards conservatism. I don't imagine that's conducive to a pro-choice stance on this subject. I don't want to give the impression that I would hold anyone's personal feelings on the subject against them, 'cause I don't. As long as we agree to disagree politely... We're prepared, man - lay it on us!

Bodhi - Cell 617

I don't have much I want to say on this topic, because I know that nothing I say, and nothing anyone says will ever change anyone else's opinion on the matter. The battle over abortion is one of convincing the young and ignorant that your opinion is right, and gathering a greater quantity of those that agree with you than those that don't.

I do want to say that I support a woman's freedom to choose. I believe in a higher power, but I do not believe in God. Because of this, I don't see abortion as killing, but rather as the ending of a process that leads to life. If you were to tear up an author's stack of blank paper, you did not destroy a book, you simply prevented a book from coming into being for the moment. The idea is still there. That idea is the life essence that we all hold within us. It will simply take form in a different place, at a different time, on a different pad of paper

I also believe in forced sterilization, but that's a different topic.

hmmm....steriliztion.....well, i'm for it! and i'd even support forced sterilization of drug addicts who continually fall pregnant. especially the ones who've already got 6 crack addicted babies.....
though, i believe that if a good portion of other things in society were "fixed" then this would become a bit less of an issue.

human shield: cool perspective.....never thought of it that way before. definately something to think about and thanks for putting it so well!

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Mbl.

In reference to your questions on jewish interperation of the 5th
commandment in thy shall not murder and christian term thou shall not kill, the CC considers itself judaic-catholic. We believe in the first five books of the bible, the torah. We accept all what judiasm taught up to the birth of the saviour. I embrace that jewish history as our christian ancestory history. Jesus was a Jew and I love him in his jewishness too. As the Jews of today separate themselves from Christians, we don't separate them from ourselves. Their belief is part of our belief, except we believe the kingdom is already here & they don't. We believe we are an extension of their belief in its fullness. So the church dogma is that the commandment laws are Gods law, and Jesus is God for us too.

I want to address the life issue of a flawed human fetus. If the mother knows the child will be born retarted, ill or deformed, should she have the right to choose to abort when the time frame for the legal abortion has expired? Being that she will be inconvienced and have to be burdened with a life that she or others may deem as life not acceptable or the quality of this life not be to society standards.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-11-2003).]

Well... I see no difference as to the condition of the fetus be it normal or retarded/deformed/whatever. The point of having a deadline is to create a point at which abortion is illegal, regardless of reasons (excepting, of course, life threatening ones). It isn't legal to kill a retarded or deformed child. Why should it be legal to abort a retarded/deformed fetus after the deadline had been passed? Before the deadline it's a non-issue. Most issues with difficult/malformed/whatever pregnancies are know well ahead of time. A deadline set at (what was the number being tossed around...) 20 weeks should be plenty of time to find out what complications there might be and make a decision based on that.

I personally don't condone abortion for reasons of malformation or retardation. I find that to be an abhorent thought and it pains me to know humans can be so cruel. We are only animals it seems. It's like returning a pet dog because it doesn't match your couch. I think abortion should be restricted to those actions that are a result of illegal conduct, life threatening situations, or exceptionally life damaging situations. But that just me. It irritates me that abortions are seen as birth control by some. The lack of responsiblity is... it's just astounding.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-12-2003).]

having participated in several discussions on this topic, i find myself reading the same arguments i've heard before..

just a few points - bodhi i agree with you!

insider - your off topic point on "teenage mothers left and right sucking money from the goverment by living on welfare". 90% of all people on welfare are under the age of 18. 6% are over 65 and 4% are the caretakers of the other 96%... and they all live at 70% of the poverty line while on welfare.

jade - god may decide who lives, but he also decides who will die - though you and i may not understand his motivations.
-- as for "innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengence"? dogs and cats are innocent life and breeders regularly kill the newborn who are not perfect specimens of the breed.
-- you say, "Abortion is all a matter of conveience & money." not so. health is a major issue.
-- you may see yourself as the heir of the jewish tradition, but i seriously doubt you truly understand what you are saying...
-- as for the bible/torah, have you read it? or only the catholic translation of the king james version?

gd - sterilization? maybe we should sterilize all the fathers who abandon their children too?

dan - absolutely, "This has to be a legal issue, not a moral issue, and definately not a religous issue."

to all - in all my years, i've never encountered a woman who used abortion as a birth control method... abortion is considered major surgery! why would any sensible woman use major surgery as a birth control method?

VR

What are dogs and cats innocent of???

I don't see how a comparison can be made between animals and humans species as far as intelligence.

Have you ever bore children? I have three. I can tell the difference.

I do know what I am saying in reference to Jewish history and the whole CC doctrine clarifys it and believes it as well. All our roots are jewish. What are your roots?

what are dogs and cats innnocent of? life! just like human babies!

regarding the intelligence of animals... they are intelligent. some not as intelligent as some humans, but others like dogs achieve the intelligence of 4-5 year olds. then there are dolphins.. hard to say how intelligent animals are since we assume their motivations are all "natural instincts"

i have four children and one grandchild... and having children does not make you an expert on how intelligent other species of animals are. remember, humans are also animals

you have made my point, when you say:

quote:

---

I do know what I am saying in reference to Jewish history and the whole CC doctrine clarifys it and believes it as well.

---

does this mean that you have read the torah? or the roman translation of the king james version of it? what roman church doctrine are you referring to?

what does the roman church say about the medievil (sp) pope who got his jollies putting jewish people through the olive presses?

quote:

---

All our roots are jewish. What are your roots?

---

say what? would you elaborate on this? i'm not sure what you are suggesting here...

[edit] and what does all this have to do with abortion?

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 04-12-2003).]

VR

Well I quess according to your way of thinking dogs could possibly be driving cars in the distant future since they could possibly be able to think & reason as humans.

To compare animals & a blank sheet of paper to humanity, dehumanizes the dignity of the potential human person and I find that very upsetting.

I was addressing the Jewish topic to Mobrul & you commented. And however way you want to see how the first 5 books of the Bible are translated either from Greek or Hebrew, they still carry the same message in both translations as the Jewish torah.

If you want to ask me about CC abuses refer to the catholic and other christians thread, since I have explained it there. Also its like asking the US goverment today why they are responsible for the slaughter & anniliation of most of the Native American indians as a people.

I asked what your religions roots were so I could better understand where your coming from.

Getting back to the abortion issue. I wanted to also point the original Jane Doe in the Roe vs Wade regrets her abortion and also that she was used by the attorneys to futher their case. She is now a pro-life activist and works to reverse the decision and also to bring to light the abuses of the unregulated practices done at abortion clinics.

Jade you said

quote:

---

To compare animals & a blank sheet of paper to humanity, dehumanizes the dignity of the potential human person and I find that very upsetting.

---

But if you believe in the sanctity of Life, as you have said, doesn't that then include all Life, not just human life?

And yes, one can compare humans and animals, on precisely that basis...

My people believe that everything has a spirit...that makes us similiar. We call animals brothers and sisters...in spirit. Do you think that animals then have souls?