When is abortion wrong?

[Danoff]

You're also the people that STARTED that process. So, I think that's a fair trade.

Exactly, the people who started the process and maintain the process through their continued sacrifice have a right to end it.

 

[Arwin]

An incredibly evolved species investing an aweful lot in its progeny and increasingly efficient in planning and taking care of that investment.

What?

Indeed.

 

[Swift]

Indeed.

That was rather cryptic.

I'm guessing you don't plan on explaining yourself.

 

[Arwin]

That was rather cryptic.

I'm guessing you don't plan on explaining yourself.

I'm simply saying that having children is a big investment. Species who invest as much in individual children as humans do, have a lot to gain by making sure that investment works out as well as possible. You asked "who are we to", and I gave an answer. You could of course also just have picked up a dictionary.

Anyway, I came across the following topic just now. I thought you might find it interesting.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323583&page=1&pp=50

 

[ledhed]

I'd have it. Boy would it be ugly, though. I have been sleeping with someone very ugly lately.

Gotta luv this one .

 

[Swift]

I'm simply saying that having children is a big investment. Species who invest as much in individual children as humans do, have a lot to gain by making sure that investment works out as well as possible. You asked "who are we to", and I gave an answer. You could of course also just have picked up a dictionary.

Anyway, I came across the following topic just now. I thought you might find it interesting.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323583&page=1&pp=50

Not counting the link you put up.

Wow, so just pick up a dictionary huh? We're an incredibly evolved species? Right, so we're so evolved that when life begins we can just stop it because the investment would be to great? That's sounds rather weak to me.

I was thinking about the "Before" in the passage of scripture that talks about the soul and the mother's womb.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Well, according to what you've all been saying, the body isn't really formed until after the 16th week. So, that would be the time "before" you were formed in your mother's womb. Hence, the soul, according to your timeline, would be there then. Follow?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

I was thinking about the "Before" in the passage of scripture that talks about the soul and the mother's womb.

Well, according to what you've all been saying, the body isn't really formed until after the 16th week. So, that would be the time "before" you were formed in your mother's womb. Hence, the soul, according to your timeline, would be there then. Follow?

We are talking about medical procedure here, put your scriptures away Some religions forbid blood transfusion, and the parents would rather see their child die than be saved by simple procedure, I'm sure you agree that this is crazy.

Today developing foetus are scanned at regular intervals, how do you feel about aborting a child with downs syndrome or polio, or genetic defect? Even at 20 weeks or whatever, when your concept of "soul" is in place, would it not be better to abort than to bring a child into a lifetime of suffering.

Things are not always black and white Swift. What about a woman who has been raped, and discovers that she is pregnant? A struggling family with six children already, their birth control fails and she is pregnant again...would you take away the choice for everyone.

 

[Famine]

Right, so we're so evolved that when life begins we can just stop it because the investment would be to great? That's sounds rather weak to me.

Find another species that can do it.

 

[Swift]

We are talking about medical procedure here, put your scriptures away Some religions forbid blood transfusion, and the parents would rather see their child die than be saved by simple procedure, I'm sure you agree that this is crazy.

Today developing foetus are scanned at regular intervals, how do you feel about aborting a child with downs syndrome or polio, or genetic defect? Even at 20 weeks or whatever, when your concept of "soul" is in place, would it not be better to abort than to bring a child into a lifetime of suffering.

Things are not always black and white Swift. What about a woman who has been raped, and discovers that she is pregnant? A struggling family with six children already, their birth control fails and she is pregnant again...would you take away the choice for everyone.

So now someone's life has value over another because of the way they are born? That sounds rather discriminatory to me.

Man, you have been away so long that you forget. The ONLY case in where I said abortion would be a viable option was in criminal actions or extreme immediate health risk to the mother.

Oh, I'll put my religion away when you put your science away. In other words, not going to happen.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

So now someone's life has value over another because of the way they are born? That sounds rather discriminatory to me.

Man, you have been away so long that you forget. The ONLY case in where I said abortion would be a viable option was in criminal actions or extreme immediate health risk to the mother.

Oh, I'll put my religion away when you put your science away. In other words, not going to happen.

So you think it is ok for a parent to refuse a blood transfusion...

And yes to the first point, quality of life is very important. I would see bringing a child into this world that could not breathe without the aid of a machine when you have the choice to try again, as a grave error of judgement.

PS. science isn't going to go away dude! With any luck, dogma will

Edit: Why is the soul of an unborn child less important when it has been created by a criminal act? That sounds discriminatory to me.

 

[Swift]

So you think it is ok for a parent to refuse a blood transfusion...

And yes to the first point, quality of life is very important. I would see bringing a child into this world that could not breathe without the aid of a machine when you have the choice to try again, as a grave error of judgement.

PS. science isn't going to go away dude! With any luck, dogma will

Edit: Why is the soul of an unborn child less important when it has been created by a criminal act? That sounds discriminatory to me.

Yeah, ok. Now, you KNOW your child is going to have let's say downs syndrome. So you just kill it and say try again? Yeah, that's really really weak. For the child that can't breathe without the aid of a machine. Well, then they would've died naturally 150 years ago right? So what's the difference now?


As far as soul of the unborn child for criminal activity. I don't condone it, but I understand it and wouldn't contest a person getting an abortion for that reason.

Of course science isn't going away, that was my point. Your beliefs and points all stem from a point of science and mine come from spirituality. Why should I put away mine just because you don't agree with it?

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Yeah, ok. Now, you KNOW your child is going to have let's say downs syndrome. So you just kill it and say try again? Yeah, that's really really weak. For the child that can't breathe without the aid of a machine. Well, then they would've died naturally 150 years ago right? So what's the difference now?


As far as soul of the unborn child for criminal activity. I don't condone it, but I understand it and wouldn't contest a person getting an abortion for that reason.

Of course science isn't going away, that was my point. Your beliefs and points all stem from a point of science and mine come from spirituality. Why should I put away mine just because you don't agree with it?

You'll never agree with me, but there is more strength in aborting in the downs case. Imagine the heartache, and the strength that decision needs.

As for the child that would die 150 years ago, why make them suffer at birth?

Personally I don't think religion belongs in a medical discussion. You will mention morality, but we can have a sense of right and wrong without the aid of a 2000 year old book

Out of curiosity, you've hinted at it, and I know you have a fiancé...but do you actually abstain

 

[Swift]

Out of curiosity, you've hinted at it, and I know you have a fiancé...but do you actually abstain

Yep, I've said it before plenty of times.

BTW, where do you think morality comes from? Peoples love for one another? Nope, it comes from a 2000 year old book as you put it.

 

[G.T]

I'm not sure weather this has been mentioned already, but yesterday or the day before, the abortion limit in the UK has been dropped from 24 weeks, to 20 weeks.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Yep, I've said it before plenty of times.

wow...that might explain why you aren't very relaxed.
Seriously, fair play to you, but you ain't got a clue as to what you are missing.

BTW, where do you think morality comes from? Peoples love for one another? Nope, it comes from a 2000 year old book as you put it.

Are you serious? This is for another thread, but how did those egyptians create such an advanced civilisation when they had no morals?!?

Socrates and Plato...hmmm...no morals...I don't think so buddy. There was a world before the bible, and you know what, it did just fine.

(when I say 2000, I should add that I believe the bible in its current form was written in AD 600 by the Romans so 1400 year old book)

Anyway, believe it or not, I respect your stance on abortion.
My stance: I believe a woman should always have the choice for whatever reason.

Till the next time

 

[ledhed]

morality comes from your heart not from a stupid book no matter who you think wrote it.

 

[Arwin]

Not counting the link you put up.

Wow, so just pick up a dictionary huh? We're an incredibly evolved species? Right, so we're so evolved that when life begins we can just stop it because the investment would be to great? That's sounds rather weak to me.

It's not. But since you don't understand nor are interested in biology and nature, I'll leave it at that. Suffice to say it is a huge advantage and a well-established fact as you would see if you were interested enough to look it up.

Well, according to what you've all been saying, the body isn't really formed until after the 16th week. So, that would be the time "before" you were formed in your mother's womb. Hence, the soul, according to your timeline, would be there then. Follow?

Whoah, now wait a minute. I've been kind and intelligent enough to distinguish between religious reality and scientific reality. Now you want to just mix them together? They DON'T MIX. So don't mix them. And certainly don't mix my arguments when I've clearly given you separate reasonings to show you that your reasoning has been flawed in both belief-systems.

Anyway, even though the Bible gives ample indication that the Soul doesn't enter the body until it is finished, and as I said, that is most likely just before birth, all in accordance to the quotes from the Bible you yourself have given, you cannot keep returning to it to support your position against the overwhelming scientific evidence we've been piling on. So just stop. We get the point. You're ... eh ... stubborn.

 

[Arwin]

I'm not sure weather this has been mentioned already, but yesterday or the day before, the abortion limit in the UK has been dropped from 24 weeks, to 20 weeks.

It hasn't been mentioned, for a good reason: you're completely mistaken. The proposal to drop the abortion limit has been overwhelmingly rejected. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4636991.stm

 

[Swift]

Anyway, even though the Bible gives ample indication that the Soul doesn't enter the body until it is finished, and as I said, that is most likely just before birth, all in accordance to the quotes from the Bible you yourself have given, you cannot keep returning to it to support your position against the overwhelming scientific evidence we've been piling on. So just stop. We get the point. You're ... eh ... stubborn.

Of course I can, you keep returning to the SAME things in science. So what's the difference?

Yeah, I'm stubborn. And you're not? Come on.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Of course I can, you keep returning to the SAME things in science. So what's the difference?

You obviously have a problem with science, yet you are willing to use the benefits that it has created....for example, the computer that you are using to type these messages, the car you drive to work. Stop bashing it, or stop using it, it's getting old now 👎

 

[DRIFT GOD...]

This is something that has many different viewpoints, such as it is wrong during the 3rd trimester, or wrong anytime. What I want to find out from you guys is when abortion should not be done and why at that time it would be considered unethical.

DONT DO IT EVER. IT BAD.

 

[code_kev]

Don't do it ever? What if a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant with the rapists child? And what if a young couple have a slip up, and are simply not ready for a child, this is in my book, fine grounds for an abortion.

I'm going to sound like a bastard now. If I fathered a child, and a scan said the child was severly mentally disabled, I wouldn't hesitate to have it aborted. I simply wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life caring for someone who isn't even self aware. It's no life for them, and it would be no life for me. 50+ years of feeding and cleaning up a "vegetable" is in my opinion, a total waste of time. This is obviously only in an extreme case, I do actually value human life.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

DONT DO IT EVER. IT BAD.

Don't you just love black and white thinking. Kev states some examples where he would justify abortion, and in the mentally handicapped one, I again put it to Swift that to abort is the harder choice.

I still maintain that a woman should be able to abort a child for any reason, even if it is as petty as her not wanting to ruin her figure. That is a very selfish reason, but it is her body, her choice and her child.

Even my Bible thumping friend Swift accepts that in cases of medical emergency such as ectopic pregnancy, abortion is justified.

If you try to force a law on a population banning abortion, desperate women will try very risky "do it yourself" procedures or seek back street doctors.

Africa, because of religious beliefs had a very tough view on abortion, it has only recently changed these laws due to international pressure.

"No one wants to promote abortion," she continued. "It's true that liberalization of abortion laws has been shown to reduce maternal mortality, but the immediate priority is not always to legalize abortion. It is instead to make safe services available to the full extent of existing laws."

Brookman-Amissah noted that every African country permits abortion in some circumstances but that women rarely have access to care to which they are legally entitled. "That is why so many women and girls are maimed or die," she said.

March 18, 2003 - More than 100 African leaders from 15 countries who attended the continent's first regional conference on unsafe abortion concluded deliberations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 7 with a strong call for action to address this global public-health problem. Unsafe abortion results in the deaths of about 30,000 African women every year, according to the World Health Organization.

Of the 68,000 deaths from complications of unsafe abortion worldwide, 30,000 or nearly half are in sub-Saharan Africa.

In addition to the shocking number of African women whose lives are lost each year, unsafe abortion causes thousands more women to suffer serious illnesses and injuries and renders many infertile. These deaths and injuries are preventable, since safe and effective technologies for contraception, pregnancy termination and postabortion care are available but underutilized. We also know that deaths and injuries from unsafe abortion disproportionately affect adolescents, poor and other marginalised groups of women, depriving Africa of a valuable human resource.

We recognise that, worldwide, restrictive abortion laws and lack of safe abortion services are the major factors contributing to the disproportionately high mortality of women from unsafe abortion. Most African countries operate under archaic laws related to abortion that were imposed by former colonial powers and have long since been changed in those countries. In most countries where abortion laws are liberalised, there are almost no deaths from unsafe abortions.

The world is not black and white Drift God, you may find yourself in a situation some day that requires you to enter the fuzzy grey world of the "lesser of two evils" rather than the clear cut "right and wrong" one you live in now

 

[Arwin]

Of course I can, you keep returning to the SAME things in science. So what's the difference?

Yeah, I'm stubborn. And you're not? Come on.

The difference is that I trash you with arguments in BOTH the theological debate and the scientific debate. If this were a court case, you'd be thrown out. Only the Pope might back you on this one, because he doesn't actually have to come up with a plausible defense, scientific OR theological.

Bah. Humbug.

 

[Swift]

The difference is that I trash you with arguments in BOTH the theological debate and the scientific debate. If this were a court case, you'd be thrown out. Only the Pope might back you on this one, because he doesn't actually have to come up with a plausible defense, scientific OR theological.

Bah. Humbug.

Actually, as far as theology goes. It all depends on what you view is of when "life begins"

If you believe it begins BEFORE birth, then abortion is murder. If not, then it's a choice of the mother.

In this case, point of view makes or breaks an argument.

Famine mentioned earlier that both Danoff and myself think it's wrong to kill children. It's just that we have differing opinions on what a child is.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, as far as theology goes. It all depends on what you view is of when "life begins"

If you believe it begins BEFORE birth, then abortion is murder. If not, then it's a choice of the mother.

In this case, point of view makes or breaks an argument.

Famine mentioned earlier that both Danoff and myself think it's wrong to kill children. It's just that we have differing opinions on what a child is.

That's all correct. And that's why this argument can be reduced to the definition of a human individual with rights. However, I have yet to see a non-religious argument for that definition extending to embryos (non-religious being the only kind of argument we can justly make law from).

 

[katana87]

I think that abortion is wrong after the second trimester.

IA

 

[Danoff]

I think that abortion is wrong after the second trimester.

Why?

 

[katana87]

I consider that after six months for it to be alive and anyways they've had all those months to think about it and should have their desicion made.

IA

 

[Famine]

People can deliver without ever being aware they're pregnant...

Secondly, what's your definition of "alive"?