Topic awaiting preservation: Is abhortion wrong(morally) or not? When used for 'unwanted pregnancy' predicaments. (Page 2 of 5)

Empathic morality - there's a concept. I agree though. The whole issue of morality is something best considered by those who have to undertake such a grave measure. As I pondered before - I doubt it is a decision often made lightly.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

I am very simplistic, I must return to my original statement.

It is her body, it is her decision. (is that what I said?).

Again, I believe it bears repeating, it is something no-one else has any right at all to force on a woman.

Case in point, my wife got pregnant (how, I just don't know), after we had stopped having the pill for over a year.

As we were dining on BBQ'd rabbit the day the results came in
I said to her..."What do you want to do?" "I will support whichever decision you make".

I have the nicest 22 year old daughter you might wish to meet.

Had my wife chosen otherwise, we would not have known the difference.

Cold, hard. completly realistic and pragmatic.

If the 'right-to-life' people had any comception of reality what-so-ever, they would al die immediately...and hasten to their 'reward'.

Leaving the rest of us to a peaceful existance.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I think this might have been covered earlier, but I want to reiterate it.

Abortion does not just effect the woman. There is the father, the families, and the child itself to think about.

I have read letters from men who have been emotionally scarred from the loss of their child. They live the rest of thier lives with the pain of guit for their lost child.

The families also share some pain, because this would have been another bundle of joy, another blessing from God, but he or she is now gone, never to laugh, never to smile, never to make the family proud. Gone.

The child is also robbed of a life. Robbed of a chance to make it in this world. Robbed of love and friendship. Robbed of hope and joy. The child is the ultimate loser in this act, and that is the life that really should be considered.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

I think this might have been covered earlier, but I want to reiterate it.

Abortion does not just effect the woman. There is the father, the families, and the child itself to think about.

I have read letters from men who have been emotionally scarred from the loss of their child. They live the rest of thier lives with the pain of guit for their lost child.

The families also share some pain, because this would have been another bundle of joy, another blessing from God, but he or she is now gone, never to laugh, never to smile,

*sigh*

What you post doesn't touch the main point, Gid. Sure, there are other lives affected. Same thing happens with Divorce, as well (and many other things).

But pregnancy and abortion intimately affects the body of the woman in question.

You can't seriously be proposing that a woman cannot decide what she can do with her own body.

Or are you?

That is it, the most inarguable truth for me - a woman's body is her own and it is up to her what she does with it. Whatever anybody else's moral dilemma or the secondary consequences of abortion/pregnancy, the choice and the consequence are hers.

I cannot rationalise denying her the right to make that decision.

Nor can I question, for even a moment, the morality of providing safe, supportive, and clean facilities for those who take the decision. When no legal option is available, the potential consequences do not bear thinking about.

Therefore, though I cannot speak for anybody else's moral constitution, I cannot deny another human's fundamental freedom. This thread has fortunately helped to polarise me on this issue and strengthen my original convictions.

My conclusion is that the question is redundant and the argument insoluble on anything more than a personal level - but differing on the subject of liberty on this scale does not give anybody the right to deny it.

==Why is it when we talk to God, it's called praying
- but when God talks to us, it's called paranoid schizophrenia?!==

So what WH and others are saying is that it's ok to do whatever you want to a living thing that can't fight for its rights or protest them. We automatically assume it is not sentient, and if it is, too bad...

It seems to me there is a lot more consideration shown to mistreated animals than unborn human beings...

The interesting thing is that no matter what arguments some bring forth against abortion, people who support it will make like it's raining outside and begin their old, tired, familiar little loop 'her body, her choice'.

Can't you at least admit there are other arguments, other issues at stake? She is not the only one affected.
Can't you understand English? Can you not wrap your brain around 2 or more concepts at the same time without suffering a stroke?

She (the 'mother') will most likely survive her abortion (if it is done with competently). Not so for other parties involved... perhaps people should see their unborn child after it's been done away with. I think it should be mandatory. Let everyone see the consequences of their (and other's) actions lying dismembered (sometimes decerebrated) in a trash bin. Would the alien countenance of the foetus dehumanize it somehow and make future abortions just as or more likely or would another abortion seldom be called for in that woman's life? Perhaps this way couples would take care to don a condom or use contraceptive pills next time. And remember that their pleasure is not worth a human life. Maybe people would show some respect and consideration for their offspring, if nothing else, after an 'ordeal' like that. If it's that awful to look at, can it be any better to be the one lying in that bin? Not far off from ancient Carthage. The religious part of the ritual's missing though.

Most likely selfishness would prevail nontheless...

No matter what anyone sais, the leitmotiv is spawned: 'her body, her choice'. It's like we're discussing a damned manicure or something... I'm talking only of the cases when the single most important factor in the decision to abort is some other than medical, rape due pregnancy, etc.? All right? What about 'choice' when conception took place? I might be wrong but I think pregnancies don't come out of the blue or from 'suspiciously wet toilet seats'...

The second main 'pro-choice' argument is that because many abortions are carried out for financial reasons then the life of the abortee would likely not have been worth living. Wasn't that what the National Socialists said yestercentury about 'Non Germanic' people and those with disabilities?

Who are you to make that choice for him or her? There are so many people out there willing to adopt. Luckily most of those people are actually decent enough not to treat adopting as same with buying a pet.

Perhaps whether killing is moral or not should be left to killers to decide?

And once again it starts... I post a conslusion (not an argument, just my own reasoning for the choice I've made) following a series of (finally) rational arguments, and the response (expectedly) from SAD is to fly off on one, throwing thinly-veiled insults and complaining about the 'same old arguments' while quite plainly making the same old argument himself.

SAD, if we hold animal life in greater regard than animal life, considering the treatment the animal kingdom receives from humans, I think we might finally be going the right way about things.

Here's a slightly more extreme point of view for you: I think humans are a plague upon this planet; a parasite that neither fits into, nor happily co-exists with the established eco-systems. Moreover, we are inevitably approaching a level of over-population that, in itself, is the cause of more misery, suffering, poverty and starvation than any contributing factor - in that anything else is secondary to over-breeding.

Considering this fact, and taking into account that we are still no more than animals with a pretence to something more 'holy' - namely sentience - and accepting the fact that the average fickle human doesn't seem capable of responsible sexual conduct, then there has to a be a birth-control solution other than abstinence (as this is simply not a plausible expectation).

Therefore, the options are contraception (preventative and emergency), sterilisation, and abortion. Contraception is denied as an avenue for some religious morons who then complain that too many young women are having abortions, and then these same morons complain that not enough is being done to combat world poverty (as stated, secondary to over-population).

So you can only possibly be advocating sterilisation instead of abortion - or even worse, surgical removal of the offensive anatomical abomination known as genitalia.

As argued earlier, you're never going to stop people having sex and while fanatical religious dictators continue to confuse the issue of contraception, abortion is something that will always be sought by someone, somewhere, however they can get it (with consequences that just don't bear thinking about).

So, again, in conclusion, I find the question redundant. I think that the real debate is in the backward and damaging influence of various faiths (breeding ignorance and self-persecution), irresponsibly marketed or uninformative media, and woefully inadequate education that panders to the need to be 'politically correct' (to save offending the odd bible-basher) instead of teaching our children true moral responsibility, compounded by the fact that some parents are simply incapable of bringing up well-balanced, responsible, and mature young adults.

In fact, some parents are a pro-choice argument in themselves!

SAD -

quote:

---

So what WH and others are saying is that it's ok to do whatever you want to a living thing that can't fight for its rights or protest them.

---

First of all, this living thing is a PART of a woman's body. Obviously you can't seem to wrap your intellect around this fact.

Are you then suggesting, that one doesn't have rights over ones own body? You have not answered this question. Instead, you spew out your verbal diarrhea like a gospel.

The question here is indeed one that boils down to that - does one have rights and control over ones own body and is it moral to deny one this (assuming they are both cognitive and rational)?

I'll answer that one for you WS.

The answer is yes...and no. Everyone has a right to their own bodies, but they also have responsibilites as well. Just because it is your body, doesn't mean you have total jurisdiction over it.

For instance, fathers have a responsibility for their children and their family. That means that as a father, you have to make certain sacrifices to make the lives of your family better. You cannot wrack your body with alcohol, you cannot act on whims, you cannot do life threatening things anymore, because you are not your own. You belong to your family.

That is one instance, there are others. To reiterate, a soon-to-be-mommy's decisions do not effect only her. They effect everyone around her. It is not only the woman who should make the decision, it should be her whole family (father of the child, parents, grandparents...). Even if she could not take care of the child, maybe her family could. Besides, I have been told by both sides that an abortion is one of the most traumatic things a woman can do...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

You see, the xian right , are all Higher Purpose Persons (HPP's for future refefence.).

They have the self-aggrandizing and totally erroneous belief, they have been put on this earth by their mythological god, for the purpose of spreading their own narrow-minded views far and wide. They believe they are perfectly justified in forcing these views on unbelievers. This is one of the reasons having Dumbya in the office he's in is so worrisome. He and Gid are cut from the same rotten cloth.

These people have been infiltrating the US government for decades if not longer. Remember Roe-vs Wade...they are determined to have this overturned and once again force desperate women into back alley's and rusty coat hangers.

These are not the acts of com-passionate xians.

Fortunately, there are a lot more xians who do not have such a draconian view of their faith and I suspect many of these also look upon the radical fanatics with fear and horror.

Well they should, if these fundamentalist uber-zealots ever gain sufficient sway, their more moderate brothers in xist will be among the first they come after.

Retroactive birth-control anyone?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

SAD- what I think you are forgetting -or choosing to ignore- is that not everyone believes that the fetus is something that constitutes "life". How is it immoral to kill something that isn't alive? There are varying beliefs on when "life" begins.

Unless you have been there, you cannot know, or pretend to know what goes through the mind of a woman contemplating abortion. The cold statistics of the reasons women choose abortion do little to expand on the mindset, the heart of the reason. Have you ever tried to put a baby up for adoption where adoption services are lacking or questionable? Have you been 45 years old, long after you thought your birthing years were over and found yourself pregnant? Have you lived in a country where you are only allowed to have one child and through some error you found yourself pregnant and the penalties for birthing that child are severe?

Ultimately - what you have to understand is this: Regardless of whether or not abortion is legal - women will have them. Regardless of what your moral view of the issue is, women will continue to have abortions. If you want so much to protect the "life" of an unborn child - stop whining about how horrible women are that have abortions and get out there and honestly educate people on how to properly use birth control since you seem to think that is the root cause of it all.

If a woman does not see a reason to have an abortion, she won't have one. The fact that some of you pro-lifers out there seem to think this is a fun and carefree procedure just baffles me.

sonyafterdark & Gideon:

What I see in you posts basically boils down to "No, the woman does not by herself have the right to terminate her pregnancy", then you state reasons such as it's immoral according to god and similar, it's killing a living human beeing and so on.

Well, if the woman isn't allowed to choose, who should make that choice then?
You? A doctor? A politician? A priest? Someone else?
I'd really like to know...

Next, if we for the arguments sake accept that moral is defined by god, what about those that don't believe in god?
Should they accept morality such as it's defined by someone elses god?

Bhuddists, they don't believe in a christian god, they hold a completely different belief structure, should they conform to moral as defined by god?

With this reasoning we might as well take away voting rights for women as well, heck, if they cannot be trusted to make a choice that affects their body why should they be trusted with voting for presidency, or for that matter, why let them handle money, while we're at it, take a way their right to own things... Let's just say that they once again, belong to men...

We have spent a number of years developing a system where people are granted free will, should that be taken away?
/D

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. - Jeremy S. Anderson" }-

quote:

---

WebShaman: First of all, this living thing is a PART of a woman's body. Obviously you can't seem to wrap your intellect around this fact.

---

Not entirely true WebShaman. This living thing depends on a woman's body, and is inside of a woman's body, but it is not part of a woman's body as say a lung or a kidney. At the moment of conception when the sperm and the ovum come together to form a zygote, it becomes a genetically unique entity. Twenty-three chromosomes come from the ovum and twenty-three from the sperm. Hereafter, it has its own DNA structure, different from that of the ovum and the sperm, and is, from a scientific standpoint, biologically alive. Now if, as they say, DNA is the building blocks of life, then at this point in time, technically, this lifeform is human, quite separate and unique from the mother, in all respects.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer: Regardless of whether or not abortion is legal - women will have them. Regardless of what your moral view of the issue is, women will continue to have abortions.

---

Very true, and the same can be said of murder. If murder were legal, would there be more of them? Would people commit murder on a larger scale and with less thought to any personal responsibility or consequences taking another life might entail? Legal or not, abortions will be performed, this is fact, but when something is legal with few limitations, convenience overwhelms and trumps actual necessity and all personal responsibility for ones actions, in this case intercourse, which from a natural standpoint serves only one purpose, are erased. What kind of world would this be without consequences for ones actions?

Anyways, what I am wondering from you pro-choice folks is this: How far into a pregnancy would you be willing to accept abortion before it becomes murder? Is the living being not to be considered human enough to be given basic human rights until it is born? Does partial-birth abortion give you any problems?

I'm just trying to decipher where we, as sentient and supposedly intelligent lifeforms, draw the line.

Ramasax

quote:

---

If murder were legal, would there be more of them? Would people commit murder on a larger scale and with less thought to any personal responsibility or consequences taking another life might entail?

---

I think asking someone who has killed another human being in the course of war would be better able to answer this question, where the act of killing another human is "legal". I would venture to guess that it is not something that is taken lightly - that the consequences and sense of personal responsibility weigh very heavily upon the soldiers.

It is only now because abortion is legal that we have any sense on the numbers that are occuring. We can only speculate how frequently abortions were performed before it became legal. To say that making it illegal would reduce the numbers (or make it feel any less wrong) is pure speculation.

To answer your other question Ramasax: I personally don't agree with "partial birth" abortions except in extraordinarily extreme circumstances. If the fetus is able to survive outside the womb with moderate medical intervention, that's where I would draw the line for myself. In the research I've done however, most abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy - well before that point.

Ram, is it attached to the body? Does it use the same blood supply? Can it survive outside of the body?

It doesn't matter how it got there, it is a PART of a woman's body, that uses the woman's body to grow until it is seperated, either by birth, by medical removal, abortion, natural causes, etc.

And unlike the father, the woman KNOWS that part of it is her own DNA.

quote:

---

The answer is yes...and no. Everyone has a right to their own bodies, but they also have responsibilites as well. Just because it is your body, doesn't mean you have total jurisdiction over it.

---

I never asked about responsibilities. And what you might consider responsibilities, another might not. Responsibilities are not cut in stone, you know.

One doesn't have "total jurisdiction" over their own body? Really?

Explain.

Look at it from this point of view, if removed from the body, how long will your kidney, for example, survive?

Extrapolate.

You can rationalize and justify your xian view all you like, but in the final analysis you cannot force those views on another person who does not share them.

Remember, xians are a diminishing number on the face of the earth if only due to the fact that you are being outbread.

Or is that the real reason you fear abortion?

One must repeat, it is her body, her decision.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

To see in the mind of a Christian:

A Christian's point of view is that our bodies are made by the creator to house our souls. Our viewpoint is that our bodies belong to God just as our heart, mind and souls should all belong to God. So, why should one think that believers should feel the body belongs to them and they can do with it as they choose? This is contrary to our teachings. As a human individual, we believe we are all created capable and culpable to determine our destination with all its complete facilities. But:

In Christian scripture it states:

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'

Here, Christ is speaking in hyperbole. He?s overstating and exaggerating to make a point. He does not intend to be understood literally. We believe God gave us our bodies and souls, eyes, ears, and all our members, our reason, and all our senses, and still takes care of them and to take care of what he has given us and that includes our bodies also. Our scriptures say, "you have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God with your body, 1 Corinthians 6.20 says. " How can I glorify God with my body if I use that body for evil purposes rather than as a vessel dedicated to the service of God" Romans 12.1-2 tells us this , I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. For believers the body is made for worship, not used to destroy life. We feel we must not be conformed to the trends and ideologies of this world that are contrary to our beliefs, but must be transformed by the renewal of the holy spirit, and in this we can discern what is good, acceptable and perfect towards the will of God.

So in the Christian moral conscienencess to support abortion is and should be considered a crime against humanity. We believe potential life in the womb is related to us in the spirit of God. How could we accept destroying what is part of us. Since we believe God fathers all creation, especially human life, the new spirit in the womb is our spiritual brethren. And to terminate this life affect us all in the spiritual. The act of abortion is indeed a personal act of a woman's choice. And she alone will suffer the consequences of her action. And along with the persons who assist, they will be accountable to the creator, but for us Christians to stand idle, look the other way and not say or do anything to prevent the act, we will also be accountable. Love for our fellow man dictates we walk the way of Christ. If Christ in his time, knew beforehand that a woman was going to terminate her pregnancy, would he try to prevent her from doing so? Yes. Christ would lovingly tell her not do the horrible act. So how can we not try to do the same thing.

(Edited by jade on 05-25-2005 21:43)

quote:

---

Moon Dancer: I personally don't agree with "partial birth" abortions except in extraordinarily extreme circumstances. If the fetus is able to survive outside the womb with moderate medical intervention, that's where I would draw the line for myself.

---

It is good to know there are some lines even for some of you pro-choicers.

quote:

---

Ram, is it attached to the body? Does it use the same blood supply? Can it survive outside of the body?

---

Yes, yes, and yes after 20 weeks and medical support, although scientific advance is lowering this number more and more.

Does this make it part of the woman's body? No. A part is defined as a portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole. It is not a kidney, not a lung, not a liver, not a heart or something that makes up the whole of the woman. It's a separate, distinct entity in a symbiotic relationship with the mother, dependent, but not a part. With that relationship, as in any relationship, comes a responsibility.

Now I am not prepared to use force to make women not have abortions or be responsible, but I will never dissent from my observation that abortion is wrong, in a scientific, natural, and moral sense. I tolerate it only because, unfortunately, there is no other viable alternative short of coercion, and through the use of such tactics I would become much like the demon I despise.

Ehtheist: Still wrapped up in your pissing contest I see.

quote:

---

Jade: Christ would lovingly tell her not do the horrible act. So how can we not try to do the same thing.

---

And that is about all we can do.

Another disturbing thought that occurs to me about the abortion industry is that with the stem cell research beginning to take off, at what point do aborted fetuses become a commodity? To me this is extremely troubling and gives rise to a whole new, and quite disgusting, job market.

Ramasax

quote:

---

One must repeat, it is her body, her decision.

---

I fail to see how its her body.

As Ramasax has said the child is a seperate entity in a symbiotic relationship with the mother. The child is no more a part of her body then a 2 week old child who relies on a mother for sustenance.

Furthermore, if I was to place my hand on your head, point a gun at it and pull the trigger, would I be correct in assuming its my body, its my decision? I'm not sure if I completely understand the logic of that decision.

All these words of love echo the ministry of love; a veil for hatred.

Having your esoteric thoughts does not make you better than anyone else.

There is no right, there is no wrong, just as there is no up and no down.

Stop tyring to supplant your self onto the self of others. Your can not do that. It is impossible.

Your efforts only work to push your dirty thoughts into back alleys, where when their rear their ugly heads it comes in the form of decisive and even more abhorent realities. Ten year old girls pregnant. Babies in garbage cans. Addicts slashing your throat. Priests raping boys.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

the child is a seperate entity in a symbiotic relationship with the mother

---

Actually, for the record, the relationship would technically be referred to as parasitic, not symbioitc.

(please note the complete lack of opinion expressed in this post)

Yah Ram, lots of skunks here.

There is a lot more at issue here than mere abortion...if the foetus cannot live outside the body with the normal care and feeding a mother would normally provide, then why should it live? Why should heroic efforts be made to succor that which nature clearly did not intend to survive?

Think of the malformed or even those born without brains but which can be kept alive through modern medical science. What compassion is there for those? What sort of life can they look forward to?

Perhaps your god was pissed off by them in the womb and so he decided to make them suffer and so gave mankind science in order to enable this punishment?

Or perhaps they are re-incarnated sinners who must suffer for past offenses?

Jestah you only fail to see the obvious by dint of great effort and ideological blindness.

As well, your attempt at analogy is a total failure.

Look at it this way, supposing a religious group gained the sort of power the xian right is striving for in the US.

Now, one of the tenets of this faith is that men are inherently inferior to women.

So, most me are ritualistically and forcibly castrated, only a few are kept whole for breeding purposes.

You are a person who does not adhere to this faith, however, it becomes the law and suddenly you are a soprano...against your will.

Do you begin to see a: what an analogy is and b: what you would be forcing upon a woman who does not believe as you do?

Oh say, anyone got any stats or studies on the number of xian women have abortions every year in the states?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Think of the malformed or even those born without brains but which can be kept alive through modern medical science. What compassion is there for those

---

Who determines that for a malformed human or retarted person in the womb ?

You? The courts? How can the courts & you play God on who gets to enter this world?
Should compassion dictate when a baby should be better off not entering into the world & better off dead? I would never presume to take it upon myself to determine this for anyone.

quote:

---

What sort of life can they look forward to?

---

What kind of life do you think a person should have in order for them to come into this world?

(Edited by jade on 05-25-2005 23:38)

Ehtheist, there's a whole lot of anti-religious rhetoric in your post but you've answered nothing. Should I take that as a sign that you're incapable of answering for yourself and you're just a blind sheep who follows what others tell him?

At what point do you consider something a separate entity? If you swallow a carrot for dinner tonight and it sits inside of your stomach, is that carrot now part of your body? If the child is removed from the womb and its DNA tested, will mother & child have identical DNA indicating that they are indeed the same entity?

Well gee Jestah, I have not exactly been shy about saying I was anti-religion.

At least, I am against all of those religious folks who would and are trying to force others to believe and act as they do.

I might come as a surprise to know I have xian friends, but they have a more broad-minded view of faith than what I see brandished about these pages.

You really don't have a grasp of analogy do you? If one took feces from one's body I beleieve dna of that person would be found there-in. So yours is a shitty comparison.

BTW, the comparison to sheep is far more often and more appropriately applied to the xian faith. "The flock", the "Good Shepherd", etc.

Most apropos too, considering how you all get fleeced.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Y'know, I don't recall any pro-choice folks being jailed for killing people who disagree with their point of view.

Some other reading:

http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

*yawn*


Ramasax

And yet more anti-religious rhetoric but no answers to questions. Just for future reference my anti-abortion beliefs have little to do with religion as I'm not all that religious ...

"Yawn"? What Ram, re-reading your own empty rhetoric?

Look at the lovlies you are in bed with, that site has a plethora of them.

Perhaps your abortion views are not based on your religious views, but it sure sounds like the same rhetoric we here from all them 'right to lifers' who have no qualms about murdering people who disagree with them.

That pretty much puts you in the same camp.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

The embryo. It seems that we have a problem defining exactly what it is, and at what point it is what.

In the last thread on this subject, I explained my position on this pretty clearly.

I see the embryo as being a part of the Mother's body (it contains the Mother's DNA, is dependent on the Mother's body, and is attached to the Mother's body).

When it (the Embryo) advances to a point that Medical Technology can keep it alive and developing seperate from the Mother's body, then it should no longer be considered an Embryo (a part of the Mother's body) but instead a seperate human being, with all that that entails.

So, until Technology has advanced to a point where the egg can be fertilized and grown outside of the human body (independent of the womb), we need to respect the right of a Mother over her own body.

Irregardless of how one views the Embryo (part of, not part of, the Mother's body) the point still remains (and is largely being ignored by those against abortion) that until technology advances to a point where a Mother's body is not necessary for procreation, that a womb is a necessary part of procreation. And the womb is definitely a part of a woman's body. If the woman in question does not want an egg to attach to her womb (or one that is attached - an Embryo), then she should be able to decide that.

Ultmately you are going to be forced to keep you tapeworm as well.

Dan @ Code Town

WM, a tapeworm does not share your DNA. The Tapeworm was not produced by your own body, either.

And the Tapeworm can survive outside of a human body.

The two are not even comparable.

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-26-2005 17:09)

Geez, the desperate analogies.

Seems to me WS, we have been fertilizing eggs ex-utero for some time, but I don't recall any evidence of an arrticificial placenta and womb, though I don't doubt they exist somewhere, in some secret facility. Doubtless churning out countless soul-less children to be-devil the xian right.

Of course, the religious will be against such a thing as well, as they oppose cloning and stem cells.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Of course, the religious will be against such a thing as well, as they oppose cloning and stem cells.

---

Ohhhh...good point!!!

Do any of the religious members of this Forum actually agree with this statement?

If they don't I am sure I can find plenty of evidence other xians do.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist: Look at the lovlies you are in bed with, that site has a plethora of them.

---

Indeed, lots of misled people out there, but you know what, it might surprise you to know that there is violence on the other side as well. Or is that ok for those folks since they may not believe in a god? Hypocrisy comes in all shapes and sizes. Just because some idiots are out there giving my beliefs a bad name by going against the very thing they supposedly stand for does not put me in the same category as them.

Are all North Koreans bad because they have a loony in charge? Perhaps it is easier for you that way just to group people into classes and types, and if so, more power to you, but you could not be more wrong and that is how they, as in the social engineers and politicians who get rich off our sacrafices, like you to think. It helps cause division among the populace and gives them purpose and a job.

quote:

---

Ehtheist: Perhaps your abortion views are not based on your religious views, but it sure sounds like the same rhetoric we here from all them 'right to lifers' who have no qualms about murdering people who disagree with them.

---

I will fill you in. I was agnostic for many years and developed my opposition to abortion during that time. My faith has not changed my stance on this issue at all except to make me perhaps both less fervant and less prone to doing anything that would countermand my ideals and morality, not to mention, credibility, over.

quote:

---

WebShaman: I see the embryo as being a part of the Mother's body (it contains the Mother's DNA, is dependent on the Mother's body, and is attached to the Mother's body).

---

See it however you want, it does not make it so.

The embryo does not contain the mother's DNA, but it's own distinct DNA, derived from a combination of both the mother and father. It is a separate entity, again, dependent, but not a part.

quote:

---

WebShaman: And the womb is definitely a part of a woman's body. If the woman in question does not want an egg to attach to her womb (or one that is attached - an Embryo), then she should be able to decide that.

---

Sure, she should be able to decide that. Here is how: Don't get pregnant. Don't want to get pregnant, don't take the risk of becoming pregnant. Can't handle life without promiscuous sex, get on birth control pills and use alternative protection. There are a plethora of ways to be safe, and nobody says you only have to use one. Life is about risk, in almost everything important we do. Take the risk, deal with the consequences that the risk entails. I am sure that most people who have heterosexual relations are fully aware of the possible outcome in doing so.

Rape, incest, and other extraneous circumstances out of the control of the woman excluded of course, but if you make a decision which carries a risk, again, deal with it, don't expect someone else to come in and clean up your mess. Life without consequences teaches people nothing. If we don't learn from our mistakes, we don't grow, and if we don't grow, we are doomed as both individuals and as a species.

quote:

---

Do any of the religious members of this Forum actually agree with this statement?

---

To be honest, I have not researched such topics enough to be able to take sides. When I was rooting for the Republicans I was against stem cell research, but only based on their rhetoric, and I have since purged myself of that. Since then I have not gotten around to actual research.

I do have negative feelings regarding cloning and meddling with God's creation, which you might refer to as the natural order of things, but my biggest fear is the possibility of giving rise to super-strains of diseases and fun stuff like that. I equate it to a child with matches in a field of dry grass, unaware of the possible side-effects of his or her actions.

As far as whether clones have souls, of course they do.


Ramasax

quote:

---

Sure, she should be able to decide that. Here is how: Don't get pregnant. Don't want to get pregnant, don't take the risk of becoming pregnant.

---

Oh, yeah, that is a solution

Problem is, IT DOES NOT WORK!

That is the WORST form of Birth Control there is and that has been proven, time and time again. The urge to procreate is much more powerful than any logical restraint.

And if only those women who are being raped, etc are then allowed to have a legal abortion, then I can see the rape accusation rate exploding. I think those MEN who are suggesting various "fixes" for abortion need to understand that the choice is sometimes a very, very desperate one - and they will even risk their own lives, and the ability of their body to reproduce, to have an abortion.

As usual, the symptom, and not the cause, is being addressed here.

Why do women become pregnant? Becasue procreation a Primal Drive is. Nature WILL find a way.
Why do women then abort? One needs to look at the social and economic pressures that the woman in question is in, to understand this better. I won't even start with the religious implications.

Ram, I look forward to your evidence of violence from the so-called "pro-choice" side.

Nice to see how you have rationalized everything, but as WES has observed, not very realistically, merely conveniently.

The 'abstain' argument was worn out before you were born, but the faithful were never ones to learn from history.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

There is no need for the pro-choice side to resort to violence because they have the law on their side. I have no doubt that if the law were reversed tomorrow you would see violence coming from your side of this debate as well. It is also important to note that only an extreme minority of individuals who are pro-life have resorted to such measures and they have been thouroughly denounced by the pro-life movement.

Here we have science being slighted by the rational among us, Eh? Is it not a scientific fact that fetuses are distinct human life with their own individual DNA? Regardless of how you think society should legislate, we are talking about killing that life once it has begun. Can we all agree on that? This is not a question of belief as Moon Dancer suggested above, but a question of accepting scientific truth.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .