# Why do Christians oppose abortion?



## tokyowalker

As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.

So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?

I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale?

Is their position based on Biblical teaching?

If it is simply based on the commandment "Do not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?

If these Christians think that killing innocent grown-up people is justified in some circumstances to avert a greater suffering/injustice, then why is this argument not extended to killing the unborn?


----------



## maxiogee

Oh I want a ringside seat for this discussion!
As a now-non-Christian I will remain silent at present.


----------



## Libby_Kiwi

I understand their beliefs are for reasons such as:

the old "thou shalt not kill" (except for those the Lord tells you to smite, of course); it is a life from the moment of conception

perhaps a lot of it is related to the anti-contraception group as well? the idea that sex is for creating life and we shouldn't abuse the priviledge

I would never consider abortion but that is more of a personal belief rather than a religious one.

How's that for getting the ball rolling?


----------



## Moogey

This conversation is going to get really interesting...

I consider aborting the equivelant of killing. Period. It's that simple to me. You abort, you're a murderer. (I believe a person is a person at conception, and aborting them at _any_ stage is killing). That's all.

-M


----------



## GenJen54

Moogey said:
			
		

> I consider aborting the equivelant of killing. Period. It's that simple to me. You abort, you're a murderer. (I believe a person is a person at conception, and aborting them at _any_ stage is killing). That's all.


So, that begs the question as brought up in the original post, why are Christians not pacifists? Why is war justified? Why is the dealth penalty justifiable?

*Speaking as a MOD*, please be careful about making personal proclamations such as "you abort, you're a murderer."  It's okay if you wish to say, "according to my beliefs as a [whatever my religion], abortion is considered murder," but please be respectful of all persons who come to these forums.  We never fully know everyone here.  Such a personal statement can be hurtful to others.


----------



## Moogey

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> So, that begs the question as brought up in the original post, why are Christians not pacifists? Why is war justified?  Why is the dealth penalty justifiable?


Well maybe I'm not understanding you, but I am also against war and the death penalty. I don't think there is any case whatsoever where killing is justifiable.

I don't want to go into detail because I usually misrepresent myself when I do and I lose the essence of my point, but this is how I feel in a nutshell.

-M


----------



## Libby_Kiwi

The only reply to that is that Christians do not uniformly believe the same thing.  Yes, they believe that Jesus was the son of God and all that, but they are all individuals with their own opinions.  Some ARE pacifists; others believe war is justified because they are fighting for Christian ideals; so on and so forth.


----------



## LCyeah

Well, I'll start by saying I am a Christian, but a young one, and I'm not the most wise about my faith. Being a pro-life activist I'll gladly join this discussion. 

I don't think it's a matter of "following the Bible". The pro-life belief is based not so much on the Bible, since there is nothing significant in there about abortion except thou shall not kill, as you said tokyowalker, and abortion was not used often--if even at all--when the Bible was written. The commandment of thou shall not kill was sufficient enough then. 

The fight against abortion is not only Christian peoples, either, Christians just all happen to agree on the same terms. But now on we go:

The belief is based on moral terms. All Christian people are usually united in their thoughts of morality, and abortion breaks every apect of morality. (Why Christians are against abortion.) 

Abortion violates the sancity of life. Why kill an innocent adult and not kill an innocent baby? There is some truth behind that, *but there is a big difference between war and abortion.* War is used as a last resort when modes communication are no longer able to be used to solve conflict. War is a nation's way of protection, and if that means innocent people have to die in another nation, that is the sacrifice. But what is the unborn child's threat to the parents? _Inconvenience_? _Unhappiness_? (That is in the terms of a mother aborting her baby due to "not enough money" or a "i didn't mean to get pregnant right _now_" excuse.) 

It interferes with God's design--you don't have to be a Christian to believe that, as long as you believe in a higher power, which we all should. 

I'm tired of typing, that's the main points I wanted out, I'll join back in when someone wants a quarrel.


----------



## Keikikoka

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> So, that begs the question as brought up in the original post, why are Christians not pacifists? Why is war justified? Why is the dealth penalty justifiable?


 
Many Christians are pacifists, myself included. A certain minority of Christians are also pro-choice. Perhaps asking "Why are not all pro-life Christians pacifists?" would be a better question. 

I think many Christians believe that it is better to go to war if that means it would prevent deaths that would otherwise happen by enemy forces. I don't agree with that, but atleast it is understandable.


----------



## danielfranco

Crap, I don't know... I used to be a religious Christian. I guess now I am a lapsed Christian, or sumpin' like that, so I don't know if I could explain what's the deal with the Christian contingency about abortion and pacifism and all that stuff... And I am having difficulty finding an angle on this topic that will arouse my passion or that will allow me to wax political or moral without my words degenerating into self-righteousness...
But I guess I can offer to share with y'all the teachings of my childhood, when I was taught in church that "all children belong to Jesus, He's their saviour, they are precious jewels bought for with His Love..." [these are lyrics from some hymn or other...]
I guess that belief is based on the Bible scene when children want to come up to Jesus to get his autograph and show'im some love and the disciples start acting like bouncers in a posh disco and shoo'em away and Jesus tells them to "let children come to me, for to such as them belongs the Kingdom of Heaven".
I think Jesus was trying to teach something different here, but I was taught that He actually meant that we all should not mess with kids because "they belong to Jesus".
Maybe that's what it is, no?


----------



## panjabigator

I think that abortion is opposed by Christians because of their definition of life...many see abortion as a tool of convenience (or perhaps this is the view of conservatives or pro-lifers) and or they may believe that life begins at conception, so why take a life without a reason...and good one at it.  At the same time, people can argue why is George Bush pro-death penalty and pro-life at the same time?  Well, in my opinion, criminals are different, and if they are deemed criminal in the eye of society (and I don't mean for this comment to be manipulated...so please spare me) then they should be punished severely, depending on the crime.  Im going to off topic for a second and explain my view just for the sake of completeness.  I am not a Christian, I am a Sikh and a liberal also.  Im a pretty sure Sikhism is anti-abortion, but I'll remain silent if it is a matter of health.  At the same time, I know people who have done it even though it wasn't a health related issue and well, that's their decision.  I guess I am ambivalent about the topic; I would never suggest it for my wife but I am somewhat silent when it is another's issue.  With the death penalty, strangly enough, I am anti!  I don't think it is anyones right to take a life except for God (that is my belief and my religions belief...no offense intended), so where can I decided to end someone elses life?  But, at the same time, some crimes are just purely gruesome and they deserve to pay.  Yikes....Im digging myself a hole!  If anyone is interested in discussing this off topic discussion, you can PM me!


----------



## Cath.S.

LCyeah said:
			
		

> War is used as a last resort


On what planet? 

Let's face it, war is part of the economy, making and selling weapons is a zillion-dollar industry and fighting is a way of life for a lot of people and has been for centuries, shocking as it may seem to us pacifists.

Some soldiers actually enjoy killing; afaik no woman has ever _enjoyed _having an abortion.


----------



## unefemme1

I'm not a Christian, so I don't oppose against the idea of abortions. From a scientific point of view, aborting pregnancy means _killing_ life in a way, because all cells are life. But since I'm not too moved on the idea of abortions, I don't see what's so bad. Children die every day in third world countries, from violence or hunger, or even disease, yet the rich people elsewhere don't shed a single tear. I think that's just as bad as killing an unborn life.

We must be living in a harsh world today. This is unrelated, but just over the past 2 weeks, I've heard more news about murders in my city than I've ever heard from the past years. 

More on abortions. I guess there are both bad and good sides to it, but think about this. If you did become pregnant, but it was unplanned, what would you do? Would you really keep the child? Just something to think about.


----------



## dminorbabi

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I think that abortion is opposed by Christians because of their definition of life...many see abortion as a tool of convenience (or perhaps this is the view of conservatives or pro-lifers) and or they may believe that life begins at conception, so why take a life without a reason...and good one at it. At the same time, people can argue why is George Bush pro-death penalty and pro-life at the same time? Well, in my opinion, criminals are different, and if they are deemed criminal in the eye of society (and I don't mean for this comment to be manipulated...so please spare me) then they should be punished severely, depending on the crime. Im going to off topic for a second and explain my view just for the sake of completeness. I am not a Christian, I am a Sikh and a liberal also. Im a pretty sure Sikhism is anti-abortion, but I'll remain silent if it is a matter of health. At the same time, I know people who have done it even though it wasn't a health related issue and well, that's their decision. I guess I am ambivalent about the topic; I would never suggest it for my wife but I am somewhat silent when it is another's issue. With the death penalty, strangly enough, I am anti! I don't think it is anyones right to take a life except for God (that is my belief and my religions belief...no offense intended), so where can I decided to end someone elses life? But, at the same time, some crimes are just purely gruesome and they deserve to pay. Yikes....Im digging myself a hole! If anyone is interested in discussing this off topic discussion, you can PM me!


 
I agree. I am a Christian.  I believe that we shouldn't abort because we are killing and putting our convenience over the life of others.  There are other options for those who cannot afford to have children or for any reason do not want children.  In my opinion, even abandoning the child is better than aborting it.  There will be a lot of emotional pain brought on to the child for having been abandoned, but the child at least has a chance to heal and have make its mark on the world.  I believe if a life is made, it is made and that person should have a chance.  I don't believe in the death penalty because no matter how much evidence there is, there is never a way to know for sure unless you are the person accused.  That is a non-Christian belief.  The Christian part is as follows:  I believe God is the only person who can get into the person's head and know why they did what they did or if they did it.  He is the only one who can judge.  The court system is necessary because it has to protect ppl from harm, but the rest of the world would be equally protected if the person was spending life in prison.  And then there would be time to figure out that the person is actually innocent like they so often do.


----------



## emma42

I think that the majority Christian perspective on abortion comes from the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, but also from its generally paternalistic and mysogynist attitude in _practice. _Indeed, there is no mention of abortion in the Bible, as far as I am aware.  Nor is there a definition of when life begins, as we understand life now.  Humankind still cannot agree on when life begins with all our medical and technological knowledge.

I do think that matters such as, for example, the use of the word "obey", still used in some marriage ceremonies, the refusal of certain groups to give equal rights  to minister to women, the too recent ruling in England that a man cannot rape his wife as he belongs to her (viz the giving away of the woman in marriage by her father to another man) and a host of other mysogynistic notions and practices, uphold my opinion.

For balance, I think that much that is practised by certain Christians is humane and compassionate - charity, compassion, non-judgementalism, mercy, forgiveness.


----------



## panjabigator

unefemme1 said:
			
		

> I'm not a Christian, so I don't oppose against the idea of abortions. From a scientific point of view, aborting pregnancy means _killing_ life in a way, because all cells are life. But since I'm not too moved on the idea of abortions, I don't see what's so bad. Children die every day in third world countries, from violence or hunger, or even disease, yet the rich people elsewhere don't shed a single tear. I think that's just as bad as killing an unborn life.
> 
> We must be living in a harsh world today. This is unrelated, but just over the past 2 weeks, I've heard more news about murders in my city than I've ever heard from the past years.
> 
> More on abortions. I guess there are both bad and good sides to it, but think about this. If you did become pregnant, but it was unplanned, what would you do? Would you really keep the child? Just something to think about.


Your view point seems very apathetic...and I think your argument is a little weak here...you are justifiying death in third world nations as your reason for not having an opinion about abortion?  I am not judging your views on abortion, but I think you can come up with a better reason than to just say that the lack of emotion towards infant/child mortalty is a comparable.  They're not.  

In regards to abortion, well the good sides and bad sides are in the eye of the believer I guess.  Some believe that a child should not be born into a family that will not love it, so that is their reason for abortion.  Others believe that a life should be given a chance.  I sometimes fall into both of those fields but Im much more the second.  I just thank my lucky stars that I do not have to make the decision...


----------



## Libby_Kiwi

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by *unefemme1*
_Children die every day in third world countries, from violence or hunger, or even disease, yet the rich people elsewhere don't shed a single tear. I think that's just as bad as killing an unborn life.

_

 That's not a fair comparison; we are only indirectly responsible for the death of children in third world countries by our lack of action to prevent it.  Abortion requires an ACTIVE DECISION by a woman to end a life.  Criminals, soliders, etc. all to some extent are responsible for the choices that led to their deaths, but an unborn child has no choice and no chance to be heard, which inspires the passion of the anti-abortion protesters.


----------



## panjabigator

Would it be too much for me to ask that people identify their faith when they post?  It helps to understand where we are each comming from.  If this is asking too much, forgive my intrusion...


----------



## Moogey

panjabigator said:
			
		

> Would it be too much for me to ask that people identify their faith when they post?  It helps to understand where we are each comming from.  If this is asking too much, forgive my intrusion...



I am technically a Catholic but I don't consider myself a Catholic. I believe in God and Jesus. I don't consider myself to be of any faith in particular.

-M


----------



## fenixpollo

gator said:
			
		

> Would it be too much for me to ask that people identify their faith when they post? It helps to understand where we are each comming from.


 If my faith were relevant to my post, then I would identify it. I don't think that labeling myself as a member of one camp or another will do anything but polarize the debate even further. 





			
				unefemme1 said:
			
		

> I'm not a Christian, so I don't oppose against the idea of abortions.


 This is false logic. Not all Christians oppose abortion, and not all people who oppose abortion are Christian.


			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> So, that begs the question as brought up in the original post, why are Christians not pacifists? Why is war justified? Why is the dealth penalty justifiable?


 This is the 64-million-dollar question! It seems contradictory to approve of murder in the name of nationalism or revenge, yet oppose it in other situations.   





			
				LCyeah said:
			
		

> ...and abortion was not used often--if even at all--when the Bible was written. The commandment of thou shall not kill was sufficient enough then.


 You're forgetting about the practice of infanticide, which has been practiced by desperate mothers in every culture throughout history, for reasons of social, physical or spiritual survival. The only difference is that in Biblical times, they didn't have Dumpsters.


----------



## Brioche

emma42 said:
			
		

> I think that the majority Christian perspective on abortion comes from the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, but also from its generally paternalistic and mysogynist attitude in _practice. _Indeed, there is no mention of abortion in the Bible, as far as I am aware. Nor is there a definition of when life begins, as we understand life now. Humankind still cannot agree on when life begins with all our medical and technological knowledge.


 
I don't think there is any dispute about when a new human life begins. When a human ovum joins with a human sperm, a new, separate human life begins. Given the right conditions, that single cell may grow and develop into foetus, a baby, a child, an adolescent, an adult, and with some luck, and OAP. 

What is disputed is the *status *of this new human life. The Common Law does not recognise the unborn as a "person". For this reason, if I assault a pregnant woman so badly that her foetus dies inside her, I cannot be charged with murder or manslaughter.

The position of the Catholic Church, and many other Christian denominations, is that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. Humanity is not age dependent. So the Catholic position is that killing a foetus is morally equivalent to killing a new-born, or a toddler, or a teenager, or any other human being.

The position of 'pro choice' is that the unborn human being is the moral equivalent of a polyp - and may be removed with as many qualms.


----------



## panjabigator

I have some hard core liberal friends who HAVE compared a baby to a parasite in a womans body (she was an ultra feminist) but many just argue for the right to choose incase of birth defects, rape or incest. What is the churchs stance on the last two?


----------



## coconutpalm

Oops, identify my belief? All right, though I think Fenix got it right: it only polarizes the debate, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or any other gods. I'm not anti-abortion. I am not for it, but I think it is a must in some circumstances. 
For the mother's (or para-mother's) convenience? Definitely not! Most pregnant women make the decision to undergo abortion do NOT do it for the sake of themselves, but more (I add this word to cover my back, but I believe in most cases it's redudant) for the sake of the unborn children. 
Apathetic? No. How about those AIDS orphans? You know you're infected by the virus, the abortion aid is available, you know the baby would be infected too if it is born, but you still don't resort to the aid. You give birth to it, and he/she dies a few years later with years' suffering. Are you really giving a LIFE to this baby?


----------



## panjabigator

I am totally with you there coconut!  I don't think that is a positive option at all (to give birth when you know fully well that the baby will suffer and die)!  But then many people would argue that its not my decision to make..


----------



## Cath.S.

coconutpalm said:
			
		

> Oops, identify my belief? All right, though I think Fenix got it right: it only polarizes the debate, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or any other gods. I'm not anti-abortion. I am not for it, but I think it is a must in some circumstances.


My beliefs of lack therof are similar.

But, even I could not say that I'm against abortion for moral reasons, because it is murder, I still think that women ought to think twice before they do it, because I've known many women who have aborted and I'd be a nasty liar if I tried to hide the fact that it seems to be extremely harmful to the woman's psyche. Abortion wounds. 

I think the body, which rules our subconcious, knows in its deep wisdom (that same wisdom that keeps us alive both as a species and as individuals) that giving birth is a natural process that should not be tampered with.

Also, from a slightly different viewpoint, I think it is psychologically safer for a woman to have a baby she does not wish to raise and then give it up for adoption, because doing so she allows herself to have more choice: once the foetus is gone, you can't change your mind no longer and that can lead to deep regret and anguish. Once again, this is not purely theoretical, I've seen it happen many times.

So I think Christians are right about abortion, but for all the wrong reasons. Furthermore, since I don't believe in a God that would _own_ us, I believe in people's essential right to do themselves harm if they wish to do so, and even kill themselves, even though I'd strongly advise them against it.


----------



## maxiogee

panjabigator said:
			
		

> I have some … friends … (she was an ultra feminist)



Some? Or one?


----------



## panjabigator

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Some? Or one?



Well, I have some friends that are hard core pro choice, and the one I had in mind was the ultra-feminist.


----------



## cuchuflete

As expected, many people see the word abortion, and are quick to espouse their heartfelt viewpoints and justifications.  It's tedious to see the same arguments rehashed again and again, when the thread topic clearly was not a request for anyone's opinion about whether abortion is right or wrong.

Here is the question that was posed, and ignored by many:



> So... *why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?*
> 
> I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. *what is their rationale*?
> 
> Is their position based on Biblical teaching?
> 
> If it is simply based on the commandment "Do not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?
> 
> If these Christians think that killing innocent grown-up people is justified in some circumstances to avert a greater suffering/injustice, then why is this argument not extended to killing the unborn?


Please reply to the questions asked, and not to some other questions on related topics.


----------



## TRG

The subject question is a bit misleading I think. In the USA, the general population is divided on the abortion question. There are three camps: 1) People who believe there should be no restrictions, 2) People who think it is ok under some circumstances, and 3) people who are opposed to it under any circumstances. The second group is probably the largest and I would say a majority think it is ok under some circumstances. But the US consists of people who are almost entirely Christian or of Christian heritage, so to imply that Christians are generally opposed is not quite correct. I do think it is fair to say that people who take their Christian religion most seriously are more likely to fall into the third group.

I am not Christian so I can't relate to why people of deep faith cannot abide by abortion, but I can see that there are profound moral and ethical issues surrounding abortion and I am sorry that our Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to prevent this matter from being settled by the people and their elected representatives. As long as Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land, abortion is going to be a contentious issue in the US.

TRG


----------



## panjabigator

Are Christians all over the world as polarized to this subject as they are in the US?


----------



## papillon

I will try to give you my sense of why abortion is opposed by many Christian groups.

I believe that it has as much to do with "the killing of the unborn" as with the ban on contraception. Of course, not all Christian groups are opposed to condoms, but Vatican is, athough this never did make much sense to me. Anyway, my cynical view of the situation is that in an abortion you find a confluence of two things that the church is opposed to. The killing by itself could be tolerated (not all fundamental Christians are pacifists), and the use of contraceptives could be overlooked. However, abortion is seen as a combination of both and, as such, becomes too much to bear.


----------



## Brioche

panjabigator said:
			
		

> but many just argue for the right to choose incase of birth defects, rape or incest. What is the churchs stance on the last two?


 
For the Catholic Church it is immoral to kill a new-born baby, or young child, because she has a defect, or is the result of rape or incest.
Similarly, it is immoral to kill an unborn baby for those reasons.


----------



## LV4-26

papillon said:
			
		

> I believe that it has as much to do with "the killing of the unborn" as with the ban on contraception. Of course, not all Christian groups are opposed to condoms, but Vatican is, athough this never did make much sense to me.


 That's a good point. How could you not be against abortion when you are against contraception? However, papillon did not mention why the Christian church is *officially* against contraception. The Church bans contraception based on the claim that sex should only be designed for procreation, not for pleasure. However, if you study the matter with more attention, you'll realize that the Church tends to put less and less emphasis on the "not for pleasure" clause, and even not to mention it any longer. Now as I'm writing, I realize I'm only referring to what I know best,i.e. the catholic church. My apologies for that. Maybe some one else could be more accurate for the Protestant side.

Anyway, this cannot stem from a literal reading of the Bible, in my opinion. There doesn't seem to be any mention of birth control or anything of the kind in the books. Some passages could be interpreted that way, but it would only be an interpretation. 

Last, the Christians who fight against abortion hardly ever mention that second aspect. I don't have any statistics at hand but I believe those who really object to contraception are a minority.


----------



## dahut

tokyowalker said:
			
		

> As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.
> 
> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?
> 
> It has to do with the Christian Church. They think they own life.
> Nowadays Christians believe that they think by themselves, but actually they still follow what the Christian Church has been telling them to believe for centuries.
> 
> I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale?
> 
> They have an opinion about everything and anything. Abortion, family, marriage, sexuality...
> The Church call it dogma and nobody can think differently.
> 
> Is their position based on Biblical teaching?
> 
> No, it's based on power.
> 
> If it is simply based on the commandment "Do not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?
> 
> Because it is not really based on that commandment. They are not pacifist because Christians never meant to be pacifist. The Christian Church is one of the most powerful societies in the world. Power has nerver come by pacifistic ways in history.
> 
> If these Christians think that killing innocent grown-up people is justified in some circumstances to avert a greater suffering/injustice, then why is this argument not extended to killing the unborn?
> Hypocrisy. Double moral.



NB. I am not an expert on Christianity. I base my claims on a Christian education, being raised in a Christian society, getting to know the inside part of their manipulation. Of course, another people will have different experiences and therefore another point of view.


----------



## panjabigator

I too was born in what George Bush Jr would call a Christian country...

Is there any particular group of Christianity that aproves of it in cases of emergency?  What does the church say is the wife's life is in jeopardy?


----------



## Fernando

I am a not-very-devote Roman Catholic. Me and (as far as I know) the RC Church oppose the abortion on the basis on the "Thou shall not kill" "policy". Nowhere in the Bible (as far as I know) says nothing about abortion. Bible (specially NT) is not a catalogue of do and do-nots.


----------



## Fernando

panjabigator said:
			
		

> What does the church say is the wife's life is in jeopardy?



Then, abortion is an option.


----------



## Brioche

panjabigator said:
			
		

> Is there any particular group of Christianity that aproves of it in cases of emergency? What does the church say is the wife's life is in jeopardy?


 
The deliberate, intentional, killing of an unborn human being is _always _immoral, according to the Catholic Church.

On the other hand, there are _thousands _of different groups which call themselves Christian. 

So pick any belief you want, and there's probably a "Christian" group which agrees with you.


----------



## ceci '79

Brioche said:
			
		

> For the Catholic Church it is *immoral* to kill a new-born baby, or young child, because she has a defect, or is the result of rape or incest.
> Similarly, it is *immoral *to kill an unborn baby for those reasons.


 
More precisely, according to the Catholic Church doing so is a *sin*.  

Ceci


----------



## TRG

Brioche said:
			
		

> So pick any belief you want, and there's probably a "Christian" group which agrees with you.


 
This is an important point. Christian belief, religious and otherwise, is not monolithic. It is also important to distinguish between church doctrine (dogma) and beliefs of the church members. There are many differences on theological, political, and social issues between what church doctrine may say and what the church members think.

TRG


----------



## ireney

I have also heard (from an Orthodox priest mind you) that, one of the reasons they are so dead-set against abortion and rather more 'flexible' with killing in general (I mean do you see any church leaders rant and storm and do their utmost to stop wars?) is that the unborn child has not yet been baptised so it carries the original (is that the term I wonder) sin so, by killing it, you condemn his/her soul to Hell (no Limbo in the Orthodox dogma; it's an either/or case after death).


----------



## Cath.S.

Sorry if I strayed away from the original question in my first answer.
My elder sister is a very devout Roman Catholic, and she opposes abortion not so much because of what is written in the Bible, although she believes it is a sin to terminate any human life form, but mainly because she listens to what the Pope says, as she does not believe he  can err.


----------



## ceci '79

ireney said:
			
		

> (no Limbo in the Orthodox dogma; it's an either/or case after death).


 
I am no theologist, but I heard that the existence of the Limbo of Children is highly doubted by today's Catholics.

"The International Theological Commission [...] recommended that the theological hypothesis of Limbo be replaced by the more “compassionate” doctrine that all children who die do so “in the hope of eternal salvation”." (source)


----------



## Everness

tokyowalker said:
			
		

> As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.
> 
> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?
> 
> I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale?



First, let me rephrase your question: "Why are pro-choice people so strongly in favor of abortion? I'm not asking whether or not they should be in favor... just... what's their rationale." Why is it that Christians need to provide other people with a rationale for their stand on abortion while those who are strongly, almost fanatically, in favor of abortion don't need to back up or justify their stand? It would be ok if it's just out of curiosity. Otherwise, it would amount to double standards. Let's treat the secular extremists the same way we treat the religious extremists.  

Second, does the Bible have to say, "Thou shalt not perform abortions" or "Thou shalt perform abortions" for Christians to be against or in favor of this practice? Again double standards. If you are a Christian Fundamentalist who condemns abortion apparently you are expected to explain yourself. However, if you are a hardcore pro-choice individual, we don't need feel the need to ask you why you believe the way you do or to explain any inconsistencies between your stand and your values. Why? Because you're right! If Christians didn't have a Bible, they wouldn't face this type of questions.


----------



## panjabigator

I am in no way purporting the pro-choice side in this message...just a preface.  I think the pro-choicers main argument is that it is their body and thus their choice to carry a child or not.  As a side note, I wish the man had more say...it is both of their babies, regardless of who carries the burden.

:uts foot in mouth::


----------



## papillon

Everness said:
			
		

> First, let me rephrase your question: "Why are pro-choice people so strongly in favor of abortion? I'm not asking whether or not they should be in favor... just... what's their rationale."


You are actually free to open your own thread thread with that question, if you are indeed curious. Or was that purely rethorical?


----------



## Zub

As far as I know, the Christian point of view about abortion comes from the Jewish tradition, and it's directly related to the management of sex.

For Christians, before Jesus we were all waiting for the Messiah, a man that had to be born from a man (well, from a woman), and that was a Very Serious Thing. Therefore, if you had sex, don't dare stopping what is going to happen. Maybe your child will be the Messiah! Consequently, having sex just for fun is not a good thing, and abortion, for that same reason, is worse.

The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, so it applies still now. For Christians, the Messiah came to us finally, so they shouldn't worry too much about those things, but traditions are so strong.

Final note: I don't know if I got the right tone, but trust me, I didn't want to offend anybody at all.

Z.


----------



## tchrmom

Let me begin by saying that these are my personal beliefs and opinions.  It is not my intention to put down anyone else's beliefs.  I am not called to judge anyone else, rather I am called to love my neighbor as myself.  I am simply writing to try to help the original poster understand why many Christians are opposed to abortion.

As a Christian, I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where the life of the mother is at risk. In that case, the killing of the child would be justified as "self-defense."

Children are a gift from God. The Bible tells us this. Abortion rejects God's gift. It also violates the commandment that tells us "Thou shalt not kill." The original text translates more accurately as "Thou shalt not murder." This is an important distinction.

For me personally, I make a distinction between an innocent unborn child and a guilty criminal on death row.  That is how I can be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time.


----------



## Victoria32

tokyowalker said:


> As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.
> 
> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?
> 
> I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale?
> 
> Is their position based on Biblical teaching?
> 
> If it is simply based on the commandment "Do not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?
> 
> If these Christians think that killing innocent grown-up people is justified in some circumstances to avert a greater suffering/injustice, then why is this argument not extended to killing the unborn?


I am a Christian, and I am opposed to induced abortion..._*and yes, I am a pacifist!* I oppose war and capital punishment, and therefore I am being consistent. 
_Many groups opposed to abortion *are in fact pacifist*. The official position of the RC church (in the US at least, is just that, opposing capital punishment and afaik, not too thrilled with war either, - but I am open to correction on that, as I am not a Catholic.)


----------



## Tsoman

Abortion is killing

It's just that it doesn't matter


----------



## Victoria32

unefemme1 said:


> More on abortions. I guess there are both bad and good sides to it, but think about this. If you did become pregnant, but it was unplanned, what would you do? Would you really keep the child? Just something to think about.


I did keep the child, he's now 19 and sitting in the room with me watching motor racing on TV. 


LV4-26 said:


> That's a good point. How could you not be against abortion when you are against contraception? However, papillon did not mention why the Christian church is *officially* against contraception. The Church bans contraception based on the claim that sex should only be designed for procreation, not for pleasure. However, if you study the matter with more attention, you'll realize that the Church tends to put less and less emphasis on the "not for pleasure" clause, and even not to mention it any longer. Now as I'm writing, I realize I'm only referring to what I know best,i.e. the catholic church. My apologies for that. Maybe some one else could be more accurate for the Protestant side.
> 
> Anyway, this cannot stem from a literal reading of the Bible, in my opinion. There doesn't seem to be any mention of birth control or anything of the kind in the books. Some passages could be interpreted that way, but it would only be an interpretation.
> 
> Last, the Christians who fight against abortion hardly ever mention that second aspect. I don't have any statistics at hand but I believe those who really object to contraception are a minority.


Protestants do not have any particular views on contraception. I will leave it to Catholics (and some have) to explain their church's view on contraception... 


panjabigator said:


> I too was born in what George Bush Jr would call a Christian country...
> 
> Is there any particular group of Christianity that aproves of it in cases of emergency?  What does the church say is the wife's life is in jeopardy?


Yes, it's allowed, because abortion is then a secondary effect, as far as I know. 


Tsoman said:


> Abortion is killing
> 
> It's just that it doesn't matter


Yes, it does!


----------



## maxiogee

tchrmom said:


> Children are a gift from God.



Interesting concept that.

A) Does that mean that those to whom this god denies children should be criticised for not accepting this god's decision when they go seeking to give birth through non-traditional methods? Are they not seeking to go against the will of this god?

B) If a child *is* a gift from this god then surely the concept of saving the life of the mother by means of aborting the baby she is carrying is an attempt to go against the will of this god. Surely this god knows that the mother's life is put at risk by giving her a baby? Is it proper to go against the explicit wish of this god?


----------



## TrentinaNE

Everness said:


> First, let me rephrase your question: "Why are pro-choice people so strongly in favor of abortion? I'm not asking whether or not they should be in favor... just... what's their rationale."


There is a confusion of labels here.  Pro-choice people are in favor of individual conscience in this matter rather than a legislated prohibition.  Many pro-choice people are opposed to abortion personally, but believe the way to promote that belief is through persuasion, not legislation.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Why is it that Christians need to provide other people with a rationale for their stand on abortion while those who are strongly, almost fanatically, in favor of abortion don't need to back up or justify their stand?



I think that you'll find that the "strongly" applies to both sides.
Don't forget that those who are pro-choice are not advocating that anyone who disagrees with their view should have to approve of one, or perform one. However the opposite doesn't apply. They generally advocate that medical personell be allowed to refuse to perform, or assist at, an abortion. Pro-Choice says "you may, or may not — it is your choice" to both the expectant and the medical practitioner.

Those who oppose it do demand that those who disagree with them would be bound by laws written to suit the moral views of anti-abortionists. What penalty would your state impose on a doctor who performed an abortion were it to be an illegal act? 
Anti-Abortionists say "you may not" to all concerned.

As to where the 'fanaticism' might apply, well I see atrocious posters being displayed on the streets of Dublin by the so-called "Youth Defence" - posters with pictures of aborted foetuses, in an effort to revile people enough to generate the free-publicity of a court-case.


----------



## Maja

I apologize if smo already said this before me, but in Christianity, abortion  is considered murder because *life starts at conception*. 
 The gift of  life is the greatest of gifts and it cannot be discarded as easily. 
 Since  *GOD is the one that gives life, no one else has the right to take it* and  commit murder!!! 
 Therefore, pregnant woman is only "a temple/ a house" in  which child develops but she is not the bringer of life thus she has no right to  kill it!
 Suicide is prohibited from the same reason.
 As far as I know,  this is the basic position of my Church (Serbian Orthodox Church) and my  own.


tokyowalker said:


> If it is simply based on the commandment "Do  not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?


 Just because  they don't publicly declare themselves as pacifists, that doesn't mean that they  aren't. In Christianity that goes without saying and it is smt that is implied.  But I am referring to the views of Catholics and Orthodox. I don't know about  Protestants (I never studied their views), nor about various Christian sects.


----------



## tvdxer

tokyowalker said:


> As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.
> 
> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?
> 
> I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale?
> 
> Is their position based on Biblical teaching?
> 
> If it is simply based on the commandment "Do not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?
> 
> If these Christians think that killing innocent grown-up people is justified in some circumstances to avert a greater suffering/injustice, then why is this argument not extended to killing the unborn?



First, it isn't primarily "Biblical literalist Christians" who are opposed to abortion.  Any real Catholic is, as well as many of those of several non-Christian faiths (or lack thereof): Buddhists, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, etc.

As a Catholic, my opposition to abortion comes from the fifth commandment: "Thou shall not kill".  Whether born or unborn, this rule applies to all human lives at any stage.  All people have an inherent right to live, whether fetii or seniors.  Those who argue in favor of abortion rights often try to draw some mystical line at which sufficient "personhood" is attained, but I see this as nonsense.  Personhood is not developed in increments; it is an absolute "either-or" characteristic.  One is a human person, or not - and it is clear from biology that the life of an individual, a _person_, begins at conception.  I trace my existence as an individual to that moment - before then only the parts from which I was assembled, so to speak, existed, but from that time I began growing into who I am today, with no certain event or instance to separate the "pre-personhood Jacob" from the "post-personhood Jacob".

Now, as it comes to wars and the like, there are certain extreme circumstances in which an individual or a country may act in legitimate self-defense against an aggressor, defense that could result in their death.  The key word here is *aggressor*.  An unborn child is not an aggressor in any sense.  Even in cases of rape he or she is not guilty of any sort of crime to the woman. There is absolutely nothing that would permit the mother to harm the child; quite the opposite is true: regardless of whether the pregnancy was planned or not, the mother has every responsibility in the world (along with the father) to care for her child both before and after birth.  Killing the child because the pregnancy was unplanned, because he/she will cause financial stress to the mother, etc. is the ultimate shirking of that duty.

I hope I made my point clear.


----------



## Span_glish

I was raised Catholic, but I am now Christian (for not finding a better descriptive word) by choice and faith.
My personal view is that abortion is murder. Yes, children die everyday in our countries due to hunger, diseases, ignorance, and the list goes on. However, having an abortion would imply that "I" make that decision, and my decision would be life (not that any of you care to know) regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## maxiogee

Maja said:


> The gift of  life is the greatest of gifts and it cannot be discarded as easily.



*IS* life "a gift"?

I was of the understanding that, if a male's sperm and a female's egg combine correctly then life develops — whether that be with humans or with other animals. Plants species even do it this way. Not all, of course.

Is every single life on earth a gift?


----------



## curly

Wouldn't the very act of creating a life mean that i am "killing" millions of others? If i was to alter my technique, or say, for some reason or anther, jump up and down vigourously, wouldn't i then deny life to the millions of other lives by rearranging things?
If i rearranged things so that one sperm makes it with the egg, isn't that by definition aborting the other possible people?


----------



## don maico

Moogey said:


> Well maybe I'm not understanding you, but I am also against war and the death penalty. I don't think there is any case whatsoever where killing is justifiable.
> 
> I don't want to go into detail because I usually misrepresent myself when I do and I lose the essence of my point, but this is how I feel in a nutshell.
> 
> -M


You make a very good poiunt there ie the right always argue against abortion on the grounds of it being murder but a are quite happy that some people are murdered by the state


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> I don't think there is any dispute about when a new human life begins. When a human ovum joins with a human sperm, a new, separate human life begins. Given the right conditions, that single cell may grow and develop into foetus, a baby, a child, an adolescent, an adult, and with some luck, and OAP.
> 
> The position of 'pro choice' is that the unborn human being is the moral equivalent of a polyp - and may be removed with as many qualms.


 
Your first statement is at complete odds with your last statement yet your first statement claims that there is no dispute.

The number of pregnancies that are spontaneously aborted at the early stages after impregnation is very high as the body (and presumably god) decides that the potential human is flawed to the point of nonviability so the potential baby is not given a chance to damage the health of the prospective mother nor to develop into an utterly flawed presentation at birth.  I lost one brother this way and my mother survived to give me another brother.

The church is totally welcome to keep the hell out of my private life.

.,,


----------



## Stiannu

I have been raised as Catholic but I consider myself just a Christian, particularly criticizing my own church on many points.
I'm actually against abortion in my personal life, and I would try to discourage anyone I know from practicing it, searching for viable alternatives; but, if we talk about law in my country, I am pro-choice: I can't impose my views on non-believers and, since the legalization of abortion in Italy, the number of abortions has decreased every year, while the flaw of clandestine abortion has ended. So, the "lesser evil": exactly what law in a secular country should pursue. I know many other Christians who agree with this.

Anyway, it is true that some "conservative" Christians invoke the absolute respect for life in the case of abortion, while they are colder when it comes to war and death penalty. This is really inconsistent; but I guess these people are attached to their conservative values, which make them more sensitive to issues about sexual morality, family and marriage, social order... while Christians with progressive values (as I consider myself to be) are more interested in peace, equality and justice, etc. 

I guess being perfectly consistent is impossible: we have to accept the fact that even when a religion is precisely codified in a holy book, as Islam or Christianism, believers with different sensibilities and different priorities tend to interpret their faith in different ways and give more importance to some or some other aspects. We're not all the same... thank God (?)


----------



## modus.irrealis

. said:


> Your first statement is at complete odds with your last statement yet your first statement claims that there is no dispute.



Not to speak for Brioche, but there is no debate about when human life begins. There is a debate about when a human life should be recognized as being a person and therefore having certain human rights. Although I must say that I find arguments based on the denial of human rights to certain humans (whether they be unborn, female, non-white, etc.) to be absurd and dangerous (not to suggest that all pro-abortion-rights arguments are of this type).



> The number of pregnancies that are spontaneously aborted at the early stages after impregnation is very high as the body (and presumably god) decides that the potential human is flawed to the point of nonviability so the potential baby is not given a chance to damage the health of the prospective mother nor to develop into an utterly flawed presentation at birth.


And?  many children die after birth. Would you accept that as an argument for legalizing the killing of young children?



> The church is totally welcome to keep the hell out of my private life.


That's the whole point. Is it just your private life, or is it question of two lives which should both have their human rights recognized and protected?

We legislate against the abuse of wifes, and don't accept the arguments of abusers that we are interfering in their private life, or that we are denying them their choice to do whatever they want with their wife, or that we are imposing our view on them that women have the same human rights as men. I don't see why these kinds of arguments suddenly become reasonable when the issue becomes abortion (again not to suggest not to suggest that all pro-abortion-rights arguments are of this type, but they are very popular).


----------



## Victoria32

Stiannu said:


> I have been raised as Catholic but I consider myself just a Christian, particularly criticizing my own church on many points.
> I'm actually against abortion in my personal life, and I would try to discourage anyone I know from practicing it, searching for viable alternatives; but, if we talk about law in my country, I am pro-choice: I can't impose my views on non-believers and, since the legalization of abortion in Italy, the number of abortions has decreased every year, while the flaw of clandestine abortion has ended. So, the "lesser evil": exactly what law in a secular country should pursue. I know many other Christians who agree with this.
> 
> Anyway, it is true that some "conservative" Christians invoke the absolute respect for life in the case of abortion, while they are colder when it comes to war and death penalty. This is really inconsistent; but I guess these people are attached to their conservative values, which make them more sensitive to issues about sexual morality, family and marriage, social order... while Christians with progressive values (as I consider myself to be) are more interested in peace, equality and justice, etc.
> 
> I guess being perfectly consistent is impossible: we have to accept the fact that even when a religion is precisely codified in a holy book, as Islam or Christianism, believers with different sensibilities and different priorities tend to interpret their faith in different ways and give more importance to some or some other aspects. We're not all the same... thank God (?)


Here is where I have to disagree with you, Stiannu... in NZ since abortion has been legalised, the rate has gone up every year, and reached unbelievably high figures.. no doubt the experience of your country will be the same in years to come.
As a Christian I am I suppose you could say, conservative (small c) on social issues such as sex, family, marriage - but I am 'liberal' (small l) on such things as war and death penalty, that is I am a *pacifist and against Capital punishment,* which to me *is* being consistent*.*


----------



## maxiogee

Victoria32 said:


> Here is where I have to disagree with you, Stiannu... in NZ since abortion has been legalised, the rate has gone up every year, and reached unbelievably high figures..



Of course it went up!
What did anyone expect would happen to the figures?

If you really mean "unbelievably high", then doubt the figures, if you just mean 'higher than anyone expected' then I suggest that people didn't kbnow the scale of the social problem which unwanted pregnancy can be.


----------



## Manuel_M

. said:


> The church is totally welcome to keep the hell out of my private life.
> 
> .,,


 
Indeed....and so it should. 

Of course if the aborted foetus happens to be human, then it's not a question of YOUR private life, but of the private life of that foetus.


----------



## .   1

Not to speak for Brioche, but there is no debate about when human life begins. There is a debate about when a human life should be recognized as being a person and therefore having certain human rights. Although I must say that I find arguments based on the denial of human rights to certain humans (whether they be unborn, female, non-white, etc.) to be absurd and dangerous (not to suggest that all pro-abortion-rights arguments are of this type).
You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion will not be right just because you say there is no debate.
Life is defined thus:
The state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones or from inorganic matter, charactised chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ablilty to respond to stimuli and reproduce.

modus.irrealis
Would you care to point out to me at what point the two celled or four celled or eight celled blob attains the third and fourth states denoting life.


And? many children die after birth. Would you accept that as an argument for legalizing the killing of young children?
This type of extrapolatory argument is slightly irritating and potentially demeaning to us both but you decided to engage me and I will not step backwards to such a base canard.
In answer to your question. *NO!*
How dare you make such a suggestion. You do not even know me and you use childish tactics to try to score some vague point against me. Good luck.


That's the whole point. Is it just your private life, or is it question of two lives which should both have their human rights recognized and protected?

We legislate against the abuse of wifes, and don't accept the arguments of abusers that we are interfering in their private life, or that we are denying them their choice to do whatever they want with their wife, or that we are imposing our view on them that women have the same human rights as men. I don't see why these kinds of arguments suddenly become reasonable when the issue becomes abortion (again not to suggest not to suggest that all pro-abortion-rights arguments are of this type, but they are very popular).

I am obviously worn down by the logic of your argument but I can not follow you here so I will have to ask someone to translate this for me. I give up

Please enjoy your life and your opinions.

.,,


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> Life is defined thus:
> The state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones or from inorganic matter, charactised chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ablilty to respond to stimuli and *reproduce.*
> 
> modus.irrealis
> Would you care to point out to me at what point the two celled or four celled or eight celled blob attains the third and *fourth states* denoting life.
> 
> .,,


 
A mule will never reproduce, but if one kicks you, I dare say you'd admit to its being alive.

And that 8 celled blob will be able to reproduce after it gets to puberty, in around about 12 ~ 14 years after conception.
Are the pre-pubescent alive according to you? What about people who never reproduce, are they alive?

Since we are talking about abortion, by the time a woman has any symptoms of pregancy, the conceptus will have grown [sign of life 2] to many, many more than 8 cells.


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> A mule will never reproduce, but if one kicks you, I dare say you'd admit to its being alive.
> 
> And that 8 celled blob will be able to reproduce after it gets to puberty, in around about 12 ~ 14 years after conception.
> Are the pre-pubescent alive according to you? What about people who never reproduce, are they alive?
> 
> Since we are talking about abortion, by the time a woman has any symptoms of pregancy, the conceptus will have grown [sign of life 2] to many, many more than 8 cells.


I feel honoured to be on the end of a tag team.
I respond to brioch and modus comes in so I respond to irrealis and brioch comes back.

It would appear that there is some debate left in the discussion.

I enjoyed the mule business.

This is a hell of a logical thread.

Now what do mules have to do with the abortion of humans, oh that's right.  It's just past the little green bump on my elbow.

Are you saying that life begins at the time that a woman begins to show?

.,,


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Of course it went up!
> What did anyone expect would happen to the figures?
> 
> If you really mean "unbelievably high", then doubt the figures, if you just mean 'higher than anyone expected' then I suggest that people didn't kbnow the scale of the social problem which unwanted pregnancy can be.


Another logical addition.
Of course the 'reported' figures went up.
Even a moron would realize that it would be counterproductive to report an abortion at the time that you could go to gaol for performing the abortion.
After it was legalised the reported figures went from practically zero to something approaching reality which was a staggering leap.

.,,


----------



## Stiannu

Yes, figures are complicated to evaluate. There are "reported figures" (abortion after legalization) and clandestine abortions, that can sometimes be estimated. There is the absolute number of abortion cases, and the number of abortion cases every 1000 women (the second figure takes into account the increase or decrease of population). 
And in different countries, there have been different evolutions. Reported cases of abortion have enormously decreased along the years in countries like Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Germany. They have been stable or have increased in countries like France, UK, Sweden or Netherlands.


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> I enjoyed the mule business.
> 
> Now what do mules have to do with the abortion of humans, oh that's right. It's just past the little green bump on my elbow.
> 
> _What do mules have to do with it? Mules do not reproduce._
> 
> _If you read the definition of "living" that you yourself gave us, it had four elements: (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) response to stimulus and (4) ability to reproduce._
> _You sneered at the notion of "life" in a conceptus on the basis that hasn't attained the fourth stage. A mule never attains the fourth state. _
> _Do you sneer at the notion that a mule is a living thing?_
> 
> 
> 
> . said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to point out to me at what point the two celled or four celled or eight celled blob attains the third and fourth states denoting life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that life begins at the time that a woman begins to show?
> _I did not say that, nor in any way imply that._
> _"Showing" comes rather late in the procedings, around the 4th ~ 5th *month* of pregnancy. _
> 
> _The first symptom of pregnancy is usually "missing a period", about 2 weeks after conception. By that time the conceptus has many more cells than the 8-celled blob you sneer at. In the third week after conception the heart is beating._
> 
> _Surgical abortions are rarely done before the 6th week of pregnancy. At that time the conceptus has a beating heart. So I think it is completely accurate to say it is alive._
> .,,
Click to expand...


----------



## ireney

Just a note mules aside (hybrids by the way and a 'species' sterile in its entirety) : To my mind a fetus that is comprised of some cells is something (couldn't find a better word) that can _potentially_ become a human being.

Question: Since the whole dicussion started from the "is a child the gift of God", didn't God say to Eve " "I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master." (Genesis 3:16; I got the translation from a website). Funny way of describing the whole process of getting pregnant (and yet) and giving birth to that gift.


----------



## Fernando

Luckily, in the New Testament, God created the epidural. That way, children are still a gift of God and they are only a pain in the ass AFTER being born.


----------



## modus.irrealis

. said:


> You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion will not be right just because you say there is no debate.
> Life is defined thus:
> The state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones or from inorganic matter, charactised chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ablilty to respond to stimuli and reproduce.
> 
> modus.irrealis
> Would you care to point out to me at what point the two celled or four celled or eight celled blob attains the third and fourth states denoting life.



It responds to stimuli immediately. I'm not entirely up on the science, but once the zygote is attached to the uterus lining, doesn't it respond with a whole complicated process of development? And of course it has the capability to reproduce, since it goes from 1 cell to 2 cells to 4 cells and so on. Or do you mean reproduce in some sense that would deny life to a 1 year old?




> This type of extrapolatory argument is slightly irritating and potentially demeaning to us both but you decided to engage me and I will not step backwards to such a base canard.





> In answer to your question. *NO!*
> How dare you make such a suggestion. You do not even know me and you use childish tactics to try to score some vague point against me. Good luck.


If you think I was making any suggestion, I wasn't. Tone of voice doesn't translate well here, but the answer I expected you to give was no, which would only make me wonder even more what point you were trying to make with your original comments.



> I am obviously worn down by the logic of your argument but I can not follow you here so I will have to ask someone to translate this for me. I give up.


What's so hard to understand? Do we not legislate against abuse even if someone might say we're interfering with his or her private life and the choices he or she makes and imposing our views on that person? Such an argument is absured. And I don't see what becomes different when it comes to abortion. Saying "it's my private life" is not an argument, nor is saying that "you can't impose your vews on the rest of us." I'm still wondering why such meaningless slogans are supposedly so convicing when it comes to this subject.


----------



## GenJen54

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Saying "it's my private life" is not an argument, nor is saying that "you can't impose your vews on the rest of us." I'm still wondering why such meaningless slogans are supposedly so convicing when it comes to this subject.


If you are a follower of X religion and I am a follower of Y religion, or no religion at all, then what does give you the right to impose your "view" on me any more than I have the right to impose my view on you, even regarding a topic such as abortion.

I personally still don't understand why so many people, cloaked in their religion, tend to focus more on the rights of the "unborn" than they do the issues and problems facing those already born, who are living in dire poverty, in war-torn areas with imminent starvation and/or death by the cruelties of the modern world. I never hear a politician talk - or religious leader, for that matter - discuss what humanity needs to help these children - who have already been born.

I don't mean to say they _*shouldn't* _talk about the abortion issue, it just seems more meaningful impact could be made by any action that goes towards alleviating the suffering of those children, already born, who suffer from neglect, abuse, starvation and other serious problems.


----------



## Fernando

GenJen54 said:


> If you are a follower of X religion and I am a follower of Y religion, or no religion at all, then what does give you the right to impose your "view" on me any more than I have the right to impose my view on you, even regarding a topic such as abortion.



The same right that give me the right to impose my view that setting a bomb in a mall is a bad thing, regardless of what your personal beliefs are.




GenJen54 said:


> I personally still don't understand why so many people, cloaked in their religion,



I have not read nothing in this thread that focus (or "cloaks") in religion.



GenJen54 said:


> tend to focus more on the rights of the "unborn" than they do the issues and problems facing those already born,



1) The unborn are being killed. I do not perceive this problem happen (now and here) for the yet born.

2) Everybody (well, majority) feels that killing a 4-year boy is bad, but some think is right to kill a 4-week. Logically, I am more concerned on the second.

3) who are living in dire poverty, in war-torn areas with imminent starvation and/or death by the cruelties of the modern world. I never hear a politician talk - or religious leader, for that matter - discuss what humanity needs to help these children - who have already been born.[/QUOTE]

Well, I would say that religious leader hardly speak of other topic. At least RC leaders (seglars, Pope, bishops) are everyday talking about social justice. If they are right or wrong in diagnostics and remedy is another subject.

I don't mean to say they _*shouldn't* _talk about the abortion issue, it just seems more meaningful impact could be made by any action that goes towards alleviating the suffering of those children, already born, who suffer from neglect, abuse, starvation and other serious problems.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Cath.S.

modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> It responds to stimuli immediately. I'm not entirely up on the science, but once the zygote is attached to the uterus lining, doesn't it respond with a whole complicated process of development? And of course it has the capability to reproduce, since it goes from 1 cell to 2 cells to 4 cells and so on. Or do you mean reproduce in some sense that would deny life to a 1 year old?


By that definition, isn't a cancerous growth life as well?


----------



## Fernando

egueule said:


> By that definition, isn't a cancerous growth life as well?



Of course cancerous growth is life (as unluckily any affected can witness).

The cases in which a cancer has become a guy typing in a PC or playing music are very scarce indeed.


----------



## mjscott

LCyeah said:


> Well, I'll start by saying I am a Christian, but a young one, and I'm not the most wise about my faith. Being a pro-life activist I'll gladly join this discussion.
> 
> I don't think it's a matter of "following the Bible". The pro-life belief is based not so much on the Bible, since there is nothing significant in there about abortion except thou shall not kill, as you said tokyowalker, and abortion was not used often--if even at all--when the Bible was written. The commandment of thou shall not kill was sufficient enough then.
> 
> The fight against abortion is not only Christian peoples, either, Christians just all happen to agree on the same terms. But now on we go:
> 
> The belief is based on moral terms. All Christian people are usually united in their thoughts of morality, and abortion breaks every apect of morality. (Why Christians are against abortion.)
> 
> Abortion violates the sancity of life. Why kill an innocent adult and not kill an innocent baby? There is some truth behind that, *but there is a big difference between war and abortion.* War is used as a last resort when modes communication are no longer able to be used to solve conflict. War is a nation's way of protection, and if that means innocent people have to die in another nation, that is the sacrifice. But what is the unborn child's threat to the parents? _Inconvenience_? _Unhappiness_? (That is in the terms of a mother aborting her baby due to "not enough money" or a "i didn't mean to get pregnant right _now_" excuse.)
> 
> It interferes with God's design--you don't have to be a Christian to believe that, as long as you believe in a higher power, which we all should.
> 
> I'm tired of typing, that's the main points I wanted out, I'll join back in when someone wants a quarrel.


*Psalm 139:15-17 (New International Version)*

*New International Version (NIV)* Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[URL]http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=22[/URL] [URL]http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=10[/URL] [URL]http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=26[/URL] [URL]http://www.biblegateway.com/bg_versions/bgview.php?what=2[/URL] 

15 My frame was not hidden from you 
when I was made in the secret place. 
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 
16 your eyes saw my unformed body. 
All the days ordained for me 
were written in your book 
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to [a] me are your thoughts, O God! 
How vast is the sum of them!

I think that Christians who oppose abortion believe that they are opposing the ordination of God, Who deems our thoughts and actions before they come into being in the form of a child born. I believe that some Christians think that if God acknowledges the person, then so should humankind.


----------



## HistofEng

tvdxer said:


> Those who argue in favor of abortion rights often try to draw some mystical line at which sufficient "personhood" is attained, but I see this as nonsense.  Personhood is not developed in increments; it is an absolute "either-or" characteristic.  One is a human person, or not - and it is clear from biology that the life of an individual, a _person_, begins at conception.



What are the attributes that define a *"person?"* 

(open to anyone that wants to answer)


----------



## Fernando

HistofEng, we have discussed in depth this many many times, but, just to answer your question (summarizing a lot):

Person = Human being = "something" complete with human DNA.


----------



## HistofEng

Fernando said:


> HistofEng, we have discussed in depth this many many times, but, just to answer your question (summarizing a lot):
> 
> Person = Human being = "something" complete with human DNA.



What are the attributes ascribed to a _"Human Being"_?

*"Something"* isn't very descriptive.

My skin cells are complete with human DNA! Are they _each_ "human beings"


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> A mule will never reproduce, but if one kicks you, I dare say you'd admit to its being alive.
> 
> And that 8 celled blob will be able to reproduce after it gets to puberty, in around about 12 ~ 14 years after conception.
> Are the pre-pubescent alive according to you? What about people who never reproduce, are they alive?
> 
> Since we are talking about abortion, by the time a woman has any symptoms of pregancy, the conceptus will have grown [sign of life 2] to many, many more than 8 cells.


I will be kicked by a sterile hybrid the day I am stupid to place myself in a position to allow that dumb animal to kick me.

Do you have any other examples of hybrids or perhaps genetically altered creatures to bolster your argument?

.,,


----------



## .   1

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *.,,* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> I enjoyed the mule business.
> 
> Now what do mules have to do with the abortion of humans, oh that's right. It's just past the little green bump on my elbow.
> 
> _What do mules have to do with it? Mules do not reproduce._
> 
> _If you read the definition of "living" that you yourself gave us, it had four elements: (1) metabolism, (2) growth, (3) response to stimulus and (4) ability to reproduce._
> _You sneered at the notion of "life" in a conceptus on the basis that hasn't attained the fourth stage. A mule never attains the fourth state. _
> _Do you sneer at the notion that a mule is a living thing?_
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *.,,:*
> Would you care to point out to me at what point the two celled or four celled or eight celled blob attains the third and fourth states denoting life.
> 
> 
> Are you saying that life begins at the time that a woman begins to show?
> _I did not say that, nor in any way imply that._
> _"Showing" comes rather late in the procedings, around the 4th ~ 5th *month* of pregnancy. _
> 
> _The first symptom of pregnancy is usually "missing a period", about 2 weeks after conception. By that time the conceptus has many more cells than the 8-celled blob you sneer at. In the third week after conception the heart is beating._
> 
> _Surgical abortions are rarely done before the 6th week of pregnancy. At that time the conceptus has a beating heart. So I think it is completely accurate to say it is alive._
> .,,


Do you have any interest in answering the question you have quoted?

Would you care to point out to me at what point the two celled or four celled or eight celled blob attains the third and fourth states denoting life.

.,,


----------



## curly

. said:


> I will be kicked by a sterile hybrid the day I am stupid to place myself in a position to allow that dumb animal to kick me.
> 
> Do you have any other examples of hybrids or perhaps genetically altered creatures to bolster your argument?
> 
> .,,


A neutered cat, a neutered dog...a woman suffering from ovarian cancer, a man maimed in war etc.


----------



## HistofEng

"reproduction" doesn't necessarily have to mean recombination of DNA to form a new individual (a new combination of DNA). 

Reproduction, in the case of the mule, can simply mean its cells are constantly reproducing themselves, the same as it did when it (the mule) was an embryo.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> A neutered cat, a neutered dog...a woman suffering from ovarian cancer, a man maimed in war etc.


Gee I am glad that we are staying with logic on this thread and we are not just trying to insult the previous poster with cheap jokes.

Has anybody focused on the rights of the prospective mother.

What about the scared fifteen year old girl facing a life of drudgery because of one small error of judgement?

Consider the mother of five children who struggles to feed and cloth those five yet is blessed with another small bundle of joy that may just contribute to her early death thereby leaving the remaining five to battle on with no mother.

Perhaps the prospective mother of a child so flawed that the child will require lifetime care should be given a vote.

There seem to be a staggering number of people who are quite willing to impose their views on potential mothers but are suddenly invisible and stating something like "Well it's not my problem" after birth.

.,,


----------



## curly

I thought that was regeneration?


----------



## curly

There are many women who have given children to care for these reasons. A life of drudgery seems to be a very harsh reason for killing a child when there are other less final ways of re-leasing one's self from parental responsibilites.

(and i wasn't making fun, you asked a question)


----------



## HistofEng

> _Surgical abortions are rarely done before the 6th week of pregnancy_




At least for the US,




_*The CDC estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the  first eight weeks of gestation*_, and 88.5 percent are performed within the first  12 weeks. *Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks* (CDC, 2005).
Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of  *abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased *because of  increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion services (Gold,  2003).
 http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...o/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml


----------



## HistofEng

curly said:


> I thought that was regeneration?




Regeneration is a specific type of Reproduction, it's still reproduction, nonetheless!


----------



## ireney

I am definitely going to get some posts arguing with what I am about to write but here it goes:

OK, let us call, for argument's sake, the cells in the womb alive. They have a life. However, I have yet to meet anyone opposed to killing cockroaches, amoebas etc (all of which are alive); it is not the "you are killing something that is alive" that some oppose to. 
Those who oppose abortion are against "killing something" (again no better word comes to mind) that has the _potential_ to become human. It is not a human being yet.


----------



## .   1

curly said:


> I thought that was regeneration?


I am at a loss to understand this unattributed response.
You thought what was regeneration?

.,,


----------



## curly

. said:


> I am at a loss to understand this unattributed response.
> You thought what was regeneration?
> 
> .,,


I thought that the replacing of cells with identicle cells was regeneration, i was right and so was the person who said that is was reproduction because as explained by him regeneration is a form of reproduction.

OR as maziogee points out, it's REALLY just Star Trek

(isn't it a little odd that no-one has responded to ireney's post yet?)


----------



## JLanguage

It was my impression that Christians (apologize for the sweeping generalization) believe that at the moment of conception the soul enters the embryo. It is for this reason that abortion is murder. (Please correct if I was wrong there.)


----------



## curly

I think that apart from the difficulty of saying all christians believe this there is the difficulty of saying this is and always has been their firm belief.

What is right today could be wrong tomorrow, or viceversa, (how's that for papal infallibility).


----------



## GenJen54

Fernando said:
			
		

> The same right that give me the right to impose my view that setting a bomb in a mall is a bad thing, regardless of what your personal beliefs are.


So, because "your" rights are those deemed by G-d or [deity of your choice], and mine not so, your "rights" are more "right" than mine?  Do I not have the right to impose my pro-Spaghetti Monster beliefs on you?  If not, then by whose ordinance do your rights matter more than mine?  God's?  I may not believe in him, so how could this apply?


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> ...If you really mean "unbelievably high", then doubt the figures, if you just mean 'higher than anyone expected' then I suggest that people didn't kbnow the scale of the social problem which unwanted pregnancy can be.


20,000 a year last year and that's with a total  population of 4 million people. There are 20,000 women a year who haven't the wit to use contraception, and who go along to a clinic and claim for the sake of the way the law is worded that they will kill themselves if they can't get an abortion, and so get one on the grounds of their 'mental health'. *Some of them are having their fourth or fifth abortion! *


. said:


> ...
> Has anybody focused on the rights of the prospective mother.
> 
> What about the scared fifteen year old girl facing a life of drudgery because of one small error of judgement?
> 
> ..........
> 
> There seem to be a staggering number of people who are quite willing to impose their views on potential mothers but are suddenly invisible and stating something like "Well it's not my problem" after birth.
> 
> .,,


Been there done that, twice. The first child was adopted out and the second I raised. Abortion never entered my head for a moment. I am quite happy with the choices I did make, and so my heart doesn't exactly bleed for the 15 year old, who should have done her homework instead of her boyfriend... 


ireney said:


> I am definitely going to get some posts arguing with what I am about to write but here it goes:
> 
> ...........
> Those who oppose abortion are against "killing something" (again no better word comes to mind) that has the _potential_ to become human. It is not a human being yet.


Of course it's human! it's not a cockroach is it? When do you say it realises that potential? When it's old enough to protest being killed?


----------



## Victoria32

GenJen54 said:


> So, because "your" rights are those deemed by G-d or [deity of your choice], and mine not so, your "rights" are more "right" than mine? Do I not have the right to impose my pro-Spaghetti Monster beliefs on you? If not, then by whose ordinance do your rights matter more than mine? God's? I may not believe in him, so how could this apply?


Because your "Spaghetti Monster" beliefs include the "right" to kill a being many (perhaps most) people regard as a human being and more than just a 'potential' one...


----------



## ireney

Victoria32 said:


> Of course it's human! it's not a cockroach is it? When do you say it realises that potential? When it's old enough to protest being killed?



Define "human"


----------



## Victoria32

ireney said:


> Define "human"


It has human (not chimp, cockroach or cat) DNA. It is in the form of a human, its parents are human. If its life is not ended, it will be a child, and adult, an old person. It has all the rights pertaining to a human, starting with the right to life, and to not have its life ended purely for convenience' sake. 
"Hard cases make bad law" so exceptions for rape and incest are a bad idea. The child is not the rapist, and so should _not _be punished for her father's crime. Abortions for incest don't help the victim - they help the perpetrator, by making it diffiicult or impossible to prove a case against him.
Eugenic abortions are an even worse idea. In the UK it has been routine to abort babies with Downs syndrome. I used to work with people with disabilities.
 Now, parents are so frightened of Downs syndrome that they have no idea that most people with Downs have physical challenges that are easily treated and that their intellectual handicaps are usually very mild. 
Abortion will_ never_ get rid of disability. Even if _every_ baby with a disability was identified (with no false positives or negatives) and got rid of, there would be more, from spontaneous mutation.
Besides, people with disabilities have a right to live. To think they are "useless eaters" (and not human) is Nazism, pure and simple!


----------



## .   1

G'day Curley

Thank you for the clarification.
This thread is rather difficult to follow for the uninitiated.
I now understand the difference between regeneration and reproduction from your perspective.
Regeneration of the skin of a cut finger is reproduction but is is a reproduction of a different kind to the reproduction of a human being.


Ireney has posted a difficult question that may require a little too much introspection on the part of those who hold too fast to their views to respond to without questioning the entire basis for their own position.

.,,


----------



## modus.irrealis

GenJen54 said:


> If you are a follower of X religion and I am a follower of Y religion, or no religion at all, then what does give you the right to impose your "view" on me any more than I have the right to impose my view on you, even regarding a topic such as abortion.



Because I live in a democracy where different points of view are (or should be) argued and concensuses are made and enforced. In the end, some sort of decision will have to be made and views will be "imposed" that some disagree with. That's how the system works. I don't see how framing the discussion in terms of the "imposition of views" is useful, since we do it all the time with other issues. We should just have a rational discussion about who is a person, what rights do persons have, which rights outrank other rights, and so on, and not try to shortcut the debate by deciding one view represents an anti-woman, medieval, theocratic, fanatical, fundamentalist point of view.

For me, the "your views are being imposed on me" is doubly absurd when it comes to abortion, because if such an argument were valid here, I don't see why it would not be valid then for someone who think women are inferior to men and therefore he should be able to do whatever he wants to his wife, or someone who thinks non-whites are inferior and thinks whatever. Since such arguments are met with "too bad," that argument deserves the same response when its given on behalf of abortion. There are good arguments for making abortion legal (although I do not find them convincing); catchy slogans are not it, though.



> I personally still don't understand why so many people, cloaked in their religion, tend to focus more on the rights of the "unborn" than they do the issues and problems facing those already born, who are living in dire poverty, in war-torn areas with imminent starvation and/or death by the cruelties of the modern world. I never hear a politician talk - or religious leader, for that matter - discuss what humanity needs to help these children - who have already been born.


To be honest, that sounds like those who complain where are the moderate Muslims condemning terrorism. Just because someone doesn't know of something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What about Darfur, where most of the effort to bring this issue to the fore has come from religious groups (as far I have seen)?



> I don't mean to say they _*shouldn't* _talk about the abortion issue, it just seems more meaningful impact could be made by any action that goes towards alleviating the suffering of those children, already born, who suffer from neglect, abuse, starvation and other serious problems.


But that seems to me to be a comment from the point of view that born life is more valuable than unborn life, which is, in some sense, the very issue at hand.



egueule said:


> By that definition, isn't a cancerous growth life as well?



It may very well be (I was just responding to someone's else's definition who felt it didn't apply to embryos). Is it a life, though, that's independent from the host (not sure if it's the right term)? Do cancerous cells have a different set of DNA, for example?


----------



## HistofEng

Victoria32 said:


> It has human (not chimp, cockroach or cat) DNA.
> It is in the form of a human, its parents are human. If its life is not ended, it will be a child, and adult, an old person. It has all the rights pertaining to a human, starting with the right to life, and to not have its life ended purely for convenience' sake.




So is it so that you want to give any entity, that is not yet a human being, rights that are accorded to human beings, because it has the potential to become a "human being" or is it because you think it is a human being already.

What is a human being? What are the _inherent_ attributes? Simply saying its parents are human doesn't cut it.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> It may very well be (I was just responding to someone's else's definition who felt it didn't apply to embryos). Is it a life, though, that's independent from the host (not sure if it's the right term)? Do cancerous cells have *a different set of DNA*, for example?



Why must it have a different set of DNA? What if the embryo was a clone?


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> What are the attributes that define a *"person?"*



I think that's the whole issue here, and we should distinguish between the scientific concept of human life (and I do not see how anyone can give a reasonable definition of this that exclude the fetus or embryo -- what exactly is the magic that occurs at birth to make something a human?) and the legal concept of person, who has certain rights under the law that must be recognized and protected.

That's a non-answer to your question, but I would say all humans are persons, because that's the only clear-cut answer (and then we can debate the different rights that persons have and which ones win out when there's a conflict). The denial of personhood throughout history (to blacks, to women, etc.) has been one of the easiest ways for Western countries to do quite inhumane things to other humans and still delude themselves into believing they were enlightened and superior. Recognizing every single human as a person would force us to better examine what rights people do in fact have (persons e.g. do not have a complete right to life, in this country, since there are circumstances where you can legally kill someone in self-defense), and what rights are more important than other ones.



ireney said:


> OK, let us call, for argument's sake, the cells in the womb alive. They have a life. However, I have yet to meet anyone opposed to killing cockroaches, amoebas etc (all of which are alive); it is not the "you are killing something that is alive" that some oppose to.
> Those who oppose abortion are against "killing something" (again no better word comes to mind) that has the _potential_ to become human. It is not a human being yet.



But that's the whole issue. You're stating it as a fact that it has the potential to become human, but that's just one of the possible point of views (although I'm reading your use of human to mean person, because I don't see how it's not human -- if my hand is a human hand, a fetus is certainly human as well). You can't have a debate (on this topic) where one side is adopted as the default position and only the other side has to argue for it's point of view.


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> Why must it have a different set of DNA? What if the embryo was a clone?



I don't see where I said it must. To be honest, I'm not even sure what "different set of DNA" really means -- do minor changes mean damaged DNA or different DNA? I would think that a cancerous growth has some features that make it part of the organism it's affecting (but if not, then not).

As for clones, again, I'm sure biologists have a way of distinguishing whether two "things" with the same DNA are different individuals (and that involves an implicit definition) or members of the same organism, although I remember reading about some troublesome cases (coral reefs?). How early in pregnancy, e.g., can you tell if someone is having twins (when they're identical)?


----------



## Victoria32

HistofEng said:


> So is it so that you want to give any entity, that is not yet a human being, rights that are accorded to human beings, because it has the potential to become a "human being" or is it because you think it is a human being already.
> 
> What is a human being? What are the _inherent_ attributes? Simply saying its parents are human doesn't cut it.


It is a human being already, and no amount of sophistry can change that. It is a human, it has human rights (most importantly the right to life) and I am unimpressed with the 'potential person' argument. As Modus Irrealis has pointed out, defining some groups of people as less than human has led to massive injustice inn the past.


----------



## HistofEng

Victoria32 said:


> It is a human being already, and no amount of sophistry can change that. It is a human,



yet, still, no one can definitively tell me what makes us a "_human being_." what distinguishes us from another mass of molecules? All I'm asking for is a list of inherent characteristics. Not just human...a human being, a person.



> it has human rights (most importantly the right to life) and I am unimpressed with the 'potential person' argument.


I'm unimpressed by the potentiality argument too, that's why I asked you first what you meant instead of just assuming.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> I don't see where I said it must. To be honest, I'm not even sure what "different set of DNA" really means -- do minor changes mean damaged DNA or different DNA? I would think that a cancerous growth has some features that make it part of the organism it's affecting (but if not, then not).



if anything a clone embryo is gentically "closer" to the donor organism than that organism's tumor.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> I think that's the whole issue here, and we should distinguish between the scientific concept of human life (and I do not see how anyone can give a reasonable definition of this that exclude the fetus or embryo -- what exactly is the magic that occurs at birth to make something a human?) and the legal concept of person, who has certain rights under the law that must be recognized and protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a non-answer to your question, but I would say all humans are persons, because that's the only clear-cut answer (and then we can debate the different rights that persons have and which ones win out when there's a conflict). The denial of personhood throughout history (to blacks, to women, etc.) has been one of the easiest ways for Western countries to do quite inhumane things to other humans and still delude themselves into believing they were enlightened and superior.



right, I wasn't talking about the scientific concept of human life, I was rather talking about _personhood_. What are the _inherent_ attributes that define personhood. There has to be definition for this, or else we could deem anything a person, a dog, a tree, a rock. Why is it so to give list a few _inherent_ attributes?


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> if anything a clone embryo is gentically "closer" to the donor organism than that organism's tumor.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here with these questions. I'm not familiar with how biologists determine what constitutes an individual organism, but I'm sure DNA is not the sole factor (since identical twins are considered separate organisms).



HistofEng said:


> right, I wasn't talking about the scientific concept of human life, I was rather talking about _personhood_. What are the _inherent_ attributes that define personhood. There has to be definition for this, or else we could deem anything a person, a dog, a tree, a rock. Why is it so to give list a few _inherent_ attributes?



Since it's a legal concept, it can be defined however a society wishes. If I got to choose the definition, it would be, as I said before, that being human is the sole sufficient and necessary condition for being a person.


----------



## Victoria32

modus.irrealis said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here with these questions. I'm not familiar with how biologists determine what constitutes an individual organism, but I'm sure DNA is not the sole factor (since identical twins are considered separate organisms).
> 
> 
> 
> Since it's a legal concept, it can be defined however a society wishes. If I got to choose the definition, it would be, as I said before, that being human is the sole sufficient and necessary condition for being a person.


I agree... which is why I was wondering how to answer HistOfEng's questions! 
If pressed, I suppose I'd say that we all know what makes a person human, and not a dog, tree or whatever. To introduce qualities such as mind and soul is to introduce possible 'slippery slope' arguments - such as, and I've seen this seriously put forward, that someone with dementia has forfeited her/his human status and can be disposed of, to supposedly "prevent" his/her suffering and/or that of the family!


----------



## Cath.S.

Modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> Is it a life, though, that's independent from the host (not sure if it's the right term)?


No way it can survive on its own, though, just like a foetus. If left to itx own devices, it dies.

But I feel we've all strayed very far from the subject, which does not seem to be Why do Christians oppose abortion? any more, but why is it or is it not* rational* to oppose abortion, as if religious beliefs were a matter of logic, they are not, they are a matter of faith, which is an irrational feeling. 

I don't mean to offend anyone by stating this, it is just a fact.

Belief in God and in God-related morals has nothing to do with science, DNA and the nature of cells. Faith is not the same as philosophy, since the bottom line is always,  "Well we have to act that way because the priests / holy books, who know God's will, say so."


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at here with these questions. I'm not familiar with how biologists determine what constitutes an individual organism, but I'm sure DNA is not the sole factor (since identical twins are considered separate organisms).



Biologically speaking, I'd consider a tumor just as much as an individual mass of cell as a clone embryo. Both of which can be considered non-persons by many, many people.





> Since it's a legal concept, it can be defined however a society wishes. If I got to choose the definition, it would be, as I said before, that being human is the sole sufficient and necessary condition for being a person.


okay, so since it can be defined relatively, personhood can be granted or denied to anything relative to the individual's (societal's) definition.

but then a tumor is human? do you believe a tumor has personhood (in your personal opinion, since it's relative)?


----------



## HistofEng

Victoria32 said:


> I agree... which is why I was wondering how to answer HistOfEng's questions!
> If pressed, I suppose I'd say that we all know what makes a person human, and not a dog, tree or whatever.



If it's general knowledge, then it shouldn't be too hard to provide a description



> To introduce qualities such as mind and soul is to introduce possible 'slippery slope' arguments



Are you putting forth these qualities? If yes, could you please provide a description of these qualities, because many people believe their lovable pet dogs have minds and souls. If yes, should we grant dogs personhood?


----------



## .   1

I discussed this matter with my daughter who thought that the question was;
"Why do Christians oppose abortion in other people?"
Surely a Christian can not be effected by the decision of another person to not have a baby.
I am reminded of a conversation my mother and father had when my brother left home and took out a loan to buy furniture.
Mum was moaning and complaining about the irresponsibility of youth and that dad should forbid my brother from doing what he was doing.

Dad said, 
"Are you going to pay the loan if the kid can't?"
Mum said,
"Certainly not!"
Dad said,
"In that case it's none of your business so keep your mouth shut!"

Vicarious opposition to abortion is baseless from those not involved in the parenting process.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

egueule said:


> .....But I feel we've all strayed very far from the subject, which does not seem to be Why do Christians oppose abortion? any more, but why is it or is it not* rational* to oppose abortion, as if religious beliefs were a matter of logic, they are not, they are a matter of faith, which is an irrational feeling.
> 
> I don't mean to offend anyone by stating this, it is just a fact.
> 
> Belief in God and in God-related morals has nothing to do with science, DNA and the nature of cells. Faith is not the same as philosophy, since the bottom line is always, "Well we have to act that way because the priests / holy books, who know God's will, say so."


Which doesn't mean that therearen't *also* logical and reasonable grounds to oppose abortion 


HistofEng said:


> If it's general knowledge, then it shouldn't be too hard to provide a description
> 
> 
> 
> Are you putting forth these qualities? If yes, could you please provide a description of these qualities, because many people believe their lovable pet dogs have minds and souls. If yes, should we grant dogs personhood?


There is a move to grant personhood to the great apes, are you thinking of that? I didn't want to get into describing mind and soul, because there are people who don't think the latter (and some like Daniel Dennett think even the former) don't exist. We all have the experience of having a mind, and so no, I won't define it. 


. said:


> I discussed this matter with my daughter who thought that the question was;
> "Why do Christians oppose abortion in other people?"
> Surely a Christian can not be effected by the decision of another person to not have a baby.
> I am reminded of a conversation my mother and father had when my brother left home and took out a loan to buy furniture.
> Mum was moaning and complaining about the irresponsibility of youth and that dad should forbid my brother from doing what he was doing.
> 
> Dad said,
> "Are you going to pay the loan if the kid can't?"
> Mum said,
> "Certainly not!"
> Dad said,
> "In that case it's none of your business so keep your mouth shut!"
> 
> Vicarious opposition to abortion is baseless from those not involved in the parenting process.
> 
> .,,


No, I couldn't agree less! Is opposition to war baseless from those who are not soldiers or the family of those who are?


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> I discussed this matter with my daughter who thought that the question was;
> "Why do Christians oppose abortion in other people?"
> Surely a Christian can not be effected by the decision of another person to not have a baby.
> 
> Dad said,
> "Are you going to pay the loan if the kid can't?"
> Mum said,
> "Certainly not!"
> Dad said,
> "In that case it's none of your business so keep your mouth shut!"
> 
> Vicarious opposition to abortion is baseless from those not involved in the parenting process.
> 
> .,,


 
Following your logic, vicarious opposition to infanticide is baseless from those not involved in the parenting process.

*Christian point of view* on abortion is based on the proposition that a human being is a human being whether 6 weeks after conception, 6 months after conception, 6 years after conception or 6 decades [or any number you like] after conception, and has a right to life, simply because it is a human being. 

It is logical and rational position, based on the notion of _human_ rights. It does not really need any supernatural belief system to support it.

Some [Peter Singer is a good example] completely deny _human rights_. According to Peter Singer, a stray cat and human being should have the same moral consideration, qua_ living being_. Singer has no trouble with abortion, infanticide or mercy-killing of the handicapped or aged.

In various positions in the middle, there are those who accept the concept of _person rights_ rather than _human rights_, and who squabble about exactly when a human being is a "person" for the purposes of the criminal and civil law.


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> Which doesn't mean that therearen't *also* logical and reasonable grounds to oppose abortion
> 
> There is a move to grant personhood to the great apes, are you thinking of that? I didn't want to get into describing mind and soul, because there are people who don't think the latter (and some like Daniel Dennett think even the former) don't exist. We all have the experience of having a mind, and so no, I won't define it.
> 
> No, I couldn't agree less! Is opposition to war baseless from those who are not soldiers or the family of those who are?


Would it be bad manners of me to request that you actually read my words and stop paraphrasing my answer and extrapolating your paraphrasing.
War has nothing to do with abortion.
Infanticide has nothing to do with abortion.

War effects other people.
Infanticide effects other people.
Having a baby effects other people.
Not having a baby does not effect those not intimitely concerned with the matter.

Is anybody interested in answering my question?
Why do christians oppose abortions by other people that have nothing to do with the christians?

.,,


----------



## modus.irrealis

Victoria32 said:


> If pressed, I suppose I'd say that we all know what makes a person human, and not a dog, tree or whatever. To introduce qualities such as mind and soul is to introduce possible 'slippery slope' arguments - such as, and I've seen this seriously put forward, that someone with dementia has forfeited her/his human status and can be disposed of, to supposedly "prevent" his/her suffering and/or that of the family!



That's what I was trying to get at. Any definition of person that excludes a certain human lets us lessen the psychological shock to do inhumane things to that human.



egueule said:


> No way it can survive on its own, though, just like a foetus. If left to itx own devices, it dies.



And neither can a 1 day old baby. Does that mean anything?



> But I feel we've all strayed very far from the subject, which does not seem to be Why do Christians oppose abortion? any more, but why is it or is it not* rational* to oppose abortion, as if religious beliefs were a matter of logic, they are not, they are a matter of faith, which is an irrational feeling.
> 
> I don't mean to offend anyone by stating this, it is just a fact.


It's funny how your fact looks an awful lot like a baseless opinion to me. My religious faith is a matter of reason.



> Belief in God and in God-related morals has nothing to do with science, DNA and the nature of cells. Faith is not the same as philosophy, since the bottom line is always,  "Well we have to act that way because the priests / holy books, who know God's will, say so."


I guess you know this because you made a thorough survey of all religious people and found this to be true? If you did, you missed me.



HistofEng said:


> Biologically speaking, I'd consider a tumor just as much as an individual mass of cell as a clone embryo. Both of which can be considered non-persons by many, many people.



And? I don't disagree with either of your claims there, so I fail to see the point.



> okay, so since it can be defined relatively, personhood can be granted or denied to anything relative to the individual's (societal's) definition.


Umm... that's just the way it is. It is a fact that different societies define personhood differently (see this case for example). That, of course, does not mean there isn't a right definition.



> but then a tumor is human? do you believe a tumor has personhood (in your personal opinion, since it's relative)?


No.


----------



## modus.irrealis

. said:


> War effects other people.
> Infanticide effects other people.
> Having a baby effects other people.
> Not having a baby does not effect those not intimitely concerned with the matter.



And would it be bad manners to ask you to stop assuming what you are arguing and give an actual argument? The whole issue at hand is whether abortion affects another person. You obviously think it does not but many people do, that person being the unborn child.



> Is anybody interested in answering my question?
> Why do christians oppose abortions by other people that have nothing to do with the christians?



Too bad there's not a snort emoticon. That's like asking

Why do non-christians oppose murder by other people that have nothing to do with the non-christians?

Are you saying people should only care about their own kind?


----------



## .   1

modus.irrealis said:


> And would it be bad manners to ask you to stop assuming what you are arguing and give an actual argument? The whole issue at hand is whether abortion affects another person. You obviously think it does not but many people do, that person being the unborn child.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad there's not a snort emoticon. That's like asking
> 
> Why do non-christians oppose murder by other people that have nothing to do with the non-christians?
> 
> Are you saying people should only care about their own kind?


Is there any chance that people could stop putting words into my statements that are simply not there.
I am discussing abortion.
I am not discussing infanticide or murder or war and I am trying to stay on topic.
I am told that opinions to the contrary of the view that abortion is an abomination are not of value but that belief in God is a matter of reason.

This is a weird religious based thread but then many religious based threads degenerate.

I will not be swayed by any religious views on anything and the arguments placed so far all spiral back to the word of god.  
God allowed the invention of abortion procedures.

.,,


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> I will not be swayed by any religious views on anything and the arguments placed so far all spiral back to the word of god.
> God allowed the invention of abortion procedures.
> 
> .,,


 
The title of this thread, _for the umpteenth time_, is 
*Why do Christians oppose abortion?*

The question has been answered - many times over!!

I don't suppose any Christians will be swayed by your views either. Stalemate? 
And, as I pointed out, the Christian belief that a human being is a human being from conception does not require any word of any god. 
It is a view which atheists can share.


----------



## Fernando

HistofEng said:


> What are the attributes ascribed to a _"Human Being"_?
> 
> *"Something"* isn't very descriptive.
> 
> My skin cells are complete with human DNA! Are they _each_ "human beings"



As I have said it before, they are not "complete".


----------



## Fernando

Brioche said:


> The title of this thread, _for the umpteenth time_, is
> *Why do Christians oppose abortion?*
> 
> The question has been answered - many times over!!
> 
> I don't suppose any Christians will be swayed by your views either. Stalemate?
> And, as I pointed out, the Christian belief that a human being is a human being from conception does not require any word of any god.
> It is a view which atheists can share.



Agreed 100%.


----------



## Fiamma.1981

According to what Tokiowalker says, there is nothing on the Bible which denies abortion explicitly. 
Personally I cannot confirm what he wrote, but I think that this christian opposition is a logical consequence of the rule "don't kill": in my opinion, this rule has been interpreted in a way that brings everyone to be against any human intervention on the human body (see also euthanasia and death penalty).
The problem is that not all the Christians share this opposition, right because the rule "don't kill" is subject to interpretations.


----------



## maxiogee

curly said:


> What is right today could be wrong tomorrow, or viceversa, (how's that for papal infallibility).



I think you may be under a misapprehenshion about "papal infallibility".
The papacy only claims infallibility when the Pope "speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals".


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:


> Define "human"


Has humanity come so far along the evolutionary trail that we cannot - seriously, any of those arguing here - tell what is human and what is not?
The idea that we need to define human smacks seriously of eugenics.




HistofEng said:


> What is a human being? What are the _inherent_ attributes? Simply saying its parents are human doesn't cut it.


That's absolutely preposterous. Have you ever heard of a pair of human parents producing offspring which wasn't human?

WHat the argument is about is not "what" is human, but "when" does it become human, and even that is not the real argument. The real argument is …
"Does a potential mother (a pregnant woman) have the right to control what happens to both her and the potential person (an embryo/a foetus) she is carrying?"
That then, if given a "yes" answer, leads on to …
"Do others have a right to assist her in terminating her pregnancy?"


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:


> Has humanity come so far along the evolutionary trail that we cannot - seriously, any of those arguing here - tell what is human and what is not?
> The idea that we need to define human smacks seriously of eugenics.




It does? Saying that I consider some cells in a womb not human but human in potentia is _eugenics_? If this embryo (?) continues to grow and finally comes out of the womb having developed a body etc (which I by no means say that they could be that of a cat) then it will have realised its potential and have become a human being. If it doesn't (and I am not talking only about technically induced abortion here) then it is not a human that died but something that could develop into a human.

Since it is an integral part of the woman still it is not a human being. A human being can live on its own with the help, in its younger stages, of any other member of the human race [I include the modern medical technology here that makes it possible for babies to continue their growth outside the womb] (with the possible exception of Siamese(? term?) but that's complicating things (happy to discuss it afterwards). An embryo of that stage can't live as an individual being helped by others. It is fed through the woman's system etc etc.

I am generalising a bit, I know, but I am trying to keep things simple. 

I am not saying that it can grow up to be a non-human. I am saying that it can grow up to become  a human, a state which I consider it has not yet attained.


----------



## HistofEng

Fernando said:


> As I have said it before, they are not "complete".



What's _"complete?"_ You're actually not explaining anything when you use quote marks. You must **describe!**


----------



## HistofEng

maxiogee said:


> That's absolutely preposterous. Have you ever heard of a pair of human parents producing offspring which wasn't human?



Consider an example of scientists, (a mere 2 centuries from now), being able to assemble any organism on the planet from its basic chemical constituent parts. These organisms would have no natural parents, would that make the human ones not human beings. 'Human parents' is not a good description for being a human being (person). It's much more intinsic than that.



> WHat the argument is about is not "what" is human, but "when" does it become human,


How do we know When it becomes a human being if we don't even know What a human being is. A lack of definition means anything can be deemed a human being.


----------



## HistofEng

Victoria32 said:


> There is a move to grant personhood to the great apes, are you thinking of that?



There are people who want to grant personhood to rats, cickens, and snakes, because they believe they have person-like qualities (like sensing pain, etc) as defined by them. Why, exactly do we give more right to great apes than to cockroaches, what intrinsic qualities do _they_ have that set them apart. 



> I didn't want to get into describing mind and soul, because there are people who don't think the latter (and some like Daniel Dennett think even the former) don't exist. We all have the experience of having a mind, and so no, I won't define it.



You are already brought those qualities up there'd be no major harm in describing them. It's funny how after 3 or 4 pages of me asking this question no one can give me a few descriptive _intrinsic_ qualities on what makes one a human being/person. There's just as much a 'Slippery slope' if you don't define it than if you do. 

(are you putting forth 'mind' at least as one such quality?)


----------



## Fernando

HistofEng said:


> What's _"complete?"_ You're actually not explaining anything when you use quote marks. You must **describe!**



HistofEng, I was patient enough to repeat some of my arguments in other threads on this topic. Please, be so kind to read them through and them turn back and critizise what you want. 

And please, describe your stance on the matter. For some reason, I have not noticed it.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> That's what I was trying to get at. Any definition of person that excludes a certain human lets us lessen the psychological shock to do inhumane things to that human.



But can it be in*humane *if the entity is not a human _being_. Conversely, what if their are subjects we are overlooking as persons simply because they are not human (biologically). We must define what the _intrinsic_ characteristics of a human being is, and what they entail.




> And? I don't disagree with either of your claims there, so I fail to see the point.



Oh, it seemed as if you were claiming that a tumor was less individual than a clone embryo. If not, then no further point. 



> Umm... that's just the way it is. It is a fact that different societies define personhood differently (see this case for example). That, of course, does not mean there isn't a right definition.



sure they may be a right definition, but unfortunately we don't know it, and must guess with the knowledge and experiences we do have, morals remain relative.




> No.



  Could you explain why, since a tumor (or any other mass of cells) is infact human


----------



## HistofEng

Fernando said:


> HistofEng, I was patient enough to repeat some of my arguments in other threads on this topic. Please, be so kind to read them through and them turn back and critizise what you want.
> 
> And please, describe your stance on the matter. For some reason, I have not noticed it.




well, I skimmed the other abortion thread (from a few months ago) for anything you said that might apply, but have come up with nothing. Perhaps it would be easier for you to search from memory and just copy and paste it.



You haven't noticed it because I've been stuck on one quetion I posed 3 or 4 pages ago that no one has answered.


----------



## cuchuflete

I've noticed throughout this conversation quite a few references to "rights", "basic rights" and other such terms.  Those using them mostly assume them to be both essential and immutable and inflexible.  That's why the conversation often seems like opponents shouting  past  one another, rather than talking with one another.

"Rights" are arrived at by either imposition, with those in power defining and enforcing them, or by a movement towards consensus by a majority.  Thus, until a couple of decades ago, women in my country did not have clear rights
to a legal abortion under most circumstances.  Today they do, and those who believed in the older definition of "rights" are
not at all pleased.  There are at least two valid sides to this argument, in strong opposition to one another.   Both claim certain "rights".  Both have some logic on their respectives sides.

There are countries in the world today in which the "right" to an abortion does not exist, and others in which a mother has
a legal "right" to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.  Where the "right" to end a pregnancy exists, it is limited, in different ways in different places.

The so-called 'moral' rights, based on the teachings of one or more religions, are less subject to change than legal rights.
The latter do change over time.  Where slavery was once defended by both church and state, it has lost legal status, with most religions also changing their views.  However, let us remember that, not so long ago, both legally and "morally", according to many leading religions, slave holding was a "right".  So was the effective ownership and control of a woman by her husband.

When any religion attempts, as most have, do, and will, to impose its current definition of a "right" on those who don't share the precepts of that religion, you may count me among those in opposition, even when I personally agree with the position of the religion.  When religions intrude into public policy, they should be subject to the same rules and obligations as any other political player, *including taxation of property.*

That should bring forth a few hornets.


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> But can it be in*humane *if the entity is not a human _being_.



Sure it can. What do you think the word means?



> Conversely, what if their are subjects we are overlooking as persons simply because they are not human (biologically). We must define what the _intrinsic_ characteristics of a human being is, and what they entail.


Let me ask you this. Do biologists have a difficulty in determining individual human beings? I again fail to see what your point is.

You could give a biological intrinsic definition of human that includes skin colour. Would that be acceptable?



> sure they may be a right definition, but unfortunately we don't know it, and must guess with the knowledge and experiences we do have, morals remain relative.


Why don't we "know" it? We go with experiences when it comes to many things where objectivity is not lacking.



> Could you explain why, since a tumor (or any other mass of cells) is infact human


Because it is part of a human being.


----------



## cuchuflete

If "Thou shall not kill..." is the basis for religious opposition to abortion, then logically all abortion opponents should be conscientious objectors, and refuse to pay taxes that support armies, and refuse military service.  If not, it's a rather selective application of the commandment.

Yes, of course, there will be many who say things like, "But if attacked we have to defend...", but that just shows a circumstantial interpretation of the commandment.  Killing in a war is killing.  There is no place for argument about whether or not a soldier is a human life form.  

This thread is proof enough that there is no uniformity of opinion about whether a foetus is a human life form.  Yet, the 
'shall not kill' argument is used here.


----------



## modus.irrealis

cuchuflete said:


> When any religion attempts, as most have, do, and will, to impose its current definition of a "right" on those who don't share the precepts of that religion, you may count me among those in opposition, even when I personally agree with the position of the religion.



Isn't that effectively saying that anyone with even the slightest bit of religious belief should be completely excluded from politics? I've never understood why a position, because it might derive from a religious point of view, suddenly become evil. I support publicly funded health care for moral and therefore religious reasons -- should Canada then get rid of it just because it means my religious point of view is being imposed on other people?

And then there's an absurb idea going around (this isn't directed at you, cuchuflete) that religious point of views are irrational but non-religious point of views are rational. I fail to see, however, why "fetuses are human" is irrational but "fetuses are potentially human" has all the hallmarks of enlightened thought. Why can't people just discuss these issues (like many people are here, perhaps off-topically).



cuchuflete said:


> This thread is proof enough that there is no uniformity of opinion about whether a foetus is a human life form.  Yet, the
> 'shall not kill' argument is used here.



To take a not so hypothetical example, there is no uniformity of opinion whether all races are equally human. Maybe we shouldn't impose our views on racists and take away their choice to kill members of those races they find less than human. Does that mean anything?


----------



## Fernando

ireney said:


> If it doesn't (and I am not talking only about technically induced abortion here) then it is not a human that died but something that could develop into a human.



Why exactly is it not a human before? What is the characteristic that lacks to be a human?




ireney said:


> Since it is an integral part of the woman still it is not a human being.



Why is the integral part of the women? Do you know any woman who bears DNA other than their own?



ireney said:


> An embryo of that stage can't live as an individual being helped by others. It is fed through the woman's system etc etc.



Try to let a 2/3 months child without assistance.


----------



## cuchuflete

Modus.irrealis,

You have set up a staw man and effectively knocked it down.  I made no comment about *anyone, *any single individual, acting in the political sphere in accord with their own religious beliefs.  I referred specifically to "religions", which are organizations of people.  Nor did I ever say or imply that a position espoused by a religion is necessarily evil, illogical, or wrong in any way.  There may be such things, but I didn't attempt to mention or discuss them.

For illogical and even evil viewpoints, we can look to humans (such a contentious term!) of both religious, atheistic, and indifferent postures.  

As to the rational _vs. _irrational matter, I have been taught that religions are supposed to concern themselves with spiritual matters, which are beyond that particular distinction.
When they move beyond the spiritual realm into public policy, they are welcome to debate on rational grounds, and pay taxes for public services received, just as any other lobby or special interest group.  



modus.irrealis said:


> Isn't that effectively saying that anyone with even the slightest bit of religious belief should be completely excluded from politics? I've never understood why a position, because it might derive from a religious point of view, suddenly become evil.
> 
> And then there's an absurb idea going around (this isn't directed at you, cuchuflete) that religious point of views are irrational but non-religious point of views are rational.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> Sure it can. What do you think the word means?


That's true, something indeed can be inhumane without it pertaining to a human being.

but it can be inhumane to step on and kill blades of grass, but hardly anyone has a problem with that. 



> Let me ask you this. Do biologists have a difficulty in determining individual human beings? I again fail to see what your point is.


you are mixing up your the terms (or I am)...human being = person ....human = biologically human.

Biologists have little to do with determining what a human being is.

My point is actually a question, one which has not been answered from many posts and many pages ago.



> You could give a biological intrinsic definition of human that includes skin colour. Would that be acceptable?


 Again, I don't think we're using the same words the same way. I'm asking for the intrinsic descriptive qualities of a human being (a person) not a biological human.



> Why don't we "know" it? We go with experiences when it comes to many things where objectivity is not lacking.


Morals may be objective but we don't know if our subjective morals are the same as the objective ones. Morals are relative to the society/individual, with many believing their morals are the objective ones, there's no way to know this.




> Because it is part of a human being.



human being? or biological human?...

If we define a human being as anything that is human (as you've described right?), than each or our cells (or a group of them) can be described as a human being. I don't believe that you think this, so please tell me what differentiates a human being from its constituent parts (its cells); which is again, my basic question which hasn't been answered.


----------



## Fernando

HistofEng said:


> Biologists have little to do with determining what a human being is.



Quite on the contrary, they have much to say. 



HistofEng said:


> Again, I don't think we're using the same words the same way. I'm asking for the intrinsic descriptive qualities of a human being (a person) not a biological human.



My answer: A biological human = A Human being = A person. If you have problems with "biological human" let me know.



HistofEng said:


> Morals may be objective but we don't know if our subjective morals are the same as the objective ones. Morals are relative to the society/individual, with many believing their morals are the objective ones, there's no way to know this.



Despite that, we punish whites killing black people, even if some people (the majority?) do not agree they are the same thing.



HistofEng said:


> If we define a human being as anything that is human (as you've described right?), than each or our cells (or a group of them) can be described as a human being.



Each of my cell is human. I am a human being because I am a complete being.


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:


> Yes, of course, there will be many who say things like, "But if attacked we have to defend...", but that just shows a circumstantial interpretation of the commandment.  Killing in a war is killing.  There is no place for argument about whether or not a soldier is a human life form.



Situation 1: A guy comes to kill me: I kill him (if there is no other way to stop him). That is fair to me.

Situation 2: A guy disturbs me, against his willing (99% of times as a direct consequence of my own acts). I have many possibilities to avoid killing him with a disturbance ranging from moderate to big. I kill him. That is not fair to me.

I would not say this is circumstancial. I think it is essential.


----------



## Maja

. said:


> Is anybody interested in answering my question?
> Why do christians oppose abortions by other people that have nothing to do with the christians?
> .,,


Well, I thought I did answer it. The view of Christians is, as far as I know, that GOD gives life and only GOD has the right to take. It is of no importance if a person in question is an agnostic or atheist (because other religions are against it to). 
According to Christians, "God is creator of heaven and earth, and everything visible and invisible" so he created EVERY MAN regardless if the man itself believes in it or not!!!

However, we cannot PROHIBIT anyone to have an abortion. As far as I know, abortion is legal in many countries up to the 4th month of pregnancy, and smt in the 5th if it is determined that there is smt wrong with a fetus. 

My personal position is  that I cannot preach anyone what to do!!! But if a friend of my considers abortion and asks for my opinion on the subject, I would answer truthfully and present her not only a religious views, but also a psychological and health consequences that can result from such an operation.


----------



## modus.irrealis

cuchuflete,

I'm confused then by what you meant when you said:



cuchuflete said:


> When any religion attempts, as most have, do, and will, to impose its current definition of a "right" on those who don't share the precepts of that religion, you may count me among those in opposition, even when I personally agree with the position of the religion.



I read this as saying you would oppose any position that a religion puts forward, no matter what the position was, when someone else disagreed with it. It seems to me as if you see positions from religious people as being illegitimate in some sense, since you'd oppose any position because it is religious without any consideration of the content of that position. Did I misunderstand you?



cuchuflete said:


> You have set up a staw man and effectively knocked it down.  I made no comment about *anyone, *any single individual, acting in the political sphere in accord with their own religious beliefs. I referred specifically to "religions", which are organizations of people.



I don't see the distinction between organization and people here, since organizations cannot promote a position if people don't. I mean, if religious people just prefaced everything by saying "I am speaking as myself and not as a member of my religious organization when I say..." would then everything be alright?



> Nor did I ever say or imply that a position espoused by a religion is necessarily evil, illogical, or wrong in any way.


I shouldn't have used the word evil in the comments which were directed at you, so I apologize and withdraw that comment.



> As to the rational _vs. _irrational matter, I have been taught that religions are supposed to concern themselves with spiritual matters, which are beyond that particular distinction.


But other people may have different point of views. The whole faith or reason dichotomy is a Western concept, and is not necessarily shared by the rest of the world.



> When they move beyond the spiritual realm into public policy, they are welcome to debate on rational grounds, and pay taxes for public services received, just as any other lobby or special interest group.


Now this gives a very different impression from the above, so I probably did misinterpret you. As for taxes, if people want to get rid of that, I can't really see why not.



HistofEng said:


> you are mixing up your the terms (or I am)...human being = person ....human = biologically human.



I'd say, why not say person for person . You do need a term for a human organism that is not legally defined as a person, and human being seems perfectly suitable for that role.



> Biologists have little to do with determining what a human being is.


They have much to do with determining what an organism is and what an individual organism is and what human is -- put that together you get (my use of the word) human being.



> My point is actually a question, one which has not been answered from many posts and many pages ago.
> 
> Again, I don't think we're using the same words the same way. I'm asking for the intrinsic descriptive qualities of a human being (a person) not a biological human.


For the third time I guess, if I got to pick the definition of person it would be a human.



> Morals may be objective but we don't know if our subjective morals are the same as the objective ones. Morals are relative to the society/individual, with many believing their morals are the objective ones, there's no way to know this.


I'm getting off-topic here, but you can say the same thing about physical facts. What a person "knows" about the makeup of the universe is relative to what their society's current scientific opinions are. It doesn't make science relative in any way and it certainly does not mean we should abondon the idea that there is a right answer which we should seek out.



> If we define a human being as anything that is human


No, that is a human, in the sense of an individual organism. It was implied before, but it's explicit now.


----------



## .   1

Maja said:


> Well, I thought I did answer it. The view of Christians is, as far as I know, that GOD gives life and only GOD has the right to take. It is of no importance if a person in question is an agnostic or atheist (because other religions are against it to).
> According to Christians, "God is creator of heaven and earth, and everything visible and invisible" so he created EVERY MAN regardless if the man itself believes in it or not!!!
> 
> However, we cannot PROHIBIT anyone to have an abortion. As far as I know, abortion is legal in many countries up to the 4th month of pregnancy, and smt in the 5th if it is determined that there is smt wrong with a fetus.
> 
> My personal position is that I cannot preach anyone what to do!!! But if a friend of my considers abortion and asks for my opinion on the subject, I would answer truthfully and present her not only a religious views, but also a psychological and health consequences that can result from such an operation.


I have been converted by all of the gentle and inclusive posts made by all of the wonderful nonjudgemental Christians here and I can see that your god is better than my god so I will change my ways and stop arguing about abortion.
The next time that I get pregnant I will carry the baby to full term.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> Has humanity come so far along the evolutionary trail that we cannot - seriously, any of those arguing here - tell what is human and what is not?
> The idea that we need to define human smacks seriously of eugenics.





ireney said:


> It does? Saying that I consider some cells in a womb not human but human in potentia is _eugenics_?


I did NOT say that it was eugenics! I said it smacked of it - a 'smack' is a taste, a trace.
You are now speaking of human cells and human beings - but you said "define human" in response to Victoria's comment of "Of course it's human!" — and you didn't indicate which you meant, the cell or the being.

I was trying to say the very same thing as you when I said that what is at issue here is not what constitutes a human being, but when the 'entity' becomes "a human". I doubt anyone can ever answer that to the satisfaction of everyone with a view on abortion. This is not about the ability to survive alone, or mental capacity or many of the host of things which various parties denote "a human". 

===========================



maxiogee said:


> Have you ever heard of a pair of human parents producing offspring which wasn't human?





HistofEng said:


> Consider an example of scientists, (a mere 2 centuries from now), being able to assemble any organism on the planet from its basic chemical constituent parts. These organisms would have no natural parents, would that make the human ones not human beings. 'Human parents' is not a good description for being a human being (person). It's much more intinsic than that.



From where will this purported basic chemical constituents be drawn?
The concept you offer is far from as impersonal as you suggest. These scientists will have had to draw on someone's DNA, and then they have to do the Frankenstein thing with the lightning, and that's going to prove tricky.
Let me meet that challenge when it arises, but for now, if you don't accept that human parents are an indispensible prerequisite for a human being, then kindly tell us what you judge to be the defining characteristic of a human being. 




> How do we know When it becomes a human being if we don't even know What a human being is. A lack of definition means anything can be deemed a human being.


But we DO know what a human being is, you just decline to accept that definition. You say that the 'missing' (only from your reference books) definition means that anything can be deemed to be a human being - so I'll challenge you to go on — try me — try to convince me that *anything which doesn't meet my definition* is a human - don't go dragging Mr Spock into this realm of Dr Spock. Account for the origins of all the 'chemical constituents' and also account for the source of the 'life' which will be imparted to these constituents.


----------



## HistofEng

Fernando said:


> Quite on the contrary, they have much to say.


 
please tell me what they say about personhood. 



> My answer: A biological human = A Human being = A person. If you have problems with "biological human" let me know.


 
I do have a problem with 'biologically human,' since all my cells are biologically human.




> Despite that, we punish whites killing black people, even if some people (the majority?) do not agree they are the same thing.


 

I don't understand what you're saying. but yes, in many societies, whites killing blacks (or vice-versa) is morally wrong. In some societies cannibalism is wrong. In some societies polygymy is wrong. In some societies killing new-borrn babies is "wrong. But in some societies, all these are "right," (they are not morally wrong). It's relative.



> Each of my cell is human. I am a human being because I am a complete being.


 
What makes you a _"complete" being?_ (which is a question I asked you many posts ago) What is it about you that makes "you" complete, but your cells not complete. We're going in circles because you haven't adequately answered the question.


----------



## maxiogee

HistofEng said:


> But can it be in*humane *if the entity is not a human _being_.


Do you not realise that the inhumanity
of what is done stems not from what 
it is being done to, but from what 
it is being done by!






> Conversely, what if their are subjects we are overlooking as persons simply because they are not human (biologically).


Show me an example of a "subject we are overlooking" by any currently understood definition of human.






> Could you explain why, since a tumor (or any other mass of cells) is infact human


As you cannot determine what a human being might be, how can you say that the tumor cells are human cells? 
You're arguing yourself around in a circle and you appear to have no root belief to stand upon.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> I'd say, why not say person for person . You do need a term for a human organism that is not legally defined as a person, and human being seems perfectly suitable for that role.


 
I would rather human being for personage. It is what we commonly refer to as people or persons. But either way it's just semantics. 

Remeber though, "Human organism" can be me, you, or any one of our cells. 

The word "organism" may broadly be defined as _an assembly of molecules that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole and have properties of life._
Chambers Online Reference, for example, provides a definition: "any living structure [such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium] capable of growth and reproduction".




> They have much to do with determining what an organism is and what an individual organism is and what human is -- put that together you get (my use of the word) human being.


 
an individual organsim can be any of our cells, they are each one a human being (according to your definition). Therefore, by your logic (all human beings = person) each human cell is a person.




> For the third time I guess, if I got to pick the definition of person it would be a human.


 
And a human cell is a human [organism]. But I doubt that you think a human cell is a person (correct me if I'm wrong), so once again, what is a peson? What qualities are there about the sum that make it different from the constituents? 



> I'm getting off-topic here, but you can say the same thing about physical facts. What a person "knows" about the makeup of the universe is relative to what their society's current scientific opinions are. It doesn't make science relative in any way and it certainly does not mean we should abondon the idea that there is a right answer which we should seek out.


yes knowledge is very much relative, objective science is not. There's reality, and how we percieve it. I didn't say we should abandon the our search for objective truth. I said, morals are relative. Whether killing something is bad or good is not a question of science.


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> Would it be bad manners of me to request that you actually read my words and stop paraphrasing my answer and extrapolating your paraphrasing.
> War has nothing to do with abortion.
> Infanticide has nothing to do with abortion.
> 
> War effects other people.
> Infanticide effects other people.
> Having a baby effects other people.
> Not having a baby does not effect those not intimitely concerned with the matter.
> 
> Is anybody interested in answering my question?
> Why do christians oppose abortions by other people that have nothing to do with the christians?
> 
> .,,


Well, that's the whole point isn't it? I would go as far as to say that induced abortion for any purpose other than the actual saving of the life of the mother, is premeditated and unjustified murder. So it does affect the Christians - it affects the whole society. 


Brioche said:


> The title of this thread, _for the umpteenth time_, is
> *Why do Christians oppose abortion?*
> 
> The question has been answered - many times over!!
> 
> I don't suppose any Christians will be swayed by your views either. Stalemate?
> And, as I pointed out, the Christian belief that a human being is a human being from conception does not require any word of any god.
> It is a view which atheists can share.


On a board I am on, h2g2, one of the most cogent arguers for a pro-life view is a strong atheist, so yes!


ireney said:


> ...........
> Since it is an integral part of the woman still it is not a human being. A human being can live on its own with the help, in its younger stages, of any other member of the human race [I include the modern medical technology here that makes it possible for babies to continue their growth outside the womb] (with the possible exception of Siamese(? term?) but that's complicating things (happy to discuss it afterwards). An embryo of that stage can't live as an individual being helped by others. It is fed through the woman's system etc etc.
> .


A 3 year old can't survive on her own either, which is why parents are needed... 


HistofEng said:


> There are people who want to grant personhood to rats, cickens, and snakes, because they believe they have person-like qualities (like sensing pain, etc) as defined by them. Why, exactly do we give more right to great apes than to cockroaches, what intrinsic qualities do _they_ have that set them apart.


I don't know much about that - the move to grant personhood to great apes, but a factor apparently, is that they share 96% of their DNA with humans... 





HistofEng said:


> You are already brought those qualities up there'd be no major harm in describing them. It's funny how after 3 or 4 pages of me asking this question no one can give me a few descriptive _intrinsic_ qualities on what makes one a human being/person. There's just as much a 'Slippery slope' if you don't define it than if you do.
> 
> (are you putting forth 'mind' at least as one such quality?)


Yes, I am - in the 1980s, G Harry Stine wrote an article on sentience for Analog Magazine of Science Fiction (he was talking about extra-terrestrials). One of the qualities he mentioned, was being what he called 'time binding', aware of past/present/future and the passage of time. I am not a pet person, so I don't know what animals are time binding, but I'd wager very few! 
You keep arguing that you haven't been answered HistofEng, but you have - to screaming point!


cuchuflete said:


> If "Thou shall not kill..." is the basis for religious opposition to abortion, then logically all abortion opponents should be conscientious objectors, and refuse to pay taxes that support armies, and refuse military service. If not, it's a rather selective application of the commandment.


There is a flourishing movement doing just what you advocate Cuchuflete, in the USA... They're mostly, but not all, Christians. 
As for being conscientious objectors, the only denomination who insist on that are Jehovah's Witnesses, but there are 1000s of individual Christians who are 'conshies', as the term grows. In NZ there is a rural commune called Riverside, founded by Conscientious objectors dating back to WW1!


----------



## HistofEng

maxiogee said:


> Do you not realise that the inhumanity
> of what is done stems not from what
> it is being done to, but from what
> it is being done by!


 
yes..I already conceded that point here:



			
				HistofEng said:
			
		

> That's true, something indeed can be inhumane without it pertaining to a human being.
> 
> but it can be inhumane to step on and kill blades of grass, but hardly anyone has a problem with that.


 





> Show me an example of a "subject we are overlooking" by any currently understood definition of human.


 
Tell me the currently understood definition of human (person)!

This is the question that could not be appropriately answered for pages and pages. Someone has mentioned that it's anything that is biologically human (a human organism), but that would mean we *are* "overlooking subjects" because each one of my cells is indeed a human organism.






> As you cannot determine what a human being might be, how can you say that the tumor cells are human cells?


 
I was using "human being = person"...but now it seems we're using "human being = biologically human organism" which is fine with me. We can determine if a tumor is biologically human or not, but how can we determine if it is or isn't a person if we cannot as of yet state a definition for a person?



> You're arguing yourself around in a circle and you appear to have no root belief to stand upon.


 
I'm chasing others in their circular arguments. I *appear* to have no root belief simply because I haven't stated one.


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> Well, that's the whole point isn't it? I would go as far as to say that induced abortion for any purpose other than the actual saving of the life of the mother, is premeditated and unjustified murder. So it does affect the Christians - it affects the whole society.


How does the choice to not bring another baby into a world containing in excess of six billion effect the whole society.

Definition of *affect*
To put on an appearance or show of; make a pretence of;_  to affect ignorance_.

Actually now that I look at your choice of words I think that I agree with your statement.

I prefer to effect a result rather than affect ignorance.

.,,


----------



## HistofEng

Victoria32 said:


> Yes, I am - in the 1980s, G Harry Stine wrote an article on sentience for Analog Magazine of Science Fiction (he was talking about extra-terrestrials). One of the qualities he mentioned, was being what he called 'time binding', aware of past/present/future and the passage of time. I am not a pet person, so I don't know what animals are time binding, but I'd wager very few!
> You keep arguing that you haven't been answered HistofEng, but you have - to screaming point!


 
Thank you Victoria, for at least giving a minimal answer. So you've put forth "time binding", the ability to be aware of past, present, and future and the passage of time as one quality of 'personage.' So far that would not apply to all biologically human entities (like embryos). Anymore descriptions? (from anyone)


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> How does the choice to not bring another baby into a world containing in excess of six billion effect the whole society.
> 
> Definition of *affect*
> To put on an appearance or show of; make a pretence of;_ to affect ignorance_.
> 
> Actually now that I look at your choice of words I think that I agree with your statement.
> 
> I prefer to effect a result rather than affect ignorance.
> 
> .,,


Oh, sniping! I was about to concede, but no... I meant affect, 'to have an affect on'... and you know that!
All right, I'll spell it out. A casual approach to killing leads to a disregard for life, got it?


----------



## Victoria32

HistofEng said:


> Thank you Victoria, for at least giving a minimal answer. So you've put forth "time binding", the ability to be aware of past, present, and future and the passage of time as one quality of 'personage.' So far that would not apply to all biologically human entities (like embryos). quote]
> How do you know embryos aren't time binding? No one can know that! What other categories of human aren't time binding? If you are about to suggest people with intellectual handicap, not true, they are. They have complex inner lives, and not being able to read and write to our standard doesn't mean they aren't thinking beings.
> Decades of working with people with intellectual disabilities has taught me that.


----------



## maxiogee

HistofEng said:


> Tell me the currently understood definition of human (person)!



I have stated that having human parents is what constitutes a human. You have declined to accept that, but I still claim it. You haven't yet offered a definition.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary says "a man, woman or child of the species_ homo sapiens_." How about that?

Earlier I asked you…


maxiogee said:


> But we DO know what a human being is, you just decline to accept that definition. You say that the 'missing' (only from your reference books) definition means that anything can be deemed to be a human being - so I'll challenge you to go on — try me — *try to convince me that anything which doesn't meet my definition is a human* - don't go dragging Mr Spock into this realm of Dr Spock. Account for the origins of all the 'chemical constituents' and also account for the source of the 'life' which will be imparted to these constituents.



Well I asked you, now's your chance.


----------



## BlueWolf

maxiogee said:


> *IS* life "a gift"?
> 
> I was of the understanding that, if a male's sperm and a female's egg combine correctly then life develops — whether that be with humans or with other animals. Plants species even do it this way. Not all, of course.
> 
> Is every single life on earth a gift?



In a Christian vision, of course it is. Why should an already perfect God create life? It's a free gift, He doesn't earn anything from that.

(I'm Christian, my following post doesn't mean to offend anyone, it only means to explain a point of view. I'm trying to explain my point of view without using religious answers)

There are mainly two reasons because people is pro-abortion.
The first one is aborting when you know you can't care about your baby. Even not seen from a Christian point of view, I see it very heavy. You don't give the opportunity to a child to born, because you can't or don't want to care about him/her. Is this a sufficient reason? Couldn't someone else give him/her what you can't?
The second one is aborting when you know the baby is going to born with some genetical problem. About that, during a recent referendum in Italy, someone (I don't remember who) said in a talk show something made me think. She said something like: "Think of our children in the furture. Once they knew they are born and be taken care by a family because their parents loved them. They were accepted for what they are, like a gift, like something not predictable, not chosen. In the future they'll know they are born only because they were perfect. So they'll wonder <<What if I wouldn't be?>>"

In a Christian vision, you can say it from very point of views. You can say it's for the 6th commandment or even for the "2nd of Jesus" (that I don't know in English, but the concept is "Love your ???"... let's say brothers, but it's not the word. But firstly there's the concept is a gift (and I'd want to underline it's firstly a gift to the baby, not the parents).

Finally, I'd want to say that when someone (many actually) said during the referendum in Italy, that even if you don't mean to abort, you should let the others the possibility of choosing, it's ridiculous. If I think it's a murderer, I can't care less about others' freedom. I care for the babies (who can't let hear their voice).

The last thing is that when you say Christians have different point of view, it's true, but it's about all Christianity. The Catholics do have one point of view, the Church's one.


----------



## HistofEng

Victoria32 said:


> HistofEng said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Victoria, for at least giving a minimal answer. So you've put forth "time binding", the ability to be aware of past, present, and future and the passage of time as one quality of 'personage.' So far that would not apply to all biologically human entities (like embryos).
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know embryos aren't time binding? No one can know that! What other categories of human aren't time binding? If you are about to suggest people with intellectual handicap, not true, they are. They have complex inner lives, and not being able to read and write to our standard doesn't mean they aren't thinking beings.
> Decades of working with people with intellectual disabilities has taught me that.
Click to expand...

 
well, if you consider any group of human cells to have consciousness and to be time-binding than you must believe in a soul (or something supernatural akin to a soul), because there's no way to scientifically prove that embryos (with no nervous tissue) are time-binding. And if you believe that embryos are time-binding persons because of something outside the realm of science, than that's what you should have stated, not because they are simply 'human.'


----------



## maxiogee

BlueWolf said:


> In a Christian vision, of course it is. Why should an already perfect God create life? It's a free gift, He doesn't earn anything from that.



How gifted then should my wife and I feel that my wife twice suffered miscarriages at late stages pregnancy - there was new life there. How gifted then were those to unborn children about whom the Christian right-wing would seem to be so concerned when the trauma they undergo is caused by abortion, but who have nothing but platitudinous rote sentences to offer to us when the trauma was a "natural" occurrance?


----------



## Victoria32

HistofEng said:


> well, if you consider any group of human cells to have consciousness and to be time-binding than you must believe in a soul (or something supernatural akin to a soul), because there's no way to scientifically prove that embryos (with no nervous tissue) are time-binding. And if you believe that embryos are time-binding persons because of something outside the realm of science, than that's what you should have stated, not because they are simply 'human.'


Certainly I believe in a soul! That to me, is one of the definitions of being human. (I don't want to get into the argument as to whether animals have souls - Anthroposophists (followers of Rudolf Steiner) believe they have group souls... for instance there is the soul of Wolf, and all wolves partake of it.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> How gifted then should my wife and I feel that my wife twice suffered miscarriages at late stages pregnancy - there was new life there. How gifted then were those to unborn children about whom the Christian right-wing would seem to be so concerned when the trauma they undergo is caused by abortion, but who have nothing but platitudinous rote sentences to offer to us when the trauma was a "natural" occurrance?


Please note Maxiogee, that it's not just the Christian right who oppose abortion, I am of the (Christian) left..


----------



## not my real name

christians opose abortion because it's destroying life, and life is something that is to be protected and respected. as far as i know they also opose to war and the death penalty (at least catholics do). i think that they are so concerned about abortion because the unborn babyes don't have any way to defend themselves, so they depend entirely on their mother for everything. 
during wars soldiers are even trained to defend thamselves, and countries spend huge amounts of money to make sure that their soldiers have the best weapons so war really comes to a person's free will to participate in it or not to.
and when it comes to the death penalty i'm oposed of course, but here is something for you to think about. i live in a third world country where gangs and the mafia have more power than the government, and there are some really bad criminals that can't be let out of jail bacause they would cause huge masacres. but the thing is that there are no means to keep thoes people in jail, so there is nothing else to do but the death penalty. i don't aprve of the death penalty, but there are situations in which you don't have a choice.


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> Oh, sniping! I was about to concede, but no... I meant affect, 'to have an affect on'... and you know that!
> All right, I'll spell it out. A casual approach to killing leads to a disregard for life, got it?


You were about to concede but your feelings are hurt so you wont concede.
I agree that a casual approach to killing is a bad thing.
I disagree with your concept of what constitutes life.

I am sorry that you considered my comment sniping.  I considered it to be a possible Freudian slip.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> You were about to concede but your feelings are hurt so you wont concede.
> I agree that a casual approach to killing is a bad thing.
> I disagree with your concept of what constitutes life.
> 
> I am sorry that you considered my comment sniping. I considered it to be a possible Freudian slip.
> 
> .,,


For goodness' sake, don't be so patronising! My feelings aren't hurt, and I wasn't about to concede as much as you think, just that I had made an error of usage, but I now know I didn't! I am at work, and unable to devote my whole mind to this increasingly pointless exchange. 

You were sniping. Freud is cobblers, and if you don't know that, I am sorry, but he is.


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> I would rather human being for personage. It is what we commonly refer to as people or persons. But either way it's just semantics.



Then what word would you use for human beings (in my sense) who are not considered persons under the law? For example, how would you describe the position of women before they were declared persons?



> Remeber though, "Human organism" can be me, you, or any one of our cells.
> 
> The word "organism" may broadly be defined as _an assembly of molecules that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole and have properties of life._
> Chambers Online Reference, for example, provides a definition: "any living structure [such as a plant, animal, fungus or bacterium] capable of growth and reproduction".



I'm not well read in the biological literature, but I've never come across the use of organism in the way you're suggesting. For example, I don't think I've seen the heart described as an organism (organ sure). Surely biology has term for an individual life form that is not a constituent of another individual life form. If organism's not it, then pretend I used that word. Or if there is no such term, I'll say "a human animal," with animal in the biological sense.



> I said, morals are relative. Whether killing something is bad or good is not a question of science.



Why not?


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's see if we can clarify this.  For starters, I meant what I said, not what I didn't say.  A religious person is not a religion.  I religious person can lobby for any position they please.  A religious person can stand for office.  A religious person can write letters to the editor, set up a blog, or do most anything they please to express their own viewpoint, which may, coincidentally or intentionally, be that of their religion.   

When a religion, which is a collective organization, typically with a hierarchy, brick and mortar buildings, bank accounts, _et alia,_  tries to intervene in the establishment of public policy, law, regulations, etc., I oppose that action.  It is an attempt by a supposedly spiritual organism to inject itself into secular affairs, and to shove its particular viewpoint down the throat of all the citizenry, some of whom may not be members of that human organization.  That's a repugnant  activity, that shows blatant disrespect for those who hold different belief systems, whether religious, non-religious, anti-religious, or simply indifferent to religion.

If you, as an individual, exert yourself on behalf of what you believe, in a public or legislative arena, that's fine and good.  If yours or another religious organization does so, it is not good.  It is a domineering, narrow-minded intrusion that essentially says, "I've got the truth, and if you disagree with my position, you are wrong."   





> cuchuflete,
> 
> I'm confused then by what you meant when you said:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
> When any religion attempts, as most have, do, and will, to impose its current definition of a "right" on those who don't share the precepts of that religion, you may count me among those in opposition, even when I personally agree with the position of the religion.
> 
> 
> I read this as saying you would oppose any position that a religion puts forward, no matter what the position was, when someone else disagreed with it.  That is not what I wrote.It seems to me as if you see positions from religious people You keep on reading the word "religion" as meaning individual people, which is not what the word means, nor what I meant by it.   as being illegitimate in some sense, since you'd oppose any position because it is religious without any consideration of the content of that position. Did I misunderstand you? You most certainly did!   I never said I would oppose any position because it is religious.  Repeat: I didn't say that.  You inferred it.  I said, in various straightforward ways, that I would oppose *a religion* meddling in public affairs.  If the individual members of such an organization were to propound identical viewpoints, that would cause no distress at all.  I might agree with them.  I might not.
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete*
> You have set up a staw man and effectively knocked it down.  I made no comment about *anyone, *any single individual, acting in the political sphere in accord with their own religious beliefs. I referred specifically to "religions", which are organizations of people.
> 
> 
> I don't see the distinction between organization and people here, since organizations cannot promote a position if people don't. I beg your pardon!  Organizations can hire lobbyists, pay for advertising, lean on legislators, and do a whole bunch of things that members, as individuals, cannot do.  I mean, if religious people just prefaced everything by saying "I am speaking as myself and not as a member of my religious organization when I say..." would then everything be alright?They don't even need to give such a disclaimer.  I have no objection to you supporting your own religious beliefs, or me working for my spiritual positions.  You and I are not organizations, hiding behind tax shelters, wielding the organizational power that many religions use to try to sway public policy.  When they do so, they cross a line that healthfully separates the spiritual from the secular, and when they do so, they should be denied any and all privileges afforded to spiritual groups.  They should be identified as lobbyists, special interest groups, and power brokers.  They should have tax exemptions removed.
> They should be seen for what they are.


----------



## Elibennet

Abortion is one of the topical subjects today in Argentina. Christians argue that it is murder, and they are right. But the truth is that thousands of women die every year because they abort at home or in clandestine clinics, with midwives who don´t have the knowledge or the elements to do it. It´s true, I agree, it is murdering a human life, but being pro-life also means to defend the lives of women will practice abortions at the risk of their own lives. Christians should consider that as well.


----------



## modus.irrealis

cuchuflete said:


> When a religion, which is a collective organization, typically with a hierarchy, brick and mortar buildings, bank accounts, _et alia,_  tries to intervene in the establishment of public policy, law, regulations, etc., I oppose that action.  It is an attempt by a supposedly spiritual organism to inject itself into secular affairs, and to shove its particular viewpoint down the throat of all the citizenry, some of whom may not be members of that human organization.  That's a repugnant  activity, that shows blatant disrespect for those who hold different belief systems, whether religious, non-religious, anti-religious, or simply indifferent to religion.



It's still not entirely clear, but your comment that "beg your pardon! Organizations can hire lobbyists, pay for advertising, lean on legislators, and do a whole bunch of things that members, as individuals, cannot do." suggests to me that this about American law. So to be perfectly clear, if the law in your country was changed and religious organizations were treated no differently from any other organization (so no tax exemption, e.g.), would you still have a problem with religious organizations "inject[ing] [themselves] into secular affairs?"



> If yours or another religious organization does so, it is not good.  It is a domineering, narrow-minded intrusion that essentially says, "I've got the truth, and if you disagree with my position, you are wrong."


Why? I don't understand why a religious organization is so different from say PETA, which is not a religion but does get tax exemptions and represents a certain belief system and tries to "impose" it on everyone. Do you feel the same about these kinds of organizations? And if not, why not?


----------



## Everness

I find two signs of faulty logic in this post. 



tokyowalker said:


> As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.
> 
> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?


First erroneous reasoning: "If it's not in the Bible, it's not biblical." 

The Bible isn't a road map that tells Christians in different times and places what to do or not to do. For instance, the fact that there's nothing in the Bible about political torture doesn't mean that God doesn't abhor such practice. (Sorry Attorney General Alberto Gonzales). The Bible isn't MapQuest. It won't tell you, "Now stop and take a take a right or a left, etc. etc." However, some people love and demand that kind of religion. The Pharisees, for instance, clearly interpreted this human need and gave Israelites that type of pseudo spirituality. It's called legalism and it has been appropriately called the cancer of the spirit. Actually Jesus strongly condemns it in the Sermon on the Mount, Christianity's most important theological and ethical document.  

So if the Bible isn't a map, what's the purpose of the Word of God? The Bible is a compass that gives you general principles that will equip you to make the best ethical decisions on a daily basis. The Bible always points North and it challenges you to interpret and live the Christian life in a spirit of freedom, the most important value in Jesus and Paul's writings. The real Christian life is an adventure not just a list of do's and don'ts.

Second erroneous reasoning: "Only Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible are strongly opposed to abortion." Fenixpollo has already dealt with it.



fenixpollo said:


> This is false logic. Not all Christians oppose abortion, and not all people who oppose abortion are Christian.



This is a prickly topic. Christians in this forum have explained their positions and the rationale for opposing or for not opposing abortion. Christians can be pro-choice or pro-life or can ask not to be limited to those two cliches.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> Then what word would you use for human beings (in my sense) who are not considered persons under the law? For example, how would you describe the position of women before they were declared persons?


 
I would call them [biologically] human.





> I'm not well read in the biological literature, but I've never come across the use of organism in the way you're suggesting. For example, I don't think I've seen the heart described as an organism (organ sure).
> Surely biology has term for an individual life form that is not a constituent of another individual life form.


 
(straight from wiki)

The word "organism" _usually _describes an independent collections of systems (for example cirulatory system, digestive system, reproductive sytem, themselves collections of organs; these are, in turn, collections of tissues, which are themselves made of cells; which are in turn collections of organelles, etc. The concept of an organism can be challenged on grounds that organisms themselves are never truly independent of an ecosystem; groups or populations of organisms function in an ecosystem in a manner not unlike the function of multicellular tissues in an organism; when organisms enter into strict symbiosis, they are not independent in any sense that could not also be conferred upon an organ or a tissue. Symbiotic plant and algae relationships do consist of radically different DNA structures between contrasting groups of tissues, sufficient to recognize their reproductive independence. However, in a similar way, an organ within an "organism" (say, a stomach) can have an independent and complex interdependent relationship to separate whole organisms, or groups of organisms (a population of viruses, or bacteria), without which the organ's stable function would transform or cease. Other organs within that system (say, the ribcage) might be affected only indirectly by such an arrangement, much the same way species' affect one another indirectly in an ecosystem. Thus, the boundaries of the organism are nearly always disputable, and all living matter exists within larger heterarchical systems of life, made of wide varieties of transient living and dead tissues, and functioning in complex and dynamic relationships to one another.





> If organism's not it, then pretend I used that word. Or if there is no such term, I'll say "a human animal," with animal in the biological sense.


 
it doesn't matter what word you use, the boundaries of life forms, animals, organisms, etc are always disputable. 




> Why not?


 
because all science deals with are observable consequences, not whether those consequences are good or bad


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> I would call them [biologically] human.



But that's an adjective. What would the corresponding noun be? A (biological) human? So women used to be biological humans who were not human beings?



> (straight from wiki)


I'm not sure how valuable a source that is. But I checked it and it doesn't seem to be consistent across articles. The articles on the alleged examples of organisms (cirulatory system, digestive system, reproductive sytem) do not use the word organism to describe these systems.



> it doesn't matter what word you use, the boundaries of life forms, animals, organisms, etc are always disputable.


 Can you give an example where whether something is a human individual is in doubt? If you're going to use the embryo or fetus, could you supply a source that demonstrates that biologists have difficulty determing what the embryo is and what the mother is? If there's no such difficulty, then there's an implicit definition that is used and everything is fine.



> because all science deals with are observable consequences, not whether those consequences are good or bad


Perhaps natural science deals with that (although string theorists are considered natural scientists, so that is not entirely true). Why can there not be a science of good and bad?


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> For goodness' sake, don't be so patronising! My feelings aren't hurt, and I wasn't about to concede as much as you think, just that I had made an error of usage, but I now know I didn't! I am at work, and unable to devote my whole mind to this increasingly pointless exchange.
> 
> You were sniping. Freud is cobblers, and if you don't know that, I am sorry, but he is.


I was not patronising.
If you are at work you should work.
It is very dangerous to take part in such an emotive subject if you can not concentrate fully on it.
Freud may be cobblers but a Freudean Slip is still a valid phrase.
If your feeling have not been hurt there must be something else that is giving a snippy tone to your posts to me.
I have read that my views support war, murder, infanticide and of holding a casual approach to killing and I am expected to swallow these with no difficulty yet you get all het up with word play.
I am told that my view of life is not to be debated.
Blanket statements like 'Freud is cobblers, and if you don't know that, I am sorry, but he is.' are beyond my ken. How do you make such statements and keep the debate rational?

People are discussing abortion as though it is being used as a contraceptive or some form of morning after pill.
In my opinion this is not the case.
Abortion is a last resort when all of the safety nets have failed or when something horrendous and beyond control has happened and each case is probably unique yet some feel the almost pathalogical need to codify conduct in such a delicate and life changing situation and most of the time there is nothing but a poor scared tiny little girl facing a dreadful future.
I have nothing against you and find most of your posts to be very valuable and informative but you are not omniscient.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> People are discussing abortion as though it is being used as a contraceptive or some form of morning after pill.
> In my opinion this is not the case.
> Abortion is a last resort when all of the safety nets have failed or when something horrendous and beyond control has happened and each case is probably unique yet some feel the almost pathalogical need to codify conduct in such a delicate and life changing situation and most of the time there is nothing but a poor scared tiny little girl facing a dreadful future.
> I have nothing against you and find most of your posts to be very valuable and informative but you are not omniscient.
> 
> .,,


Some people have used abortion as if it is a contraceptive, believe me! Maybe as a man you're not aware of that, and yet what women can admit to one another might shock you.
believe me, I am not saying that all aborted women use/have used it that way, but the 'scared tiny little girl' (very emotive way to out it) is in a scared tiny minority!


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> But that's an adjective. What would the corresponding noun be? A (biological) human? So women used to be biological humans who were not human beings?


 
I said "[biologically] human"....that's an adjective + a noun!

Yes, there are/were many societies where biologically human organisms are/were not treated as human beings (persons). The definition [of person] changes as the beliefs of particular societies/individuals change. 

I highly doubt that a human cell or group of cells(also a biologically human organism) will ever fall into the definition of personhood (what I believe you're arguing for). If they do, then either we have to give all cells personhood and cherish them as we do persons today, or lessen the value of personhood and kill persons (cells, man, woman, etc)  with no moral reprehensibility, as we do with cells today.




> I'm not sure how valuable a source that is.


 
Wiki wasn't used as "proof" of anything. It was merely used to present an argument. I could just as easily say the same thing again in my own words. Find something to criticize in the argument, not the source of the argument. 



> But I checked it and it doesn't seem to be consistent across articles.
> The articles on the alleged examples of organisms (cirulatory system, digestive system, reproductive sytem) do not use the word organism to describe these systems.


 First of all, an organism is _usually _described as a _*collection*_ of systems (as wiki and I stated). usually.

It's not consistent among articles because there isn't really a definition of organism that is only specific to what the lay know as "organisms." It actually is consistent though, it's just that many _usually _use a constrained definition of organism. In a nutshell, biologically speaking, the definition of organism is anything living, an individual form of life (even though in everyday life this definition is narrowly percieved).

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=organism




> Can you give an example where whether something is a human individual is in doubt?


 
It's not in doubt. Biologically speaking, the human cell is an individual organism just as much as the human being is an individual organism. The only doubt there may be is if it's human or not.



> If you're going to use the embryo or fetus, could you supply a source that demonstrates that biologists have difficulty determing what the embryo is and what the mother is? If there's no such difficulty, then there's an implicit definition that is used and everything is fine.


 The mother and the embryo can either be described as two individual organisms, just like any other organ or cell could be counted separately, or they can be percieved as one system.



> Perhaps natural science deals with that (although string theorists are considered natural scientists, so that is not entirely true). Why can there not be a science of good and bad?


 
because 'good' and 'bad' are not observable enitities. They are abstract concepts.


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> Some people have used abortion as if it is a contraceptive, believe me! Maybe as a man you're not aware of that, and yet what women can admit to one another might shock you.
> believe me, I am not saying that all aborted women use/have used it that way, but the 'scared tiny little girl' (very emotive way to out it) is in a scared tiny minority!


I have no studies to confirm anything I am about to say but I will be willing to bet that such studies do exist.
I doubt that there is a significant proportion of abortions done as a contraception or due to failed attempts at contraception but even if this does happen is that a reason to deny the option of abortion to those who need to use it for reasons other than simple contraception.
I think that you do not understand the level of intimacy that is possible to exist between men and women.  I have found women to often confide in a male friend some things that they do not reveal to their women friends.  Men can speak of things to their female friends that would be very confronting if discussed with another bloke.
I stand by my statement that a vast majority of women seeking abortion are either physically scared little girls or metaphorically scared little girls.  There are a vast number of tears shed by these scared little girls both leading up to and in the long hard row they how after abortion.
I doubt that there are many women who have repeat abortions as I doubt that the procedure is particularly edifying for the poor buggers involved.

.,,


----------



## Fernando

In Spain (official figures) more than 95% of legal abortions are performed on the basis of "possible psycological damage for the mother". Unless you think women are weak creatures that are regularly psycologically affected by having children (or "metaphorically scared little girls") I think it is objective to say they are using abortion as a contraceptive.


----------



## maxiogee

Two direct questions to HistofEng…

What do you understand by the term a human being. You keep challenging people about this but decline to answer yourself. I'd almost mark you down for a Jesuit!  We might have to assume that you are only here for the row, and not to forward the discussion. I have indicated in previous posts that I believe that having human parents is what makes 'something' a human being, you went off to some sicence lab of the future to try to refute that. So, a secondary question is, what is not human.

*What do you consider to be the defining characteristic of a human being?

Can you tell us of any human being which *didn't* have human parents, and can you tell us of any thing which wasn't human which *did* have human parents?*​


----------



## BlueWolf

maxiogee said:


> Two direct questions to HistofEng…
> 
> What do you understand by the term a human being. You keep challenging people about this but decline to answer yourself. I'd almost mark you down for a Jesuit!  We might have to assume that you are only here for the row, and not to forward the discussion. I have indicated in previous posts that I believe that having human parents is what makes 'something' a human being, you went off to some sicence lab of the future to try to refute that. So, a secondary question is, what is not human.
> *What do you consider to be the defining characteristic of a human being?
> 
> Can you tell us of any human being which *didn't* have human parents, and can you tell us of any thing which wasn't human which *did* have human parents?*​




So, following your definition the embryo IS a human being, isn't it? (S)he has human parents.


----------



## maxiogee

BlueWolf said:


> So, following your definition the embryo IS a human being, isn't it? (S)he has human parents.



*You* are saying that, not me. Please be careful with what you impute to me 

I don't know that the embryo can be said to have _parents_ until it is born. That is another debate. I would suggest that we do not normally call those who lose a child to miscarriage 'parents' and so I suspect that most people think that to be a parent one must have contributed to the process which culminates in the birth of a live child.


----------



## BlueWolf

maxiogee said:


> *You* are saying that, not me. Please be careful with what you impute to me



I didn't mean impute you, I was only trying to understand your definition.  And I'm still doing it. 

Well, but when, for example, the son is missing, let's pretend, few days to born, (s)he's not born yet, but it is phisically "complete".


----------



## maxiogee

BlueWolf said:


> Well, but when, for example, the son is missing, let's pretend, few days to born, (s)he's not born yet, but it is phisically "complete".



That is the reason we use the expression, at least in English (I don't know what other languages say), an "expectant mother". The motherhood has not yet arrived, and if that hasn't happened then the 'child' doesn't exist.

The medical profession uses the term "postpartum" to mean 'following childbirth'. I think we might learn from that that before birth the foetus is a physical part of the woman who carries it.


----------



## BlueWolf

maxiogee said:


> I think we might learn from that that before birth the foetus is a physical part of the woman who carries it.



Ok, the woman who carries "it" gives it the food, so she's vital, but this is true for a pork tapeworm too. The embryo is a completly indipendent cell, the mother doesn't "controll" it.


----------



## maxiogee

BlueWolf said:


> Ok, the woman who carries "it" gives it the food, so she's vital, but this is true for a pork tapeworm too. The embryo is a completly indipendent cell, the mother doesn't "controll" it.



Please don't be facetious. The tapeworm is not part of the woman, it is not physically joined to her, and it did not grow from any of her cells, sharing her DNA. And she does control the foetus. If she eats or drinks certain things, the foetus suffers. If she is harmed, the foetus can suffer.

I can understand the need to define what is human, and I can understand the need to attempt to be as inclusive as possible so as to encompass future developments in the reproductive sciences, but we're not going to do that by playing silly games with tapeworms. Your selective taking of only some parts of my argument is like saying I just might be a giraffe, as I have a long neck, eat leaves and am only slightly short of the number of legs normally associated with a giraffe.


----------



## BlueWolf

> Please don't be facetious.


I'm not facetious.


> The tapeworm is not part of the woman, it is not physically joined to her, and it did not grow from any of her cells, sharing her DNA.


From what I know there's any sharing between mother's and son's DNA. After the fertilisation the child's DNA is that one.
About that, since your body's cells have in common one main thing, that is that they have the same DNA, the foetus can't be consider part of mother's body. It is a different organism.


> And she does control the foetus. If she eats or drinks certain things, the foetus suffers. If she is harmed, the foetus can suffer.


No she doesn't. It isn't controlled by her nervous system or her lymphatic system. It is susceptive to its habitat, like any other living being (plants too).


> I can understand the need to define what is human, and I can understand the need to attempt to be as inclusive as possible so as to encompass future developments in the reproductive sciences, but we're not going to do that by playing silly games with tapeworms.


You gave your opinion about what a human being is and I answered, and I'm not playing any silly games. If we are trying to define what a human being is, we HAVE to compare him (or foetus) with other living being, and tapeworms are just one.


> Your selective taking of only some parts of my argument is like saying I just might be a giraffe, as I have a long neck, eat leaves and am only slightly short of the number of legs normally associated with a giraffe.


I'm sorry you think so. I'm not trying to make you crazy, I'm having a normal discussion, where I answer about what I'm not agree. It doesn't mean I've not read your whole posts. Now, I've commented all your post, ok?


----------



## HistofEng

maxiogee said:


> *What do you consider to be the defining characteristic of a human being?*



I believe a 'person' is at least something that is alive, something that is at least conscious, with thoughts, wants, and desires. The ability to reason (and hence time-binding, as said before). An individual organism capable of moral agency.​


> *Can you tell us of any human being which **didn't have human parents,*


​No, but having human parents is not *intrinsic *to being a person. ​And, extrinsically speaking, merely having a human parent doesn't always qualify you for personhood. A human daughter cell has a human parent. ​


> *and can you tell us of any thing which wasn't human which did have human parents?*


​Again, no, perhaps there have been experiments with injecting extraneous non-human DNA into a human cell, or putting some human DNA in a non-human biological environment (another cell) but _naturally _all human individuals/organisms have natural human parrents.​


----------



## Fernando

HistofEng said:


> I believe a 'person' is at least something that is alive,​




A foetus certainly meets this request.



HistofEng said:


> something that is at least conscious, with thoughts, wants, and desires. The ability to reason (and hence time-binding, as said before). An individual organism capable of moral agency.


​
I do not know what moral agency is. Anyway, I guess a foetus is certainly as "concious" as 1-day child.



HistofEng said:


> And, extrinsically speaking, merely having a human parent doesn't always qualify you for personhood. A human daughter cell has a human parent.



Last time I checked, men reproduced by sexual activity.



HistofEng said:


> perhaps there have been experiments with injecting extraneous non-human DNA into a human cell, or putting some human DNA in a non-human biological environment (another cell) but _naturally _all human individuals/organisms have natural human parrents.



Exactly, as a foetus have.


----------



## maxiogee

BlueWolf said:


> I'm not facetious.


Do you seriously suggest that I need to tell you what differentiates a human from a tapeworm? If not, then your introduction of a tapeworm to the discussion wa facetious.




> From what I know there's any sharing between mother's and son's DNA. After the fertilisation the child's DNA is that one.
> About that, since your body's cells have in common one main thing, that is that they have the same DNA, the foetus can't be consider part of mother's body. It is a different organism.


How much DNA did the woman contribute to the tapeworm? Come to think of it, what did the woman contribute to the creation of the tapeworm?



> No she doesn't. It isn't controlled by her nervous system or her lymphatic system. It is susceptive to its habitat, like any other living being (plants too).


I think you'll find that there is a difference. If any animal finds its 'habitat' destroyed, it will move to a new one. Fleas leave a dead body when the chance arises.



> You gave your opinion about what a human being is and I answered, and I'm not playing any silly games. If we are trying to define what a human being is, we HAVE to compare him (or foetus) with other living being, and tapeworms are just one.


Are you serious? I fail to see why we have to compare a human foetus with any other creature - please explain why I might ever need to ponder if a foetus is human?



> I'm having a normal discussion


Please contribute to the discussion with something constructive which assumes that we have a level of awareness of what part a tapeworm plays in biology. I'll ask you the questions I asked HistofEng, 

1 - What do you consider to be the defining characteristic of a human being?
2 a - an you tell us of any human being which didn't have human parents,
2 b - and can you tell us of any thing which wasn't human which did have human parents?


----------



## Fernando

I do not know what "facetous" is but it seems to be something bad.

I assume that Bluewolf introduced the tapeworm because he lives dependent on other lifeform (as a foetus does). Useful or not, it has one important point in connection.

A woman contributes 50% for the child DNA, which in practice means the foetus' DNA is incompatible with hers.


----------



## HistofEng

Fernando said:


> A foetus certainly meets this request.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know what moral agency is. Anyway, I guess a foetus is certainly as "concious" as 1-day child.
> 
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, men reproduced by sexual activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, as a foetus have.


 

sorry Fernando, I suggest you look back and get caught up on the definitions that we are using, and the arguments we've already been through. And I don't remember ever mentioning a fetus in this thread, I've always said embryo, a being with no nervous tissue (hence no consciousness, moral agency, etc....unless you believe those things derive from a soul (or something supernatural akin to a soul).


----------



## Fernando

A foetus is an embryo. So clarify and use the term embryo up to 3 weeks or so. 

I repeat I do not know what "moral agency" is. Do you consider a 1-week boy has moral agency or "conciousness"???

Please consider most abortions are performed on embryos (or foetus, at your will) WITH nervous tissue.

I think you must be thinking in other forum when you say the "definitions" "we" are using. I can not see clear definitions (specially in your posts, if you ask me).


----------



## maxiogee

HistofEng said:


> I believe a 'person' is at least something that is alive, something that is at least conscious, with thoughts, wants, and desires. The ability to reason (and hence time-binding, as said before). An individual organism capable of moral agency.



Are you saying that you cannot define "human being"? 

That is what it looks like, as the "ability to reason" and the capability "of moral agency" are human constructs which only humans are currently able to judge, by preconceived human standards.

You also seem to deny personhood to the coma patient - unconscious, possibly lacking thoughts, not aware of needs and therefroe without wants, and totally unable to convey any desires - and if desires cannot be conveyed by any being, how can "we" be aware that they have them?




> No, but having human parents is not *intrinsic *to being a person.


Name any person to whom human parents were/are not intrinsic (*intrinsic* _adjective_ belonging naturally).



> And, extrinsically speaking, merely having a human parent doesn't always qualify you for personhood. A human daughter cell has a human parent.


You are changing my condition of "having human parents" to the singular to suit your need here. Please don't do that and then argue that you are answering my point.

You keep bringing up the question of cells. Why? You know that they cannot meet your own requirements for personhood of ability to reason.

*Can we please stop going on wild goose chases and discuss the point of the thread - the abortion of human embryos/foetuses.* Discussing tapeworms and human cells may well be part of "Debating Skills 101' - as may science fiction stories of clever scientists in 200 years time, but they don't further the discussion of what is a human being, and when it becomes a human person, and whether the abortion of an embryo or foetus is the killing of a person.

How come you people cannot say what a human is? - You are one, you mingle with them daily - surely you have enough knowledge to be able to come to a decision.


----------



## HistofEng

Fernando said:


> A foetus is an embryo. So clarify and use the term embryo up to 3 weeks or so.


 

_"The term, embryo, is used to describe the early stages of fetal growth, from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy."_ 

http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-E/embryo.html


_"In human beings, the unborn young from the eighth week of pregnancy to birth; an __organism__ in the stage of __development__ that *follows the *__*embryonic*__* stage."*_

http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=fetus




> I repeat I do not know what "moral agency" is. Do you consider a 1-week boy has moral agency or "conciousness"???


 It may or may not (perhaps this is why infanticide is perfectly moral in some societies). What I am concerning myself is the embryonic stage of pregnancy.



> Please consider most abortions are performed on embryos (or foetus, at your will) WITH nervous tissue.


 
At least for the US,




_*The CDC estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation*_, and 88.5 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. *Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks* (CDC, 2005).
Since the nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the proportion of *abortions performed after the first trimester has decreased *because of increased access to and knowledge about safe, legal abortion services (Gold, 2003).
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp...o/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml



> I think you must be thinking in other forum when you say the "definitions" "we" are using. I can not see clear definitions (specially in your posts, if you ask me).


 
If you read everything me and Victoria, and Modus, and Maxio wrote to each othre, you well understand which arguments and definitions have been put through already, you can't expect me to go through it all again _in the same thread_


----------



## BlueWolf

> Do you seriously suggest that I need to tell you what differentiates a human from a tapeworm? If not, then your introduction of a tapeworm to the discussion wa facetious.


If you maybe read what I write... Now you are being facetious. Everyone can see the difference between a man and a tapeworm, but I was talking about foetus.


> How much DNA did the woman contribute to the tapeworm? Come to think of it, what did the woman contribute to the creation of the tapeworm?


The topic isn't about tapeworms, and I use it only as my example of living creature which live inside us but it's not part of us. Again you are being facetious.


> I think you'll find that there is a difference. If any animal finds its 'habitat' destroyed, it will move to a new one. Fleas leave a dead body when the chance arises.


False. Not all living being can do that. And we all the foetus can be forced to change habitat with modern medicine, in an other woman's body.


> Are you serious? I fail to see why we have to compare a human foetus with any other creature - please explain why I might ever need to ponder if a foetus is human?


Because the topic is about abortion, and one of the main point is understanding if foetus is or isn't a person.


> Please contribute to the discussion with something constructive which assumes that we have a level of awareness of what part a tapeworm plays in biology.


When you read my topic without these prejudices only because I used an example, you'll see it's exactly what I'm doing.



> I'll ask you the questions I asked HistofEng,
> 
> 1 - What do you consider to be the defining characteristic of a human being?


Since I'm Christian, I believe the man is the only creature made in God's image. I know probably you won't like this answer, but this is my only definition.


> 2 a - an you tell us of any human being which didn't have human parents


The first human beings hadn't. They can be created by the evolution or by a creation, but in both cases they hadn't always existed.
(And of course, if you believe there are more exemples, not last Jesus.)


> 2 b - and can you tell us of any thing which wasn't human which did have human parents?


No.


----------



## Fernando

HistofEng said:


> [*]_*The CDC estimates that 60.5 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation*_, and 88.5 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. *Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks* (CDC, 2005).



Thanks to confirm to me that most abortions happens AFTER the development of the nervous tissue, that happens BEFORE the eigth week.

You have said "infanticide is legal in some societies". What is your position? Since your split is conciousness or not, should I assume you consider infanticide acceptable?

By the way, since we do not need glasses, do not use weird sizes.


----------



## ireney

Fernado I think HistoEng means that 60.5% of all legal abortions are performed within the first 8 weeks another 28% within the next 4 weeks, another 10.1% after the 12 weeks. 1.4% (included in that 10.1%) happens after the 20 weeks (which leaves 8,7 that happen between the 12 and the 20 weeks).

That means that the majority (60.5%) is performed (by the way I am not sure this is the correct verb to use) before the 8th week really.

Nervous system = infanticide? I don't get it


----------



## Fernando

I have perfectly understood Histo's point. The point is that BEFORE 8 weeks nervous system is formed, which is his splitting cut person/non-person (not mine).

About infanticide, other Histo's splitting cuts is conciousness. A 1-day child is not self-aware. So, I assume that he thinks that infanticide (he has mentioned it in a previous post) is tolerable.


----------



## maxiogee

BlueWolf said:


> The topic isn't about tapeworms, and I use it only as my example of living creature which live inside us but it's not part of us. Again you are being facetious.


But you raised the issue of, as you say, a "living creature which lives inside us". But the foetus doesn't live inside us. It is conceived there from the actions of both the contributors to its creation. The tapeworm (or any other "creature" is an external and independent entity which, initially is ingested by the host. Offspring from that entity may be born and live within the host but that are no more a part of it than one's pet dog is a part of one. Both exist by our existence, both have their nourishment provided by us, but they are not part of us, and you know that. You are trying to play mind games.



> Since I'm Christian, I believe the man is the only creature made in God's image. I know probably you won't like this answer, but this is my only definition.


So distinguish for me, please, homo neanderthalis from homo erectus from homo sapiens. You see I haven't got a concept of what your God's image actually is, and there aren't many good definitions.

As to man being the only creature made in God's image and likeness, how can you define 'man' if you cannot even tell the embryonic stage of 'man' from a parasitic entity infesting the mother-to-be?



> The first human beings hadn't. They can be created by the evolution or by a creation, but in both cases they hadn't always existed.


But all creatures, except the first amoebas, have had parents. We know that by being able to trace the DNA backwards. If you were to take the name of each of my direct female ancestors and write them down on a sheet of paper, every one of them had a mother. Now, I'll admit that sooner or later we end arrive at a creature which is not 'homo sapiens' and which would not recognise me as a descendant, and with whom I would be unable to procreate, but that doesn't mean that she is not my multi-Great Grandmother.

But the fact that what is human came from what wasn't doesn't concern us here, because evolution is a one-way process. It's not going to happen again. No human is every going to be evolved again - it cannot happen.





> (And of course, if you believe there are more exemples, not last Jesus.)


No comment.

Spiritual 'belief' has no place in a scientific discussion.


----------



## BlueWolf

maxiogee said:


> Both exist by our existence, both have their nourishment provided by us, but they are not part of us, and you know that. You are trying to play mind games.


No, I'm not. But since I see this part of the conversation doesn't bring to any place but a useless discussion, let's forget it, ok?


> So distinguish for me, please, homo neanderthalis from homo erectus from homo sapiens. You see I haven't got a concept of what your God's image actually is, and there aren't many good definitions.


And who exactly has? 
However is it so important dinstinguish among those homos? We could, but only if we do know them. All we have about them are some bones, it isn't so much to have a true idea about them.


> As to man being the only creature made in God's image and likeness, how can you define 'man' if you cannot even tell the embryonic stage of 'man' from a parasitic entity infesting the mother-to-be?


We can assume that definition since in most of the cases the two ones corrispond, but my definition is still the first.


> But all creatures, except the first amoebas, have had parents. We know that by being able to trace the DNA backwards. If you were to take the name of each of my direct female ancestors and write them down on a sheet of paper, every one of them had a mother. Now, I'll admit that sooner or later we end arrive at a creature which is not 'homo sapiens' and which would not recognise me as a descendant, and with whom I would be unable to procreate, but that doesn't mean that she is not my multi-Great Grandmother.


Well, from something life started, didn't it? You can't go back infinitly. However what I mean was only that during the "passage" (of course, it is a simplified discussion) your relative weren't sons of a human being.


> But the fact that what is human came from what wasn't doesn't concern us here, because evolution is a one-way process. It's not going to happen again. No human is every going to be evolved again - it cannot happen.


Why can't he? Man can evolve again, and even if we're not a difference species, we are different from our relatives of 2,000 years ago (higher for example), because the habitat can't not affect us.


> Spiritual 'belief' has no place in a scientific discussion.


No problem, as you prefer.


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> Yes, there are/were many societies where biologically human organisms are/were not treated as human beings (persons). The definition [of person] changes as the beliefs of particular societies/individuals change.



Alight then, but I prefer a terminology where all humans are human beings, although they might not be persons. Saying "women used to be human non-human-beings" sounds like an absurdity.



> I highly doubt that a human cell or group of cells(also a biologically human organism) will ever fall into the definition of personhood (what I believe you're arguing for).


You believe that? Why?



> Wiki wasn't used as "proof" of anything. It was merely used to present an argument. I could just as easily say the same thing again in my own words. Find something to criticize in the argument, not the source of the argument.


The issue though was the use of the word organism and whether it is ever used in the way that you say in the biological literature. Wikipedia's use of the word is irrelevant here and so is yours, unless you have published peer-reviewed work on biology.



> http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=organism



I'm not quite sure to do with that definition, but anyway, definitions are often not good at describing the actual use of the term. Just show me a place where organism is used to refer to any group of cells, and I'll drop this issue.



> It's not in doubt. Biologically speaking, the human cell is an individual organism just as much as the human being is an individual organism. The only doubt there may be is if it's human or not.


I guess you can't answer the question that is asked, huh? Can you give me an example of where there is any difficulty in doubting whether something is a human animal or not (you can't have the same problem with "animal" you do with "individual organism")?



> The mother and the embryo can either be described as two individual organisms, just like any other organ or cell could be counted separately, or they can be percieved as one system.


Again, not what I asked. Is there any difficulty in deciding what is the mother and what is the embryo?



> because 'good' and 'bad' are not observable enitities. They are abstract concepts.


From Wikipedia, "there is no doubt that mathematics is in this sense a science." There's nothing more abstract than math, so there goes your argument.


----------



## maxiogee

BlueWolf said:


> Why can't he? Man can evolve again,


You misunderstand me. What I ws saying is that no non-human primate is ever going to evolve into a homo sapiens again. 




> and even if we're not a difference species, we are different from our relatives of 2,000 years ago (higher for example)


I don't think you understand. We are exactly the same as those ancestors, we could breed with them should the opportunity present itself. We may be taller than them, but that has nothing to do with being 'different'.





> , because the habitat can't not affect us.


I think you will find that habitat cannot change our DNA in any way. What happens is that habitat will favour certain attributes, and these will prosper - but not by means of changing our DNA. Any changes which happen to DNA are random mutations, and cannot be forced by any factors such as habitat.

=====
This will have to be my last post here for some time.
My computer has crashed and I will be away for a short while.
I hope this thread evolves in my absence into something sensible, in some vague way related to the topic.


----------



## HistofEng

maxiogee said:


> Are you saying that you cannot define "human being"?


 
A Human being as in a 'person'? No, there is no one definiton, and it is relative to the society/individual.



> That is what it looks like, as the "ability to reason" and the capability "of moral agency" are human constructs which only humans are currently able to judge, by preconceived human standards.


 
exactly, we're a very egocentric species.




> You also seem to deny personhood to the coma patient - unconscious, possibly lacking thoughts, not aware of needs and therefroe without wants, and totally unable to convey any desires - and if desires cannot be conveyed by any being, how can "we" be aware that they have them?


 
For me, _personally_, an individual organism that permanently loses consciousness is not a person anymore. But one such individual had to have before had consciousness in order to lose it. 




> Name any person to whom human parents were/are not intrinsic (*intrinsic* _adjective_ belonging naturally).


 
I can't help you in understanding the definition of _intrinsic_.

The intrinsic features of a thing are those which it has in and of itself; while its extrinsic features are those which it has only in its relation to something else. 

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/i9.htm#intr




> You are changing my condition of "having human parents" to the singular to suit your need here. Please don't do that and then argue that you are answering my point.


 
oops sorry, I did do that, but it doesn't matter if one parent cell produces two daughter cells, or two parent cells recombine to produce one daughter cell



> You keep bringing up the question of cells. Why? You know that they cannot meet your own requirements for personhood of ability to reason.


 

Human cells are biological organisms just like humans are human biological organisms. But solely being a human biological organism doesn't qualify you for personhood (in my opinion). Their are certain other qualities an organism must posess in order to meet the standards of personhood. Before answering my own question, I asked numerous times before what others thought those qualities were, only to get back the inadquate answer "it only has to be a human organism." Simply being a human organism doesn't qualify it for me and, judging how people conduct themselves, almost no one.



> *Can we please stop going on wild goose chases and discuss the point of the thread - the abortion of human embryos/foetuses.*
> 
> 
> 
> Discussing tapeworms and human cells may well be part of "Debating Skills 101' - as may science fiction stories of clever scientists in 200 years time, but they don't further the discussion of what is a human being, and when it becomes a human person, and whether the abortion of an embryo or foetus is the killing of a person.


 
We were discussing the topic. An embryo is a collection of cells as with any other collection of cells. Nothing more, nothing less until we, egocentrically, confer a value upon them. It's inconsistent, in my view to ascribe a higher value to a group of cells that is qualitatively no different than other groups of cells. For me, when these groups of cells have _other_ qualities (as decribed above), then I consider them persons.



> How come you people cannot say what a human is? - You are one, you mingle with them daily - surely you have enough knowledge to be able to come to a decision.


 
Exactly, I've been wondering why it's so hard for forumers to tell me what intrinsic [philosophical] qualities do they ascribe to 'persons'? Victoria, at least gave something.


----------



## .   1

There seems to be a lot of discussion of definitions of this and that but the inability to define certain things seems to be bogging the debate more than is necessary.

Might we all agree that the developing foetus is always human?  That does not mean that it is at all times 'a human being' but it is the product of a 'human' sperm and a 'human' egg ergo it must be human in at least the same way that human blood is human and human skin is human.
I may be thick but I am being confused by this human-nonhuman debate.
If the thing under consideration is not human then there is no debate.

It is obvious to me that the big question regarding abortion is the commencement of life.  This is then followed by weighing the life of the mother against the potential life of the offspring.

.,,


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> HistofEng said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I highly doubt that a human cell or group of cells(also a biologically human organism) will ever fall into the definition of personhood (what I believe you're arguing for).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe that? Why?
Click to expand...

 
Sorry, I didn’t mean to include* all* groups of cells, since we are a group of cells. But in terms of one human cell or, more pertinently, the group of cells that form after fertilization, I don’t believe they will attain personhood because they’ve never been observed to have the qualities for personhood I’ve put forth above. 





> The issue though was the use of the word organism and whether it is ever used in the way that you say in the biological literature. Wikipedia's use of the word is irrelevant here and so is yours, unless you have published peer-reviewed work on biology.


 
The issue is not which way the word is used. It’s that the concept/definition of an organism (biological individual) as we use it in everyday language is not different from that of a cell, or organ (biological individual). A single celled organism (bacterium, yeast cell, human cell) is just as much (conceptually and definitively) an organism as a multi-cellular organism (tree, fish, human).




> I'm not quite sure to do with that definition, but anyway, definitions are often not good at describing the actual use of the term. Just show me a place where organism is used to refer to any group of cells, and I'll drop this issue.


 
_“There are multicellular organisms, such as the cellular slime moulds, that develop by aggregation and not from an egg,”_

_http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6917/full/420745a.html_

These are individual unicellular amoeba organisms that aggregate and interact with each other to become a multicellular organism with cell differentiation (each cell changes its gene expression to provide a specific function for the newly-aggregated multi-cellular organism.)




> I guess you can't answer the question that is asked, huh? Can you give me an example of where there is any difficulty in doubting whether something is a human animal or not (you can't have the same problem with "animal" you do with "individual organism")?


 
An animal is just a specific type of an individual complex organism. A complex organism is a collection of interacting organisms. So, as I said before, there is no doubt.





> Again, not what I asked. Is there any difficulty in deciding what is the mother and what is the embryo?


 

Maybe you’re not asking the right question because I did indeed answer your specific question...




			
				HistofEng said:
			
		

> “The mother and the embryo can either be described as two individual organisms (meaning one can differentiate between them), just like any other organ or cell could be counted separately, or they can be percieved as one system”


 




> From Wikipedia, "there is no doubt that mathematics is in this sense a science." There's nothing more abstract than math, so there goes your argument.


 
Sorry, mathematics is the hardest science we know, it’s logic at its purest. We do think abstractly about it though. Scienc and mathematics can't prove that 'good and 'bad' as entities exist, just as much as it can't prove god exists. I'm not saying they don't exist but, as I said before, science can't prove its existence.


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> ....
> I think that you do not understand the level of intimacy that is possible to exist between men and women.  I have found women to often confide in a male friend some things that they do not reveal to their women friends.  Men can speak of things to their female friends that would be very confronting if discussed with another bloke.


I have (and have had) male friends who have confided things to me, so I know that it happens, I also know it's rare and that few women would confide some of the things they have done in this area of life - there are some things I would never tell a man, even the man I was closest to - my 'baby' brother who died in 2004. 


. said:


> .I stand by my statement that a vast majority of women seeking abortion are either physically scared little girls or metaphorically scared little girls.  There are a vast number of tears shed by these scared little girls both leading up to and in the long hard row they how after abortion.
> I doubt that there are many women who have repeat abortions as I doubt that the procedure is particularly edifying for the poor buggers involved.
> 
> .,,


I grant your point that having an abortion is traumatic and that tears are shed in abundance over it.
But I know personally (my sister) at least one woman who has had repeat abortions, and _regretted it bitterly_ in later years. Each year, the Min of Health here, releases statistics relating to abortions in the previous year, and this year's new items were all about the large number of 'repeaters'...


----------



## .   1

_Quote:_
_Originally Posted by *.,,* _[URL="http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"]_http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif_[/URL]
_...._
_I think that you do not understand the level of intimacy that is possible to exist between men and women. I have found women to often confide in a male friend some things that they do not reveal to their women friends. Men can speak of things to their female friends that would be very confronting if discussed with another bloke._

_I have (and have had) male friends who have confided things to me, so I know that it happens, I also know it's rare and that few women would confide some of the things they have done in this area of life - there are some things I would never tell a man, even the man I was closest to - my 'baby' brother who died in 2004. _

This makes a discussion between us difficult.
You say that you have personally experienced close relationships with the opposite gender and I have indicated that I have similar experiences but you then say that such exchanges are rare.
You have had them and I have had them and no one has said that they have not had them but still conclude that they are rare.
This form of logic escapes me.

_Quote:_
_Originally Posted by *.,,* _[URL="http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif"]_http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif_[/URL]
_.I stand by my statement that a vast majority of women seeking abortion are either physically scared little girls or metaphorically scared little girls. There are a vast number of tears shed by these scared little girls both leading up to and in the long hard row they how after abortion._
_I doubt that there are many women who have repeat abortions as I doubt that the procedure is particularly edifying for the poor buggers involved._

_.,,_

_I grant your point that having an abortion is traumatic and that tears are shed in abundance over it._
_But I know personally (my sister) at least one woman who has had repeat abortions, and regretted it bitterly in later years. Each year, the Min of Health here, releases statistics relating to abortions in the previous year, and this year's new items were all about the large number of 'repeaters'..._

The news focussed on what the news wanted to focus on to sell more toothpaste.
A large number is not really informative. Was the large number a relatively large number as compared to the number of non repeat abortions or was the number intrinsically large as the survey covered a large topic.
1,000 can be a large number in a small survey but it can also be a small number iin a large survey.

.,,


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> The issue is not which way the word is used.



That is exactly the issue. You're nitpicking over my definition of a person as a human, and saying that because I said organism I'm calling things like stomachs persons. But I'm not convinced your use of the word organism is standard. Can you give an example where a human organ is called an organism?

The stuff about single- and multi-celled organisms is completely irrelevant. Of course there are one-celled organisms. Are there organisms, however, that are organs or simply collection of cells belonging to another organism? If not, then your problem with my definition is pointless.

[Edit: On second reading you do seem to have addressed this, in the case of these slimes, where both the single cell and the aggregate are both called organisms at the same time? I don't have access to the article to read it. I still don't see how this case is relevant to my definition.]

It's pointless anyways since I could, and did, reformulate my definition of a person to be a human animal.

Should I stop looking for a point in any of your comments about my definition of person? Shouldn't this conversation have just been:

You: How would you define person?
Me: A person is a human animal.
You: Oh. That's different than my definition.
 


> Sorry, mathematics is the hardest science we know, it’s logic at its purest.


What exactly are you apologizing for? And no, logic is logic at its purest, not mathematics. And mathematics does not prove that anything exists in a realist objective sense. It deals with abstract objects like numbers. So again, why can't a science of morals exist?


----------



## cuchuflete

A science of morals could exist.  It would track moving targets as well as stationary ones.  It might note and analyze how they sometimes collide.  Intriguing idea.   Don't anthropology and sociology attempt things like that?


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> That is the reason we use the expression, at least in English (I don't know what other languages say), an "expectant mother". The motherhood has not yet arrived, and if that hasn't happened then the 'child' doesn't exist.
> 
> The medical profession uses the term "postpartum" to mean 'following childbirth'. I think we might learn from that that before birth the foetus is a physical part of the woman who carries it.


From my experience (three children starting when I was a teen) I would say that the mother is aware of herself as a mother all along, although she doesn't get her hopes up until (in my mother's case 3 months after ) after the child is born..  


maxiogee said:


> .....
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual 'belief' has no place in a scientific discussion.


The initial question was posed as a religious one.. 


. said:


> _Quote:_
> _Originally Posted by *.,,* _http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=1423124#post1423124_http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif_
> _...._
> _I think that you do not understand the level of intimacy that is possible to exist between men and women. I have found women to often confide in a male friend some things that they do not reveal to their women friends. Men can speak of things to their female friends that would be very confronting if discussed with another bloke._
> 
> _I have (and have had) male friends who have confided things to me, so I know that it happens, I also know it's rare and that few women would confide some of the things they have done in this area of life - there are some things I would never tell a man, even the man I was closest to - my 'baby' brother who died in 2004. _
> 
> This makes a discussion between us difficult.
> You say that you have personally experienced close relationships with the opposite gender and I have indicated that I have similar experiences but you then say that such exchanges are rare.
> You have had them and I have had them and no one has said that they have not had them but still conclude that they are rare.
> This form of logic escapes me.
> 
> _Quote:_
> _Originally Posted by *.,,* _http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=1423124#post1423124_http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif_
> _.I stand by my statement that a vast majority of women seeking abortion are either physically scared little girls or metaphorically scared little girls. There are a vast number of tears shed by these scared little girls both leading up to and in the long hard row they how after abortion._
> _I doubt that there are many women who have repeat abortions as I doubt that the procedure is particularly edifying for the poor buggers involved._
> 
> _.,,_
> 
> _I grant your point that having an abortion is traumatic and that tears are shed in abundance over it._
> _But I know personally (my sister) at least one woman who has had repeat abortions, and regretted it bitterly in later years. Each year, the Min of Health here, releases statistics relating to abortions in the previous year, and this year's new items were all about the large number of 'repeaters'..._
> 
> The news focussed on what the news wanted to focus on to sell more toothpaste.
> A large number is not really informative. Was the large number a relatively large number as compared to the number of non repeat abortions or was the number intrinsically large as the survey covered a large topic.
> 1,000 can be a large number in a small survey but it can also be a small number iin a large survey.
> 
> .,,


I don't know numbers, I haven't read a newspaper for a while (they are all in a pile in the hallway awaiting my having time) but in my opinion two is two too many, especially as I recall a newsreader talking of more than one woman having more than three abortions!
I say such confiding in the opposite sex is rare, not because many people haven't that experience, but because it is rare in my experience. I know (and have known) a very large number of men, and probably 1 or 2 of them have ever received my confidences or vouchsafed theirs.


----------



## modus.irrealis

cuchuflete said:


> A science of morals could exist.  It would track moving targets as well as stationary ones.  It might note and analyze how they sometimes collide.  Intriguing idea.   Don't anthropology and sociology attempt things like that?



If you mean a descriptive science that describes the morals of different socieites, how they evolve and so on, than you're right that anthropology and sociology do a lot of that. I'm wondering why there can't be a normative science of morals, which would make objective statements about what is right and wrong.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> That is exactly the issue. You're nitpicking over my definition of a person as a human, and saying that because I said organism I'm calling things like stomachs persons. But I'm not convinced your use of the word organism is standard. Can you give an example where a human organ is called an organism?


 
It doesn't matter which use of the word is standard or not, I'm saying (and have said before) that it doesn't matter what word you use, the concept of a human, biologically speaking, is the same as that of an organ, or cell. An organism/(biological) individual/animal/human/etc can be biologically defined as an assembly of molecules that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole and have properties of life. Or you maybe you could provide a desciption of what a biological human is (remember that makes them qualitatively different from human cells.) 


> The stuff about single- and multi-celled organisms is completely irrelevant. Of course there are one-celled organisms. Are there organisms, however, that are organs or simply collection of cells belonging to another organism? If not, then your problem with my definition is pointless.
> 
> [Edit: On second reading you do seem to have addressed this, in the case of these slimes, where both the single cell and the aggregate are both called organisms at the same time? I don't have access to the article to read it. I still don't see how this case is relevant to my definition.]


 
If you don't see the point, then ok, we'll move on.



> It's pointless anyways since I could, and did, reformulate my definition of a person to be a human animal.


 
An animal which is not qualitatively different from a human cell. 

_Animal_

A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/animal


This description is just as applicable to a unicellular organism like a human cell. There are many cells with the capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure....

Again, why don't provide your own definition of animal, if you're so sure it's different from a cell. Perhaps I will learn a new definition that's different from the dictionary. I love to learn.






> What exactly are you apologizing for? And no, logic is logic at its purest, not mathematics.


 
math = logic



> And mathematics does not prove that anything exists in a realist objective sense.


 
yes, it does...We even know that entities like dark matter and dark energy (and many other astrophysical and quantum mechanical phenomena) exist because of mathematics, even though we can't directly observe them.




> So again, why can't a science of morals exist?


 
Morals are practically the opposite of science. They are human constructs (or supernatural constructs, if you'd like). They are only as real as you and I make them, and that's why they differ from mind to mind.


----------



## cuchuflete

modus.irrealis said:


> If you mean a descriptive science that describes the morals of different socieites, how they evolve and so on, than you're right that anthropology and sociology do a lot of that. I'm wondering why there can't be a normative science of morals, which would make *objective statements about what is right and wrong.*



Cause there ain't no such thing as objective statements about what is right and wrong.   One person's notion of objective right differs from that of people who don't share the same assumption and logic system.  If your own definitions of right and wrong are based on your sacred book and/or religion, and I don't share the assumptions of either, or see them as sacred, then you will firmly believe your position to be right.
I may agree, by happenstance, or on the basis of whatever is sacred to me.  I may also disagree, and even "know" that my right is contrary to your right, hence yours is unright, if not downright wrong.

Pick any two religions that declare that their respective beliefs and teachings are the one and only way to heaven.  Stand back and watch the objective collision.

This thread, with all of its intricate diversions into attempts to define a human being, is good proof that articulate, intelligent people can and do have different definitions of "right".  If either side (any side?) of the dispute claims that the other is flat out, objectively, morally wrong, that implies the assumption that the person making the claim believes that their own belief system is the only one that properly understands "objective right", and that those in opposition are, by definition, immoral or at best amoral.  Where's the objectivity when both parties to a dispute hold that identical viewpoint about the other party's lack of objective right?
Sure, there's an easy answer: I'm right and you are wrong.  Sadly, like many easy answers, it's pretty useless.


----------



## modus.irrealis

HistofEng said:


> It doesn't matter which use of the word is standard or not, I'm saying (and have said before) that it doesn't matter what word you use, the concept of a human, biologically speaking, is the same as that of an organ, or cell.



So it doesn't matter what word I use in my definition, you are going to understand it however you want? Are you serious? And you're honestly telling me that biologically speaking my heart is *a* human? I'd really like a source for that.



> An organism/(biological) individual/animal/human/etc can be biologically defined as an assembly of molecules that influence each other in such a way that they function as a more or less stable whole and have properties of life.


So my heart is an animal?



> Or you maybe you could provide a desciption of what a biological human is (remember that makes them qualitatively different from human cells.)


 A member of the species homo sapiens.



> This description is just as applicable to a unicellular organism like a human cell. There are many cells with the capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure....


So? It doesn't matter if this description could be applied to other things -- that would make it a bad description. The meaning of a term is determined by its use. Can you show me an example of a place where a human heart is called an animal?



> Again, why don't provide your own definition of animal, if you're so sure it's different from a cell. Perhaps I will learn a new definition that's different from the dictionary. I love to learn.


A member of the animal kingdom.



> math = logic


Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Mathematics might use logic, but it is not identical with it since it involves such non-logical concepts as area.



> yes, it does...We even know that entities like dark matter and dark energy (and many other astrophysical and quantum mechanical phenomena) exist because of mathematics, even though we can't directly observe them.


It's not the mathematics that proves they exist, it's the experimental evidence. Physics might use mathematics, but it's not the same thing as it.



> Morals are practically the opposite of science. They are human constructs (or supernatural constructs, if you'd like). They are only as real as you and I make them, and that's why they differ from mind to mind.


And mathematical concepts like triangles are not constructs (mental, supernatural, Platonic, or whatever)?


----------



## modus.irrealis

cuchuflete said:


> Cause there ain't no such thing as objective statements about what is right and wrong.



How do you know this?



> One person's notion of objective right differs from that of people who don't share the same assumption and logic system. If your own definitions of right and wrong are based on your sacred book and/or religion, and I don't share the assumptions of either, or see them as sacred, then you will firmly believe your position to be right.
> I may agree, by happenstance, or on the basis of whatever is sacred to me.  I may also disagree, and even "know" that my right is contrary to your right, hence yours is unright, if not downright wrong.


I don't understand you here. Are you saying simply because there's disagreement about what's right and wrong that there is no objective right and wrong? If so, does this apply to any area where there is disagreement?



> If either side (any side?) of the dispute claims that the other is flat out, objectively, morally wrong, that implies the assumption that the person making the claim believes that their own belief system is the only one that properly understands "objective right", and that those in opposition are, by definition, immoral or at best amoral.


By definition? Why can't they simply be mistaken, like if someone thinks the capital of Italy is Venice?


----------



## cuchuflete

Answers follow, in your quoted text...





modus.irrealis said:


> How do you know this?
> By observation of humans...those pesky critters that are so hard to define.
> 
> 
> I don't understand you here. Are you saying simply because there's disagreement about what's right and wrong that there is no objective right and wrong?  Yes, I am saying that.  If so, does this apply to any area where there is disagreement? Let's keep this simple.  Humans have invented lots of different notions of what's right and what is not.  There are many human cultures and belief systems.  They coincide on many, but not all, notions of right and wrong.   Some invoke a higher authority, a deity or divinely inspired message, as the basis for their assumption that there is a single, objective "right".  That's just fine and dandy for those who think that way, but as no religion counts more than about a third of humanity as even nominal members, the idea of an objective "right" leaves out two thirds of living humanoids, persons, or whatever term we choose to slap on ourselves.
> 
> Sooooooo...if Henrietta or Fred believe or even "know", with absolute certainty, based on their religion, that something is inherently and objectively "right", there may be twice as many good-hearted folks who believe the contrary.  Each may claim
> to be of the one and only 'correct and true' path, with total sincerity and good will.  Yet they disagree.
> 
> If there is disagreement about the physical world, empirical tests can establish an objective statement of condition.  Concepts such as right and wrong are not subject to such scientific observations.  They are subjective.
> 
> This does not mean that an atheist and a devout practitioner of a religion will necessarily not share a concept of 'right' at times.  But that's coincidence, not objectivity.
> 
> 
> By definition? Why can't they simply be mistaken, like if someone thinks the capital of Italy is Venice? You are mixing concepts with objective topics. Of course there can be objective rights and wrongs, but not for all subjects.  Try, for example, to establish an objective system that governs personal aesthetics, or tastes in food or music.  I happen to love classical music and jazz.  You may share those affections, or hate both, and declare them to be unendurable cacaphony.
> Neither of us would be right or wrong, in any objective sense. Many religions include music in their ceremonies. Others consider such to be an affront to god/God. Where's the objective 'right'?



There is nothing sacred about objectivity.  It's a helpful tool in some circumstances, but just doesn't fit in others.  Suppose you had been brought up with a belief system contrary to the one you have today.  Many people were.  Would you be _objectively_ any more right or wrong for holding those contrary beliefs? If you believe, for example, that abortion is morally wrong, then you must have a basis for that sincere belief.  The same is true for your opponent, who believes that it is acceptable.  To call either you or the opponent objectively right is to try to superimpose the notion of objectivity on a moral posture that is by its very nature not objective for those with distinct moral values.


----------



## .   1

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cuchuflete* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> Cause there ain't no such thing as objective statements about what is right and wrong.
> 
> 
> How do you know this?


I know this on a personal level because my notion of morality has changed significantly as I have aged.

I was utterly of the opinion that I was utterly morally right and now I am not of the same opinion.

I am aware of P.N.G. Highland people who live strictly to their moral code and die in the total belief that they have pleased god yet their moral code is not my moral code.

I read posts here from good honest upright people who espouse a moral code at significant odds to my moral code.

Just because you are right does not make me wrong.

.,,


----------



## BlueWolf

maxiogee said:


> You misunderstand me. What I ws saying is that no non-human primate is ever going to evolve into a homo sapiens again.


Ah, ok, I misunderstood.


> I think you will find that habitat cannot change our DNA in any way. What happens is that habitat will favour certain attributes, and these will prosper - but not by means of changing our DNA. Any changes which happen to DNA are random mutations, and cannot be forced by any factors such as habitat.


Habitat selects which "mutation" will survive, so it changes races. Mutations can happen every day, but they become a new species only if they are usefull to survive in the habitat.


----------



## ireney

People once believed (some random beliefs follow)

that a woman should not get any pleasure from having sex with her husband,

that a woman should not complain, let alone inform anyone, that her husband is beating the hell out of her,

that is is OK to have slaves.

We now think/know that these beliefs are wrong. Why wouldn't a future generation think some of our beliefs wrong?

You could take Plato to an apple tree and show him that apples don't come out of the sea if he believed that was the case. Do you think you could convince him that slavery is wrong (the man escaped being sold as a slave by a lucky chance and he _still_ didn't oppose slavery) ? I bet I at least couldn't convince him using any scientific arguments (a note for those who are not familiar with ancient Greek culture: slaverly was OK but it wasn't based on race. Even though most of their slaves belonged to others nationalities [seldomly other races] they thought it was a fate to be avoided but by no means something immoral or unethical or whatever to become slaves themselves if they i.e. lost the war.)


----------



## Poetic Device

As far as I know neither the Bible nor the Torah say anything about killing a fetus.  However, they have done studies where they have proven that even in the earliest stages the unborn child is indeed able to display characteristics of an independantly living being.  To Libby:  I do not know if anyone has addressed this yet, so please forgive me if I am repeating old things.  THe commandment that you spoke of in the beginning of this thread is not "thou shalt not kill" rather "thou shalt not *murder*".  As far as murder, murderers and murdering are concerned, that are a few interesting verses about them.  Let me quote one I find most interesting (for no other reason than for a death penalty topic):  "Numbers 35:18 (Whole Chapter) 
Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a *murder*er: the *murder*er shall surely be put to death. "


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> As far as I know neither the Bible nor the Torah say anything about killing a fetus. However, they have done studies where they have proven that even in the earliest stages the unborn child is indeed able to display characteristics of an independantly living being."


Who are they that did the studies.
How early in the pregnancy is the foetus able to display charactistics of an independantly living being?
This independance will be tricky for a being eating, drinking, breathing and excreting through the umbillicus but nevertheless I would be fascinated to see how the tests were done.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:


> I grant your point that having an abortion is traumatic and that tears are shed in abundance over it.
> But I know personally (my sister) at least one woman who has had repeat abortions, and _regretted it bitterly_ in later years. Each year, the Min of Health here, releases statistics relating to abortions in the previous year, and this year's new items were all about the large number of 'repeaters'...
> 
> *and*
> 
> I don't know numbers, I haven't read a newspaper for a while (they are all in a pile in the hallway awaiting my having time) but in my opinion two is two too many, especially as I recall a newsreader talking of more than one woman having more than three abortions!
> 
> I say such confiding in the opposite sex is rare, not because many people haven't that experience, but because it is rare in my experience. I know (and have known) a very large number of men, and probably 1 or 2 of them have ever received my confidences or vouchsafed theirs.


 
This type of statistical response is difficult.
Your initial response was about the large numbers of repeaters and now you clarify that by talking of 'more than one'.
To equate 'large numbers' with 'more than one' is more than a little tricky to follow.

I contend that it is unfair to deny access to therapeutic abortion on demand simply because a few poor sad women make repeated mistakes of this kind.

Does anybody seriously think that having a 'war on abortion' would be any more effective than the currently failing 'war on drugs' or the utterly failed 'prohibition of alcohol' or do you think that the matter will simply be driven underground leaving the poor frightened little girls to cry in a back shed as a wire coathanger is rammed into them by a drunken disbarred doctor or failed medical student to abort the foetus.

.,,


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> So it doesn't matter what word I use in my definition, you are going to understand it however you want? Are you serious? And you're honestly telling me that biologically speaking my heart is *a* human? I'd really like a source for that.
> 
> 
> So my heart is an animal?
> 
> A member of the species homo sapiens.
> 
> 
> So? It doesn't matter if this description could be applied to other things -- that would make it a bad description. The meaning of a term is determined by its use. Can you show me an example of a place where a human heart is called an animal?
> 
> 
> A member of the animal kingdom.
> 
> 
> Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. Mathematics might use logic, but it is not identical with it since it involves such non-logical concepts as area.
> 
> 
> It's not the mathematics that proves they exist, it's the experimental evidence. Physics might use mathematics, but it's not the same thing as it.
> 
> 
> And mathematical concepts like triangles are not constructs (mental, supernatural, Platonic, or whatever)?


 
I've said all I had to say numerous times...to refute your comments I would be saying the exact same things I said in my previous post. I can't help someone who actually believes math is not the most objective form of reason. 3 > 5 and 5 < 4....lol


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> This type of statistical response is difficult.
> Your initial response was about the large numbers of repeaters and now you clarify that by talking of 'more than one'.
> To equate 'large numbers' with 'more than one' is more than a little tricky to follow.
> 
> I contend that it is unfair to deny access to therapeutic abortion on demand simply because a few poor sad women make repeated mistakes of this kind.
> 
> Does anybody seriously think that having a 'war on abortion' would be any more effective than the currently failing 'war on drugs' or the utterly failed 'prohibition of alcohol' or do you think that the matter will simply be driven underground leaving the poor frightened little girls to cry in a back shed as a wire coathanger is rammed into them by a drunken disbarred doctor or failed medical student to abort the foetus.
> 
> .,,


Further clarification - when I said "more than one" I wasn't talking about news statistics, _*but more than one who is personally known to me. 
*_I shall do some googling and see what stats I can find - and if you know of Bernard Nathanson, who switched from being a well-known abortionist and campaigner for abortion to being against it - you may know that he has _*admitted*_ that he and fellow campaigners adopted the coathanger as a symbol, and vastly exaggerated the number of illegal abortions and the number of women killed and/or injured by them every year. 
The sobbing frightened 15 year old having a coathanger rammed into her is a very effective emotive poster image, but she's just that! 

"*Previous abortions*
Most abortions (64 percent) in 2004 and 2005 were first abortions, compared with 72 percent in 1995. Eleven percent of women having an abortion in 2005 had had two or more previous abortions."
This is from http://http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/abortion-statistics/abortions

And here are some historical statistics :
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-newzealand.html


----------



## gemlanz

To me it's simple. Christians don't agree in sex before marrige and to them sex is purely for creating life...
But I also think that in this day and age this isn't the case with many christians anymore...


----------



## Fernando

gemlanz said:


> To me it's simple. Christians don't agree in sex before marrige and to them sex is purely for creating life...
> But I also think that in this day and age this isn't the case with many christians anymore...



What does this post have in common with the abortion topic?


----------



## gemlanz

The fact that as they don't belive in sex before marrige and that sex is for creating life...... than this is why they don't belive in abortion.

What part of it don't you understand???


----------



## Fernando

What does sex before marriage and sex-for-procreation-only with abortion?

I am a Christian (Catholic), I have my problems with the sex-before-marriage and sex-for-procreation issues and I am totally against abortion.

Once the child-foetus-embryo has been conceived, what does it matter why, when and how he was conceived?


----------



## ireney

I think gemlaz position is the following:

Since the reason two people have sex according to religion is to procreate and having an abortion is defeating this purpose, abortion is wrong according to religion (I think).

I am don't think he (?) is wrong as far as it goes but that's only one of the reasons (I think).


----------



## Fernando

Maybe you are right though (as a Christian) I think both topics have no conexion. I think no Christian (and no anti-abortion person) in this thread has even mentioned the sex = procreation issue.


----------



## gemlanz

I don't understang what part of it you don't get but...

Normally (not always) the reason for abortion is because you're not with the right person to have a child with or you're too young and don't think you could cope or don't want to reck your life up (basicly it was a mistake, you didn't plan it). BUT if you're married than you expect and plan to spend the rest of your life with this person so there should'nt be a problem, infact the total opposite, you should be over the moon!! So what I'm saing (or trying, as I can't get to seem to get it over) is that obviously as they don't belive in sex before marrige than for the SAME REASONS they don't belive in abortion. (Because if you've slept with this person than you should at LEAST be planning of marrying)
I'm probley not expressing my self right, but even so I think you should be able to get the jist of what I'm trying to say


----------



## Poetic Device

I can't find the site that I first saw what I stated, however this is an interesting site that I feel plays devil's advocate to both ends.


----------



## Fernando

Well, I have tried to get your point. Anyway:

- Most Christian Churches object sex before marriage. Why? Because it is considered that the "right" way is inside a family. Sex is performed (only or partly) in order to conceive children. Otherwise it is viewed as just a way of animal behaviour (I want something, I get it). So, it is considered as a sin.

Since this is a very narrow point of view, not shared by many individuals, and dependant on the view that a specific religion/s have on how God's plan is, none (nowadays) propose to punish extramarital coitus (adultery is a kind of unmet contract).

- Most Christian Churches object abortion. Why? Because it is against "Thou shall not kill" commandment, a commandment basically shared by civil community and that is why they consider abortion both as a severe sin (severity depends, of course, on circunstamces) and a severe crime.


----------



## Fernando

Poetic Device said:


> I can't find the site that I first saw what I stated, however this is an interesting site that I feel plays devil's advocate to both ends.



The link is excellent, though inconclusive.

I think there is a certain consensus about:

- From 6 weeks ahead the nervous system is formed.

- From 26 weeks ahead the nervous system is totally complete to process pain signals.

Anyhow, this is only relevant to determine if foetus should be annestesied (1)
during abortion (or other operations). More often than not, it is not, regardless his age.

If the foetus is alive, it is irrelevant to me whether or not it feels pain. Many diseases (Alzheimer, Parkinson, brain diseases, commas, etc.) affects the ability to feel pain, and nobody (nobody?) has proposed to kill them. When we are slept only major pain is felt, while moderate pain is simply unnoticed.


(1) English?


----------



## Poetic Device

Fernando said:


> Sex is performed (only or partly) in order to conceive children. Otherwise it is viewed as just a way of animal behaviour (I want something, I get it). Really?  Wow, you just destroyed all that I learned in high school biology.  From what I was taught only a select few animals (i.e. humans and dolphins) were able to have sex for reasons other than procreation.  I guess that's what I get for going to public school.
> 
> - Most Christian Churches object abortion. Why? Because it is against "Thou shall not kill" commandment...  As I have said before, the words are not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder".  If God told us not to kill then we would starve and the human race would cease to exist because we would not be able to eat *anything*.  [/quote]


----------



## caravaggio

I am catholic..i am agree with the abortion but i am know too..the abortion is kill a life. Not try to justfy the true


----------



## Fernando

Poetic Device said:


> Fernando said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is performed (only or partly) in order to conceive children. Otherwise it is viewed as just a way of animal behaviour (I want something, I get it). Really?  Wow, you just destroyed all that I learned in high school biology.  From what I was taught only a select few animals (i.e. humans and dolphins) were able to have sex for reasons other than procreation.  I guess that's what I get for going to public school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in this particular topic. I have only roughly and badly summarized a doctrine which I do not particularly endorse. I only wanted to focusthat the motivations against sex ot marriage and abortion are bery different. If you want to open a new thread, you are free. Do not expect me in the new thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Poetic Device said:
> 
> 
> 
> [- Most Christian Churches object abortion. Why? Because it is against "Thou shall not kill" commandment...  As I have said before, the words are not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder".  If God told us not to kill then we would starve and the human race would cease to exist because we would not be able to eat *anything*.  [/quote]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In Spanish is "No matarás" which is something as "kill" rather than "murder".
> 
> And while it is to be discussed whether it is absolute or not, it is clear that it os referred only to humans, not to animals. St Francis of Asis could think otherwise.
> 
> I am not very interested in Theology or in text interpretations. Anyway, if you think Jesus endorsed killing of innocents, let me know where and how.
Click to expand...


----------



## GenJen54

Fernando said:
			
		

> Sex is performed (only or partly) in order to conceive children. Otherwise it is viewed as just a way of animal behaviour (I want something, I get it).


For the record (because I know you will not respond as you've already cited your disinterest in the topic), when you say "most Churches," I would be very leary. Many churches (including one I used to attend) and sects of Christianity see sex as something that is "God-given," and while it should be honored only between a husband and wife, it is not necessarily limited to procreation and it can, indeed, be only for pleasure's sake.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> Fernando said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sex is performed (only or partly) in order to conceive children. Otherwise it is viewed as just a way of animal behaviour (I want something, I get it). Really? Wow, you just destroyed all that I learned in high school biology. From what I was taught only a select few animals (i.e. humans and dolphins) were able to have sex for reasons other than procreation. I guess that's what I get for going to public school.
> 
> - Most Christian Churches object abortion. Why? Because it is against "Thou shall not kill" commandment... As I have said before, the words are not "thou shalt not kill" but "thou shalt not murder". If God told us not to kill then we would starve and the human race would cease to exist because we would not be able to eat *anything*. [/quote]
> 
> 
> 
> 'Thou shalt not murder' is a modern translation of the original 'Thou shalt not kill'
> 
> I can remember being taught as a little tacker that the commandment was 'Thou shalt not kill' because there was often a discussion about legally justified killing and morally correct war which certainly left an impression on my young mind.
> 
> My KJV Bible has 'Thou shalt not kill.
> Google has over 7 million hits for 'Thou shalt not kill' and less than half that many for 'Thou shalt not murder'.
> 
> I think tht it is a very long bow to draw to extrapolate 'Thou shalt not kill' to mean that 'Thou shalt not kill anything'.
> 
> The Bible has great difficulty in the obvious fact that it has been translated through too many languages but now it is being retranslated for a modern audience.  How do we know which are the real words of God and which are errors in translation?
> 
> 
> .,,
Click to expand...


----------



## modus.irrealis

cuchuflete,

This is a discussion (the objectivity of morality) I've had many times, often with little change of opinion on either side, but I find it interesting, so I'd be happy to discuss it (although a separate thread is probably more appropriate).

I'll only add that I do not find your argument convincing largely because it would deny objectivity to science, which, it seems, we both think is objective. People disagree and some people disagree with the assumptions that underlie the scientific method, and I do not see why the existence of such disagreement is enough on its own to deny objectivity to some area.

And for me objectivity is sacred, mainly because I have little trust for human authorities especially in the context of institutions. It just seems to me that institutions, whether they be governments, church hierarchies, court systems, or whatever, have a way of enabling people to act in a manner they would find immoral and inhumane were they outside the protection that being part of an institution provides. Ojectivity gives us a way to eliminate that human element from many of our decisions.


----------



## cuchuflete

Objectivity is anything but sacred.  Which of these definitions of sacred fits objectivity for you?



> *sacred* *A*_adjective_
> *1 **sacred*
> 
> _(often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President" _
> 
> 
> 
> *2 *consecrated, *sacred*, sanctified
> 
> _made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated chursh"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine" _
> 
> 
> 
> *3 *hallowed, *sacred*
> 
> _worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil"  _
> 
> 
> 
> *4 **sacred*
> 
> _concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music"  _
> 
> 
> 
> *5 **sacred*
> 
> _worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"  _
> 
> 
> source: WR/Wordnet dictionary



If you don't get your morality from an institution, then are we to assume that you receive it directly from your god, without the intervention of those human authorities who have created all religious institutions?  

You continue to (intentionally?) misread my words.  Science is objective.  It is based on repeated observations of tangible realities.  Scientific theories use similar sources, but are not objective until proved.   Morality is a purely human construct, and is not subject to objective proof.  That doesn't make your morality or anyone else's contrary morality invalid.  

Why don't you define "objective", beyond telling us that it is sacred to you.  Then define morality, as you understand it.
It's quite possible that within your own definitions the words may belong in juxtaposition.  For me they are strangers to one another.


----------



## modus.irrealis

cuchuflete said:


> Objectivity is anything but sacred.  Which of these definitions of sacred fits objectivity for you?



#5, which is the sense you seemed to mean in your last post. I should have probably quoted you though:



cuchuflete said:


> There is nothing sacred about objectivity.  It's a helpful tool in some circumstances, but just doesn't fit in others.





> If you don't get your morality from an institution, then are we to assume that you receive it directly from your god, without the intervention of those human authorities who have created all religious institutions?


I have no idea where this comment comes from. So the only possible sources of morality are institutions or direct from god? There's a false dichotomy if I ever saw one.



> You continue to (intentionally?) misread my words.


Where for example?



> Science is objective.  It is based on repeated observations of tangible realities.


But there are assumptions about the universe that underlie the scientific method, e.g. some sort of regularity must be assumed for the universe in order to justify this method. There are people who deny this assumption is valid. Why does this difference in opinion not show that science is not objective?



> Why don't you define "objective", beyond telling us that it is sacred to you.  Then define morality, as you understand it.
> It's quite possible that within your own definitions the words may belong in juxtaposition.  For me they are strangers to one another.


Objective = independent of any conscious awareness (link)
Morality = a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct (link)

I don't see why morality cannot be objective. It may not be, but I don't see why it has to not be.


----------



## HistofEng

modus.irrealis said:


> Objective = _independent of_ *any conscious awareness* (link)
> Morality = a system of *ideas* of right and wrong conduct (link)
> 
> I don't see why morality cannot be objective. It may not be, but I don't see why it has to not be.


----------



## Poetic Device

Wow, that's not at all what I got for a definition...
MORALITY
OBJECTIVE

Is this wrong?


----------



## Ana Raquel

cuchuflete said:


> . Science is objective. It is based on repeated observations of tangible realities.  Morality is a purely human construct, and is not subject to objective proof. That doesn't make your morality or anyone else's contrary morality invalid.


 
it could be observation of the tangible reality that if we don't intervene in the pregnancy the cells will become a person, this perhaps means not intervention is moral, in other words, respecting the nature law, in this case the pregnancy, is moral, or say right, correct. In that way science and morality could be related. Could that be, Cuchuflete?


----------



## TonioMiguel

Abortion is a highly hot topic and there is no way around it.  I went to Gordon College a Christian liberal Arts college in 1998 till 2003 and many of us were split over the issue.  For the United States, formal abortions started under the pretense if minority control under the direction of Madilyn O'Hara.  She had no intention of good means end in her intentions for abortion.  She created the infamous womens right to choose to hide her racist intentions.  Pro-choice is a foolish term politically worded to hide the fact that a person supports and abortion.  One is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.  There is no pro-choice or pro-life.


To me, I was born in 1979 and have been called a surpise.  I could have been aborted. My parents were happy with 2 children and they were only starting to rise to the middle class.  I find it hard to understand why children are not considered sacred by many modern societies.  I understand my morals come from my affiliation within the church but ethics says one does not destroy their offspring.  Science does not look at the fetus as life-less.

I as a Christian may look to morals but my scientific side does not agree with the foolishness of taking a child's life just so one can live a better life.  I find this belief  selfish.  We all have choices to act on sexuality and there are many methods that can prevent the conception of children without the use of abortion and abortion pills.  One should not be foolishly acting as an animal.  Although fornication and adultry are both despised by my Christian heritage, many Christians still do as they please.  Abortions can be prevented by logical individuals and children trained to take responsibility for their choices.  Abortion is not a responsible act nor is it justifiable.  Neither is adoption but it is more justifiable than abortion.

The other concern I have is given current technology a child within the womb can be removed and survive and this can take the place of abortion in a case of danger to a mother's health.  This has been stated by Dr. Koop a well respected surgeon general of the United States and a anti-abortion activist.


----------



## GenJen54

> The other concern I have is given current technology a child within the womb can be removed and survive and this can take the place of abortion in a case of danger to a mother's health. This has been stated by Dr. Koop a well respected surgeon general of the United States and a anti-abortion activist.


After about thirty two weeks, this is a possibility.  A foetus aborted at eight weeks has no means of survival outside of the womb, technological or otherwise.


----------



## Bran Muffin

i think as a whole christians oppose abortions because they feel that once the fetus starts to develop it is another life form. speaking as a buddist i feel that it is a living being as soon as it is able to begin kicking the crap out of the mother. even if that is not the case, that thing is a part of you, so why destroy what is you?


----------



## Kajjo

tokyowalker said:


> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion? I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale? Is their position based on Biblical teaching?


Amazingly enough, no one in this thread cited the bible. Usually conservative Christians come up with a whole bunch of chapters providing the scripture's support of their believings.

The initial question was phrased well. It was not about what you THINK, but about how you can PROVIDE RATIONALE using the bible.

Obviously, Christians cannot do so.

However, the pro-choice fraction could argue with the following chapter:

_Exodus 21:22 "And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." [American Standard]

"Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve." [Contemporary English]

Notes:
a) in Latin : "abortivum".
b) It is obviously meant that the unborn child dies.

_God's commandment sounds pretty much like the unborn is equal to a thing rather than a human being. 

Kajjo


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> However, the pro-choice fraction could argue with the following chapter:
> 
> _Exodus 21:22 "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine."
> 
> _God's commandment sounds pretty much like the unborn is equal to a thing rather than a human being.
> 
> Kajjo



Surely the use of the word "children" there indicates that the hitting has induced a premature, but live, birth.
"Children" are not dead 'things'.
The use of "there is no harm" makes no mention of to whom the harm has not been done. Does it mean that the mother is unharmed, or the child/children?


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> Surely the use of the word "children" there indicates that the hitting has induced a premature, but live, birth.
> "Children" are not dead 'things'. The use of "there is no harm" makes no mention of to whom the harm has not been done. Does it mean that the mother is unharmed, or the child/children?


Sorry, Maxiogee, the chapter is unambigious in many other translations and I have now replaced and added some more obvious translations. Many other languages translate it more directly (German, Latin).

But maybe it is a good example along the way to show in what a high degree a misleading or euphemistic translation can change the content. But surely you are aware of euphemistic terms in old-fashioned bible translations.

Kajjo


----------



## ireney

This seems to be a rather controversial part. It seems that the Greek translation goes as follows : "if the child is not  _ἐξεικονισμένον_ (which means developed, looking like a human)  the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine (I copy pasted this from above since it's basically the same); If the child is _ἐξεικονισμένον_ then the one who hit will pay with a soul for a soul (in other words he will pay with his life for the life he took)"

In other words, the way I read it, the Greek translation makes a diferentiation in the status of the fetus (if it is developed or not).


----------



## maxiogee

Kajjo said:


> Sorry, Maxiogee, the chapter is unambigious in many other translations and I have now replaced and added some more obvious translations. Many other languages translate it more directly (German, Latin).
> 
> But maybe it is a good example along the way to show in what a high degree a misleading or euphemistic translation can change the content. But surely you are aware of euphemistic terms in old-fashioned bible translations.
> 
> Kajjo



Yes, I'm aware of euphemisms, but I can't see the meaning being controverted.

The King James Version says:-
22 ¶ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.


----------



## Fernando

Kajjo said:


> Amazingly enough, no one in this thread cited the bible.



Amazingly enough, you did. 



Kajjo said:


> Usually conservative Christians come up with a whole bunch of chapters providing the scripture's support of their believings.



When we have Science and common sense, we (conservative or not) Christians do not need many chapters.



Kajjo said:


> Obviously, Christians cannot do so.



Because theology is a part of atheists' equity, should I guess?



Kajjo said:


> However, the pro-choice fraction



Pro-abortion.



Kajjo said:


> _Exodus 21:22 "And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, _


_

I have no problem, as a Christian, to notice that this paragraph does not recognize the foetus a person (though it does not condone the act). 

Luckily enough, 3,000 years after, we have doctors, DNA, etc to notice that there is no substantial difference between a foetus and a life being._


----------



## Fernando

GenJen54 said:


> After about thirty two weeks, this is a possibility.  A foetus aborted at eight weeks has no means of survival outside of the womb, technological or otherwise.



32 weeks??? Sorry, but since 6th month, the foetus is viable (with extreme health care and high mortality rate, for sure).

Certainly, the foetus is not viable BY NOW AT 8th week.


----------



## emma42

Toniomiguel, you make many assumptions:

*"...the foolishness of taking a child's life just so one can live a better life.."*.  

1  You are assuming that a foetus is a child.
2  The use of the word "just" suggests to me that "living a better life" is not something a woman should pursue.  What if the mother is seriously mentally ill and fearful that she would not look after her child or that she would harm it?  What if the pregnancy is a result of rape?  Just two reasons out of the myriad reasons women seek abortions.
*
"There are many methods which can prevent the conception of children..."  *It may interest you to know that NO method of contraception is 100% reliable.  Neither is the "morning after pill", neither is sterilisation.

So, perhaps your "scientific side" should take a back seat for the moment in your stance on abortion, and you should just stick to your Christian objections?


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:


> 2   What if the mother is seriously mentally ill and fearful that she would not look after her child or that she would harm it?  What if the pregnancy is a result of rape?



In both cases, adoption is a far better method. 



emma42 said:


> Just two reasons out of the myriad reasons women seek abortions.



You have given two extreme cases. There are not myriad reasons.

In Spain, more than 90% of abortions are justified by possible damage to the mental health of the mother. Do you REALLY think that 50,000 Spanish mentally challenged women get pregnant every year?




emma42 said:


> [/B]It may interest you to know that NO method of contraception is 100% reliable.  Neither is the "morning after pill", neither is sterilisation.



Ceratinly, abortion is a reliable one. Thousands of couples rely on it every year. Do you REALLY think they have tried the other ones?



emma42 said:


> So, perhaps your "scientific side" should take a back seat for the moment in your stance on abortion, and you should just stick to your Christian objections?



I do not have specific Christian objections. Christ did not talk about abortion (nor genocide).


----------



## Kajjo

Fernando said:


> When we have Science and common sense, we (conservative or not) Christians do not need many chapters.


Often enough, Christian views contradict science against any form of common sense. Why do you believe and utilise science now?



> Pro-abortion.


I believe "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are two well-coined terms accepting each others views. Pro-choice supportes do not call you "forced pregnancy supporters", so you should have the courtesy to accept the "pro-choice" terminology.



> I have no problem, as a Christian, to notice that this paragraph does not recognize the foetus a person.


This chapter is a commandment of God, mentioned in context of the ten commandments. Don't you think God has known what to think about a foetus even 3000 years ago?

And the question is not about whether a foetus is "a life being", it is about whether it is a person or whether it has a soul. And that is beyond the scope of science -- it is personal belief and such should be a personal decision.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

Fernando, I was answering Toniomiguel in post #248, who is a Christian, but talked about his "scientific side".

I disagree with you that "adoption is a far better method" - better for whom?  The raped woman?; I disagree that "there are not myriad reasons" why women seek abortions;  I also disagree with your implication that women who become pregnant have not tried using contraception.  Many women become pregnant, having taken contraceptive precautions.  Lastly, some women are allowed to have abortions in order to prevent mental harm to them - it's not necessarily that they are already mentally ill.

I can't really go into more detail on these points, as the thread topic is "Why do Christians oppose abortion?" and these points are rather more general.  However, I felt some of your assertions, presented as fact, should be challenged.


----------



## Poetic Device

I understand what you are thinking/talking about in the case of a raped woman.  I know that it is not the woman's fault but then againg think about this:  Is it the child's fault?  When you abort that fetus you are punishing it.  It didn't ask to be concieved.  Whether you think that the fetus is a person or not, you cannot deny that it is living.  You also cannot deny that the woman has no control over it.  Ergo, how can it be another appendage (I believe someone compared the two much earlier in this thread, but don't quote me)?

Let's for get about all that I have just said, what about the woman?  It is a fact that an abortion screws with your head, so why would the woman want to put herself through two mental traumas?

Like I said before, I understand what you are saying, but I am afraid that I have to respectfully disagree.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:


> Fernando, I was answering Toniomiguel in post #248, who is a Christian, but talked about his "scientific side".



I noticed it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



emma42 said:


> I disagree with you that "adoption is a far better method" - better for whom?  The raped woman?



At least for the child. The feelings of the raped woman after an abortion depends from one person to another.



emma42 said:


> Many women become pregnant, having taken contraceptive precautions.



I do not deny SOME women can become pregnant after taking precautions, I deny 50,000 women every year in Spain have this situation. I would ask the cost of my condom back.



emma42 said:


> However, I felt some of your assertions, presented as fact, should be challenged.



For the percentages, you can check Spanish official figures.


----------



## emma42

Poeticdevice, I am still trying to keep this on topic - it's not supposed to be a general discussion about the rights and wrongs of abortion, but I have to challenge yet another person who is asserting erroneous "facts":  It is *not* a "...fact that an abortion screws with your head".  Some women may be distressed by an abortion, many are not.  I do not intend to go into anecdotal territory here.


----------



## Outsider

. said:


> 'Thou shalt not murder' is a modern translation of the original 'Thou shalt not kill'
> 
> I can remember being taught as a little tacker that the commandment was 'Thou shalt not kill' because there was often a discussion about legally justified killing and morally correct war which certainly left an impression on my young mind.
> 
> My KJV Bible has 'Thou shalt not kill.


I've read the opposite, that the original commandment in Hebrew means "Thou shalt not murder", and "Thou shalt not kill" is a later extrapolation.


----------



## JamesM

> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?
> 
> I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale?


 
I am not a spokesman for anti-abortionists. I think abortions are justifiable in certain limited cases and at certain stages in the pregnancy, so I would not be considered a "true" anti-abortionist. I also think that abortions have become an easy post-coital form of birth control without regard to the life that is being destroyed, so I'm not a pro-abortionist, either. I believe that "mental harm" is used to cover a multitude of... excuses. I am a Christian.

However, it doesn't seem that there has been a serious attempt to lay out a rationale for Christian anti-abortionists. I don't read the initial question as requiring the rationale to be Biblically based, as others have here, so I'm going to set that aside for the moment.

Here are what I would consider some basic precepts of anti-abortionists. This is just my attempt at codifying them:

1. Children are to be protected, both by individuals and society at large, until they reach adulthood.

2. A child exists from the moment of conception as an individual being. 

3. In almost all cases, pregnancy results from a deliberate act.

4. People of child-bearing age should take responsibility for the consequences of that act by protecting the life that results from it, or find another way to have sex that doesn't create a child.

Of course there are exceptions, but with an abortion rate running at nearly a million a year in the U.S., the arguments for those exceptions cannot possibly apply to the vast majority of abortions. They are primarily a conscious decision by an adult or teen to terminate the pregnancy because they do not wish to have that child, for whatever reason. That is what anti-abortionists object to. The argument is that there are steps that can be taken to avoid the pregnancy in the first place, but once the child is created he or she should not be destroyed.

Probably the biggest bone of contention is #2 on the list above. That is an issue of belief and perception. It can be argued all day long at what point that life is "self-sustainable", but the issue for anti-abortionists is that it is a life from conception forward. 



> It was not about what you THINK, but about how you can PROVIDE RATIONALE using the bible.
> 
> Obviously, Christians cannot do so.


 
First of all, there was no requirement by the initial question that the rationale must be supported by the Bible.

Second, although in this thread on this board on this day you have not received an answer to your satisfaction, this does not justify a blanket statement like "Obviously, Christians cannot."

Last, please keep in mind that a "rationale" does not require scientific verifiability nor Biblical authority. A rationale is an ordered reasoning that explains a certain position or behavior.  All rationales include some assumptions.  You may disagree with the rationale or the assumptions behind the rationale but that does not invalidate as a rationale. A rationale does not necessarily need to convince others of its validity to be called a rationale.

So, as I see it, the question is, what is the rationale of Christian anti-abortionists. I've done my best to outline what I understand to be the foundations of the rationale.


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:


> I've read the opposite, that the original commandment in Hebrew means "Thou shalt not murder", and "Thou shalt not kill" is a later extrapolation.


Thanks mate,
That makes more sense.  Researchers are well advised to go to earliest translations.

.,,


----------



## lampiao

Well, I agree with pretty much everything LCyeah has said on why christians oppose abortion. 
I would add just this: as far as I am concerned, it's not just about being a christian. It's more about the respect for a completely innocent and fragile -human life-.
It can even be arguable wether or not a fertilized egg is a human being.
However I am not a specialist on biology, I don't think there can be any doubt that it _is _a human life. A fertilized egg has a life of its own. If it was not so, how could there be in vitro fertilization?

On being a pacifist or otherwise, I think that christians are being evaluated by the way people see the american society.
There are christians all over the world. I, for one, don't see Sweden or any other scandinavian country, for eg, as war prone nations.

I completely disagree with the death penalty.
Now, I cannot understand how some people can stand against death penalty, and hence assure that convicted criminals will never be put to death, and yet so lightly be in favour of destroying innocent human lives...


----------



## Victoria32

Kajjo said:


> Often enough, Christian views contradict science against any form of common sense. Why do you believe and utilise science now?
> 
> 
> Kajjo


But equally often they do not! Why do you think they do?


Poetic Device said:


> Let's for get about all that I have just said, what about the woman?  It is a fact that an abortion screws with your head, so why would the woman want to put herself through two mental traumas?
> .


Absolutely it does! I have known women who have experienced this. 


JamesM said:


> I am not a spokesman for anti-abortionists. I think abortions are justifiable in certain limited cases and at certain stages in the pregnancy, so I would not be considered a "true" anti-abortionist. I also think that abortions have become an easy post-coital form of birth control without regard to the life that is being destroyed, so I'm not a pro-abortionist, either. I believe that "mental harm" is used to cover a multitude of... excuses. I am a Christian.
> 
> However, it doesn't seem that there has been a serious attempt to lay out a rationale for Christian anti-abortionists. I don't read the initial question as requiring the rationale to be Biblically based, as others have here, so I'm going to set that aside for the moment.
> 
> Here are what I would consider some basic precepts of anti-abortionists. This is just my attempt at codifying them:
> 
> 1. Children are to be protected, both by individuals and society at large, until they reach adulthood.
> 
> 2. A child exists from the moment of conception as an individual being.
> 
> 3. In almost all cases, pregnancy results from a deliberate act.
> 
> 4. People of child-bearing age should take responsibility for the consequences of that act by protecting the life that results from it, or find another way to have sex that doesn't create a child.
> 
> Of course there are exceptions, but with an abortion rate running at nearly a million a year in the U.S., the arguments for those exceptions cannot possibly apply to the vast majority of abortions. They are primarily a conscious decision by an adult or teen to terminate the pregnancy because they do not wish to have that child, for whatever reason. That is what anti-abortionists object to. The argument is that there are steps that can be taken to avoid the pregnancy in the first place, but once the child is created he or she should not be destroyed.
> 
> Probably the biggest bone of contention is #2 on the list above. That is an issue of belief and perception. It can be argued all day long at what point that life is "self-sustainable", but the issue for anti-abortionists is that it is a life from conception forward.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, there was no requirement by the initial question that the rationale must be supported by the Bible.
> 
> Second, although in this thread on this board on this day you have not received an answer to your satisfaction, this does not justify a blanket statement like "Obviously, Christians cannot."
> 
> Last, please keep in mind that a "rationale" does not require scientific verifiability nor Biblical authority. A rationale is an ordered reasoning that explains a certain position or behavior.  All rationales include some assumptions.  You may disagree with the rationale or the assumptions behind the rationale but that does not invalidate as a rationale. A rationale does not necessarily need to convince others of its validity to be called a rationale.
> 
> So, as I see it, the question is, what is the rationale of Christian anti-abortionists. I've done my best to outline what I understand to be the foundations of the rationale.


Well said, JamesM!


----------



## emma42

Oh, for goodness sake:  Re "Absolutely it does!  I have known women who have experienced this" [mental trauma after abortion].  If you will insist on anecdotal evidence, I have known women who have certainly _not _experienced this.


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> I don't read the initial question as requiring the rationale to be Biblically based, as others have here, so I'm going to set that aside for the moment.


Dear James,
thanks for your contribution! It was clearly stated and is actually a valid rationale. However, as you noted yourself, it has nothing to do with Christians. Then, why is it, that particularly conservative Christians are so dogmatic about this issue? If a religious group claims certain actions to be taken, I would expect that the reasons are based on their beliefs. And, what is more, usually conservative Christian always find biblical chapters to support their ideas. If they do not, the notion should be accepted that their claim is not based on solid religious grounds.



> 2. A child exists from the moment of conception as an individual being. [...] Probably the biggest bone of contention is #2 on the list above. That is an issue of belief and perception.


Yes, again your analysis is right. Now, tell me, if this is obviously an issue of belief, why should a secular country like the US forbid abortion? There is no discussion that Christians may select for themselves to restrain from abortion. But why should people restrain from abortion whose believings tell them it is OK? Why not let everyone pursue his belief?



> It can be argued all day long at what point that life is "self-sustainable"


I do not think sustainability is the main point. It is about whether the fertilised egg is a _person_. Imagine a firefighter entering a burning building and he must decide to rescue either a new born baby or 100 fertilised eggs in a petri dish. Who do you think he should rescue? 

It is easy to ignore science when it is not supporting and to call in scientific help when it can be used to argue in one's favor. It is absolutely clear that in many monthly cycles eggs a fertilised and do not develop to a foetus. It is nature that fertilised eggs die on a regular basis. I can not follow any reasoning that a simple cell is a human being. I admit there appears to be certain point _during_ pregnancy from which on it is a person.



> Last, please keep in mind that a "rationale" does not require scientific verifiability nor Biblical authority.


Here you are wrong, in my point of view. If I claim to have scientific reasons, then those reasons  should be verifiable in a scientific manner. If I claim to have religious reasons, I should be able to cite the bible. Maybe the initial questions just asks for a simple rationale without evidence -- let me suggest you add for yourself the sensible requirement of evidence.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> I've read the opposite, that the original commandment in Hebrew means "Thou shalt not murder", and "Thou shalt not kill" is a later extrapolation.


Of course the commandment is about "murdering", not "killing". How else could you explain the following commandments of killing for several reasons (e.g. to kill men lying with men, to kill a witch if you see one, and so on.) I suggest that everyone who argues with the ten commandments just keeps reading on for some chapters. It is enlightening!

Kajjo


----------



## Poetic Device

Is there a Christain--a true Christain--that does not believe that an abourtion is murder?


----------



## Kajjo

Poetic Device said:


> Is there a Christain--a true Christain--that does not believe that an abourtion is murder?


Here is a summary of different denominations, all of them Christian.

Kajjo


----------



## modus.irrealis

> Now, tell me, if this is obviously an issue of belief, why should a secular country like the US forbid abortion? There is no discussion that Christians may select for themselves to restrain from abortion. But why should people restrain from abortion whose believings tell them it is OK? Why not let everyone pursue his belief?


Isn't this like arguing why should a country forbid the abuse of women? Those who belive in the equality of sexes will be free to not abuse women but why restrain those men whose beliefs tell them its OK? Any government when it decides on what the law of the land will be has to make decisions about who the law recognizes as persons and I don't see what's inherently wrong with recognizing foetuses as persons, even if some people disagree with that.



Kajjo said:


> The second trauma you claim to occur is mostly due to all the bad reasoning Christians implant into the women's heads. Your opposition to abortion is the number one reason for the women's second trauma. Think about that!
> 
> There are societies where abortion is no trauma to a woman. It is all about perception. Secondly, whether you like it or not, there are many women who are absolutely _relieved_ and not traumatised. Believe it!



And there have been, and probably are, societies where men beat women and didn't feel guilty about it, but in other societies are traumatized about it because society condemns it. I can think about that too but does that mean anything at all?


----------



## Poetic Device

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I am talking about with the side effects has nothing to do with religion.  It is purely psychological.  Here are some sites that might help you:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf14.html
http://www.afterabortion.org/


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> Yes and no. Of course, the government has to make decisions no matter whether it pleases all or not. But the government has the responsibility to provide evidence and reasoning when restricting liberties. The reason cannot be pure belief, at least not in a secular country. And there are no other grounds on which the government could base its decision.



I don't really disagree with you, except that with some fundamental issues, and personhood might be one of them, it may very well come down to simple belief, since it's often an issue of definition. But I do find it misleading that you speak of "restricting liberties." Would you call outlawing slavery a restriction of the liberty to enslave? From my point of view, banning abortion would increase liberty, not restrict it.



> Hey, that was not my argument. It was a pro-life point that women feel traumatised. But that's just not true for all women, and if it is true, it is in many cases a consequence of Christian teaching. Thus, this whole point is worthless for judging whether abortion is OK or not.


Ah, sorry about that -- I should have read more of the previous posts. And I agree that the feelings afterwoods are largely irrelevant.


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> I don't really disagree with you, except that with some fundamental issues, and personhood might be one of them, it may very well come down to simple belief, since it's often an issue of definition.


Yes, I agree with you.



> But I do find it misleading that you speak of "restricting liberties." Would you call outlawing slavery a restriction of the liberty to enslave? From my point of view, banning abortion would increase liberty, not restrict it.


Well, you have a valid point. Outlawing slavery is actually restricting the liberty of some, one could argue. Naturally, I agree that outlawing slavery is the right thing to do and the old, established fundamental law is the "personal liberty has its limit where the liberty of others is restricted".

Again, it all boils down to whether a foetus is "someone else", whether it is a person with its own right of liberty and life. For me, it depends on it stage of development. I certainly cannot feel a single cell having rights, nor do two cells, four cells, ..., but I could agree that some months before birth there might be such a right. Biologically, a sperm cell, a blood cell, a fertilised egg cell do have much in common and only very little to distinguish them.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Poetic Device said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but what I am talking about with the side effects has nothing to do with religion.  It is purely psychological.  Here are some sites that might help you:
> 
> http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf14.html
> http://www.afterabortion.org/


Well, I just read a very few of the testimonies. All were strongly influenced by either religion or what society tells people to think and believe. The post-abortion psychological traumata are home-made.

If one could see it neutrally, medically there wouldn't be such a trauma. In other countries it is viewed less dramatic and the trauma are much less dramatic as well. 

Kajjo


----------



## ElaineG

I think both sides do themselves such a disservice by taking an absolutist position.

I'm pro-choice, but partial birth abortions, or almost any abortion (that is not to save the life of the mother)* after six months, strikes me as beyond the pale. Yet, afraid of thin end of the wedge reasoning, NARAL etc. feel they have to fight limits even on procedures that the vast majority of people could probably do without.

On the other side of things, why did pro-life groups fight so hard to keep the morning-after pill from being readily available? Doesn't the availability of a contraceptive that can be used in the first 48 hours after sex -- i.e., even before implantation -- _diminish_ abortions?

I always think that if we could get past the extremists, there are reasonable points of agreement that could bring most Americans together rather than driving them apart as any mention of this issue tends to do.

*In my religious tradition, we always save the mother before the baby.  I understand that in some Christian doctrines (Catholicism?), the fetus gets priority over the mother because the fetus is unbaptized and therefore its soul is at risk.  I have to admit to having a hard time getting that.  But regardless of religion, I believe that any law must have a life of the mother exception.


----------



## Victoria32

emma42 said:


> Oh, for goodness sake:  Re "Absolutely it does!  I have known women who have experienced this" [mental trauma after abortion].  If you will insist on anecdotal evidence, I have known women who have certainly _not _experienced this.


I am talking about *family members,* such as a sister who was rendered sub-fertile after two abortions and desperately wished someone had warned her - especially as the abortions were someone else's idea in the first place! 


Kajjo said:


> Well, I just read a very few of the testimonies. All were strongly influenced by either religion or what society tells people to think and believe. The post-abortion psychological traumata are home-made.
> 
> If one could see it neutrally, medically there wouldn't be such a trauma. In other countries it is viewed less dramatic and the trauma are much less dramatic as well.
> 
> Kajjo


I am sorry, I just could not agree less if I tried!  The sister I refer to above was completely non-religious and still is, as far as I know... 
I think you should read the testimonies again..


----------



## Kajjo

ElaineG said:


> I think both sides do themselves such a disservice by taking an absolutist position.


Dear Elaine,
thanks for your comment. I agree with you. 

As I mentioned before, there should be a discussion about _when_ during the pregnancy the foetus acquires rights of his own. The pro-life fraction should think further than single cells and the pro-choice fraction should think how short a period could be acceptable. 

However, again and again it boils down to pure belief. I am afraid that extremists are those who keep the debate burning. Rational, normal people find compromises.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

Victoria, anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful here (in bold type or otherwise) as I have tried to point out before.  I am sure you are aware of women who have been traumatised by abortion, just as I am aware of women who have not.

I agree with Kajjo and others that much of the trauma experienced by those women who experience it is a result of societal pressure and conditioning, much of which is heavily influenced by certain religions.


----------



## ElaineG

Even if abortion were emotionally traumatic for all women (and I know enough women who have had abortions to know that reactions vary for a lot of reasons), that could not be a grounds for outlawing abortion unless we believed that women were incapable of making their own decisions and needed paternalistic _a priori_ laws to protect them from trauma.

After all, many women experience severe post-partum depression after childbirth, but we don't prohibit them from giving birth on the grounds that it might be traumatic for them.


As Kajjo said, I think decisions should be made by balancing an embryo/fetus's rights and a women's rights (which as I've noted is, in my opinion, a sliding scale that changes greatly over the course of the pregnancy).  But we should assume that women are autonomous human beings who do not need to be protected from the possibly traumatic effects of their own decisions.

(An aside on trauma:  I accompanied a friend to an Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Rhode Island some 20 years ago.  The sidewalk and path to the clinic were lined with angry pro-life protesters, most of them older men, waving pictures of bloody dismembered fetuses (all much different than the 8 week embryo my friend was carrying!) and shouting "killer! killer" and "Don't kill your baby!", while trying to grab our clothes and thrust literature into our hands.

When I went out to get coffee while waiting for my friend, they shouted at me "How do you feel now that you killed your baby? Murderer?"  They shouted similar things at my friend when she came out, woozy and a bit nauseous an hour later.

My friend (who is still my friend today) has no regrets about the abortion -- she was 17, recently dumped by the putative father, etc. etc. -- and is a proud mother of 3.  But _we both_ remember walking through that human tunnel of hate as one of the scariest experiences of our lives, especially since we knew that some pro-life activists believed in their cause strongly enough to bomb clinics and murder doctors.)


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ElaineG said:


> Even if abortion were emotionally traumatic for all women (and I know enough women who have had abortions to know that reactions vary for a lot of reasons), that could not be a grounds for outlawing abortion *unless we believed that women were incapable of making their own decisions and needed paternalistic a priori laws to protect them from trauma.*



I do agree with you: you should try to explain it to the Catholic clergy..Good luck!


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> Dear James,
> thanks for your contribution! It was clearly stated and is actually a valid rationale.



Thanks for responding.  Everyone else seems to be working on some other conversation.  


> However, as you noted yourself, it has nothing to do with Christians.


I'm a Christian.  It has to do with me.  I didn't say it had nothing to do with Christians.  What I said was that there was no requirement in the initial post to prove the position by using the Bible.



> Then, why is it, that particularly conservative Christians are so dogmatic about this issue? If a religious group claims certain actions to be taken, I would expect that the reasons are based on their beliefs. And, what is more, usually conservative Christian always find biblical chapters to support their ideas. If they do not, the notion should be accepted that their claim is not based on solid religious grounds.



Well, it seems odd to be talking about conservative Christians as "they" on a board that apparently doesn't attract a large number of "them."  It strikes me the same as Rush Limbaugh (a repugnant personality, in my opinion) asking his conservative audiences why "liberals" think a certain way.  If you really want to know, you need to find someone who thinks that way and ask them.

I think the fundamental reason (no pun intended) that many conservative Christians are against abortion is that it is seen as the death of an innocent life.  There is a great difference between innocence and guilt in Christianity.  Whether you agree with it or not is beside the question.  You're asking what the basis is.  It is the taking of what is seen as an innocent life.  There are many verses that will support this.  I'm not going to go into them now because I think it's counter-productive.  The same discussion can be had without quoting them.  The inclusion of a number of scriptural passages would not be seen as any evidence in any case in this particular discussion.



> Yes, again your analysis is right. Now, tell me, if this is obviously an issue of belief, why should a secular country like the US forbid abortion? There is no discussion that Christians may select for themselves to restrain from abortion. But why should people restrain from abortion whose believings tell them it is OK? Why not let everyone pursue his belief?


The laws of the land are designed both to protect the minority and to reflect the mores of the majority.  It is a delicate balancing act.   If I believe that beating my wife is a good thing, based on my belief, does that mean that laws to protect my wife should not be enacted?  I don't think so.



> I do not think sustainability is the main point. It is about whether the fertilised egg is a _person_. Imagine a firefighter entering a burning building and he must decide to rescue either a new born baby or 100 fertilised eggs in a petri dish. Who do you think he should rescue?


I think this is a false argument at this point.  You may disagree, but I think it is a false dichotomy.



> It is easy to ignore science when it is not supporting and to call in scientific help when it can be used to argue in one's favor. It is absolutely clear that in many monthly cycles eggs a fertilised and do not develop to a foetus. It is nature that fertilised eggs die on a regular basis. I can not follow any reasoning that a simple cell is a human being. I admit there appears to be certain point _during_ pregnancy from which on it is a person.


I

've done none of this.  Yes, it is easy to do, and yes, both sides in this debate do it (I mean the social debate at large, not this particular thread.)  



> Here you are wrong, in my point of view. If I claim to have scientific reasons, then those reasons  should be verifiable in a scientific manner. If I claim to have religious reasons, I should be able to cite the bible. Maybe the initial questions just asks for a simple rationale without evidence -- let me suggest you add for yourself the sensible requirement of evidence.
> 
> Kajjo



A rationale does not require evidence.   I don't know where you got this idea.  Hitler had a rationale for his horrific plan to exterminate the Jews.  This does not mean he was _rational_ nor that he had any evidence to justify the action.  A rationale is the ordered line of thinking that is consistent within itself for the person thinking it.   I see nothing in the initial post or subsequent posts that said that Biblical verses are required to explain the rationale.  If you would like a few, I suppose we can go that direction, but it entirely depends on your interpretation of those scriptures, doesn't it?  It's as easy to dismiss them as it is to believe them.  That is not "evidence"; that is simply "foundation for a position."

If the question here is not "what is a conservative Christian's rationale for opposing abortion" but "convince me to accept the conservative Christian's rationale as scientifically valid or consistent with the Bible even though I don't believe the Bible",  I must have mirsread the initial post entirely.


----------



## Victoria32

emma42 said:


> Victoria, anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful here (in bold type or otherwise) as I have tried to point out before.  I am sure you are aware of women who have been traumatised by abortion, just as I am aware of women who have not.
> 
> I agree with Kajjo and others that much of the trauma experienced by those women who experience it is a result of societal pressure and conditioning, much of which is heavily influenced by certain religions.


Sigh... Emma you will note that when I mentioned my sister's experience, I pointed out her complete lack of any religious belief. If you're going to assume that she was brought up 'religious', plkeasse don't because we weren't - rather the opposite! 


ElaineG said:


> After all, many women experience severe post-partum depression after childbirth, but we don't prohibit them from giving birth on the grounds that it might be traumatic for them.


Far fewer of them! As far as I know, psychological problems after abortion are almost a given, even if they're denied and repressed for years. 




ElaineG said:


> women are autonomous human beings who do not need to be protected from the possibly traumatic effects of their own decisions.


 Many of them would have liked to have been so protected! Instead they are pressured and bullied by boyfriends, 'husbands' and even parents, into abortion. 


JamesM said:


> Thanks for responding.  Everyone else seems to be working on some other conversation.
> I'm a Christian.  It has to do with me.  I didn't say it had nothing to do with Christians.  What I said was that there was no requirement in the initial post to prove the position by using the Bible.
> 
> Well, it seems odd to be talking about conservative Christians as "they" on a board that apparently doesn't attract a large number of "them."  It strikes me the same as Rush Limbaugh (a repugnant personality, in my opinion) asking his conservative audiences why "liberals" think a certain way.  If you really want to know, you need to find someone who thinks that way and asks them.


I am a Christian. I am a ferocious 'lefty' especially by American standards, but I still oppose abortion. As has been pointed out on this very thread, there are atheists, mainline 'liberal' Christians, Muslims and even some Jews who oppose abortion. The stereotype of wild-eyed, bearded old men screaming hate is not at all helpful here. Studies have shown that men (males) are much more in favour of abortion than women ever are - and although I am sticking my neck out here, it is easy to see why! 


JamesM said:


> I think the fundamental reason (no pun intended) that many conservative Christians are against abortion is that it is seen as the death of an innocent life.  There is a great difference between innocence and guilt in Christianity.  Whether you agree with it or not is beside the question.  You're asking what the basis is.  It is the taking of what is seen as an innocent life.  There are many verses that will support this.  I'm not going to go into them now because I think it's counter-productive.  The same discussion can be had without quoting them.  The inclusion of a number of scriptural passages would not be seen as any evidence in any case in this particular discussion.
> 
> The laws of the land are designed both to protect the minority and to reflect the mores of the majority.  It is a delicate balancing act.   If I believe that beating my wife is a good thing, based on my belief, does that mean that laws to protect my wife should not be enacted?  I don't think so.
> 
> ................
> 
> 
> 
> If the question here is not "what is a conservative Christian's rationale for opposing abortion" but "convince me to accept the conservative Christian's rationale as scientifically valid or consistent with the Bible even though I don't believe the Bible",  I must have mirsread the initial post entirely.


Good points again, JamesM!


----------



## ElaineG

> As far as I know, psychological problems after abortion are almost a given, even if they're denied and repressed for years.


 
Anecdotally, that's not the case.  At all.  And I've never seen a scientific study that proves it.




> Many of them would have liked to have been so protected! Instead they are pressured and bullied by boyfriends, 'husbands' and even parents, into abortion.


 
How can we argue that women are equal before the law and then argue that they need special treatment to protect them from the consequences of their own decisions?  Of the probably 15+ women of now three generations that I know well that have had abortions, one has suffered lasting psychological trauma.  None were pressured into the decision -- most made it tragically alone, because society makes it painful and shameful to talk about.

Because I believe (with Bill Clinton for once in my life), that abortion should be "safe, legal (to a certain point) and rare", I wholeheartedly agree that resources and facilities should be devoted to enabling women to really have a choice -- protection from bullying family members, safe houses to go to, etc.  But at the end of the day, an adult (at least) woman is an autonomous legal entity and we cannot say she is equal before the law in most things, but needs the state to decide which of two potential traumas (going through with unwanted pregnancy and childbirth or abortion) is better for her.

I'm curious, Victoria, given that one of your rationales for being anti-choice is that women are "bullied" into having abortions, what do you think of spousal and parental notification statutes that require a woman to get her husband's or parent's permission before having an abortion?  Are you concerned that these statutes condone another avenue for bullying?


----------



## Victoria32

ElaineG said:


> decide which of two potential traumas (going through with unwanted pregnancy and childbirth or abortion) is better for her.


There's a third option, adoption, which is the one I chose. Everybody wins. I believe in the USA, secrecy is arbitrarily and viciously enforced, here it is not. I have met the son I gave up for adoption when I was very young. He's fine, I am fine, even his adoptive parents are fine. No one died. It's a win-win situation. 



ElaineG said:


> I'm curious, Victoria, given that one of your rationales for being anti-choice is that women are "bullied" into having abortions, what do you think of spousal and parental notification statutes that require a woman to get her husband's or parent's permission before having an abortion?  Are you concerned that these statutes condone another avenue for bullying?


Anti-choice is a loaded and hostile term, and I resent very much your applying it to me. I don't think killing  should be a freely available choice, no, but that's what it is really about! "Reproductive freedom"  applies to contraception. Any woman who gives in to pressure not to use a condom, or decides that the pill makes her fat, and then gets pregnant has forfeited her right to an abortion - she should have thought of that before she got pregnant. If a woman is married, then why on earth is she seeking an abortion? 
If it's because she wants a nicer house or a bigger car, then surely the husband would support her in a nice clinical socio-economic abortion. If he doesn't then should he not have the right to at least know what she is  planning? _It's his child too._ If she goes ahead anyway (as she legally can) then he's better off without such a selfish cow for a wife, but either way, he has the right to be notified. 
If parental permission comes into play, then the woman involved is a child, which as far as I know in the USA, means she is under 21, and that's odd - here the age of majority is 18. But for goodness sake, it's quite likely we're talking about a 14 year old who hasn't got her head on straight, and has (in the case of several instances here in NZ) been 'persuaded' by a "well-meaning" school counsellor without even the parents' knowledge, much less permission! Here, a 12 year old can leave school for half the day, get an abortion and be back in time for leaving with the rest of her class and go home as if nothing had happened - until she falls apart 6 months later and sobs out the story to her parents. Yet if the same child has a burst appendix, her parents have to be called into the hospital to consent to an appendectomy! Is it just me, or is that really messed up?

Really, Elaine, how thrilled would you be, if I called you Pro abortion? Not one little bit, I'll wager.


----------



## maxiogee

Victoria32 said:


> I am talking about family members, such as a sister who was rendered sub-fertile after two abortions and desperately wished someone had warned her - especially as the abortions were someone else's idea in the first place!


My emphasis added

In this respect, and in other medical situations to which we submit our bodies, do we not owe it to ourselves to find out in advance all the likely outcomes? 

As to the abortion being someone else's idea, surely this would have only added to the reasons why she ought to have taken a fully informed decision?

Why does a woman have a second abortion, (is there an implication, in the phrasing of the sentence which I quoted, that she was reluctantly involved in this procedure?) if she is less then fully informed of all possible outcomes. There is no shortage of literature available on the subject? I am assuming that these abortions were legal and carried out in registered and approved clinics.


----------



## .   1

Why do Christians have the right to or interest in interfering in the lives of others.
Christians are quite welcome to pass laws within their own religion limiting behaviour and have been doing so for millenia.
We are actually discussing a point of contention between a Secular Law and a Religious Law.  The Religious Law is not operating in a vaccuum.  There is a well tested and established Secular Law in operation relating to abortion.  These laws generally give the woman the option of terminating pregnancy within the first few weeks of insemination.
I voted in elections for politicians to represent my interests in my country and so did the citizens of America and the same is true for just about everybody else here.  Those democratically elected members passed laws to deal with human interaction and I am content with those laws.
I find strange the concept that a religious sect could be arrogant enough to believe that they have the right to try to overturn democratically promulgated laws.
Christians should be free to oppose abortion but not to break the established law of the land by interfering in the lives of others who are obeying the law of the land they live in.

.,,


----------



## Fernando

. said:


> Why do Christians have the right to or interest in interfering in the lives of others.



For the same reason that Lincoln interfered on the lives on the Southern slaves masters.



. said:


> Those democratically elected members passed laws to deal with human interaction and I am content with those laws.



I am glad you are. Laws protecting slavery (or segregation) in US were also democratically decided. We (anti-abortists, no matter your confession or your lack of confession) are against those laws.



. said:


> I find strange the concept that a religious sect could be arrogant enough to believe that they have the right to try to overturn democratically promulgated laws.



We want democratically overturn laws. Why should not we?



. said:


> Christians should be free to oppose abortion but not to break the established law of the land by interfering in the lives of others who are obeying the law of the land they live in.



Every day, environmentalists, strikers, friends of Cambodja, and so on interfere in the lives of others by strikes, demonstrations and criminal actions, such as enchainment to trees or cutting the traffic (I do not know if that is the right expression in English).

We are not doing nothing of that. Those who have performed violent actions have been condemned by all anti-abortist organizations. What is your problem?


----------



## Kajjo

ElaineG said:


> The sidewalk and path to the clinic were lined with angry pro-life protesters, most of them older men, waving pictures of bloody dismembered fetuses and shouting "killer! killer" and "Don't kill your baby!", while trying to grab our clothes and thrust literature into our hands.


This is horrible. Luckily, I cannot imagine such things happening in Germany.  If any real Christian reads this, he or she would have to immediately feel with you and your friend. This aggressiveness and hostility cannot be part of Christian belief, it is pure sin, it is about hate, and that distances a Christian far, far away from his God. 



> we knew that some pro-life activists believed in their cause strongly enough to bomb clinics and murder doctors.


And that is all about "pro-life", if we try to keep to terminology here. I cannot imagine that not everyone here sees the horrible discrepancy between Christian values and sins and crimes commited by pro-life supporters.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Victoria32 said:


> Studies have shown that men (males) are much more in favour of abortion than women ever are - and although I am sticking my neck out here, it is easy to see why!


My guess would be that women are traditionally much closer to religion and motherhood. The majority of women does not need or want a abortion and all of those are "against" it, because that is the accepted way. Men are maybe in average less close to religion and see some aspects more liberal. Just a guess, though.

In Germany, it have been the women's associations that fighted for the right to abortion, not the men. All in all, it is quite opposite to what you describe is valid in the US. 

Again, it is all about religion and beliefs. About society and values. About liberty.

Kajjo


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> My emphasis added
> 
> In this respect, and in other medical situations to which we submit our bodies, do we not owe it to ourselves to find out in advance all the likely outcomes?
> 
> As to the abortion being someone else's idea, surely this would have only added to the reasons why she ought to have taken a fully informed decision?
> 
> Why does a woman have a second abortion, (is there an implication, in the phrasing of the sentence which I quoted, that she was reluctantly involved in this procedure?) if she is less then fully informed of all possible outcomes. There is no shortage of literature available on the subject? I am assuming that these abortions were legal and carried out in registered and approved clinics.


She was 15 at the time of the first, 17 at the time of the second. This was in the early 1970s, and she went to Australia where it was legal there. I am sure you are aware that someone who was 15 in 1974 was a lot more subject to parental pressure than a 15 year old today would be. Give the poor silly girl a break! 


Kajjo said:


> My guess would be that women are traditionally much closer to religion and motherhood. The majority of women does not need or want a abortion and all of those are "against" it, because that is the accepted way. Men are maybe in average less close to religion and see some aspects more liberal. Just a guess, though.
> 
> In Germany, it have been the women's associations that fighted for the right to abortion, not the men. All in all, it is quite opposite to what you describe is valid in the US.


 I am _*not*_ in the USA. 
A foremost campaigner for abortion 'rights' in New Zealand was a gynaecologist called Dr Erich Geiringer, (later convicted of rape). A charming man! 
I did not want to say this because I did not want to offend men who would not think like this, but I will - it has nothing to do with any idea that women are dimmer, more sheltered and conservative and therefore 'clsoer to religion'. The reason why men are significantly more likely to be pro-abortion than women, in my view, is that the provision of freely-available aboprtion makes the pursuit of recreational sex so much more risk-free! _If a man  can persuade a girlfriend he does not want to stay with to have an abortion, then he need not pay child support for 18 years! _



Kajjo said:


> Again, it is all about religion and beliefs. About society and values. About liberty.
> 
> Kajjo


Yes. But _whose _liberty, and for what reason?


----------



## badgrammar

I just read this article at cnn http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/10/26/nicaragua.abortion.ap/index.htmlentitled Nicaraguan lawmakers vote to ban all abortions".

The article goes on to say that the new legislation would make all abortions illegal even "including those that could save a mother's life."  52 lawmakers voted in favor, 9 abstained, and 29 did not attend the voting session.

The countries Roman Catholic nature was cited as being the driving force behind the decision.  

I am staunchly pro-choice.  But I understand why some people are not, because of their religious beliefs.  But how can one defend, from a religious standpoint, denying medical care to a woman that will save her life, even if it may cause the death of the unborn human she is carrying?  And if such medical care is denied, how do you justify the risk of losing two lives?  And does this legislation imply that should a choice need to be made between the unborn human's life and the life of the mother, it is the former that must be chosen?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

. said:


> Why do Christians have the right to or interest in interfering in the lives of others.



They don't have it, but they arrogate to themselves the right to do it.
Why? try to question them and be ready to wait till the kingdom come for a reasonable answer..
I don't think it's just a Christians' prerogative, though: Muslims behave the same way with regard to many other matters.


----------



## Outsider

badgrammar said:


> The countries Roman Catholic nature was cited as being the driving force behind the decision.


Actually, I doubt it's exactly that. More likely the country's history of oligarchy.


----------



## Kajjo

Victoria32 said:


> The reason why men are significantly more likely to be pro-abortion than women, in my view, is that the provision of freely-available aboprtion makes the pursuit of recreational sex so much more risk-free! If a man  can persuade a girlfriend he does not want to stay with to have an abortion, then he need not pay child support for 18 years!


This is your personal opinion and not based on any reality. At least for my country the women are the driving force of legal abortions and not the men.

How _insulting_ to think that the majority of men bend their morals to accomodate recreational sex. The women want to have the liberty to decide about their lifes and carrieres. Whether this is justified or not -- it surely has nothing to do with your picture of men.

Kajjo


----------



## Victoria32

Kajjo said:


> This is your personal opinion and not based on any reality. At least for my country the women are the driving force of legal abortions and not the men.
> 
> How _insulting_ to think that the majority of men bend their morals to accomodate recreational sex. The women want to have the liberty to decide about their lifes and carrieres. Whether this is justified or not -- it surely has nothing to do with your picture of men.
> 
> Kajjo


Please do not misunderstand! I did not say that the majority of men would think that way.. 
At least, I truly hope not... Maybe the men I have known are just a bad lot.


----------



## Fernando

Kajjo said:


> How _insulting_ to think that the majority of men bend their morals to accomodate recreational sex. The women want to have the liberty to decide about their lifes and carrieres. Whether this is justified or not -- it surely has nothing to do with your picture of men.



I AM a man and I think its is quite true. The abortion is a paradise scenario for men: You f**** and then let the woman get rid of the child. The alternative for men: You would have to afford the costs of the child for 18 years.


----------



## badgrammar

I have the opposite impression -- that a great number of pro-lifers are men, which has always bothered me because I do not think someone who never risks being pregnant in his lifetime is qualified to judge the actions of a pregnant woman.


----------



## cuchuflete

The presumption that most or many men use abortion in lieu of contraception is (1)unproved and (2) assumes that the woman involved has no voice, no will, and no brains.

Most of the advocates I have ever met for a woman's right to choose whether to abort or continue a pregnancy have been women.  Some of them are fervent in their beliefs, and some are just sick of being told by men what they, as women, can and cannot do with their own bodies.  

To those who say that men are the driving force for abortion rights, what does this say about men and Christian belief?


----------



## Victoria32

badgrammar said:


> I have the opposite impression -- that a great number of pro-lifers are men, which has always bothered me because I do not think someone who never risks being pregnant in his lifetime is qualified to judge the actions of a pregnant woman.


That is not my experience here... Of the pro-lifers I know, most are women!


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:


> Some of them are fervent in their beliefs, and some are just sick of being told by men what they, as women, can and cannot do with their own bodies.



Cuchu, there are few clear things in abortion issue, but it is clear water that foetus, embryo, person, or whatsoever, is not "their own bodies".

That motto "our own body" is plain demagogy.


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> And that is all about "pro-life", if we try to keep to terminology here. I cannot imagine that not everyone here sees the horrible discrepancy between Christian values and sins and crimes commited by pro-life supporters.


 
Absolutely, just as I can see the horrible discrepancy between Muslim values and the sine and crimes commtted by Muslim extremists. That does not mean that I assume all Muslims are rabid kamikaze plane-bombers, nor should anyone assume all Christian pro-lifers are hateful, aggressive clinic-bombers.

It's odd to me how this generosity of spirit not to paint one group with a broad brush due to the actions of a small extremist element is not applied to another group due to the actions of a small extremist element. It seems inconsistent to me.


----------



## emma42

Dear Victoria.  I didn't say that your sister was religious.  My point was that the prevailing mores in many societies are influenced, inter alia, by the prevailing or historical religion of that society.  One does not have to be religious to be conditioned by such mores.  

Further, I find your remark about men and abortion highly offensive and without merit.


----------



## Victoria32

emma42 said:


> Dear Victoria.  I didn't say that your sister was religious.  My point was that the prevailing mores in many societies are influenced, inter alia, by the prevailing or historical religion of that society.  One does not have to be religious to be conditioned by such mores.
> 
> Further, I find your remark about men and abortion highly offensive and without merit.


It has been my experience that most pro abortion people I have both met and encountered in campaigns are male, and some men (not all) that I have come across, are selfish in their support, for reasons that I have expressed.


I just want to stress, _*not all men have this point of view! 

*_Moreover, that so many people perceive pro-lifers as banner waving, foaming at the mouth _*male *_bearded lunatics, is quite distressing to me.


----------



## Sallyb36

Fernando said:


> Cuchu, there are few clear things in abortion issue, but it is clear water that foetus, embryo, person, or whatsoever, is not "their own bodies".
> 
> That motto "our own body" is plain demagogy.



Fernando here I have to disagree with you I'm afraid, they are our own bodies and will always remain our own bodies irrelevant of anything that may grow within them.  If you were to grow a baby inside you (miracle) your body would still be your body.


----------



## Sallyb36

That is what makes mothers so protective etc of their children, because they grew from our own bodies!!  They are part of our own body.  If your body grew another part you didn't want would you get it cut off?


----------



## distille

It seems to me there's quite a big difference between europe and the us on abortion. In many (not all e.g Portugal and Ireland) european western countries abortion is seen as a right. People may oppose it but the so-called pro-life have next to no influence because they are a very small minority. The discussions are more on how to promote contraceptive means among populations at risk than on abortion itself.
Of course things may be quite different in european countries where the catholic church has still some influence.


----------



## Kajjo

distille said:


> It seems to me there's quite a big difference between europe and the us on abortion. In many European western countries abortion is seen as a right. People may oppose it but the so-called pro-life have next to no influence because they are a very small minority. The discussions are more on how to promote contraceptive means among populations at risk than on abortion itself.


I can second that statement. Of course, abortion is controversial, but it is mostly not a highly debated issue anymore. In Germany, the established compromise worked out very well and satisfying to all parties involved.

Again, a compromise reduces the friction and enables us to live in peace.

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

Sallyb36 said:


> Fernando here I have to disagree with you I'm afraid, they are our own bodies and will always remain our own bodies irrelevant of anything that may grow within them.  If you were to grow a baby inside you (miracle) your body would still be your body.



Sorry, but they are not. The thought that the foetus is the part of woman's body is medieval. How can a lifeform without your DNA be "your body"?

In an artificial conception (assisted fecundation): do you mean the embryo in the "Petri Dish" (to use an analogy used before) becomes "your body" when in utero for some kind of miracle? Or maybe is a part of the Petri dish?.


----------



## Sallyb36

Are our children then not our flesh and blood?


----------



## Fernando

Sallyb36 said:


> Are our children then not our flesh and blood?



In my Biology class I was said they were a mixing 50% of the mother and the father procreative cells (the egg and the sperm). Well, the mother gives a little more since it gives mitocondrial DNA.

Nor my mother has nor my father has confused my foot with their feet.

About the blood, certainly not. As a matter of fact they can be of different blood groups and Rh factors.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> Well, you have a valid point. Outlawing slavery is actually restricting the liberty of some, one could argue. Naturally, I agree that outlawing slavery is the right thing to do and the old, established fundamental law is the "personal liberty has its limit where the liberty of others is restricted".



Oddly enough, that's the very reason I oppose abortion.



> Again, it all boils down to whether a foetus is "someone else", whether it is a person with its own right of liberty and life. For me, it depends on it stage of development. I certainly cannot feel a single cell having rights, nor do two cells, four cells, ..., but I could agree that some months before birth there might be such a right. Biologically, a sperm cell, a blood cell, a fertilised egg cell do have much in common and only very little to distinguish them.


As you've pointed out to other people, what you "feel" is hardly relevant to anything. As for various cells, no matter how little difference you see, they are distinguishable.



Kajjo said:


> As I mentioned before, there should be a discussion about _when_ during the pregnancy the foetus acquires rights of his own. The pro-life fraction should think further than single cells and the pro-choice fraction should think how short a period could be acceptable.
> 
> However, again and again it boils down to pure belief. I am afraid that extremists are those who keep the debate burning. Rational, normal people find compromises.



This is absurd. If you were debating a racially-based slavery like the US used to have, would you say that "rational", "normal" people shouldn't talk about abolishing slavery but you should compromise and say maybe people could be kept as slaves until this age, or maybe you could limit how many slaves someone could own? If you think the foetus is a person, than the only rational approach would be to abolish abortion completely, just as anybody who thinks all races are equally should rationally be against racially based slavery and lynching.



emma42 said:


> I agree with Kajjo and others that much of the trauma experienced by those women who experience it is a result of societal pressure and conditioning, much of which is heavily influenced by certain religions.



Would you agree that much of it might be caused because abortion involves the termination of an innocent (potential if you wish) life?



. said:


> Why do Christians have the right to or interest in interfering in the lives of others.



So I guess we should stop passing laws period? Very few laws are such that they don't "interfere" in people's lives.



> I find strange the concept that a religious sect could be arrogant enough to believe that they have the right to try to overturn democratically promulgated laws.


So if abortion were banned in a democratic way, would you then support that move?



Sallyb36 said:


> Fernando here I have to disagree with you I'm afraid, they are our own bodies and will always remain our own bodies irrelevant of anything that may grow within them.



That brings up an interesting point about how much right do we have over our own bodies (even though I don't accept the argument that the foetus is just part of the mother's body). I guess it depends on the country but in many you can't inject whatever substance you want into your body, even if it doesn't harm anybody else. It doesn't seem like there exists an absolute right to do whatever you want with your body.



distille said:


> It seems to me there's quite a big difference between europe and the us on abortion. In many (not all e.g Portugal and Ireland) european western countries abortion is seen as a right. People may oppose it but the so-called pro-life have next to no influence because they are a very small minority. The discussions are more on how to promote contraceptive means among populations at risk than on abortion itself.
> Of course things may be quite different in european countries where the catholic church has still some influence.



I always thought the reason was that pro-choice groups in Europe are much less rabid than those in the US. Does any European country have as open 
an abortion law as the US, since I though most (all?) European countries did not allow abortions later on in pregnancy except if the mother's life was at risk? I've also been told that abortion in Europe was legalized through government rather than the courts, and if that's true, I would think that would also have a calming influence on the debate.


----------



## maxiogee

Victoria32 said:


> She was 15 at the time of the first, 17 at the time of the second. This was in the early 1970s, and she went to Australia where it was legal there. I am sure you are aware that someone who was 15 in 1974 was a lot more subject to parental pressure than a 15 year old today would be. Give the poor silly girl a break!



In that case I can only blame her parent(s). What happened to her is not so much a problem of abortion as an abdication of all parental duties - were the potential complications not explained to them if they weren't explained to her?

I will refrain from offering my thoughts on a child of that age being in a position as to 'require' a second abortion.


----------



## GenJen54

Poetic Device said:


> Let's see, the statement that I called you on has you doing a little more than implying that those who don't agree woth you are irrational and everything that they are saying is wrong (among other sentiments that you have so bluntly shared).h


 
To say this issue is contentious is to say that snow is cold. Arguments will ensue. Some people look at this from a "rational" perspective, wholly devoid of any interjection of "faith." Some choose to allow their faiths to dictate their feelings toward the issue. Neither side is more "right" than the other. 

When someone calls another's point of view "irrational," he is expressing an opinion. When someone calls another a jerk, or jackass, he or she is going beyond the bounds of conventional discourse and is engaging in simple name-calling. 

Please cease the name-calling and let's everyone sit back, take a deep breath, read, absorb and listen to others' what others have to say, with the understanding we have the added dimension here of engaging in a discussion with different cultural points of view.

Ooohhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm......

Thank you.


----------



## emma42

Hello modus.irrealis. Answer to your question to me in post #321.  No, I don't, because I don't consider a foetus to be a human being.  Many disagree with me on this, some of whom (religious leaders, for example) have had a great influence on the general morality of societies.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, Genjen.


----------



## JazzByChas

Although I have come in a bit late on this discussion, I feel I need to clarify a point or two here:



			
				TokyoWalker said:
			
		

> If it is simply based on the commandment "Do not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?
> 
> If these Christians think that killing innocent grown-up people is justified in some circumstances to avert a greater suffering/injustice, then why is this argument not extended to killing the unborn?


 
The bible means "do not kill" in the sense of do not murder. When wars are fought (unfortunately) to solve a problem between countries, the killing that goes on there is not "murder;" it is just the casualties of war. "Murder" applies more to the pre-meditated killing (either in cold blood or as an passionate act.) 

If men weren't inherently imperfect, there would be no cause for war, and therefore "killing" would not happen at all. But as we are not, therefore wars go on. You will note that in the Bible, there are many wars going on, including those involving Israel, God's chosen people.

Abortion, at least from the Biblical point of view, is more along the lines of murder. It is not an act of war...it is a pre-meditated act, typically done for the convenience of the mother, who does not want the baby for a multitude of reasons, some of which include rape. In this case, which I know is hotly contested, I would say that the baby is not at fault for the rape...nor would it grow up to be a rapist, unless it were brought up by a rapist. To have an abortion because the father was a rapist is making the child pay for something it had no control over.

Further:


			
				Eugeule said:
			
		

> But, even I could not say that I'm against abortion for moral reasons, because it is murder, I still think that women ought to think twice before they do it, because I've known many women who have aborted and I'd be a nasty liar if I tried to hide the fact that it seems to be extremely harmful to the woman's psyche. Abortion wounds.


 
I have heard this in many writings, regardless of the religious point of view of the writer. Biblically, this would probably being tantamount to when Jesus said, in Matthew 5:21-22, _"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who_ is _angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."_ In this case, considering the "wounding," both physical and emotional, this could could be considered an act of hatred, both by the callousness of the performer of the abortion, and by the women, who doesn't consider the harm she is causing herself.


----------



## emma42

Re "If men weren't inherently imperfect", Jazzbychas.  I take it, then, that you think women are not inherently imperfect?


----------



## cuchuflete

JazzByChas said:


> The bible means "do not kill" in the sense of do not murder. When wars are fought (unfortunately) to solve a problem between countries, the killing that goes on there is not "murder;" it is just the casualties of war. "Murder" applies more to the pre-meditated killing (either in cold blood or as an passionate act.)



Funny thing about wartime killing and murder.  In both cases, the victims end up dead.  The leaders who start wars know perfectly well that people on both sides will die, so it is premeditated killing.  Reasons of "national self-interest", "defense of the homeland", "our sacred honor" and other causes are trotted out to justify the killing, but the victims are still dead when its over.
So your biblical definition breaks down, and the only distinction that is left is the reason chosen to end lives in wartime, and the ending of a pregnancy—which some people see as killing—in the case of abortion.

Wars are not fought "to solve a problem between countries".  They are fought so that one country or alliance can defeat and dominate another.  The problem is often an invention.  How many of the countries invaded by Germany in WWII were causing a problem?  How were the many Latin American countries invaded by the US causing a problem?  Your explanation leaves out civil wars.  It attempts to justify some killing, or paint it as less bad.  Killing, whatever the circumstances, is lethal.  Most killing in a war is not accidental, therefore it is premeditated.


----------



## GenJen54

JazzbyChazz said:
			
		

> In this case, which I know is hotly contested, I would say that the baby is not at fault for the rape...nor would it grow up to be a rapist, unless it were brought up by a rapist. To have an abortion because the father was a rapist is making the child pay for something it had no control over.


So, the rape victim is "at fault?"
A rape victim in many instances has equally no control over the violent brutality of a man subjecting her to the assault of the very essence of her womanhood. Is she not a victim here, too? Why should she have to endure even nine months of the constant reminder of that brutality? That is tantamount to the worst torture in some instances, which is why "choice" remains so important. 

When men can become impregnated by rapists, perhaps they will change their minds.  To me, this is absolutely a case of "unless you've been there, you'll never know."


----------



## maxiogee

JazzByChas said:


> Although I have come in a bit late on this discussion, I feel I need to clarify a point or two here:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible means …



The bible means whatever anyone wants it to mean!

It is open to 'interpretation' in some places and is not open to interpretation in others. 
Some translations go directly counter to others in some parts.

Add to that the fact that the interpretation of the bible in some places is now considered to be more important then the bible, regardless of what it says.


----------



## JazzByChas

I was generically referring to "mankind" or humans...not just the male gender... 



emma42 said:


> Re "If men weren't inherently imperfect", Jazzbychas. I take it, then, that you think women are not inherently imperfect?


----------



## JazzByChas

In reality, Cuchu, I agree with you.  I don't even think that the God of the Christian bible wanted there to be killing of one human by another...but again, we would have to remember about how imperfect we are as humans...

No act of killing is any better than another, either by one (or more countries) against another or by one person against another.



cuchuflete said:


> Funny thing about wartime killing and murder. In both cases, the victims end up dead. The leaders who start wars know perfectly well that people on both sides will die, so it is premeditated killing. Reasons of "national self-interest", "defense of the homeland", "our sacred honor" and other causes are trotted out to justify the killing, but the victims are still dead when its over.
> So your biblical definition breaks down, and the only distinction that is left is the reason chosen to end lives in wartime, and the ending of a pregnancy—which some people see as killing—in the case of abortion.
> 
> Wars are not fought "to solve a problem between countries". They are fought so that one country or alliance can defeat and dominate another. The problem is often an invention. How many of the countries invaded by Germany in WWII were causing a problem? How were the many Latin American countries invaded by the US causing a problem? Your explanation leaves out civil wars. It attempts to justify some killing, or paint it as less bad. Killing, whatever the circumstances, is lethal. Most killing in a war is not accidental, therefore it is premeditated.


----------



## JazzByChas

Sorry Jen:

After reading my post, it does sort of imply that the victim is at fault...which is NOT the case...I'm not saying she is at fault, and I _*am*_ saying she is a victim. I was just saying that the baby is not at fault either, and doesn't deserve to be aborted because it was conceived by rape.

Now, I believe some compensation/retribution should be received by the woman who was raped. And the woman can either, in my opinion, keep the child, or give it up for adoption. There should not be anything wrong with the child...I have heard of children conceived in rape growing up to be perfectly normal.



GenJen54 said:


> So, the rape victim is "at fault?"
> A rape victim in many instances has equally no control over the violent brutality of a man subjecting her to the assault of the very essence of her womanhood. Is she not a victim here, too? Why should she have to endure even nine months of the constant reminder of that brutality? That is tantamount to the worst torture in some instances, which is why "choice" remains so important.
> 
> When men can become impregnated by rapists, perhaps they will change their minds. To me, this is absolutely a case of "unless you've been there, you'll never know."


----------



## Fernando

GenJen54 said:


> So, the rape victim is "at fault?"



Who-is-saying-so?

What anti-abortion say is simply "Do not increase evil by killing the baby". 

Yes, that could result in pain for the mother for the reminder of the fact. Rapist (or society) should assist and compensate her.

And please, keep in mind that rape cases are a slight minority. The big majority are "danger for mental health" 



GenJen54 said:


> When men can become impregnated by rapists, perhaps they will change their minds.  To me, this is absolutely a case of "unless you've been there, you'll never know."



Again, you are suppossing that only men are against abortion and viceversa (simply false).

And again, you are totally unaware of the pressure a criminal has from getthoes and totally unaware of pressure a banker has from shareholders and employees, and though you feel entitled to punish murder and money laundering (and you are right, of course).


Edit: I had not seen JbyC comment. I endorse it word by word.


----------



## cuchuflete

Back to the thread topic, is there a Biblical passage that exhorts a raped woman to carry the offspring of her attacker?  Or, is this a case of men dictating that the victim of brutality should be forced (yes, forced, if you would not permit an abortion) to carry the result of that brutal violation for nine months?   Does the Bible tell raped women to love the offspring of the rapist?  What does it say to the father or husband of the rape victim?  Are they to love the spawn of the beast that attacked their daughter or wife?


----------



## emma42

I am afraid that nothing can compensate a woman for a rape against her, and to suggest further that she should carry a baby conceived as a result of rape to term and then be "compensated" is one of the most inhumane things I have ever heard.  I realise that the anti-abortionists will cry "Abortion is inhumane, it is murder!"  And so we come back to the insoluable argument about whether or not a foetus is a person.


----------



## lampiao

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> and some are just sick of being told by men what they, as women, can and cannot do with their own bodies.


The BIG question mark here is: Is a fertilized egg a part of a woman's body? I think not. Indeed it is inside the womb, but fertilization can occur outside the womb. Eg: in vitro fertilization.
An egg does not get fertilized on its own. A man a is required part of the process, so why should men not have a say?


----------



## GenJen54

lampiao said:


> The BIG question mark here is: Is a fertilized egg a part of a woman's body? I think not. Indeed it is inside the womb, but fertilization can occur outside the womb. Eg: in vitro fertilization.
> An egg does not get fertilized on its own. A man a is required part of the process, so why should men not have a say?


 
In an instance where a woman becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, husband, significant other, of course, *that man* _should_ have a say. That doesn't mean he always will.

In an instance where a woman has been raped, why should the rapist have a say? He has committed a brutal act *against the woman.* She, and only she, should have a say as to whether she allows the life conceived from horror and violence to grow inside of her body, as it will be her body which is violated again when the child is born.

I also agree with Emma regarding any form of "compensation" for the woman? What kind of compensation are you talking about? Monetary? What kind of money would salve the lifelong psychological wounds of rape? It might help pay for therapy, but it certainly would never take away what had happened to her.


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:


> For the same reason that Lincoln interfered on the lives on the Southern slaves masters.


It is a gross simplification to say that Lincoln interfered with or did something in a unilateral manner.  Lincoln was merely the name or focus for a massively large group of people who saw the subjucation of a group of people based on ethnicity as being repugnant.  This repugnance ran so deep that many Southerners supported the North either tacitly or overtly.



Fernando said:


> I am glad you are. Laws protecting slavery (or segregation) in US were also democratically decided. We (anti-abortists, no matter your confession or your lack of confession) are against those laws.


The laws were initially imposed in a most undemocratic manner and eventually repealed in a most democratic manner.  Laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol were also democratically imposed and failed miserably so they were democratically unimposed.



Fernando said:


> We want democratically overturn laws. Why should not we?


Please feel free to do so at the ballot box but not in the face of a woman making a very difficult life changing decision of the most private nature.




Fernando said:


> Every day, environmentalists, strikers, friends of Cambodja, and so on interfere in the lives of others by strikes, demonstrations and criminal actions, such as enchainment to trees or cutting the traffic (I do not know if that is the right expression in English).
> 
> We are not doing nothing of that. Those who have performed violent actions have been condemned by all anti-abortist organizations. What is your problem?


I did not even know that I had a problem.  Enjoy your day and leave me to enjoy mine unless my enjoyment of my day interferes in your day.
I just can not see how an abortion interferes with anybody's day other than the participants in the abortion.

.,,


----------



## emma42

Lampiao:  Because the man will not have to carry the foetus in his body.


----------



## ElaineG

Do you all know the famous ethics problem of the Famous Unconscious Violinist? I've spoiled it of course by introducing it in this context; when I studied it in an introductory philosophy class in college, the teacher hid the ball so that we didn't realize we were talking about abortion right away.

The idea is that a stranger will die if they are not constantly attached to your circulatory system for 9 months (a hypothetical rare disease). To add weight to the problem, the stranger is a famous, rarely talented violinist.   While you are sleeping one night, fans of the violinist attach him to your body with tubes.

Are you morally and ethically required to allow that stranger to remain hooked up to your body?

Should you be legally required to let him be hooked up to your body?

Is it murder if you disconnect him?

Now, you can argue that the analogy falls apart in the case of "voluntary" pregnancy -- choosing not to use birth control, but the same objection cannot to be made to pregnancies that result from contraceptive failure or rape. 

More here: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jfg021000/thomson.html


----------



## .   1

I look forward to responses to Elaine's question.
My response is that I have utterly no compunction to allow such a person to hook up to my body.  My body is mine.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

ElaineG said:


> Do you all know the famous ethics problem of the Famous Unconscious Violinist?


Dear Elaine,
yes, the violinist is a well known discussion. I see a reasonable analogy and the issue is of high ethical interest anyway. Of course, there are some significant differences to abortion.

Thanks for providing the interesting link.

Kajjo


----------



## lampiao

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> In an instance where a woman has been raped, why should the rapist have a say?


Ok, if you look closely I made no mention to rape/no rape. 
I was talking generically, like "I have the right to have my opinion", just as you have yours. I can't accept when people just go saying -generically speaking- men have nothing to do with this matter.


----------



## JamesM

> Now, you can argue that the analogy falls apart in the case of "voluntary" pregnancy -- choosing not to use birth control, but the same objection cannot to be made to pregnancies that result from contraceptive failure or rape.


 
Does anyone here think that there are nearly a million rapes and contraceptive failures in the U.S. annually?   I agree that in cases of rape the issues are different and, personally, to me it's a case where abortion can be justified.  HOWEVER...

The entire subject cannot be simply about rape and contraceptive failure.  These issues are brought up as if it's the entire picture.  I'm willing to grant that in cases of rape it makes sense that the victim have the opportunity to elect for an abortion.  Are those who are continuing to bring up rape and contraceptive failure willing to grant that it's not rational to assume one million incidents of contraceptive failure and rape per year in a population of the size of the U.S.?  And if so, what are these other cases?


----------



## lampiao

Emma42 said:
			
		

> Lampiao:  Because the man will not have to carry the foetus in his body.


Emma,

I will accept your argument on the day you are able to generate a new life on your own


----------



## emma42

Lampiao, I can only repeat that a man will not have to carry the foetus in his body.

As to reasons for abortion:  I do not believe that a foetus is a person.  I therefore believe that women should have the right to abort a foetus for any reason whatsoever, including that she forgot to take her pill and to have a child would prevent her from taking three holidays a year.  Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but so have been many other posts - inevitably in a thread like this, I think.


----------



## JamesM

emma42 said:


> Lampiao, I can only repeat that a man will not have to carry the foetus in his body.
> 
> As to reasons for abortion: I do not believe that a foetus is a person.


 
I can understand that position without agreeing with it. At what point, though, does it become a person, in your belief? If it is born extremely prematurely, should extraordinary efforts be taken to ensure its survival if it's technologically possible, or is it essentially a late miscarriage if it cannot sustain its own life?

I'm not asking to be inflammatory or confrontational. I'm interested in hearing where the line between foetus and person is drawn in your view.


----------



## lampiao

Emma,

Whether or not you believe a foetus is a person, whether or not it actually is not so important. That is arguable, and in the end each one will keep his/her own opinion.

Can you honestly say that a foetus is not a human life?
A foetus has a life of its own. So, what kind of life is that?
Ahmmm... I suppose it's Human.

This is why I oppose. I cannot be indiferent. If I'd just look to the other side and whistle, I'd be a part of _it _(whatever you whish to call _it_).

Then again, all this abortion/no abortion discution has one sure outcome: in the end each one will keep his/her own opinion.


----------



## ElaineG

> Are those who are continuing to bring up rape and contraceptive failure willing to grant that it's not rational to assume one million incidents of contraceptive failure and rape per year in a population of the size of the U.S.? And if so, what are these other cases?


 
Well, one case that has recently occured to two separate friends of mine is finding out that they were carrying gravely deformed fetuses (and I mean worse than Down's Syndrome).

I know that if you believe that abortion is murder and don't distinguish between cases, you will think that a family has an obligation to bring this gravely deformed child into the world, no matter the suffering that that choice will inflict on yourselves, other children in your family, and the baby in question.  I don't feel that way.  

And I do know personally three women who have had abortions as a consequence of rape -- one stranger, one date rape, and one familial abuse.  I like to think that now that we finally have the morning-after pill, those types of incidences -- along with all reasons for abortion will go down.  The United States has been remarkably backward about access to the morning-after pill -- I got it for free for the asking at a University clinic in Scotland 17 years ago, but it only (after much struggle with pro-life groups) became widely available here in the last few years, and only available without a prescription in the last few months.  

According to the United States government, abortion rates have been decreasing since the mid-1980s (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm#fig1).

The majority of abortions are performed on very young women.  One very effective way to reduce abortions, and teen pregnancy, would be to have free and confidential access within schools to effective forms of birth control.  But I doubt we'll see that anytime soon.

I don't know that we can decide the moral value of all the reasons that women choose to have abortions before hand.  And I don't think we can set ourselves as arbiters of decisions that so deeply affect other people's intimate lives -- that's why I believe that a better point of moderation is to set limits within the course of the pregnancy.


----------



## emma42

James, I know you are not being confrontational.  I believe that anything inside a woman's body is part of her, until it is born.  I know you must find this difficult, and I do understand your view.  

Lampiao, of course you may have opinions.  I agree that a foetus is made of human tissue (how could I not?), but I don't agree that it is a person, subject to the same rights and responsibilities as you and I.  I have always felt the same about abortion, but I have read others' viewpoints with sincerity and as open a mind as I can manage.


----------



## JamesM

emma42 said:


> James, I know you are not being confrontational. I believe that anything inside a woman's body is part of her, until it is born. I know you must find this difficult, and I do understand your view.


 
Thanks.  I think the only way to talk about something like this is to expect to learn something in the discussion and leave room to change your own mind.

This next question is simply for discussion purposes and to better understand.  I guess it's a type of ethical question.

If a woman has a child at 30 weeks, then, it is a person.  If another woman has an abortion at 30 weeks, it is not a person?


----------



## emma42

In a word, yes.


----------



## JamesM

ElaineG said:


> I don't know that we can decide the moral value of all the reasons that women choose to have abortions before hand. And I don't think we can set ourselves as arbiters of decisions that so deeply affect other people's intimate lives -- that's why I believe that a better point of moderation is to set limits within the course of the pregnancy.


 
Actually, you may be surprised to find that I agree with this.     My concern is that any limits at all, including late-term or partial-birth abortion, have still not passed here in the U.S.  I think that this kind of compromise would do a great deal to ease the tensions between the two sides of the controversy. 

I also am very torn on the issue of serious deformities.  It is a difficult one.  I happen to know from personal experience that this information may not be discovered until late in the pregnancy.   It makes the whole thing very challenging.

As for the reasons your friends have had abortions... is it your impression that the majority of abortions you are personally aware of fall into one of these categories (deformities, rape)?  If so, do you think that's because other abortions are simply not talked about, or do you think that these really are the majority of the million abortions a year?  I'm interested to get your take on that.


----------



## JamesM

emma42 said:


> In a word, yes.


 
Interesting. So the dividing line is entirely whether or not the foetus has separated from the mother for you. I'll have to think about that a bit to get my mind around it. Thanks for letting me know.

So just one more question to make sure I'm getting it... for you, an abortion at 9 months is still a woman's decision and the foetus being aborted is still not a person at that point, even though he is entirely viable outside the womb?


----------



## emma42

Yes.  One has to take a decision on these matters, and if we start talking about when is a foetus viable, when does it become a person, if it's viable at 9 months is it viable at 8 months and 29 days.....we end up with the situation we have now, which is confused.  I know there is no confusion in the anti-abortionist's minds - that's clear.


----------



## JamesM

emma42 said:


> Yes. One has to take a decision on these matters, and if we start talking about when is a foetus viable, when does it become a person, if it's viable at 9 months is it viable at 8 months and 29 days.....we end up with the situation we have now, which is confused. I know there is no confusion in the anti-abortionist's minds - that's clear.


 
Well, first of all, that seems like a rather black-and-white way of putting it.  I am not in favor of all abortions, but it is not black-and-white to me about where that line is drawn.  "The anti-abortionists" is not some monolithic block out there.  There are many people who are somewhere along the spectrum between the two poles.  I hope you're allowing for that.

Secondly, what do you mean by the situation being confused?  The law is very clear at this point, isn't it, no matter how anyone feels about it?  There is no restriction on abortions at any point during the pregnancy.  Legally, the situation is about as cut-and-dried as it can get, as I see it.


----------



## .   1

Fernando said:


> Every day, environmentalists, strikers, friends of Cambodja, and so on interfere in the lives of others by strikes, demonstrations and criminal actions, such as enchainment to trees or cutting the traffic (I do not know if that is the right expression in English).
> 
> We are not doing nothing of that. Those who have performed violent actions have been condemned by all anti-abortist organizations. What is your problem?


Are you saying that people who protest to stop a woman being given access to abortion are the same as people who protest against environmental degradation, oppression of workers and war?
Your question has confused me.

.,,


----------



## emma42

Yes, James, it is a black and white way of putting it.  I am trying to put myself in the position of a law-maker.  The situation is confused in England.  There are several restrictions on whether an abortion can be performed and also restrictions on the age of the pregnancy.  The law is changed periodically and people start arguing about when the foetus should be considered a person, viable, etc.

When I say "anti-abortionists", I am referring to people who are against abortion under any circumstances.  I know there are people who are "along the spectrum".  What I can't understand is the thinking that, for instance, abortion is murder at 7 months if as a result of contraceptive irresponsibility, but it is not murder at, say, 1 month and the result of a rape.  Either the foetus is a person or it is not, no?


----------



## ElaineG

> My concern is that any limits at all, including late-term or partial-birth abortion, have still not passed here in the U.S. I think that this kind of compromise would do a great deal to ease the tensions between the two sides of the controversy.


 
Well, that's why I said, several posts back, that a lot of good could be done if both sides backed off extremist positions.  For example, many pro-life groups are very angry with the Bush administration for allowing the morning after pill to finally be available.  They should stop.  The partial-birth abortion issue is currently before the Supreme Court, and pro-choice advocates should give in gracefully if they lose. 



> abortions... is it your impression that the majority of abortions you are personally aware of fall into one of these categories (deformities, rape)? If so, do you think that's because other abortions are simply not talked about, or do you think that these really are the majority of the million abortions a year? I'm interested to get your take on that.


 
No, as I've alluded to, the majority of the abortions that I'm personally aware of, and this is borne out by statistics as well, involved very young women.  I don't know personally any woman over 20 who has used abortion instead of birth control, although I'm sure they exist.  I knew a few girls from my high school who had abortions, and I have met women since who had abortions at that age.

Girls at that age are very susceptible to boys pressuring them not to use condoms.  They may not have a great deal of confidence about dealing with issues of sexuality, and they may not know where to turn to get contraception.  I remember being afraid to ask our family doctor about contraception because I thought she would say something to my mother.  I was the kind of high-school senior who looked in the white pages, found Planned Parenthood, made an appointment, traveled there on my own, followed all the instructions that came with the pill, etc. etc.  Many high-school kids aren't like that and I doubt they will become that way anytime soon.  

I'm not an expert on abstinence vs. sex education, but my gut feeling is that teenagers aren't about to stop having sex, and that if we want to reduce abortion -- and teenage motherhood -- we'll do everything we can to empower young women and girls to make responsible decisions about their sexuality and about contraception.


----------



## JamesM

emma42 said:


> Yes, James, it is a black and white way of putting it. I am trying to put myself in the position of a law-maker. The situation is confused in England. There are several restrictions on whether an abortion can be performed and also restrictions on the age of the pregnancy. The law is changed periodically and people start arguing about when the foetus should be considered a person, viable, etc.


 
I can see where some of our confusion in the conversation has happened. Our laws in the U.S. do not restrict abortion at all.  It is completely wide open as to timing and method.



> When I say "anti-abortionists", I am referring to people who are against abortion under any circumstances.


 
Out of curiosity, then, what do you call someone like me?



> I know there are people who are "along the spectrum". What I can't understand is the thinking that, for instance, abortion is murder at 7 months if as a result of contraceptive irresponsibility, but it is not murder at, say, 1 month and the result of a rape. Either the foetus is a person or it is not, no?


 
Actually, for me, no.  I have mixed feelings about very early abortions, simply because at that point I think there are arguments to be made that the embryo is a "potential" person at that point, and in the case of incest or rape, that potential person was created as an act of violence against the woman.  

Once the child becomes viable outside the woman, at that point to me the child is definitely a distinct person.   I know that viability is a grey area, but still, that is where the line is definitely drawn for me.  Before that point, there are many arguments for and against, in my mind.  After that point, it is definitely terminating an individual life.

It sounds like I'd be much more comfortable with England's laws than the U.S.'s.


----------



## emma42

James, I did not know that about US abortion laws.  

What would I call you?  I would call you a bloody nice bloke.


----------



## JamesM

> Well, that's why I said, several posts back, that a lot of good could be done if both sides backed off extremist positions.


 
Agreed.  But here's where this thread sort of crosses with the one not too long ago about news.  I imagine (although I haven't read any specific statistics on it) that the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle - a little one direction or the other, but basically not in the extreme.

Our news industry is built upon presenting only extreme points of view.  

I was impressed while I was in France at the number of programs that were simply open discussions about topics - roundtables.  Some of the topics seemed a little inane, others were very interesting to me.  Nevertheless, a lot of airtime was given to actual discussion and debate, rather than the "dueling talking heads" we get here.  I have become completely disenchanted with the American news engine and have disengaged from it.  Other than the Weather Channel (which has its own silly sensationalist programming from time to time) and a few minutes of CNN headline news in the morning to make sure I haven't missed some major world event, I ignore the news media outlets.

[rant]I honestly think that much of perceived tension is hype.  You don't have to be that large to get national media attention here.  You just have to be outrageous enough to constitute "good news", that is, news that they consider compelling because of the emotions it stirs up.  That group that is celebrating at U.S. soldiers' funerals and saying that all the deaths are God's punishment because of our country's position towards gays is absolutely outrageous.  They are a tiny, tiny faction - a few hundred, at most.  Yet by the news attention they garner, they look like they represent hundreds of thousands or millions.  It is so discouraging.  It is no wonder that we get a bizarre image throughout the rest of the world, given what our news promotes as "newsworthy."[/rant]


----------



## cuchuflete

The title of this thread is just like US TV news...it promotes confrontation by making a contentious statement, rather than inviting discussion.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> The title of this thread is just like US TV news...it promotes confrontation by making a contentious statement, rather than inviting discussion.


 
Agreed. That's why I've been trying to actively promote discussion, and there are obviously many here who are interested in discussion.  It's refreshing.


----------



## maxiogee

Two points which haven't been made here, which go hand-in-hand with the question of whether the fertilised egg is a part of the woman's body are
a) is every life a gift from God? 
b) is every life sacred?

If you believe that life only occurs as a result of a divine will, then you are going to have a problem with the concept that a human could have any right to contravene that will.
If, however, you believe that life is a process which begins when certain physical and chemical conditions are right, then you may not see as a problem the notion that a human could end the process as and when they wish.

If you believe that every life is sacred (and one can see this with or without an accompanying belief that it began at the whim of a diving will), then one will have a problem with anyone, no matter how involved with the life's existence, having the right to end it.
If you believe that life is nothing special in itself, but gains its importance from our opinion about it, then you won't have a problem with someone ending that life.

I believe that supporters of capital punishment take this approach to life. To thme, all life may indeed be special, but a particular life may have been so devalued by the person possessing it as to permit the state (or others) to end it.

=======

As to the concept that a person wishing to undertake an abortion out to instead carry to term and then offer the child for adoption, this is put forward as a solution to the problem by many who have religious objections to abortion.
These people often also believe that "every life is a gift from God" - and yet they fail to see the corollary of that statement, that every non-pregnancy is a withholding by God of this gift. If God denies a child to a couple, what 'right' has that couple to go against this? 
And on a more prosaic note, if these women were to carry all these pregnancies to term, do the countries involved have enough people seeking to adopt the resulting children - and would these potential adopters be entitled to decline a child on the basis of any physical or other defects?


----------



## ElaineG

> These people often also believe that "every life is a gift from God" - and yet they fail to see the corollary of that statement, that every non-pregnancy is a withholding by God of this gift. If God denies a child to a couple, what 'right' has that couple to go against this?


 
This reminds of a tragic dilemma faced by a young Christian neighbor of mine last year.  She had enormous difficulty conceiving.  After fertility drugs, she ended up carrying quadruplets. The doctors advised her that she would not successfully carry them all to term, and advised fetal reduction, which is just another word for selective abortion.

I heard her discuss this advice many times -- her view was that God wouldn't have granted her more children than He wanted her to have and that abortion was murder (the degree to which she had already gone against "God's plan" (in her cosmology, not mine) seemed to be lost on her).

She ended up losing two of the babies when she went into labor at 6 months, and the other two were severely premature and died after birth, one after a long and quite tragic period of suffering and operations. The doctor had apparently told her that she could have had two healthy babies, but that option to her was "murder". 

That was one of those times when I really had difficulty believing that any God I could believe in would have wanted that outcome. 



> And on a more prosaic note, if these women were to carry all these pregnancies to term, do the countries involved have enough people seeking to adopt the resulting children - and would these potential adopters be entitled to decline a child on the basis of any physical or other defects


 
At this point, there is a huge adoption backlog in the U.S. and demand far outstrips supply. I don't know how long that would last though in a no-abortion world. And of course, there is a much higher demand for healthy, white babies, then other kinds, and no one can force you to adopt a handicapped child, so I suspect the alternative would have to be the wider ability of orphanages.

Interestingly, I have recently come accross a virulent anti-adoption movement -- search anti-adoption on the Web and you'll see what I'm talking about -- so it seems that even that wouldn't make everyone happy.


----------



## Tsoman

As far as I understand it, life exists because there is no possible alternative.

We exist because we can't not exist

When you die, you don't "go away." I have no clue what happens after death, but I am 100% sure that it is not bad. I also know for sure that after death we do not cease to exist. I have high hopes for the afterlife -- I hope it's just like the one I'm living now.

There is no nothingness. It's impossible. And this makes me very happy

It's funny. when you know that existence is forever, living becomes more fun.

Abortion hmmm. I don't know what to think about it. I guess from the baby's point of view, it would be like playing a board game and you land on the "oops, move 2 spaces backwards" spot. So it goes back and starts over. I don't think it really matters that much.

But does that make it ok to kill? I'm not sure. That's why I'm not going to do it.

But I'll bet you the creator looks down on us and laughs.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

I just heard this Chinese adage on the radio: "Avorter d'une fille c'est penser à sa terre et à ses vaches" (*). Not that many christians there I think, does it mean there is no ethic problem in practicing abortion (especially for future female babies)? Could someone from China confirm this is a real proverb first, and if abortion (specially for girls) is not a big deal?

(*) can't write in Chinese, sorry.  But in English it's more or less: "practising female abortion is thinking about your land and your cows".


----------



## emma42

Thanks, Karine.  This example illustrates very well how different prevailing mores can affect whether or not a woman may be traumatised after an abortion.  I have no evidence to back this up (but will look for some, if asked), but I bet the incidence of post-abortion trauma has been far lower in China than in, say, America or England, where religions and particularly Christianity have heavily influenced thinking.


----------



## cuchuflete

> *A nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl, who was four months pregnant after being raped, has had an abortion in a private clinic.*


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2789279.stm

That happened earlier this year.  Today she would be forced to carry the fetus and give birth to the offspring of the animal that raped and nearly killed her.  

More from the BBC article:



> The girl's parents asked the authorities for special permission to have the pregnancy terminated.
> Nicaragua's family minister, Natalia Barias, said *the child* should have the baby.
> President Enrique Bolanos said the girl's fate was in the hands of doctors.


If you believe a nine year old girl is a living, human organism, how can you justify forcing her to endure a pregnancy resulting from rape?


If the link above doesn't work, copy this one and paste it into a browser: (First delete the part in red.)
http://[COLOR=Red]__[/COLOR]news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2789279.stm


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The link didn't work, Cuchu.  I had to go to the home page and work my way through various levels.

I hadn't heard the story until now.  I see that the Catholic Church immediately excommunicated her parents and the doctors who performed the abortion.  

I just realized that according to church beliefs I'm still Catholic and they can still excommunicate me.  Works both ways .... I think I'll formally excommunicate the Catholic church, and send them back all the mementos of a Catholic childhood while I'm at it.


----------



## Benjy

Following this thread has been highly interesting. As a Christian, and being opposed to abortion (in the vast majority of cases, more on that later) I will attempt, without appeal to the bible, to justify this opposition.

I think primarily, with regards abortion, it is many cases a simple abdication of responsabilty on the part of all those involved. While I don't agree that sex is mearly a means to a reproductive end, the practice thereof does entail certain consequences. No contraception guaranties 100% against unwanted pregnancy. The simple fact of the matter is that if you absolutely don't want the responsabilites of children and you are not prepared to handle the consequences of engaging in sexual activities then you shouldn't. To do so, and then fall back on abortion as the ultimate way of avoiding the consequences of your actions to me is wrong. 

There are, and it was really Cuchuflete's and Elaine's messages above that prompted this post, cases where I think abortion is justified: Rape and child abuse which result in pregnancy, as the women's right to consent (or not) has been totally taken away from her, and also cases where competent medical authority has judged that other's lives are in endangered by the pregnancy being carried  term.

To preempt any kind of ad hominem (that may or may not happen), I will point out that I stand by and live by the principles mentioned in the first paragraph


----------



## ps139

cuchuflete said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2789279.stm
> 
> That happened earlier this year.  Today she would be forced to carry the fetus and give birth to the offspring of the animal that raped and nearly killed her.
> 
> More from the BBC article:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe a nine year old girl is a living, human organism, how can you justify forcing her to endure a pregnancy resulting from rape?



How? By saying that the "offspring of the animal" is also a living, human organism. If you don't believe a fetus is a human, then I suppose it is no problem for you. But I believe the fetus is a human, and should not be punished with death because of the crimes of his or her father. That is my justification.


----------



## emma42

So, Benjy, you are saying that sometimes a foetus has the right to life, and sometimes it doesn't (result of rape or child abuse), and sometimes it has less right than others? ("cases where competent medical authority has judged that other's [sic] lives are endangered...").  Muddled thinking?


----------



## Benjy

And should that nine year old girl be burdened with a child/pregnancy and everything which goes with motherhood because of the crimes of the father? Should that child have to deal with coming to existance as the product of a violent terrible crime?


----------



## ps139

Benjy said:


> And should that nine year old girl be burdened with a child/pregnancy and everything which goes with motherhood because of the crimes of the father? Should that child have to deal with coming to existance as the product of a violent terrible crime?



This is a horrible situation for the mother, but killing the child is not the answer. The child did NOTHING. Neither did the mother, but neither did the child. 

So, do you think it is better to die than to live knowing your father was a rapist??

Maybe you can poll people who were conceived by rape. Ask them if they think their mother should have aborted them. Ask them if they think that _not existing_ is a better alternative than knowing their father was a rapist.


----------



## emma42

Benjy:  absolutely she should not.  You have not addressed my points on inconsistency.  Not that you have to, of course.

ps139, do you not think it is pointless to suggest asking someone who exists if they would rather not have existed?  How can anyone possibly answer that, product of rape or otherwise?


----------



## cuchuflete

Starkly absent from ps139's comments are any expression of concern for the life and well-being of the 9 year old child.  It's so very simple and simplistic and callous to be all in favor of fetal rights, and simultaneously ignore the rights of other children involved.  Good ideology, lousy humanity.


----------



## Benjy

emma  I didn't see your post, I was replying to ps139.

Without wishing to be drawn into the whole when does a foetus/embryo/whatever become a living organism, in the case of someone whose life in danger by carrying a baby to term, both the mother's and the baby's  lives have to taken into account. I don't see any ethical inconsistency with that. You have an abortion of convenience vs one where more than one life is at stake.

As for the case of rape again, There element of choice has been taken away from the perosn who will be responsible to the child. Abortion isn't just about the right to life of the foetus, doesn't it also touch the life of the mother? But I admit, in the rape case one, it is pretty fuzzy. I don't pretend to have all the answers, I'm still working it out too


----------



## ps139

cuchuflete said:


> Starkly absent from ps139's comments are any expression of concern for the life and well-being of the 9 year old child.  It's so very simple and simplistic and callous to be all in favor of fetal rights, and simultaneously ignore the rights of other children involved.  Good ideology, lousy humanity.


Oh yippee, _ad-hominem_ attacks!  Paint a bad and falsified picture of your opponent (make sure to include a lot of assumptions about him or her) in order to make your opponent's case look weak. 

I'm sorry, I thought this issue was about whether or not the _fetus _has a right to life. 

I guess that saying that what happened to the girl is absolutely horrible means that I do not care about her?

*My simple point was that killing a human being is not justified in this circumstance. *

You can address that point, or continue with your ad-homs.


----------



## ps139

emma42 said:


> ps139, do you not think it is pointless to suggest asking someone who exists if they would rather not have existed?  How can anyone possibly answer that, product of rape or otherwise?


It was mostly a rhetorical question, because most people would say "Yes I am glad that I was not aborted." 

It is to argue against the notion that manner of conception somehow has some affect on the dignity of one's life. It does not. 

Also, it is to highlight that the fetus has absolutely no choice in the matter, and that most people would rather live than die, therefore we should not be making decisions to kill someone who has no voice. It is just wrong in so many ways.


----------



## ps139

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> I just heard this Chinese adage on the radio: "Avorter d'une fille c'est penser à sa terre et à ses vaches" (*). Not that many christians there I think, does it mean there is no ethic problem in practicing abortion (especially for future female babies)? Could someone from China confirm this is a real proverb first, and if abortion (specially for girls) is not a big deal?
> 
> (*) can't write in Chinese, sorry.  But in English it's more or less: "practising female abortion is thinking about your land and your cows".


I know that this happens in India all the time, and it would not surprise me if it happens in China, since couples are only allowed one child. Simply speaking a male child is better for the family's financial prospects, and so females are often aborted, sometimes even killed after birth. India does not have the same "one child policy" as China but other socioeconomic factors make males more desired than females. 

In China the male to female ration is about 117 to 100, and in India it is something like 100 to 91. This is not normal, as it is usually equal. In India now, since brides are becoming rare, parents are literally selling their brides to the highest bidder. 
India is finally cracking down on sex-selected abortions (by making ultrasounds to find out the sex of the baby illegal) but so much damage has been done... in the lives lost, and in choices made... think of the mother who chooses to or is forced to kill her own child because she is a girl? It is a tragedy, and a horrible one at that.

Some further reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4855682.stm


> ~ It has been estimated that 10m female foetuses may have been terminated in India in the past 20 years.


_ 
_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2765853.stm


> ~ The cultural preference for sons rather than daughters has skewed sex ratios in India.  In some states young men, reaching marriageable age, are finding it hard to find brides.
> For many years, there have  been reports of baby girls being neglected, malnourished or even killed at birth.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3076727.stm


----------



## maxiogee

ps139 said:


> I'm sorry, I thought this issue was about whether or not the _fetus _has a right to life.



Why should it?
I have no "right" to life - other than any conferred on me by any legislation.
I don't see the "right" to life as an unassailable 'given', mysteriously bestowed on anyone at any point in their existence, be it at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth. If I find myself in a position to be unable to afford to feed, clothe and house myself, I have no "right" to demand that these services be provided for me.
One may not like the fact that some potential-parent would decide to terminate the process, but that doesn't mean that they would be 'wrong' to do so. If not acting to stop the deaths of living people, dying through some inaction of ours, is not 'wrong' then I fail to see much difference in deliberately terminating the life of an unborn potential-person (as it hasn't been born we cannot know if the pregnanccy would run smoothly to term and result in an actual person, or if a miscarriage might occur resulting in the loss of no 'person', but as happened twice to my wife and I, the loss of what might have become a person) and the deliberate inaction we take every day in deciding not to send food and drink to starving multitudes of real people. How do unborn 'persons' have rights we do not accord to born ones?

=============

The Catholic Church did not wish to know about the miscarriage of our pregnancies. They had no desire to solemnise the occasion with a ritual as they would with the 'death' of a born person. They seem to see a distinction when it comes to administering their sacraments, but not when it comes to seeking legislation prohibiting the killing of what they claim to be an unborn person. I can't see how they can distinguish between the two foetuses!

=============

What I do see is the autonomy of a person, and their right to decide what happens to and with their body.
To go back to the "famous violinist" case, were I to 'come to' and be told that were it not for her being attached to my body she would die, would I not be entitled to ask why I should be concerned with that point?
Were it not for me, some people might say that it was "God's will that she should die" - why should I be required to go against the will of this God?


----------



## ps139

maxiogee said:


> Why should it?
> I have no "right" to life - other than any conferred on me by any legislation.
> I don't see the "right" to life as an unassailable 'given', mysteriously bestowed on anyone at any point in their existence, be it at the moment of conception or at the moment of birth. If I find myself in a position to be unable to afford to feed, clothe and house myself, I have no "right" to demand that these services be provided for me.



You do have a right to life, by the fact that you exist, and you have the right to be respected and treated with dignity. 



> One may not like the fact that some potential-parent would decide to terminate the process, but that doesn't mean that they would be 'wrong' to do so. If not acting to stop the deaths of living people, dying through some inaction of ours, is not 'wrong' then I fail to see much difference in deliberately terminating the life of an unborn potential-person (as it hasn't been born we cannot know if the pregnanccy would run smoothly to term and result in an actual person, or if a miscarriage might occur resulting in the loss of no 'person', but as happened twice to my wife and I, the loss of what might have become a person) and the deliberate inaction we take every day in deciding not to send food and drink to starving multitudes of real people. How do unborn 'persons' have rights we do not accord to born ones?


Who is claiming that starving multitudes have less of a right than fetuses or infants? Certainly not me. 

=============


> The Catholic Church did not wish to know about the miscarriage of our pregnancies. They had no desire to solemnise the occasion with a ritual as they would with the 'death' of a born person. They seem to see a distinction when it comes to administering their sacraments, but not when it comes to seeking legislation prohibiting the killing of what they claim to be an unborn person. I can't see how they can distinguish between the two foetuses!


I am very sorry to hear of the miscarraiges. 
I do not know the specifics of your relationship with your church but I do know that a Catholic sacrament can only be administered to a living person.  It is part of the "form/matter/intent" required for any Catholic sacrament to be considered valid. I do not know the specifics in your case but I am sorry to hear of what happened and that the church, in whatever way, neglected you.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> In that case I can only blame her parent(s). What happened to her is not so much a problem of abortion as an abdication of all parental duties - were the potential complications not explained to them if they weren't explained to her?
> 
> I will refrain from offering my thoughts on a child of that age being in a position as to 'require' a second abortion.


Her father (my father) was dead by then, but I do blame her (my) mother as she (my sister) may well do by now...No complications were ever explained... the clinics were interested only in promoting abortion and making money, so yes, I blame them as well. 

As to the second abortion, let me just say that by that time of our lives, we were a pretty sadly dysfunctional family! 

But that's all (thankfully!) over now.


----------



## distille

I always thought the reason was that pro-choice groups in Europe are much less rabid than those in the US. Does any European country have as open 
an abortion law as the US, since I though most (all?) European countries did not allow abortions later on in pregnancy except if the mother's life was at risk? I've also been told that abortion in Europe was legalized through government rather than the courts, and if that's true, I would think that would also have a calming influence on the debate.[/quote]


Most european laws on abortion fix some moment in the pregnancy when abortion is not possible anymore.
In france abortion is allowed until the 12th weeks of pregnancy. At least, it is how it goes for Voluntary Pregnancy Interruption (the official tem). Abortion can be done through surgery or through medicine (the famous RUsomething pill). 

I don't know if there is a time limit for Medical Pregnancy Interruption, which is an abortion proceeded only because the doctors think there is a real health danger for the woman. I'm not sure but i think medical pregnancy interruption is also possible when it appears that the baby has an important  disability. 

And to answer your question, yes, those laws have been introduced by the parliament.


----------



## maxiogee

ps139 said:


> You do have a right to life, by the fact that you exist, and you have the right to be respected and treated with dignity.


I don't have a 'right' if I cannot vindicate it. And for states (and others) to assert their right to impose capital punishment (or their right to kill non-combatants in time of war) means that they do not accept the inalienable right to life of an individual. There have been miscarriages of justice which have resulted in innocent people being executed for crimes they did not commit. If they did nothing to forfeit their rights, why did they loose these rights? Neither did those 'enemy' civilians deliberately targeted by an aggressive state in time of war.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Humans have no rights other than those which certain states decide to accord to them - sometimes in line with the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Which I would suggest might more accurately be entitled "The United Nations' Aspirations towards Human Dignity")




ps139 said:


> Who is claiming that starving multitudes have less of a right than fetuses or infants?


I didn't say anyone here said this. I merely stated that whyen we have surplus food and drink available to us, and we refuse to take steps to see that it gets to starving people, then we are adjudging that they don't have a life worth preserving - we are complicit in their hunger. 
That some people are more exercised about the rights of unborn people than by the rights of actual people is quite obvious - were it otherwise food aid and technology for ensuring clean drinking water would be flowing into the countries most afflicted by hunger and thirst.
The governments of countries where life is generally 'comfortable' would be beseiged by their citizens to go to the aid of the hungry.



ps139 said:


> Who is claiming that starving multitudes have less of a right than fetuses or infants? Certainly not me.


I generally try to refrain from putting words into people's mouths. And I won't ask you a direct question (in an effort to avoid this focussing on personalities rather than on principles) - but I would ask everyone to consider this. 
If you have ever spoken or acted in such a way as to try to dissuade a woman from having an abortion…
Have you ever done anything to actively vindicate the right to life of starving people?
What actions have you taken to ensure the right to life of any born person whose life was threatened by events beyond their control?
Note: These are not questions I expect to see anyone answer here. These are for answering to oneself.



ps139 said:


> I am very sorry to hear of the miscarraiges.
> I do not know the specifics of your relationship with your church but I do know that a Catholic sacrament can only be administered to a living person.  It is part of the "form/matter/intent" required for any Catholic sacrament to be considered valid. I do not know the specifics in your case but I am sorry to hear of what happened and that the church, in whatever way, neglected you.


Had my wife sougth to abort those two foetuses, the church and its activists would have claimed each foetus to be a living person, and that they had the rights of a born person. 
Why do they not acknowledge that there is a major difference between a foetus and a person? Are there differences between the human rights of an unborn person and the spiritual rights of the same person?


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> Two points [...] go hand-in-hand with the question of whether the fertilised egg is a part of the woman's body are
> a) is every life a gift from God?


Hi Maxiogee,
no, I do not think that this question is right on target. The question you raised is whether an egg cell is part of the woman's body, i.e. whether it is a separate living being. 

We _could_ easily agree that if you believe in God, then every life is a gift from God. However, the question remains whether this single cell actually is a life of its own. Thus, your question a) does not contribute to your title question.



> b) is every life sacred?


There are many commandments to kill gay men, witches, to carry on war, to punish people. It is easy to comprehend that not every human life is scared, not to mention other life forms.



> If, however, you believe that life is a process which begins when certain physical and chemical conditions are right, then you may not see as a problem the notion that a human could end the process as and when they wish.


Excellent. So how can you proceed with your reasoning? Whether someone believes in God or not, is private matter. A secular state cannot intervene here. As soon as you have recognised that a secular, scientific person might have pro-choice notions, you should stop arguing. Let everyone live his life. Christians do not need to accept abortions. Others may do so.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> This is absurd. If you were debating a racially-based slavery like the US used to have, would you say that "rational", "normal" people shouldn't talk about abolishing slavery but you should compromise and say maybe people could be kept as slaves until this age, or maybe you could limit how many slaves someone could own?


Certainly not. I did not come up with the comparison of slavery and abortion. For me, this comparison is very far-fetched.



> _[psychological trauma due to teaching and beliefs]_ Would you agree that much of it might be caused because abortion involves the termination of an innocent (potential if you wish) life?


No, I do not agree. Obviously, there are many countries were women can decide for themselves and feel relieved after an abortion. Many do not have any traumata or psychological problems. It is the intolerant system that causes these side-effects. 

If you believe something you have done is really bad, because everyone has taught you to believe so, then you will actually feel bad. For example, in past times they taught that masturbation is evil and the people felt ashamed and bad about doing it. Nowadays it is widely accepted and people purely enjoy it. At least in many countries. It is all about teaching, education, believings. 

I can assure you, that almost not a single woman feels bad in Germany about herself using IUD as contraception. Everyone accepts this and knows about fertilised eggs dying. No problem. 

_Believe it or not, psychological traumata are due to what you think is right and wrong. They are not about what actually is right or wrong.
_ 


> That brings up an interesting point about how much right do we have over our own bodies (even though I don't accept the argument that the foetus is just part of the mother's body). I guess it depends on the country but in many you can't inject whatever substance you want into your body, even if it doesn't harm anybody else. It doesn't seem like there exists an absolute right to do whatever you want with your body.


That is an interesting point of view that would require its thread of its own. Shortly, I feel that society protects itself buy not letting people turn into criminal freaks and health hazards. Again, personal liberty ends where another one's liberty is restricted or endangered.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> Back to the thread topic, is there a Biblical passage that exhorts a raped woman to carry the offspring of her attacker?  Or, is this a case of men dictating that the victim of brutality should be forced (yes, forced, if you would not permit an abortion) to carry the result of that brutal violation for nine months?   Does the Bible tell raped women to love the offspring of the rapist?  What does it say to the father or husband of the rape victim?  Are they to love the spawn of the beast that attacked their daughter or wife?


These are excellent questions. I think this thread was successful in that it showed that no explicit bible passages are available. I guess, you will not receive a useful answer to your on-target questions.

I cannot imagine how all these pro-life-supporters would think about being a "father", i.e. the husband of a raped woman with a rape-spawned child. Probably they would show obvious limits. Just a guess, though.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

GenJen54 said:


> In an instance where a woman becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, husband, significant other, of course, *that man* _should_ have a say. That doesn't mean he always will.


Do you mean he may wish her to have an abortion or to have the child? Or should she have to deliver the child when he wishes her to do?

I do not think that this is compatible with the woman's rights to her own body and her own decisions. 

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> At what point, though, does it become a person, in your belief? I'm interested in hearing where the line between foetus and person is drawn in your view.


Dear James,
again you raise the right question. Important is, from my point of view, that there is a line or region between potential life and person. In my opinion you cannot just arbitrarily define the moment of conception as becoming a person. Probably, the unborn child is a person before birth. Between that is unknown territory. However, you can narrow down the unknown territory by at least some months, if you accept, that the first several weeks, where nature has set several difficult stages to be mastered, is before the unknown line and the last few months of visible movements, thumb suckling, high brain activity is beyond the boundary.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

lampiao said:


> Then again, all this abortion/no abortion discution has one sure outcome: in the end each one will keep his/her own opinion.


Well, Lampiao, you might be right. However, it would be a successful discussion if at least some people realise that both sides have reasons and rationale, that both sides comprehend that defining the truth is not so easy as it feels while following purely religion or solely science.

You are right that there are some extremists that do not want to know the other's arguments, that do not want to see the rationale of the other side, that are not willing to compromise.

However, when living in a secular country, when advocating liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it should be possible to separate personal beliefs from universal truths. And where no such obvious truth is visible and where a diversity of opinions exists, one should let each individual person live his or her life, and let this person decide about her or his body.

Kajjo


----------



## modus.irrealis

distille,

Thanks for the information. Your comments agree with the impressions I've gotten from other sources about how the whole abortion issue has unfolded in Europe compared to the US (and Canada).



distille said:


> I'm not sure but i think medical pregnancy interruption is also possible when it appears that the baby has an important  disability.



Do you know if there is a definite list of disabilities for which this is permitted or is it more open-ended and decided on a case-by-case basis?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> Certainly not. I did not come up with the comparison of slavery and abortion. For me, this comparison is very far-fetched.



It's not far-fetched at all, since both involve how personhood should be defined and what rights are to be assigned to different persons. If it's "rational" to compromise on the personhood of the fetus for those who belive the fetus is a person, why isn't it rational to compromise on the personhood of people of this or that race?

To be honest, since I believe both in the personhood of the fetus and in the personhood of all born individuals no matter what their racial background, saying "If you don't like abortions, don't engage in them, but don't interfere with others who think differently" is exactly the same as saying "If you don't like racially based lynchings, don't engage in them, but don't interfere with others who think differently." I really don't see how one approach is irrational and the other rational, or why one is imposing my views on others and the other is enlightened thinking?



> No, I do not agree. Obviously, there are many countries were women can decide for themselves and feel relieved after an abortion. Many do not have any traumata or psychological problems. It is the intolerant system that causes these side-effects.


Just like it's an "intolerant" sysem that causes trauma for men who beat their wives? But anyway, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. I agree with you that just because some people feel bad about abortion doesn't make it bad, but sometimes it seems that you (and others) are arguing that because some people feel good about it, it is good. I'm not sure, though, if you are making that argument. People can just as easily be conditioned to feel good about all sorts of thinks that most people today would find abhorrent.



> That is an interesting point of view that would require its thread of its own. Shortly, I feel that society protects itself buy not letting people turn into criminal freaks and health hazards. Again, personal liberty ends where another one's liberty is restricted or endangered.


But what does injecting your body with anything have to do with other people's liberties? If you infringe other people's liberties, punish the act of infringement, not the an act that may or may not lead to anything. But more on-topic, I was just saying that even if the fetus is "just" part of the woman's body, it still doesn't mean much because it seems to me there is no absolute right over one's body in many legal systems.


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> Do you know if there is a definite list of disabilities for which this is permitted or is it more open-ended and decided on a case-by-case basis?


In Germany the medical indication is decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no time limit with regards to the pregnancy.

However, please note the rules: Voluntary abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is the free choice of women (97% of all abortions, approx. 124,000 per year of 80 Mio inhabitants).

Only 3% of all abortions are due to medical indication or after rape (in Germany).

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> It's not far-fetched at all, since both involve how personhood should be defined


Sorry, for me it is far-fetched. I see a Black, a White and a dozen other people -- they are people. I see a petri dish with a invisible little cell in it and I am required to view that an equal to all other? Sorry, there is a difference. A huge one.



> but sometimes it seems that you (and others) are arguing that because some people feel good about it, it is good.


No, I agree, that is of course wrong. We should neither way deduce a moral value from how we feel. Many a crime has been justified by such wrong notions.

Kajjo


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> In Germany the medical indication is decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no time limit with regards to the pregnancy.



Thanks, and just to clarify, I'm guessing medical indication here includes medical complications for the fetus as well as for the mother?



Kajjo said:


> Sorry, for me it is far-fetched. I see a Black, a White and a dozen other people -- they are people. I see a petri dish with a invisible little cell in it and I am required to view that an equal to all other? Sorry, there is a difference. A huge one.



Alright, you see a huge difference. I don't see a difference in the personhood of born and unborn people. It's not too hard to find people who see huge differences on the basis of sex or race. But these are just different perceptions and beliefs, which you said are not what a government should base its decisions on. So why do you criticize others for not being rational and normal because they want their beliefs to be recognized in law, when you want the same thing for your set of beliefs?



> No, I agree, that is of course wrong. We should neither way deduce a moral value from how we feel. Many a crime has been justified by such wrong notions.


Alright.


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> Thanks, and just to clarify, I'm guessing medical indication here includes medical complications for the fetus as well as for the mother?


Right. Both danger for the mother's life or health as well as evident deformations or health risks of the foetus.



> It's not too hard to find people who see huge differences on the basis of sex or race. But these are just different perceptions and beliefs, which you said are not what a government should base its decisions on. So why do you criticize others for not being rational and normal because they want their beliefs to be recognized in law.


No, no, I have not criticized anyone here for not being rational or normal. I think that in a case where a huge democratic people is split into at least two opposing sides by pure belief, it would be the normal way either to find compromises or let each one live his life. I think it is rational to comprehend that certain beliefs are just that: belief. And if you recognise that you should also accept that you cannot or at least should not force others to accept your faith or belief.

Kajjo


----------



## Victoria32

ElaineG said:


> Do you all know the famous ethics problem of the Famous Unconscious Violinist? I've spoiled it of course by introducing it in this context; when I studied it in an introductory philosophy class in college, the teacher hid the ball so that we didn't realize we were talking about abortion right away.
> 
> The idea is that a stranger will die if they are not constantly attached to your circulatory system for 9 months (a hypothetical rare disease). To add weight to the problem, the stranger is a famous, rarely talented violinist. While you are sleeping one night, fans of the violinist attach him to your body with tubes.
> 
> Are you morally and ethically required to allow that stranger to remain hooked up to your body?
> I am sorry, that's just a bizarre, far-fetched and partisan analogy! Very twisted, really!


 



emma42 said:


> Muddled thinking?


No, _I_ don't think so...


cuchuflete said:


> Starkly absent from ps139's comments are any expression of concern for the life and well-being of the 9 year old child. It's so very simple and simplistic and callous to be all in favor of fetal rights, and simultaneously ignore the rights of other children involved. Good ideology, lousy humanity.


Ad hominem... 


Kajjo said:


> I cannot imagine how all these pro-life-supporters would think about being a "father", i.e. the husband of a raped woman with a rape-spawned child. Probably they would show obvious limits. Just a guess, though.
> 
> Kajjo


No matter how may times you are told, *you refuse to believe that there are any pro-life women*. Why?


----------



## emma42

Victoria, I think that Kajjo was making a point about the feelings of husbands and fathers of raped, impregnated women (a position in which a woman can never be), not refusing to believe that there are any "pro-life" women, which there patently are.  I am sure Kajjo will correct me if I have misrepresented him/her.


----------



## Victoria32

emma42 said:


> Victoria, I think that Kajjo was making a point about the feelings of husbands and fathers of raped, impregnated women (a position in which a woman can never be), not refusing to believe that there are any "pro-life" women, which there patently are. I am sure Kajjo will correct me if I have misrepresented him/her.


Well, we'll see! It seems to me that the pro-abortion people on this thread, are a bit harsher and less inclined to listen than the undecided or the pro-lifers...


VL


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> These are excellent questions. I think this thread was successful in that it showed that no explicit bible passages are available. I guess, you will not receive a useful answer to your on-target questions.
> 
> Kajjo


 
If you are looking for a passage from scriptures written from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago for a specific passage regarding abortion, I don't think you can take much satisfaction in not finding one. 

It was not a choice nor a technology available at the time the scriptures were written.


----------



## emma42

Victoria, it seems to me that you are the forer@ using the most bold type/italics etc.  I absolutely do not want to get into personal attacks here, but perhaps you should look at how you are communicating in this thread before you criticise others?


----------



## ElaineG

Victoria32 said:


> Well, we'll see! It seems to me that the pro-abortion people on this thread, are a bit harsher and less inclined to listen than the undecided or the pro-lifers...
> 
> 
> VL



I don't think that's the case at all -- there have been moments of good discussion on this thread.  And discussion of a middle ground.

If there is one perosn on this thread I find harsh, and disinclined to listen, I have to say that I would nominate you.  You called the Famous Violinist analogy "very twisted" and "bizarre" rather than explaining how it was ethically and morally different than abortion from your perspective, or why you felt this mental exercise failed to capture what you feel to be true about abortion.  That struck me as being quite "harsh" and not particularly "inclined to listen."  

You have accused other posters of being "ad hominem" and of "refusing to believe" things, when the point they are making is not the point you think they are making.  

Personally, I understand that your views are highly influenced by your personal family story, which you have recounted in great detail.  I would be surprised, coming from a family background like yours, if you did not hold strong opinions. And I respect your right to hold such views, and do not think, nor would I want, that they be changed by an Internet discussion thread.

However, I do not think emotional attacks on "the other side" are the way forward.


----------



## Victoria32

ElaineG said:


> I don't think that's the case at all -- there have been moments of good discussion on this thread. And discussion of a middle ground.
> 
> If there is one perosn on this thread I find harsh, and disinclined to listen, I have to say that I would nominate you. You called the Famous Violinist analogy "very twisted" and "bizarre" rather than explaining how it was ethically and morally different than abortion from your perspective, or why you felt this mental exercise failed to capture what you feel to be true about abortion. That struck me as being quite "harsh" and not particularly "inclined to listen."
> 
> You have accused other posters of being "ad hominem" and of "refusing to believe" things, when the point they are making is not the point you think they are making.
> 
> Personally, I understand that your views are highly influenced by your personal family story, which you have recounted in great detail. I would be surprised, coming from a family background like yours, if you did not hold strong opinions. And I respect your right to hold such views, and do not think, nor would I want, that they be changed by an Internet discussion thread.
> 
> However, I do not think emotional attacks on "the other side" are the way forward.


Oh dear! 
_I_ am the one making 'emotional attacks'? I don't think so! You have already done so to me, days back, as I recall, but that's by the by, I suppose.
I am 'unsubscribing' from this thread. Nothing has been (or will be) achieved by it. 

VL


----------



## maxiogee

JamesM said:


> If you are looking for a passage from scriptures written from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago for a specific passage regarding abortion, I don't think you can take much satisfaction in not finding one.
> 
> It was not a choice nor a technology available at the time the scriptures were written.



Are you sure?
I think you'll find that women have known for a very long time how to abort when they wished to.

===================



emma42 said:


> Victoria, it seems to me that you are the forer@ using the most bold type/italics etc.  I absolutely do not want to get into personal attacks here, but perhaps you should look at how you are communicating in this thread before you criticise others?



It would be seriously helpful in this, and in other discussions, if people did not attempt to speak for other forer@s here.

"Victoria, I think that Kajjo was …"​I think Kajjo has shown that s/he is well capable of speaking for her/himself!

Just a thought


----------



## emma42

I was speaking for myself.  Just a thought.


----------



## .   1

Does any person here believe that abortion should be denied to women in the case of failed contraception or non consensual impregnation?

.,,


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> No, no, I have not criticized anyone here for not being rational or normal. I think that in a case where a huge democratic people is split into at least two opposing sides by pure belief, it would be the normal way either to find compromises or let each one live his life. I think it is rational to comprehend that certain beliefs are just that: belief. And if you recognise that you should also accept that you cannot or at least should not force others to accept your faith or belief.



Sorry for bringing this up again, but what if that democratic people were split about the question of whether people of a certain race were persons under the law? Would the rational approach in your opinion be to find compromises and let the law reflect the difference in belief for fear that the belief in the equality of races will be forced upon those who reject it? Would you be happy with a solution that made everyone equal in half the country but in the other half unequal?


----------



## Kajjo

emma said:
			
		

> Victoria, I think that Kajjo was making a point about the feelings of husbands and fathers of raped, impregnated women (a position in which a woman can never be), not refusing to believe that there are any "pro-life" women, which there patently are. I am sure Kajjo will correct me if I have misrepresented him/her.


Absolutely right. Thanks, Emma.



Victoria32 said:


> It seems to me that the pro-abortion people on this thread, are a bit harsher and less inclined to listen than the undecided or the pro-lifers...


Dear Victoria, I believe "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are two well-coined terms accepting each others views. Pro-choice supportes do not call you "forced pregnancy supporters", so you should have the _courtesy_ to accept the "pro-choice" terminology.

If you have read my contributions, then you will have realised that I am someone willing to comprimise, to see both sides as having valid points supporting their belief. Who I feel harsh in this thread are mainly the pro-life-supporters which quite cruelly let 9-year-old rape victims carry out children and claim that the body of pregnant women belongs to society rather than the person itself.

I have listened well to all arguments of the pro-life side. There are few and they did not convince me.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> If you are looking for a passage from scriptures written from 2,000 to 4,000 years ago for a specific passage regarding abortion, I don't think you can take much satisfaction in not finding one. It was not a choice nor a technology available at the time the scriptures were written.


Dear James,
in this case you are quite wrong. Abortion dates back to ancient times. Egypts and Greeks are known to have practised abortion and the ancient Hippocratic Oath explicitly contains a passage prohibiting doctors to assist in abortions. The are several ancient documents describing abortions by means of herbs, sharp implements or violent excercises (lifting heavy weights, jumping). Also it is commonly known that infanticide, the killing of unwanted or malformed newborn, was widely spread in ancient and medieval times.

Women have always been the victims of unwanted pregnancies. Being pregnant and giving birth was a very high health risk and surely at all times many women desired to stop pregnancies early on.

Surely, it has been an issue at the time the bible was written. Like Exo 21:22 were the fruit is handled like a thing,  I guess the unborn  have had no advocacy of those who wrote the bible.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> Sorry for bringing this up again, but what if that democratic people were split about the question of whether people of a certain race were persons under the law? Would the rational approach in your opinion be to find compromises and let the law reflect the difference in belief for fear that the belief in the equality of races will be forced upon those who reject it? Would you be happy with a solution that made everyone equal in half the country but in the other half unequal?


I do not like the abortion-slavery analogy. The core of our questions is not what is to be done _if the foetes were a person_, but it is about _whether the foetus is a person_ in the first place.

Abortion does not interfere with your life in any way. However, it does interfere with the pregnant woman's life in almost every aspect. Why should the woman let something happen to her and her body that she does not want and that can easily be handled, even without anyone else knowing. Abortion in the first 12 weeks is something that just cannot interfere with your life and I really do not see why pro-life supporters are so eager to force other people to change her life so fundamentally.

I understand anyone who fights for his liberty, his equality, his food, his medical conditions, his reading capabilities and so on. I can also understand to fight for the rights of your children, your wife, your parents. But why meddle with lifes you have nothing to do with? Does a foreign abortion make your life in any aspect less secure, less enjoyable, less satisfiable? Are you in any respect limited to pursue your own happiness and live your style of life?

We all have only one life on this planet. Each one has to make the best out of it. I think that other's should interfere as less as possible. We should enjoy every period of peace and liberty given to us.

Kajjo


----------



## LouisaB

I apologise for joining this thread so late, but there are many good arguments made here, and I wanted to give a considered opinion rather than a knee-jerk reaction. Here's my stab at it.

*Why do Christians oppose abortion?*
I am a Christian, but have no difficulty with the 'Thou shall not kill/Thou shalt not murder' debate, because when in doubt I fall back on Christ's own commandment 'Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself'. On this (and the command to love God) 'hangs all the law' - so if we get this one right, the rest follows automatically. To me, this law means *living by the rule of love*, and recognising that the comfort and well-being of my own self is no more (and no less) important than that of any other human being, whether known to me personally or not.

The rule on killing immediately becomes clearer, as we can see it is possible sometimes to kill out of love (as a man might kill his desperately ill wife to save her suffering, despite the risk to himself involved in such an act). It also becomes possible not to condemn all wars, because a war might be fought to prevent a greater evil (such as the attempt to annihilate the Jews). A Christian (in my opinion) should always want peace rather than war, and should always seek any possible alternative to violence, but where there is none available, I would not condemn a Christian for killing - as for instance, if he shot down a man who was shooting at schoolchildren. That too could be done out of love. I do not, however, support the death penalty, for I cannot see the love in that.

For me personally, this law rules out abortion as an option, because if I make my own mental and physical comfort over a period of nine months of greater importance than the entire life of another human being, then I am putting my own self far, far higher than someone else's. 

BUT this same law of love also applies to my reaction when the abortion contemplated is not of my own child. The mother might indeed be a selfish person who simply wants to remain a size 10 or enjoy a good social life over the next nine months, and considers that more important than the life of a baby, but she might equally well be a child herself, perhaps too young, or too uneducated to realise the consequences of what she was doing, or she may even be a victim of rape. Either way, the mother is herself as much entitled to our love as the child she is carrying. Which brings us to:

*Are Christians justified in forcing their opposition to abortion on other people?*
I began reading this thread with a firm 'No' in my mind, but have to admit I've faltered a few times, because of a couple of arguments with which I simply cannot agree.
The first of these is the school of thought which says 'everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and must respect those of other people'. While I agree with this in principle, it simply cannot apply to any act of killing or violence - as several people have already pointed out, it is wrong to stand back and permit a man to beat his wife, or a woman to kill a child.
The second is that a view based on religion should not be allowed to affect the laws dictating what other people should do. My point would be that _everyone's_ opinion is based on _something, _and it might be very faulty teaching indeed. We cannot exclude anyone from the democratic process on reasoning such as this. Democracy chooses its laws on the opinion of the majority, _whoever_ that is, and to exclude any race or creed is (in my opinion) a form of bigotry.

However, in the end I still believe a Christian should _not_ impose their views on abortion on other people. A Christian should not 'judge'. The behaviour of those people outside the abortion clinic is to me utterly indefensible, and I would say totally unChristian. Where is the love in thrusting a picture of an aborted foetus in the face of a frightened and confused woman undergoing a trauma many opponents of abortion cannot even conceive? I am afraid I react similarly to the account of the Catholic Church excommunicating that fifteen year old rape victim for having an abortion. It seems paradoxical and ludicrous to accuse the oldest and greatest Church of Christ of being unChristian, but I feel compelled to do so here. That poor child can never have been in greater need of the love and support of her own religion, and all her Church did was cast her out. Where is the love in _that?_

I do acknowledge our responsibility to 'prevent others committing a crime', but uniquely in the case of abortion, that so-called 'crime' takes place inside a woman's own body. The State has to stop somewhere, and I believe the boundary is right there. For me as a Christian, I would have great concern for both mother and baby, but in the end it is a matter for the mother's conscience, not mine. Mine won't allow it, but if hers will, than that is between her, her baby, and her god if she has one. It is nothing whatsoever to do with me.

The thread also raises a third question which is:

*When does a foetus become a human being?*
This is crucial to my stand on this, for if it is not a human being, an embryo is not entitled to the 'equal love' on which my whole argument depends. My personal definition is a very narrow one, and that is to take the word 'potential' not in the sense of 'what might be', but in the sense of 'what _definitely will be unless something intervenes to prevent it'._

Thus for me, a human life exists from the instant of conception. Before this, it is a sperm and an egg, and will definitely become nothing unless there is active intervention in the form of an unprotected sex act at the right time in the cycle. For this reason, I have no problem with contraception. But after conception, what we have is something (albeit only a blob!) which will definitely become a human being unless something (accident, illness, abortion) intervenes to prevent it. It is now a human life. I would not impose that definition on someone else any more than I would impose my personal opposition to abortion, but I need to state my definition for my argument to make any sense at all. 

I hope it makes sense as it it! It is at least an honest attempt to answer the question.

LouisaB


----------



## emma42

Thank you, Louisa, for a very interesting and honest post.


----------



## Kajjo

Dear Louisa,
thanks for joining this thread with such a thoughtful and interesting contribution. To all who claim that discussing this issue is useless, I still feel comfort when exchanging politely our points of view, because understanding each other's rationale is important to live together and to find acceptable solutions.



LouisaB said:


> Why do Christians oppose abortion? [...] this law means living by the rule of love


With this you quite well summarised the Christian point of view. I like the straight-forward, comprehensible rationale, even if I have a non-Christian point of view.



> For me personally, this law rules out abortion as an option, because if I make my own mental and physical comfort over a period of nine months of greater importance than the entire life of another human being, then I am putting my own self far, far higher than someone else's.


There are cases in which I could apply this statement, e.g. a wife being pregnant and thinking about her carrier. However, there are a lot more situations in which I simply do not see the applicability. You reduce this to "nine months", but for many women this is more about her _whole life_. Think about highly disabled children or after being raped, which can happen to everyone. 



> but she might equally well be a child herself, perhaps too young, or too uneducated to realise the consequences of what she was doing, or she may even be a victim of rape. Either way, the mother is herself as much entitled to our love as the child she is carrying.


Thanks for this insightful comment. Many Christian see only one side. you see both sides of the medal.



> The first of these is the school of thought which says 'everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and must respect those of other people'. While I agree with this in principle, it simply cannot apply to any act of killing or violence. [...] However, in the end I still believe a Christian should _not_ impose their views on abortion on other people. A Christian should not 'judge'.


Again, I agree with you. I hope more Christians will realise Jesus commandment of not judging other.



> The behaviour of those people outside the abortion clinic is to me utterly indefensible, and I would say totally unChristian. Where is the love in thrusting a picture of an aborted foetus in the face of a frightened and confused woman


Right. I could not agree more. Oddly enough, the pro-lifers here have not commented on my revulsion to this. Maybe they will now.



> The State has to stop somewhere, and I believe the boundary is right there. [...] It is nothing whatsoever to do with me.


Right. I am relieved to listen to a Christian having this relaxed, rational and exceedingly loving attitude.



> When does a foetus become a human being? This is crucial to my stand on this, for if it is not a human being, an embryo is not entitled to the 'equal love' on which my whole argument depends.


Well, your point of view is that of liberty. Thus, this point is not so critical as it could be.



> Thus for me, a human life exists from the instant of conception. Before this, it is a sperm and an egg, and will definitely become nothing


Well, I do not want to spoil your interesting contribution by too much of biological reasoning. A sperm is nothing unless it meets the egg. A fertilised egg is nothing unless it successfully nidates into the placenta (which are by far not all of those!), the nidated egg is nothing if not successfully everything developes right into the first few weeks. It all depends on a highly complex sequence of biological reactions inside and as part of the woman's body. The uterus, the placenta, the umbilical chord -- is it the woman's or the foetus'?

Kajjo


----------



## LouisaB

Thank you, Kajjo, and emma, for your very kind responses. I really appreciate your generosity.

I have only a couple more points to add, with apologies for hogging so much space on the thread.



Kajjo said:


> .
> 
> There are cases in which I could apply this statement, e.g. a wife being pregnant and thinking about her carrier. However, there are a lot more situations in which I simply do not see the applicability. You reduce this to "nine months", but for many women this is more about her _whole life_. Think about highly disabled children or after being raped, which can happen to everyone.
> 
> *This is, I think, a very fair point. The reason I limited the mother's suffering to nine months is because of the alternative of adoption - so that her choice is never simply between a whole life of misery for herself and no life at all for her child. When adoption is not an option (and in some cultures it may not be) then I believe I might have to take a different stand. For myself, it would not change anything (I hope), but the decision would be considerably less clear-cut.*
> 
> *I would also like to add something on the issue of rape-pregnancies, with many apologies if it's too much of a digression. Personally I would never object to someone having an abortion in this case (except myself) but we should perhaps be wary of assuming it is always what the mother wants. Three years ago, I did a TV serial in which we featured a fictional story of a raped woman who actually wanted to keep her resultant baby. We received many letters after this transmitted from women who had been through a similar experience. All said that it had been assumed by everyone around them that of course they would have an abortion. Many, as I would expect, had felt much happier as a result of that abortion - some felt it almost 'cleansing'. However, there were others who felt pressured into having an abortion, and later regretted it. Others had kept their babies, but still felt stigmatised by others as a result. One found it very difficult to remain friends with people who had called her child 'devil's spawn'. She said that her child had an evil father, but she was determined to give it at least a loving mother, and every chance she could. I do not give these examples in any way as a criticism of those who seek an abortion after rape - that would be intolerable. But I know I need to be careful of automatically attributing my own views to a woman who has been through something I have been fortunate enough never to experience. *
> 
> Well, I do not want to spoil your interesting contribution by too much of biological reasoning. A sperm is nothing unless it meets the egg. A fertilised egg is nothing unless it successfully nidates into the placenta (which are by far not all of those!), the nidated egg is nothing if not successfully everything developes right into the first few weeks. It all depends on a highly complex sequence of biological reactions inside and as part of the woman's body. The uterus, the placenta, the umbilical chord -- is it the woman's or the foetus'?
> 
> Kajjo


 
Yes, I expect you're right here - my biology is appalling. I suppose what I mean is that the instant of conception is where the 'miracle' occurs - that by a process involving one chance in millions, _this_ sperm meets _this_ egg in the right time and place, and bonds with it, creating a unique life. I am sure you're right, and there are other biological reactions which have to occur to keep it viable, but I would think the odds are not so astronomical with these? If they were, then the morning-after pill would hardly be necessary, if the 'potential pregnancy' were so unlikely to develop. But I'm arguing from biological experience, so please forgive me if I'm wrong.

Thank you again for your very courteous and open-minded response on such a dangerously emotive subject.

LouisaB


----------



## LouisaB

I should also add many apologies for the aggressively bold font in the middle of my last post. This was not mean in a 'I'm so important and what I have to say is essential reading' kind of way, it was meant in a 'I'm so technologically rubbish I haven't yet worked out how to do multiple quotes from the same post, so have to resort to this method of distinguishing between your quote and my comment' kind of way... 

Sorry anyway.

LouisaB


----------



## emma42

Don't worry about it, Louisa.  And you don't have to apologise for coming in late or making long contributions.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> I do not like the abortion-slavery analogy. The core of our questions is not what is to be done _if the foetes were a person_, but it is about _whether the foetus is a person_ in the first place.



Sure, but one of the arguments for racially-based slavery is that members of certain races are not persons. Another example is with women, where in my country, there was a question about whether women are persons, and it had to be settled legally. I don't see why you think these issues are so different when they all come down to the definition and scope of personhood.



> Abortion does not interfere with your life in any way.


From this and the rest of your comments, all I understand is that you are saying I, even though I think the fetus is a person, should only care about myself and have no concern for social justice. Are you saying that because I live in Canada, I shouldn't care if there is genocide in some other country because it doesn't affect my life? If my government changed the law and made it legal to kill members of a certain minority and I was fortunate enough to not be a member of that minority, should I not care because my life is not being interfered with?

For me, lots of the "don't impose your belief" type arguments in favour of abortion become absurd when transferred to any other issue, and the conclusion for me is that those arguments are absurb when it comes to abortion as well. Honestly, you basically gave an argument, that if it were valid, would justify turning a blind eye to systematic murder as long as you were not a potential target.


----------



## Kajjo

LouisaB said:


> what I mean is that the instant of conception is where the 'miracle' occurs - that by a process involving one chance in millions, _this_ sperm meets _this_ egg in the right time and place, and bonds with it, creating a unique life.


I believe that even what one sees as miracle depends. The sperm joining the egg is for me not the most astounding miracle. What I really find fascinating is when this simple single cell multiplies, becomes two cells, four cells, eight cells and so on, and how these equal cells become different from each other, each taking over a certain job necessary to form something much more complex than the cell itself is. They specialise into hundreds of different cell types able to form all organs, blood, skin, brain -- and after not too many days the first cells already sacrifice themselves and die a well-choreographed death useful only for the greater whole. This complexity, this continuous growing, diversifying and specialising finally will lead to a new human being. That is the miracle in my eyes.



> I am sure you're right, and there are other biological reactions which have to occur to keep it viable, but I would think the odds are not so astronomical with these? If they were, then the morning-after pill would hardly be necessary, if the 'potential pregnancy' were so unlikely to develop. But I'm arguing from biological experience, so please forgive me if I'm wrong.


Well, you compare the "astronomical odds" of a _certain_ sperm joining a _certain_ egg. You are right. However, the probability of _any_ sperm finding the _one_ egg that waits for it in a given cycle is  in a practical range.

Human reproduction is a quite ineffective procedure. Given the average young, fertile couple with intercourse in the required time range the chance is about 80% that the egg will be fertilised by a sperm. Only _about half_ of these early embryos will develop properly and implant themselves in the uterus. In most cases the woman will not be aware of this died embryos and the menstrual cycle will be in the normal range. Considerung what else can go wrong, a life birth in average does only happen to every fifth to fourth fertilised egg. That is nature. There are enough fertile cycles to ensure propagation anyway and we have to accept the fact that nature installed a very effective way of sorting out malfunctioning embryos. From the natural point of view, losing a fertilised egg is no problem as long as enough healthy children are born. We should not think of lost embryos as lost persons -- we neither do so about non-fertilised eggs or wasted sperms. The miracle is not that an egg and a sperm can join, the miracle is that inside a woman this amazingly complex process can take place that turns an egg into a human being.

Kajjo

PS
By the way: The vast majority of morning-after pills is not necessary, because in most cases no ovulation had occured anyway. It is taken _to reduce the odds_ of becoming pregnant, not because it is _likely_ to become pregnant. However, for a teenage girl who had intercourse without contraception the odds to become pregnant are still much too high just to gamble.


----------



## Kajjo

Dear Modus.Irrealis,
of course I understand your point of view and I have understood it right away a lot earlier in the thread. However, in my opinion slavery and genocide are a completely different, horrible dimension and cannot be compared with the personal decision of a woman to interrupt _her _pregnancy.

My honest opinion is that we _should not _start to compare abortion with other things. Thus, the following paragraph is _not meant to be seen in the context of abortion or slavery_, but only in context of your argument in this thread.



> "don't impose your belief" type arguments become absurd when transferred to any other issue


No, there are many other issues of putatively important moral value where this type of argument can be applied properly. There are actually still laws prohibiting oral and anal intercourse in some US states and I think that issues of sexual habits can be dealt with on a "don't impose your belief" basis, even if they are deeply felt by some people.

This was just to show, that "if one is absurd, everything is absurd" is not a valid point. You have choosen two extreme scenarios like slavery and genocide which affect a whole society and extrapolated it to a very personal decision of a woman in need. That is just not a valid thing to do in my opinion.

To be honest, I find it irritating and contemptuous to compare teenage girls in desparation with genocidal dictators.

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

Non-fertilised eggs or spoilt sperm can produce millions of possible human beings. A fertilised egg can only produce ONE human being ("it" is a man or a woman, it has a blood group, etc.)

Of course, it needs (by now) a placenta. In the case of hired mothers, does it become (for some kind of miracle) the body of the hired mother? Who has the "right" to abort?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo,

It looks like we might be reaching an impasse and our discussion has been good so far, so this might be a good place to stop.

In the end, for me, abortion is murder, plain and simple, and I approach it exactly the same way as if this were a debate about whether killing children under 2 should be legal, whether killing women should be legal, etc. Many of the pro-choice arguments I have seen (and I would say all the ones I've seen from you) seem to me to work equally well in supporting these other kinds of killing, which is why I find them so heinous.

You're right that my "any issue" went too far, but I'll change it to "any issue involving the termination of human life", and I'd be happy with that, although logically, I only need to show that an argument is invalid in one case to conclude it's always invalid (although what it's arguing for may still be true).



> To be honest, I find it irritating and contemptuous to compare teenage girls in desparation with genocidal dictators.


And I find it equally contemptuous that you treat unborn children as chattel. A 19th century racist might have complained about people upsetting his slave-owning daughter by pointing out her slave was a person, but in the end I'm happy that my view that all races are equal was imposed and my view that women are persons was imposed, so there you go.


----------



## emma42

As a "pro-choicer" I would never treat a child as a "chattel".  The whole point is that I, along with others, do not believe that a foetus _is_ a "child".  Many pro-choicers are deeply humane people who care very much for others.

As the discussion between Louisa and other forer@s has illustrated, it is possible to debate this issue and try to understand other points of view without resorting to offensive accusations.


----------



## maxiogee

LouisaB said:


> I suppose what I mean is that the instant of conception is where the 'miracle' occurs - that by a process involving one chance in millions, _this_ sperm meets _this_ egg in the right time and place, and bonds with it, creating a unique life.



I don't think the odds are that amazing.
There's an egg there are certain times - available, as it were, for fertilisation.
The "one sperm" you mention is one of approximately 300 millions close-to-identical other sperm. If the one of which you speak didn't make it to the egg another would, most likely.

As I said earlier, when the conditions are right, the conception happens. It is not a miracle that this happens to us - it is a miracle that life happens at all and that the process is one which we, other animals, plants and all mlife is able to pass on - the genetic continuity, if you will, is incredible. To think that we can go back through the generations and connect individuals to their ancestors, with whom they share certain traits and characteristics is mind boggling. 
Has my particular genome _really_ never existed before? When you think of the variety of species of living things, and the millions of individuals which have composed those species across time - and not one of them was ever 'me' - that's mind boggling.

And to bring this back to the topic, the reasons why any people oppose abortion is surely because of their view of the specialness of each entity. If I am precious, then every person, or potential person, is equally precious.


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> It looks like we might be reaching an impasse and our discussion has been good so far, so this might be a good place to stop.


Hi Modus.Irrealis,
yes, we have mostly exchanged our arguments here. I liked that!



> In the end, for me, abortion is murder, plain and simple, and I approach it exactly the same way as if this were a debate about whether killing children under 2 should be legal, ...


I understood your point of view and I accept it as your opinion.

For myself, I absolutely do not accept any murder, but I still see a difference between, for example, a wife murdering her husband for some reason, and a dictator performing genocide on broad scale. Neither killing is righteous, but there are important differences. Comparing abortion, which is always a personal decision of a woman in distress, with genocide, is a bit extreme in my personal opinion.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> As a "pro-choicer" I would never treat a child as a "chattel".  The whole point is that I, along with others, do not believe that a foetus _is_ a "child".  Many pro-choicers are deeply humane people who care very much for others.


Thanks for clarifying this, Emma. I could not agree more.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> It is not a miracle that this happens to us - it is a miracle that life happens at all and that the process is one which we, other animals, plants and all life is able to pass on


Well said, Tony. I agree entirely.



> [...]because of their view of the specialness of each entity. If I am precious, then every person, or potential person, is equally precious.


Yes, but are we precious because of which special sperm joined which egg? Aren't our childen special to us, because they are _our_ children? Wouldn't every child have been equally special to us?

I do not think individuals are precious to the greater whole of nature. We are precious to those who love us. This is an important emotional value, but does it make fertilised eggs precious? I do not think so.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

I agree.  I do not think individuals are precious or unprecious in greater nature - they just _are.  _

If, however, I am wrong, and individuals are precious, I would not include "potential persons" in that number because they are just that, "potential".


----------



## modus.irrealis

emma42 said:


> As a "pro-choicer" I would never treat a child as a "chattel".  The whole point is that I, along with others, do not believe that a foetus _is_ a "child".  Many pro-choicers are deeply humane people who care very much for others.



I don't doubt pro-choicers can be very humane, but you have to understand that from my perspective this humane-ness is necessarily lacking an essential component in that it does not respect the unborn. As for understanding, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that term, but how far would you go in trying to understand someone who said non-whites are not the equal to whites and deserve fewer or no rights?


----------



## Fernando

modus.irrealis said:


> but how far would you go in trying to understand someone who said non-whites are not the equal to whites and deserve fewer or no rights?



...Who used to be very human people and care very much about others (as far as you are white, of course).


----------



## .   1

modus.irrealis said:


> You're right that my "any issue" went too far, but I'll change it to "any issue involving the termination of human life", and I'd be happy with that, although logically, I only need to show that an argument is invalid in one case to conclude it's always invalid (although what it's arguing for may still be true).


I do not understand this.

I only need to show that an argument is invalid in one case to conclude it's always invalid 

By this reasoning there would be very few valid arguments.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> but how far would you go in trying to understand someone who said non-whites are not the equal to whites and deserve fewer or no rights?


Yes, we already agreed that the most important aspect is personhood. Your opinion is acceptable and I trust that you really believe that a single cell, an embryo, a foetus and a grown-up black or white man are equal persons.

I understand that you cannot follow the pro-choice argument that there is a huge discrepancy between embryos and grown-up men. However, I do not understand why you cannot accept that our opinion might also be valid. Yes, there have been times where people claimed to see a big difference between black men and white men. They were wrong. Now we see differences between embryos and white men -- and we are again wrong?

No, life is not that simple. We can be right or wrong. You can be right or wrong. Scientifically, I believe I am right. Religiously, you believe you are right. So what? -- Let me add that the equality of black and white men would co-incide with the scientific analysis. For all what I know, science is right with most observations and religion was not so far. What makes you so certain you are right this time?

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

Modus, I don't understand what you are saying.  There seems to be a contradiction.  I can't reconcile:

"I don't doubt pro-choicers can be very humane" with

"...this humane-ness is necessarily lacking an essential component..."

If something is lacking an "essential component" of itself, then it is not itself, is it?

As others have said, the racism example is a completely different matter.


----------



## Fernando

emma42 said:


> If something is lacking an "essential component" of itself, then it is not itself, is it?



You have answered yourself perfectly. 



> You can be right or wrong. Scientifically, I believe I am right. Religiously, you believe you are right. So what?



It is what it is the other way around. 

Anti-abortionists have been arguing nothing based in religion. We (sorry for "we") are not against abortion because a Pope is interpreting an obscure Bible text. We are against abortion because we think that there is no essential difference between an embryo and a grown-up man based in Science (by the way, Church in the Middle Ages were pro abortion -before "animation"- because they did not know genetics and ontogenia very much).

Meanwhile, pro-abortionists claim that woman "absorb" the personality of the fertilised egg, which becomes a part of the body of the woman. I can only call this mysticism or some kind of spiritist belief.


----------



## emma42

But, Fernando, your comment doesn't explain the dichotomy inherent in Modus' post.


----------



## modus.irrealis

. said:


> I do not understand this.
> 
> I only need to show that an argument is invalid in one case to conclude it's always invalid
> 
> By this reasoning there would be very few valid arguments.



Maybe I'm being overly technical with the word invalid, but I'm sure what I wrote is correct. A valid argument, to take a well-used example, is something like

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

No matter what words you substitute for man, mortal, and Socrates, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. But an argument like

All mammals are animals.
All whales are animals.
Therefore all whales are mammals.

is invalid (even though in this case the premises and the conclusion are all true) because if you substitute "fish" for "whales" you get a false conclusion from true premises, so the argument itself is invalid, no matter where it is used. At least, that's what I've learned.


----------



## italianish

Think of it like this... Christians.. Real Christians. Not the , " oh im on tv send me money bullsh*t Christians.. Believe in Christ. He/she has a personal relationship with his/her savior. We have died to our old selves (as sinners) and given our lives to Christ.. Now, personally, I dont think that Christians are pro-war. At least I'm not. Except as a means of self defense. George Bush "Christian" has, or at least had, the majority of the Christians in this country on his side, because he claimed to be a Christian, so follow me, he says.. Christians have this really bad rep for being sheep. The follow other Christians.. Therefore, they followed Bush into war, and agree with all of his political stances. We have been brainwashed, as Christians and I think he is giving us all a bad name. Abortion... Well, if you follow the bible's teachings , you shouldnt be having sex before marriage. By no means am I a perfect Christian in that aspect. But, if you find a person and marry him/her.. That is by God's design,everything that follows that is in turn, God's design.. Why would you want to mess with that?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> I understand that you cannot follow the pro-choice argument that there is a huge discrepancy between embryos and grown-up men. However, I do not understand why you cannot accept that our opinion might also be valid.



Do you accept that my opinion is _valid_?

Edit: I might be reading a stronger sense into valid than you are, so just to clarify, I certainly think your opinion is self-consistent and not nonsensical, so it a position that could be argued for, but I think the same of many other positions on personhood.



> Scientifically, I believe I am right. Religiously, you believe you are right.


I like how you place science on your side and religion on mine, but that will just be another thing we disagree about. In one sense, though, it's not about who's right, but about which position should be reflected in a country's laws. And I already attempted to answer why I think a country should recognize the personhood of the fetus, but those posts must now be ten or fifteen pages back in this topic.


----------



## modus.irrealis

emma42 said:


> Modus, I don't understand what you are saying.  There seems to be a contradiction.  I can't reconcile:
> 
> "I don't doubt pro-choicers can be very humane" with
> 
> "...this humane-ness is necessarily lacking an essential component..."
> 
> If something is lacking an "essential component" of itself, then it is not itself, is it?



I'm not sure what the contradiction is. I think pro-choicers' humane-ness is incomplete, but that doesn't mean they can't be humane toward certain groups of people.



> As others have said, the racism example is a completely different matter.


Not when it comes to my supposed lack of trying to understand. How do you react to people whose definition of personhood is narrower than yours? Do you try to understand their opinion and leave it at that or do you consider their views bigoted (or some other option)?


----------



## emma42

So, modus, you are saying that (some) pro-choicers can be humane towards certain groups, but that they are definitely inhumane when it comes to foetuses?  If so, I can only say again that, from a pro-choicer's point of view,  a foetus is not a person.  I would never kill or hurt a child.

On the other hand, I do not think that all pro-lifers (I don't like that term, but for comprehensibility's sake I will use it here) are inhumane.  Just from some of the posts in this thread, I can see that some of them are deeply humane towards both pregnant women seeking abortions and towards what they see as people and I see as non-people or apeople, if you will.

How do I react to people who have a narrower definition of personhood than I do?  That would entirely depend on the definition and the proferred reasons for the definition.  For example, for centuries, black people were portrayed and depicted as sub-human, ape-like.  I cannot say that were I a white person of, say, little education and having never had the opportunity to meet a black person in, say, nineteenth century England, I would not view black people as lesser persons than me.  I would be a product of my time, my level of education, my susceptibility to propaganda etc etc.  It's difficult to answer such a general question, but I hope I've made a reasonable attempt.


----------



## ps139

maxiogee said:


> I don't have a 'right' if I cannot vindicate it.


I disagree. I do not think you have to do anything to have that right I believe it is inherent, and the basis for almost all pacifist morality. "I have a right to life, no one has the right to take that life from me."




> And for states (and others) to assert their right to impose capital punishment (or their right to kill non-combatants in time of war) means that they do not accept the inalienable right to life of an individual. There have been miscarriages of justice which have resulted in innocent people being executed for crimes they did not commit. If they did nothing to forfeit their rights, why did they loose these rights? Neither did those 'enemy' civilians deliberately targeted by an aggressive state in time of war.
> 
> I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Humans have no rights other than those which certain states decide to accord to them - sometimes in line with the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Which I would suggest might more accurately be entitled "The United Nations' Aspirations towards Human Dignity")


This is why I do not believe rights are defined by the state. Because when it comes down to it, governments are often corrupt and run at the whim of men. Think of antebellum America... if you were black, you had no rights. Because of the state. Hell, the "3/5 compromise" is the worst example of how the state defined blacks as not quite people. We cannot rely on the state for rights, especially to life. 




> I didn't say anyone here said this. I merely stated that whyen we have surplus food and drink available to us, and we refuse to take steps to see that it gets to starving people, then we are adjudging that they don't have a life worth preserving - we are complicit in their hunger.


I agree that we are complicit in the hunger if we do not try to help. I also know that people cannot tackle every social problem at a time, and I do think it is more effective to have certain groups dedicated to fighting social injustices/problems... homelessness, hunger, abortion, drug addiction, etc. I believe it is more effective that way, and I would have a hard time criticizing the person who volunteers at the soup kitched for not also trying to find jobs for the people he feeds. One can only do so much.




> That some people are more exercised about the rights of unborn people than by the rights of actual people is quite obvious - were it otherwise food aid and technology for ensuring clean drinking water would be flowing into the countries most afflicted by hunger and thirst.


OK - you bring your own viewpoint in there with "unborn" and "actual." Realize that for me and those who think like me there is no distinction.


> The governments of countries where life is generally 'comfortable' would be beseiged by their citizens to go to the aid of the hungry.


I doubt it, frankly. In places where people are more comfortable, it is easier to forget the needy. 




> I generally try to refrain from putting words into people's mouths. And I won't ask you a direct question (in an effort to avoid this focussing on personalities rather than on principles) - but I would ask everyone to consider this.
> If you have ever spoken or acted in such a way as to try to dissuade a woman from having an abortion…
> Have you ever done anything to actively vindicate the right to life of starving people?
> What actions have you taken to ensure the right to life of any born person whose life was threatened by events beyond their control?
> Note: These are not questions I expect to see anyone answer here. These are for answering to oneself.


I will answer them, so you know I am honest.

1. Yes I have talked to a scared pregnant and young mother. She was considering abortion. We talked. I did not put pressure on her I just told her what I thought. When she actually saw the baby on the ultrasound it made a huge difference. She was too young to have a child, she was not independent, and the father is who knows where. But now the child is alive, and he lives with a nice family in another part of the country who could not have children, and always wanted a baby, and now they have a baby to love. Lessons were learned, no one died. 

2. I donate more than I can afford to the starving.

3. Well, I have never been in the opportunity to save the life of a "born person." I give to charities which distribute food, medicine, and provide education in 3rd world countries. Also to domestic problems. Maybe something I did had an indirect and positive effect. I hope so. 



> Had my wife sougth to abort those two foetuses, the church and its activists would have claimed each foetus to be a living person, and that they had the rights of a born person.


Correct.


> Why do they not acknowledge that there is a major difference between a foetus and a person?


 I think they do, in the same way there are differences between a newborn and 99 year old man. Yet they are all considered "people."



> Are there differences between the human rights of an unborn person and the spiritual rights of the same person?


I do not understand what you mean by "spiritual rights." I'm honestly not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## ps139

emma42 said:


> So, modus, you are saying that (some) pro-choicers can be humane towards certain groups, but that they are definitely inhumane when it comes to foetuses?  If so, I can only say again that, from a pro-choicer's point of view,  a foetus is not a person.  I would never kill or hurt a child.


Emma, I have a question for you. Can you understand the rationale behind pro-choicers who do believe the fetus is a child. Pro-choicers who go on to say that abortion is allowed in all cases (not just rape/incest). Because I try to understand that position and I simply cannot. 

If one believes the fetus is not a person, then I think pro-choice is the only logical view. I just do not understand how one can think the fetus is a person, and still be pro-choice in all circumstances.


----------



## emma42

I have never heard of a pro-choicer who thinks a foetus is a child.


----------



## ps139

emma42 said:


> I have never heard of a pro-choicer who thinks a foetus is a child.


John Kerry, who ran against Bush in 2004, held that exact position. I just don't get it.


----------



## emma42

How extraordinary. What did he say, exactly?


----------



## ps139

emma42 said:


> How extraordinary. What did he say, exactly?


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/05/life_begins_at_conception_kerry_says/

Basically, he said life begins at conception, but he supported abortion rights. 
He also has said that he would support a ban on partial birth (a type in the late term) abortion if it included an exception for rape or incest. 

To be honest, I do not know what he really believes, political pressures often influence candidates to say things they do not mean. I really do not know where he stands though, but that is what he has publically said.


----------



## emma42

I have done a little research and it seems to me that John Kerry does not agree with abortion (he is a Catholic, for those who don't know), but that he will absolutely not impose his views on anyone else:

"I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith.  But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to  make that judgment.  You can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but I have to afford people their constitutional rights".

He voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (1997) which wanted to have attacks on pregnant women counted as attacks on two people. 

It seems to me that he is a very sincere man with a great belief in personal liberty.


----------



## ps139

emma42 said:


> I have done a little research and it seems to me that John Kerry does not agree with abortion (he is a Catholic, for those who don't know), but that he will absolutely not impose his views on anyone else:
> 
> "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith.  But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation and I have to  make that judgment.  You can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but I have to afford people their constitutional rights".
> 
> He voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (1997) which wanted to have attacks on pregnant women counted as attacks on two people.
> 
> It seems to me that he is a very sincere man with a great belief in personal liberty.



Well, yes he was baptized Catholic and TV cameras have shown him in church. However, according to the Catholic Church, if you support abortion, you cannot receive Communion at church, and you have, in a way, severed your relationship with the Catholic Church (not completely, but it is not fully in tact.)

When it comes to believing that X is murder... I have no problem "imposing my beliefs" on anyone if it will result in saving lives.

Any law is an imposition of belief. 

Take blood feuds for example. In many societies all over the world, it has been, and in some places is still, considered acceptable in the community to murder someone who has killed your family or community member. The old "eye for an eye" law, applied to life. This was frequent among the Germanic tribes of Northern Europe, very frequent among the Native Americans, and has been a path to "manhood" for many young men in different societies. 

If you were by some twist of fate to become queen or governor over one such society, would you impose your beliefs on them, and tell them that from now on, murdering for revenge is illegal? I sure would. 

I'm not at all equating the motives behind an act of vengeance and a woman terminating her pregnancy. But I am equating them in saying they are both murder. And there is no way I will ever say "that's okay, carry on, I wouldn't want to impose my beliefs on you."


----------



## JamesM

Since some people on this thread were unaware that there are no restrictions on any type of abortion in the U.S., I wonder if those outside the U.S. also know that legalizing abortion did come about in the U.S. by majority vote or passage of a law or formation of a policy, but by a court case that decided that a law against abortion was illegal.  In other words, the one court case decision invalidated all laws against abortion and we went from abortions being illegal to any abortion being legal, essentially overnight.  I think this is part of what has stirred up so much tension about the issue in the U.S.

It might be good to know the various ways that abortion law or policy was formed in other countries, too.  There may be many assumptions about the commanality of our circumstances that just aren't accurate.


----------



## Kajjo

modus.irrealis said:


> Do you accept that my opinion is _valid_? Edit: I might be reading a stronger sense into valid than you are, so just to clarify, I certainly think your opinion is self-consistent and not nonsensical, so it a position that could be argued for, but I think the same of many other positions on personhood.


Yes, I meant that your opinion is based on a reasonable and logical rationale. It is the fundamental belief that separates us: About personhood and the nature of non-viable embryos.



> In one sense, though, it's not about who's right, but about which position should be reflected in a country's laws.


Here you are right.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

ps139 said:


> Yes I have talked to a scared pregnant and young mother. She was considering abortion. We talked. I did not put pressure on her I just told her what I thought. When she actually saw the baby on the ultrasound it made a huge difference.


I am most sure that you actually pressured her enough with just saying what you think. I suppose that is not fair. Ultrasound of course makes a huge difference. It is suited to discourage pregnant women and it is one of the reasons for later trauma after abortions. This is no neutral talking, this is driving a woman into pro-life opinion. 



> I think they do, in the same way there are differences between a newborn and 99 year old man. Yet they are all considered "people."


Again my scenario that never got answered: Imagine a fire-fighter entering a burning hospital: Imagine, he had to choose either to rescue a new-born baby or a petri-dish with dozens of fertilised eggs. Who do you think he should prefer to recue?

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

ps139 said:


> Louisa, when Christ says not to judge, He is speaking of the types who walk around and claim to know who is going to hell and who is going to heaven.


No, Jesus meant: "We must judge ourselves, and judge our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody." (Matthew Henry Commentary) Louisa is right to claim that Christians should not judge a specific woman for having decided to abort. This is a very personal decision about her own body.



> Standing up for an injustice is not "judging" in the sense that Christ condemned.


Right. But did Christ condemn abortion? Not that anyone knows of!



> With this whole "Christians should not impose their views on anyone," ... are atheists allowed to impose their views? Why?


No, neither atheists nor Christians should impose their views on others. I never heard about an atheist forcing a Christian woman to abort her unborn child.

You really do not understand it: Pro-choice do not force and impose anything. We claim that each woman should decide for herself, because it is her body. If you are against abortions, so do not perform or have any. It's so simple. It's not about imposing, it is about liberty. What is it your problem if an atheist woman aborts? None whatsoever.

Most pro-choice people agree that the less abortions are necessary the better it is. However, they are in favor of liberty, of choice, of not-imposing. 

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

ps139 said:


> Emma, I have a question for you. Can you understand the rationale behind pro-choicers who do believe the fetus is a child. Pro-choicers who go on to say that abortion is allowed in all cases (not just rape/incest). Because I try to understand that position and I simply cannot.


I am not Emma. Anyway.

The whole controversy about the term "child" is only a uncertainty about terminology. I am pro-choice but I _could_ call an unborn child a unborn child if _you _insist so. The correct term is embryo and foetus depending on its state of development. You are being overly critical with words. What we talk about is what we think and accept. I believe a foetus is not a child and not a person, at least not so in the first months of pregnancy. Shortly before birth this might change.



> If one believes the fetus is not a person, then I think pro-choice is the only logical view. I just do not understand how one can think the fetus is a person, and still be pro-choice in all circumstances.


You are right.

Kajjo


----------



## Fernando

Kajjo said:


> No, Jesus meant: "We must judge ourselves, and judge our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody." (Matthew Henry Commentary) Louisa is right to claim that Christians should not judge a specific woman for having decided to abort. This is a very personal decision about her own body.



Kajjo, are you a Christian? I think you deal with Theology very much.

And again. An embryo can be a person or not, but no doctor will say you it is "her own body". This thought is medieval and pre-scientific.



Kajjo said:


> Right. But did Christ condemn abortion? Not that anyone knows of!



Did Christ condemn genocide, or rape? Not that anyone know of!



Kajjo said:


> No, neither atheists nor Christians should impose their views on others. I never heard about an atheist forcing a Christian woman to abort her unborn child.



Have you heard about "Planification"? Have you heard about China policy?



Kajjo said:


> You really do not understand it: Pro-choice do not force and impose anything. We claim that each woman should decide for herself, because it is her body.



IT IS NOT HER BODY. I understand people saying it is not a person, but, for God's sake, it is not her body.



Kajjo said:


> What is it your problem if an atheist woman aborts? None whatsoever.



What is your problem if there is one million deaths in Rwanda? You are not a hutu.



Kajjo said:


> Most pro-choice people agree that the less abortions are necessary the better it is.



Why? Foetuses are nothing. So, why should be better?


----------



## LouisaB

Kajjo said:


> I am most sure that you actually pressured her enough with just saying what you think. I suppose that is not fair.


 
I think that may in itself be a slightly unfair assumption. Sometimes people contemplating an act as huge and serious as terminating the life of another human being _do_ ask questions. It would (in my opinion) be wrong to impose one's own beliefs on another, especially one in a vulnerable position, but *if one is asked*, what is one to do - lie? In the UK it is illegal for healthcare workers to state their religious beliefs, and I have a Christian friend who works in a hospice for the dying, who encounters the bereaved literally on a daily basis. She regularly has to deal with people who ask her in genuine desperation 'Is there anything on the other side?'. What she does now is remove her cap and say 'Ask me as Jeannie, and I'll tell you what I think'. Is that wrong?



> Ultrasound of course makes a huge difference. It is suited to discourage pregnant women and it is one of the reasons for later trauma after abortions. This is no neutral talking, this is driving a woman into pro-life opinion.


 
But it is the truth, isn't it? How can that be bad?

I speak as a total hypocrite myself. I am an omnivore - I eat meat. I 'know' in my mind the appalling atrocities that are committed to bring the meat to my table, but of course I would much rather not know them, and when someone insists on showing me pictures of an abbatoir of course I would rather not see them. But they're true - and I'm wrong to support such a repulsive culture. I know this, and I'm ashamed. Even as I write this thread, I know I'm going to have to do something about this. That's the problem with this forum, it forces you to open your mind...

But the same applies here. I would never, will never, support the enforced thrusting into women's faces of pictures of aborted foetuses, that is disgusting and wrong. But if a woman is more honest than I am in my meat-eating habits, and wants genuinely to know what she's doing? Shoud we lie? Should we say 'No, no, it's just a blob' when we know that a baby at a legal age for abortion (at least in the UK, I'm sorry, I'm dead ignorant on the US laws) can suck its thumb and recognise its mother's voice? In my opinion, if a woman is sufficiently intelligent, and has a sufficient social conscience to want to know _what _she's killing, then she should not be denied. It's still her choice - but let the poor woman know what she's doing. Imagine - she does the abortion in total ignorance, and then when she's forty she finds out exactly what she did. Imagine. Imagine....



> Again my scenario that never got answered: Imagine a fire-fighter entering a burning hospital: Imagine, he had to choose either to rescue a new-born baby or a petri-dish with dozens of fertilised eggs. Who do you think he should prefer to recue?
> 
> Kajjo


 
The fire-fighter is human. He will go for the living baby, rather than the fertilised eggs - of course he will. We simply don't have the imagination to see what those eggs could be. I was one once. So were you. But most of us need a little help for our imagination to be activated. Most of us need a friend like ps139 to point those things out.

Kajjo, I don't change my position on this, and I still don't want to see laws against abortion. It still remains firmly 'not my business'. But to me, the right of choice also includes the right to know all the facts on which my choice is to be made. Your arguments on this thread have made a great deal of sense to me, so I know you will tell me honestly - is that really so very wrong?

Louisa


----------



## Kajjo

LouisaB said:


> I think that may in itself be a slightly unfair assumption. Sometimes people contemplating an act as huge and serious as terminating the life of another human being _do_ ask questions.


Of course you may and _should_ answer questions as fully as possible. But his questions about "vindicating life" and "starving people" is not relevant. It is pure indoctrination from my point of view.



> [ultrasound] But it is the truth, isn't it? How can that be bad?


You are right. The truth _per se_ is never wrong. I agree that a woman should know all details about the stage of development, how a foetus looks like, what capabilities it already has. Reason and knowledge are always recommended. We should not turn a blind eye to the truth, to science, to insight into how the world works.

What I mean is, that seeing the live ultrasound pictures of your own womb as victim of rape, for example, plays with your emotions. It makes a tough decision even harder without gaining any insight you could not have acquired with books or leaflets as well. If a woman seriously thinks about having an abortion it will only increase post-abortic distress. Please consider whether the live ultrasound adds knowledge or emotions. I claim it does the latter.



> But if a woman is more honest than I am in my meat-eating habits, and wants genuinely to know what she's doing? Shoud we lie? Should we say 'No, no, it's just a blob'


Of course, we should never lie about such things. Truth will prevail. Decisions have to be based on knowledge and insight.

Ignorance is the origin of many unwanted pregnancies in the first place! If all the pro-life supporters would as eagerly support open sexual education and contraception, the abortion rate would be a lot lower. 



> The fire-fighter is human. He will go for the living baby, rather than the fertilised eggs - of course he will. We simply don't have the imagination to see what those eggs could be.


Of course he will. My question is: Is he right to do so or should he properly be educated to go for the petri-dish the next time! Is it a lack of knowledge of the fire-fighter or is it the right thing to do? In my opinion, _whatever _someone knows about what these eggs will or might become, the only reasonable and loving reaction can be to save the new-born. I claim that there is a huge difference between what something is and what it might become. I cannot imagine anyone saving the eggs and sacrifice the baby just because of his knowledge what these eggs are. If you agree here, then we have to ask why this is so.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Fernando said:


> An embryo can be a person or not, but no doctor will say you it is "her own body". This thought is medieval and pre-scientific. IT IS NOT HER BODY. I understand people saying it is not a person, but, for God's sake, it is not her body.


Is the an apple a part of the tree on which it hangs and grows? Are the kernels of each apple already little trees? Do we kill trees if we eat apples?

No. Kernels are kernels. Apples are apples. Trees are trees. If we cut down a tree, we have killed a tree. If we crush a kernel we have not.

A tiny, fertilised blossom on an apple tree is not a new tree. It will grow considerably, it will eventually fall down. Some of those will sprout and grow and become a tree. But not all. Such it is with eggs.

By the way, you do not need to swear by the name of God to emphasize your opinion. I listen well anyway.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

In my second paragraph in post #446, I was quoting John Kerry, ps139.

I think his position is that, whatever his personal religious beliefs, he will never vote for anything that interferes with the American Constitution, thus interfering with citizens' rights to, inter alia, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Louisa appears to say something similar,

"I still don't want to see laws against abortion.  It still remains firmly 'not  my business'..."

So, the non-impositional views of two "pro-lifers".  I do find those views difficult to understand.

I do, however, understand the point of view of others who would change the abortion laws.  They sincerely believe that abortion is  murder.  If I believed that, I would probably want the law to be changed.


----------



## Fernando

Kajjo said:


> No. Kernels are kernels. Apples are apples. Trees are trees. If we cut down a tree, we have killed a tree. If we crush a kernel we have not.



I am glad you agree that the apple is not the tree.


----------



## JazzByChas

Well...this is certainly a thorny issue to be sure!

In response to an earlier post by Cuchu...did the bible of the Old Testament times (of antiquity) condone that the victim of rape carry her baby to term? 

Well, I really could not say. This is not something that there is something specifically written about...sort of one of those "gray areas." I do know that other family members would have been willing to raise the child if the mother could not. Sometimes she would be left to fend for herself...but that was due to the rotten attitude of the men and women of that era.

I personally, as a Christian, would not condone abortion, even by rape, unless the life of the mother and/or the child were in danger. And this gets a bit tricky to define, in and of itself... I am not saying the mother should "pay" for the rape committed to her. Is "paying for it" having the baby, or living with the memory and the trauma, both physical and emotional. She will live the the latter in either case, even if she aborts the child...but again, I don't think the child should not have to pay.

I do think that rape is a brutal act, as is killing (in any form) in general. If this were a perfect world, there would be no killing of any kind, no rapes, no stealing, no envy, and or any other breaking of the 10 Commandments.

However it is not, and therefore, many exceptions to the rule have been made...there were wars in the Bible..there were rapes...there was every evil deed known to man. What should be done about it? Obey the laws of your land, which are usually based upon Biblical principles...and those are subject to interpretation. All I can say, and I am only one person, is, "Do to others what you would have them do to you..." God's original intention was that there would be no strife in this world, but free will led to the original "choice:" disobedience, and, in a nutshell, utopia was gone. One can only do one's best, led by your conscience.

I am not solving this issue, just presenting thoughts.


----------



## ps139

Kajjo said:


> I am most sure that you actually pressured her enough with just saying what you think. I suppose that is not fair. Ultrasound of course makes a huge difference. It is suited to discourage pregnant women and it is one of the reasons for later trauma after abortions. This is no neutral talking, this is driving a woman into pro-life opinion.


Wow. So, basically, you are on the only "neutral" side, and somehow pro-choice is the default. Any encouragement to go through with a pregnancy is pressuring, and even though you were not there, you do not know me, nor the woman (family member), you are most sure that I actually pressured her, and that is not fair. I wish you could step outside of your own opinion and see how your statement looks to someone else.



> Again my scenario that never got answered: Imagine a fire-fighter entering a burning hospital: Imagine, he had to choose either to rescue a new-born baby or a petri-dish with dozens of fertilised eggs. Who do you think he should prefer to recue?


Ok, you can either save your mother or another loved one from a slow and painful tortrous death, or 30 people who hate you. Pick. 

These question are not realistic, and ignore many other factors that would be involved in an adrenaline-driven, split second decision for the fireman.


----------



## emma42

I think those questions are realistic.  They go to the heart of what constitutes personhood to people.


----------



## ps139

Kajjo said:


> No, Jesus meant: "We must judge ourselves, and judge our own acts, but not make our word a law to everybody." (Matthew Henry Commentary) Louisa is right to claim that Christians should not judge a specific woman for having decided to abort.


Let's not turn this into a debate about Jesus, suffice it to say I disagree with you and Matthew Henry on how Christ meant "judge" in that instance. 



> This is a very personal decision about her own body.


And please understand that I believe it is a 



> Right. But did Christ condemn abortion? Not that anyone knows of!


Well, He obviously condemned murder. Would he consider an abortion murder? Well, the Scriptures do not explicitly say. And the Scriptures also do not record every word He said. 

However, if you look at the documents of the early Christian Church from the first century onwards, you will find a wholesale condemnation of abortion. If you are interested I can provide you with references and relevant quotations.



> No, neither atheists nor Christians should impose their views on others. I never heard about an atheist forcing a Christian woman to abort her unborn child.


The atheist is imposing the view that abortion is not murder. And that is a view I reject.

And lets not forget that many Christians are pro-choice, and many atheists and agnostics are pro-life.



> You really do not understand it: Pro-choice do not force and impose anything. We claim that each woman should decide for herself, because it is her body. If you are against abortions, so do not perform or have any. It's so simple. It's not about imposing, it is about liberty. What is it your problem if an atheist woman aborts? None whatsoever.


No, you are the one who does not understand it. _Pro-choice imposes its mentality that abortion is acceptable. _

I do not believe murder is acceptable, and I'm not going to have anyone guilt me into shutting my mouth. 

Kajjo, you are telling me I should not "impose my views" while at the same time assuming your personal view is the *default*. 



> Most pro-choice people agree that the less abortions are necessary the better it is. However, they are in favor of liberty, of choice, of not-imposing.


They are in favor of imposing the view that abortion is not murder, their view that a fetus is not a human person. 

Do you not understand that the two "camps" here are arguing from different paradigms? To analyze the issue, you need to step back and realize they both have their own viewpoint. 

I know your viewpoint, and if I shared it, I would be pro-choice too. If I did not think a fetus was a human person, then pro-life would be a ludicrous position.


----------



## ps139

emma42 said:


> I think those questions are realistic. They go to the heart of what constitutes personhood to people.


I'm saying... is that scenario ever going to play out? And would you, or I, or anyone be thinking at our most rational points then, or would we be driven by an instinct to survive and emotion?


----------



## ps139

Kajjo said:


> The whole controversy about the term "child" is only a uncertainty about terminology. I am pro-choice but I _could_ call an unborn child a unborn child if _you _insist so. The correct term is embryo and foetus depending on its state of development. You are being overly critical with words.


You are correct - in a debate like this I must keep my terminology clear. A fetus is no more a child than an old man is. Thank you for pointing that out.


----------



## modus.irrealis

emma42 said:


> So, modus, you are saying that (some) pro-choicers can be humane towards certain groups, but that they are definitely inhumane when it comes to foetuses?



Pretty much, although that inhumane-ness might never be acted on, just like a white racist might live their whole life without acting wrongly towards any non-white, but I would still consider their humane-ness incomplete. These two situations are very similar from my perspective.



> How do I react to people who have a narrower definition of personhood than I do?  That would entirely depend on the definition and the proferred reasons for the definition.  For example, for centuries, black people were portrayed and depicted as sub-human, ape-like.  I cannot say that were I a white person of, say, little education and having never had the opportunity to meet a black person in, say, nineteenth century England, I would not view black people as lesser persons than me.  I would be a product of my time, my level of education, my susceptibility to propaganda etc etc.  It's difficult to answer such a general question, but I hope I've made a reasonable attempt.


That's fine, and I think much the same of pro-choicers, that they're views are largely caused by the society they grow up in, and the same is true with pro-lifers. But if the question was too general, what if some well-educated white person living in New York today wanted to pass a law that said the local swimming pool would be open only to whites for one hour each week, because that person did not want to interact with non-whites, and lets say this person got a lot of support and the law was passed. Would you be alright with this situation and support this diversity of views and say that since it doesn't harm anybody (it doesn't even involve the termination of life) and people can choose to swim at other times if this law bothers them, we shouldn't impose our view that races are equal, or would you react some other way? I ask it this way because this is how the suggestion that I should "let people who want to have abortions have them since it doesn't affect me" comes across to me.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Kajjo said:


> You really do not understand it: Pro-choice do not force and impose anything. We claim that each woman should decide for herself, because it is her body. If you are against abortions, so do not perform or have any. It's so simple. It's not about imposing, it is about liberty. What is it your problem if an atheist woman aborts? None whatsoever.



Just to jump in here, you're just assuming your position is true and then wondering why people don't see it the way you do. To take another analogy, why not say legalizing the beating of women is about choice and liberty, giving men the choice to beat their wives or not. It wouldn't force all men to beat their wives, so what's the problem for some guy if some other guy is beating his own wife? Such a position would only make sense if women are assumed to not have certain rights and your comment here only makes sense if the fetus is assumed to not have certain rights, but that's exactly what the whole question is about.


----------



## emma42

Modus, in my view your (swimming pool) scenario would harm.  It would harm us all.  I understand that some "pro-lifers" think that abortion harms us all.  I would disagree with that.  It can be medically proven that black people are as much persons as white people.  This is a much greyer area in the case of foetuses, which is why there is so much medical debate as to time limits on abortion (at least in England).

Your analogies do not seem to further the debate, really, because we  simply come back to the definition of  personhood,  which seems to be the crux of the matter.


----------



## modus.irrealis

emma42 said:


> Modus, in my view your (swimming pool) scenario would harm.  It would harm us all.  I understand that some "pro-lifers" think that abortion harms us all.  I would disagree with that.  It can be medically proven that black people are as much persons as white people.  This is a much greyer area in the case of foetuses, which is why there is so much medical debate as to time limits on abortion (at least in England).



Medically proven? How? This is a genuine question, because I do not think that medicine, or science generally, can tell us what ethical definitions should be, only if those definitions are self-consistent.



> Your analogies do not seem to further the debate, really, because we  simply come back to the definition of  personhood,  which seems to be the crux of the matter.


That's exactly my point, which is why I don't undestand why the pro-choice side often complains that the pro-life side want to impose it's views and can't let difference be differences. That's why my analogies are relevant because they look at another issue where the definition of personhood is the crucial question, and there, many pro-choicers have no problem "imposing" a broader definition of personhood than is shared by all members of a society.

(And if you're going to use scare-quotes with pro-life, you should do it for pro-choice as well, since they're both equally inaccurate, propagandistic terms.)


----------



## emma42

It's not a question of ethics, it's simply a question of physiology.  I'm sure you can understand that there are intelligent _arguments_ against a foetus being classed as a person, even if you don't agree with them.  I would very much doubt any argument against a black person being a person would cause you any thought, because there simply are not any beyond the absolutely ridiculous.

As I have said, your analogies don't take the debate any further.

Why would you assume I might use "scare-quotes" to back up any argument?  I  have not done so thus far.


----------



## cuchuflete

modus.irrealis said:


> ... many pro-choicers have no problem "imposing" a broader definition of personhood than is shared by all members of a society.
> 
> (And if you're going to use scare-quotes with pro-life, you should do it for pro-choice as well, since they're both equally inaccurate, propagandistic terms.)




Hello Modus,
You have repeatedly said that some pro-choicers "impose" a definition.  That's your view.  I don't share it.  I think that they hold a view, and on the basis of that view, want to allow those who may choose to the opportunty to end pregnancies.
That does not impose their view on those who would choose not to end pregnancies.   It is a view relevant to those whose actions would be consistent with that view.  To those who don't see things that way, there is no imposition.  Pro-lifers would not impose a view either.  They would simply disallow the ending of pregnancies.  That is an imposition of a restriction of the range of available actions.  

Pro-lifers have a choice today, in places where abortion is legal.  They may choose to abort or choose not to abort.   Pro-choicers have the same options.  Regardless of motivation or underlying views of when "personhood" begins, pro-lifers would impose a limit such that only one choice would be available.  

When all is said and done, that's all fluff around the edges of the distinction, which is clear enough without all the philosophical analysis: Some people want abortion to be allowed, while others want it disallowed.

Why complicate that?


The likely consequences of outlawing abortion include an increase in illegal activity, a reduction in the absolute numbers of abortions, an increase in deaths and injuries resulting from illegal abortions, and the usual disparity in the way laws apply to the rich and to the poor.  I suppose that's a topic for another thread.  I doubt that most pro-whatever partisans could discuss any of that without the usual attempts to justify starting points, but if abortion rights are eliminated, as recently happened in Nicaragua, that will not end abortions.  It will drive the activity underground and, for those who can afford travel, abroad.


----------



## emma42

Modus, I have just realised what you meant by "scare-quotes".  I misunderstood you.  I had not realised I was using quotation marks for one term, but not the other.  I didn't mean to do that.


----------



## modus.irrealis

emma42 said:


> It's not a question of ethics, it's simply a question of physiology.  I'm sure you can understand that there are intelligent _arguments_ against a foetus being classed as a person, even if you don't agree with them.  I would very much doubt any argument against a black person being a person would cause you any thought, because there simply are not any beyond the absolutely ridiculous.



But people, intelligent people, have made arguments about distinguishing on the basis of race, and although both you and I find their argument non-intelligent, these people obviously do, so the situation is still analogous from my point of view. Maybe a better choice on my part would be to talk of the personhood of young children, but I don't think your response would be all that different, so we should probably agree to disagree.



> Why would you assume I might use "scare-quotes" to back up any argument?  I  have not done so thus far.


I have read your other post as well, but just to add, I didn't want to imply you were using it as an argument. You already mentioned your dislike of the term pro-life and that's all I thought the scare-quotes suggested. The terminology involved here is problematic and accurate terms (I would prefer pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights, since, like I think someone in this topic a long time ago mentioned, the pro-choice is side is not pro-abortion in the sense of advocating abortion itself), I guess, are too cumbersome to be used. And "scare-quotes" too is not exactly a good term -- I wonder where it comes from.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hi cuchuflete,

For me, the law has to reflect one view or another, either it grants certain rights to the fetus or it does not grant those rights. One of these point of views must be "imposed." In general, I don't like speaking about imposition because I think it is a cheap rhetorical tactic, and I'm only speaking out against those who argue that only one side in this debate is seeking to impose its view on everyone.



cuchuflete said:


> When all is said and done, that's all fluff around the edges of the distinction, which is clear enough without all the philosophical analysis: Some people want abortion to be allowed, while others want it disallowed.
> 
> Why complicate that?



I'm not sure what you mean here.



> The likely consequences of outlawing abortion include an increase in illegal activity, a reduction in the absolute numbers of abortions, an increase in deaths and injuries resulting from illegal abortions, and the usual disparity in the way laws apply to the rich and to the poor.  I suppose that's a topic for another thread.  I doubt that most pro-whatever partisans could discuss any of that without the usual attempts to justify starting points, but if abortion rights are eliminated, as recently happened in Nicaragua, that will not end abortions.  It will drive the activity underground and, for those who can afford travel, abroad.


I would say that any pro-life advocate making abortion illegal would represent final victory would be deluding themselves, just like thinking making racism illegal put an end to that. In the end, it's a matter of changing the way society thinks about this issue. But at the same time, I think a country's laws should enshrine the principles of justice, which is why I would welcome the legal recognition of the personhood of fetuses.


----------



## a2a87

I am a Christian and I base what I believe on the bible.
Exodus 21:22-25 has the principle that my position is based on. It says that if two men got in a fight around a pregnant woman and she suffered an accident fatal to the fetus, life had to go for life. Killing the fetus is just as serious as killing the baby after it's born. That's in the mosaic law but the principle behind that law still applies.

Imagine if I had some plants growing in my yard and someone pulled them up. I would be just as mad at that person if they stole the seeds out of my pocket before they were planted. They're just as valuable as the plants.

It all boils down to the value of life. A person that's okay with abortion has a different view of life than a person who is not. It goes deeper than just being for or against abortion. Unless someone is willing to change their deepest values they are not going to change their stand on abortion. So arguing about abortion in itself is useless. It won't change anyone's mind.

so go do something less wasteful


----------



## Tsoman

Agreeing to disagree! good plan 

Let me pose another question though:

Would it be an acceptable compromise (to a good portion of the people in the US) to let voters in their individual states decide their state's stance on abortion rights, while the federal government stays neutral?


----------



## JamesM

Tsoman said:


> Agreeing to disagree! good plan
> 
> Let me pose another question though:
> 
> Would it be an acceptable compromise (to a good portion of the people in the US) to let voters in their individual states decide their state's stance on abortion rights, while the federal government stays neutral?


 
It is proposed as one of the possible outcomes of the South (?) Dakota referendum.  I was just hearing some commentary on it today.  It's a referendum to outlaw pretty much all abortions in South Dakota.  It's expected to reach the Supreme Court.  One possible outcome is that the Supreme Court will decide that each state could pass its own laws on the issue.

Of course, this assumes that the vast majority of people in most states are either on one side of the issue or the other.  I don't think the distribution is that distinct, although there are definitely trends.


----------



## snd0524

First of all "Christians" according to Strong's dictionary of bible words means, "follower of Christ"  Christ is derived from the Hebrew word Christos which means annoited one.  What is the rationale or biblical teaching? Whether pacifist, activist, or whatever I will give you insight on the bible and NO IT IS NOT SOLEY BASED ON THE COMMANDMENT, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL"  Here you go...ready maxiogee?  According to the bible God planned us even before we were conceived by our parents.  We are part of His perfect plan.  Though some parents may be illegitimate, children are not.  Here is some scripture to back it up, "The life of every creature and the breath of all people are in God's hand." Book of Job ch.12 verse 10.  Psalm 139 says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe.  Every day was recorded in your book."  In the book of Jeremiah God speaks to the prophet and says, "Before I made you in your mother's womb, I chose you." Jeremiah 1:5  
So you see, it is believed, according to scripture that God and not man planned these children.  While some parents call it an accident, to God it was never an accident.  I do not want to bore you, let me know if you want more scripture and not ideas or opinions, just scripture.  I too am a young Christian who enjoys a challenge.


----------



## maxiogee

a2a87 said:


> Imagine if I had some plants growing in my yard and someone pulled them up. I would be just as mad at that person if they stole the seeds out of my pocket before they were planted. They're just as valuable as the plants.



*No they're not!* —> And the seed and plant sellers know this!
A packet of seeds sells for a lot less than the price of a few plants for two reasons.

All the seeds may not grow to become plants (and some fell on stony ground)
The plant is more fully developed and had acquired value in the process of developing.
The seed sellers even suggest that some of the seedlings will need to be thinned out to allow the others to grow better.


----------



## cuchuflete

modus.irrealis said:


> Hi cuchuflete,
> 
> For me, the law has to reflect one view or another, either it grants certain rights to the fetus or it does not grant those rights. One of these point of views must be "imposed." In general, I don't like speaking about imposition because I think it is a cheap rhetorical tactic, and I'm only speaking out against those who argue that only one side in this debate is seeking to impose its view on everyone.


Greetings Modus,
Aha, so we are discussing reflections.  That's ok.  I was writing about what the law does, directly.  You are writing about what it reflects.  We will always go zooming by one another if we do that.  There is no conceivable disagreement between us, so long as we address different topics.

The law, as I understand it, will either allow a woman to abort or not.  The law does not address any fetus during the first trimester of a pregnancy.  That law governs the actions of a person of an age and physical maturity that allows her to conceive an embryo.
Such laws directly ignore the fetus, but do certainly reflect on it. Now I understand your statement about the imposition of views.    If we consider an embryo to be a legal entity, than allowing abortion does indeed impose a view on an embryo, while imposing a distinct view on the woman to whom the embryo is attached. Not allowing abortion imposes different views on both embryo and on the woman.  

If the court case which allowed abortion made mention of fetal tissue—I don't know if it did or not—then a view may have been directly applied.  If it did not, then a view is reflected, while a woman is directly governed if and only if she chooses to end a pregancy.    



> I would say that any pro-life advocate making abortion illegal would represent final victory would be deluding themselves, just like thinking making racism illegal put an end to that. In the end, it's a matter of changing the way society thinks about this issue. But at the same time, I think a country's laws should enshrine the principles of justice, which is why I would welcome the legal recognition of the personhood of fetuses.


 And those who believe in the rights of a pregnant woman to end a pregnancy could say the same--that the principles of justice are the basis for her rights.  For people with that view, restricting or ending the right to an abortion would be a violation of the principles of justice.


----------



## emma42

Modus, what intelligent arguments have you heard in the last, say, fifty years that a black man/woman/child is not a person?  Then, what intelligent arguments have you heard that a foetus is not a person?  I realise that "intelligent" could be considered a subjective term, but really...

I have already acknowledged that there are intelligent arguments in favour of classing a foetus as a person.

Your analogy continues to hold no water.

a2a87, if you have read all posts in this thread, you will see that many who disagree with you on abortion do not "value" life less.  Indeed, it could be argued that they value it more.  But that is not the issue.  The issue is one of definition of personhood.


----------



## LouisaB

emma42 said:


> Louisa appears to say something similar,
> 
> "I still don't want to see laws against abortion. It still remains firmly 'not my business'..."
> 
> So, the non-impositional views of two "pro-lifers". I do find those views difficult to understand.
> 
> I do, however, understand the point of view of others who would change the abortion laws. They sincerely believe that abortion is murder. If I believed that, I would probably want the law to be changed.


 
This is a very fair point. I can only answer by saying that if I _did_ see abortion as murder, then I too would want the law changed. But although I see the foetus as a human life, I still don't see abortion as murder. I would _like_ the issue to be as absolute as that, but I can't quite make it so. For me, there are three main areas of doubt:

1. Relationship between Mother and Baby
The foetus is in the unique position of actually living inside its mother's body. That is in no way its fault, but it still means it is effectively an unwanted intruder inside a woman's body - and to deny that would (I think) be to deny a woman's right to her own body.
The mother's prime motivation is _not_ to kill the foetus (a necessary element of murder) but to _get it out of her body._ Tragically, this process will kill it. It's not unlike a situation where a person refuses to give sanctuary to someone pursued by a hit squad, or declines to give food to a starving child - to me, as a Christian, these are terrible things to do, but I would hesitate to call them 'out and out' murder.
It's also legally and medically recognised in the UK that the changes occurring inside a woman both during and in the immediate aftermath of pregnancy can cause responses she would normally never consider. That's why 'infanticide' is legally a different crime from 'murder'. It's worth noting that this change in UK law was originally inspired by George Eliot's novel 'Adam Bede' - arguably one of the most Christian books ever written.

2. Damage to the Woman
There are two parties to this tragedy - the mother and the foetus. It is even possible for them both to be victims. If a mother's life is threatened by the foetus, then killing it is not murder, it's self defence. A similar case could be made for rape victims, for if they are forced to extend the violation of their body for a full nine months their mental health might never recover. There are lesser degrees of damage too, all of which are recognised in UK law, whereby abortion is only permitted if two doctors (one in an emergency) agree the pregnancy would cause greater damage to the mental or physical health of the mother (or her other children) than would the termination itself. It is quite true that in practice almost any selfish desire for abortion can be disguised under the 'mental damage' defence, when all it really means is 'I'll be upset if I don't get what I want'. But the question is not about how well our laws are policed, it's about whether those laws need to be changed. It is true our law does give greater priority to the life of the woman than of the foetus, but this too is defensible, on the grounds that the woman is capable of experiencing trauma and pain, while the early-stage foetus is not. 
These conditions would be no defence for me personally, because I am bound by Christ's law of love not to put my own comfort and well-being above the life of another. But they do make it very hard to characterise abortion as murder.

There is one further point which might help explain why I as a Christian do not want to impose laws against abortion. That is:

The Issue of Human Life and Death
Yes, human life is sacred to a Christian, because only God can create it, and only God should take it away. But (to really put the cat among the pigeons!) to a Christian, death is not 'such a big deal'. To me this life is only the bit I've got to go through before I can return to God, which should be the dearest wish of every Christian.
Therefore the taking of a life is of most concern to a Christian for the sake of the _killer._ The victim is safe with God, it is the killer who is in mortal danger now. The only sense in which we can fear for the victim is for the sake of their soul - and that is why it should be a worse crime for us to kill a murderer than an innocent. Killing someone who has done evil, and giving them no time to repent and turn to God, could be actually damning their soul. That is why, as a Christian, I can never condone capital punishment.
But an unborn child is a total innocent - it will go straight to God. The position is different for Catholics, I know, although hopefully the Pope's recent abolition of Limbo may make things easier. But as a Protestant, my concern in an abortion is for the _mother_, and what she has done. Yes, I would do everything I could to stop a child of mine or anyone I loved from doing such a thing - but I would not want to see a law preventing it, for the good of her soul. What next? Laws against sex before marriage? Laws against selfishness? It would be unwarrantable interference. It would also fail in its Christian aim. Christ taught us that the will was as bad as the deed. The woman who _wants_ to abort her baby and is prevented by law is every bit as ‘guilty’ as the woman who actually does it.

These are my personal views, and I do apologise if I've offended anyone in expressing them. I cannot claim to speak for all Christians, and I know there are many who would disagree with me. But my beliefs are based on the life and teachings of Christ, and however invalid they may appear to other people, I think the question justifies my raising them. At least, I hope so.

Louisa


----------



## LouisaB

a2a87 said:


> I am a Christian and I base what I believe on the bible.
> Exodus 21:22-25 has the principle that my position is based on. It says that if two men got in a fight around a pregnant woman and she suffered an accident fatal to the fetus, life had to go for life. Killing the fetus is just as serious as killing the baby after it's born. That's in the mosaic law but the principle behind that law still applies.


 
I would agree with this principle, a2a87, but I don't think it's the same as abortion. If anyone _other_ than the mother kills an unborn child, yes, it's murder. If the mother does it herself (or causes it to be done) then I honestly think there are other factors we need to take into account, as in my post above. The relationship between mother and foetus is unique, and (in my opinion) cannot fairly be compared to any other.


----------



## Jana337

I gather that the fetus-human dispute has been deadlocked for quite some time. I'd like to ask the pro-lifers (Christians or not) whether they would be willing to buy a purely pragmatic argument in favor of choice, namely the "lesser of two evils" one.

Women won't stop having abortions just because pro-lifers push through restrictive legislation. Isn't it preferrable to have safe and legal abortions at certified medical centers rather than to impose the ordeal of an underground abortion (quacks, abortion tourism) on a woman who is facing one of the most difficult decisions of her life?

One would tend to subscribe to the view that accessible abortions = more abortions. The following is not an attempt at collecting worldwide statistics on abortions, just a pre-emptive strike; I *know* that the retort would come sooner or later. 

Without claiming generality, I would like to point to Poland, a country with one of the most severe anti-abortion laws in Europe (story). As the article says, no more than 200 abortions a year are performed legally in Poland (rape or incest or if the child is disabled, and the rape exceptions is a thorn in the flesh of a strong political party - source). An estimated number of 100,000 was performed in the 1980s, during the communist era when abortions were accessible on demand and were sort of a common method of planned parenthood. Nowadays, the number is commonly put at 200,000 (lower estimates exist as well but it is certainly the same order of magnitude). The cost of illegal abortion within Poland is about 500 USD, which is an awful lot for a woman who decides to abort for economic reasons.

For comparison, the religiously lukewarm Czech Republic with a four times smaller population than the Catholic Poland has much fewer abortions per 1000 women (slightly above 20,000 in 2005; the graph here includes miscarriages). The procedure is quite hassle-free and affordable (about 140 USD in the first 8 weeks, a bit more later) and yet, the number of abortions has been declining sharply (four times!) and steadily since 1990 when reliable contraception methods started to be easily available.

Jana


----------



## Kajjo

ps139 said:


> The atheist is imposing the view that abortion is not murder. No, you are the one who does not understand it: Pro-choice imposes its mentality that abortion is acceptable.


I am not natively speaking English, but for me "impose" means to make someone else behave or think in a certain way. Pro-choice supporters do not do that. They do not want you to behave differently. _You_ may act as you like and restrain from abortion all your life. However, _they_ want to act like they want to.

How do you think, a pro-choice supporter imposes his opinion onto you? How are you personally affected by what pro-choise supporters believ is right?



> Kajjo, you are telling me I should not "impose my views" while at the same time assuming your personal view is the default.


I am not aware doing this. I sincerely want that you decide about your or your wife's abortions as freely as you like. I am not opposed that you think abortions are wrong. I am only opposed that you want to restrict my choice.



> Do you not understand that the two "camps" here are arguing from different paradigms? To analyze the issue, you need to step back and realize they both have their own viewpoint.


Absolutely yes. You are right. I mentioned this many times in this thread.



> I know your viewpoint, and if I shared it, I would be pro-choice too. If I did not think a fetus was a human person, then pro-life would be a ludicrous position.


Again right. 

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

a2a87 said:


> I am a Christian and I base what I believe on the bible. Exodus 21:22-25 has the principle that my position is based on. It says that if two men got in a fight around a pregnant woman and she suffered an accident fatal to the fetus, life had to go for life. Killing the fetus is just as serious as killing the baby after it's born. That's in the mosaic law but the principle behind that law still applies.


You do not understand your own bible.

_Exo 21:22-23  Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life [Contemporary English Version]

_If the _woman_ dies, it is life for life. The _unborn_ is seen a thing here. Just discuss this mosaic law with your priest. He might tell you about the new testamant, but the old testament and mosaic law you refer to is very clear about it.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Fernando said:


> I am glad you agree that the apple is not the tree.


Gotcha, Fernando!
I admit to have lured you rhetorically into this statement.

Of course, an apple is not a tree. A brain or eye is not a woman -- they are _part of_ the woman. An apple is _part of_ a tree. Until now you claimed that an apple is already sort of a tree. It's obviously not.

The foetus is part of the mother's body. I admit that the foetus has from my point of view a different quality than just an organ, but for me it surely belongs to the woman. It's part of her life, in the first months of pregnancy for certain, later on this becomes disputable. Important is to realise that there is a continuous process from cell to baby.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

_Imagine a fire-fighter entering a burning hospital: Imagine, he had to choose either to rescue a new-born baby or a petri-dish with dozens of fertilised eggs or early-stage foetuses. Who do you think he should prefer to recue?
_


ps139 said:


> These question are not realistic, and ignore many other factors that would be involved in an adrenaline-driven, split second decision for the fireman.


I conclude my questions cannot be answered without admitting that there is something that lets you feel a _difference _between a cell and a baby.

Please understand that my question is not about what you think the firefighter will do under pressure, emotions and training. My question is about what he _morally should do _in your personal opinion. What would be the best outcome? What would _you like him to do_ after thinking this through without any pressure?

In my opinion, _whatever _someone knows about what these eggs will or might become, the only reasonable and loving reaction can be to save the new-born baby. I claim that there is a huge difference between what something is and what it might become.

*The questions targets the heart of our problem: Do you see a difference between a baby and a early stage foetus with regards to what should be saved preferably?
*
Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Jana337 said:


> the "lesser of two evils".


Hi Jana! 
Thanks for bringing this new point of view into the thread. I agree with you.

Kajjo


----------



## JamesM

Kajjo said:


> _Imagine a fire-fighter entering a burning hospital: Imagine, he had to choose either to rescue a new-born baby or a petri-dish with dozens of fertilised eggs or early-stage foetuses. Who do you think he should prefer to recue?_
> 
> 
> I conclude my questions cannot be answered without admitting that there is something that lets you feel a _difference _between a cell and a baby.
> 
> Please understand that my question is not about what you think the firefighter will do under pressure, emotions and training. My question is about what he _morally should do _in your personal opinion. What would be the best outcome? What would _you like him to do_ after thinking this through without any pressure?
> 
> In my opinion, _whatever _someone knows about what these eggs will or might become, the only reasonable and loving reaction can be to save the new-born baby. I claim that there is a huge difference between what something is and what it might become.
> 
> *The questions targets the heart of our problem: Do you see a difference between a baby and a early stage foetus with regards to what should be saved preferably?*
> 
> Kajjo


 
But you continue to argue this from the stage of undefined cells in a cluster in the woman's womb, Kajjo.  The issue becomes much more difficult when you have an eight- or nine-month old foetus in a woman, who could survive outside the mother without medical intervention, who has brain activity, motor skills, the ability to take in and process food, reaction to light, etc., etc.  being aborted.

From emma42's point of view, this is still just a part of the mother that can be killed without consequence to another human life.  To be fair, I think she takes this point of view for its pragmatic value (it avoids all the confusion and arguing about when the foetus is an individual).  Nevertheless, I've been around many babies in my life who were born at 8 or 9 months and are perfectly fine.  I find it hard to imagine a situation where I could see them dead on an operating table, their life terminated by a doctor either before or partially after leaving the womb, at the same age they came home from the hospital, and consider them just a "growth" in the mother.

So, you may continue to make this about cell vs. baby, if you like, but by doing so you are simplifying the actual comparison and avoiding the really tough questions.  If your goal is to sound like you've got it handled, this is the tactic to pick.  If you want to actually wrestle through some ethical issues, this is not the tactic to pick.  Remember that, in the U.S., a foetus can be at its _day of delivery_ and still be aborted.  

Because your laws are different, you may not have to struggle with this.  Those of us in the U.S. do.  To trivialize the comparison by moving it to a cartoon-like comparison of single cell and live baby is not engaging in the issue at its most thorny.


----------



## JamesM

Jana337 said:


> I gather that the fetus-human dispute has been deadlocked for quite some time. I'd like to ask the pro-lifers (Christians or not) whether they would be willing to buy a purely pragmatic argument in favor of choice, namely the "lesser of two evils" one.


 
Well, if we're going to look at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, is there any difference between an 8-month-old foetus inside the body of the woman or outside of it? If a woman gives birth at 8 months and abandons the child in a dumpster, should that be a criminal act? Is it not simply 'after-birth' abortion? What qualifies this growth as a human other than its location? After all, the foetus is at the same developmental stage that it would have been in an 8-month abortion and less developed than an abortion at 9 months. What magic occurs that, simply because this growth is located outside the woman, still possibly causing her mental anguish, it should no longer be terminated?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hello James,
You have stated more than once what I believe to be an inaccurate view of US abortion law.  In _Roe v. Wade_ the US Supreme Court invalidated state laws against abortion—I'll skip the legal reasoning as the decision is available for those who wish to read it—but also allowed for the individual states to intervene in the third trimester of a pregnancy.  Broadly speaking, that court decision gave most women the right to abort during the first six months of a pregnancy, but not during the last three months.  There are exceptions during both periods.  I simply wish to emphasize that abortions during the period of what most people consider "fetal viability" are not freely available.

If you wish, I'll provide links to the legal rulings either here or by PM.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> Hello James,
> You have stated more than once what I believe to be an inaccurate view of US abortion law. In _Roe v. Wade_ the US Supreme Court invalidated state laws against abortion—I'll skip the legal reasoning as the decision is available for those who wish to read it—but also allowed for the individual states to intervene in the third trimester of a pregnancy. Broadly speaking, that court decision gave most women the right to abort during the first six months of a pregnancy, but not during the last three months. There are exceptions during both periods. I simply wish to emphasize that abortions during the period of what most people consider "fetal viability" are not freely available.
> 
> If you wish, I'll provide links to the legal rulings either here or by PM.


 
I am not intentionally being inaccurate. If I'm being inaccurate, it's out of ignorance. 

If you have links, I'd love to read them. What I'm interested in is not Roe v. Wade, but any examples you can provide of actual restrictions during the third trimester. I know of no restrictions in California, for example, which contains 12% of the population of the U.S. 

By "not freely available", what do you mean? Do you mean that additional counseling is required, that it is banned unless certain conditions are met, or ??? Do you know of a site that gives a rundown by state of these restrictions on late-term abortion?  If you have a site that spells out California law, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Though _Roe, Doe_ and _Casey_ limit the power of states to regulate or ban abortion, nearly every state has some sort of law limiting abortion.* About 4/5 ban non-therapeutic abortion in the last three months of pregnancy.* Many have parental notice or consent laws for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and statistical reporting requirements for all abortions.


This site has a review of laws, by state.  http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm

According to links at that site, California has a legal ban on post-viability abortions.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> This site has a review of laws, by state. http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm


 
Thank you.  So this is what I read as the restriction on third trimester abortions:

_ A woman has a constitutional right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "in his best clinical judgment," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her physical or mental health."_ 

If I'm reading this correctly, then, the only restriction is requiring the doctor to agree that it is necessary.  

This does not seem like much of a restriction. 

I'll continue to read.  Thanks for the link.


----------



## emma42

Thanks for clarifying that, cuchu.


----------



## Jana337

JamesM said:


> Well, if we're going to look at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, is there any difference between an 8-month-old foetus inside the body of the woman or outside of it? If a woman gives birth at 8 months and abandons the child in a dumpster, should that be a criminal act? Is it not simply 'after-birth' abortion? What qualifies this growth as a human other than its location? After all, the foetus is at the same developmental stage that it would have been in an 8-month abortion and less developed than an abortion at 9 months. What magic occurs that, simply because this growth is located outside the woman, still possibly causing her mental anguish, it should no longer be terminated?


No, I am really not interested in getting bogged down in the fetus debate. 

Moreover, Wikipedia: (T)he number of abortions past 24 weeks (is estimated) to be 0.08%. I believe that within this group of late abortions, the number of abortions falls exponentially with time, and I am convinced - although I do not have any data to back up the claim - that the the number of abortions of fetuses that could survive with medical help (past 28 weeks if I am not mistaken) is minuscule. And abortion at 9 months does not sound like a credible concept either. Again, I am no specialist but I'd say anytime during the 9th month, doctors can induce labor or use the caesarean section and help deliver a baby, which should be - correct me if I am wrong - safer for the woman as well. A woman would hardly want to abort that late just because it strikes her fancy.

I am afraid that you did not address my point.

Jana


----------



## JamesM

emma42 said:


> Thanks for clarifying that, cuchu.


 
I have not yet gotten the clarification. Did I miss something?

I still do not know what "not freely available" means, nor what the additional conditions are that are required in the third trimester. 

Maybe I've missed something. If so, please try restating it so that I can have a chance to get it the second time.


----------



## cuchuflete

JamesM said:


> _ A woman has a constitutional right to abortion from six months to birth, if her doctor "*in his best clinical judgment*," in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, psychological [and] familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her physical or mental health."_
> 
> If I'm reading this correctly, then, *the only restriction is requiring the doctor to agree that it is necessary.  *
> 
> This does not seem like much of a restriction.



Your wording seems like yet another biblical interpretation.
If you are pre-disposed to believe that doctors' "best clinical judgment" is easily determined by a patient's request for agreement, then you would not find much of a restriction.  If you believe that "best clinical judgment" is independent of a patient's wishes, _i.e.,_ it is objective and professional, there may be very considerable restrictions.  One way to determine which type of clinical judgment is really in use in California might be to seek data about the number of requests for third trimester abortions, together with the number accepted, the number rejected, and the specific details for each category.
Short of that, any supposition one may make is obviously speculative rather than factual.


----------



## ElaineG

> So, you may continue to make this about cell vs. baby, if you like, but by doing so you are simplifying the actual comparison and avoiding the really tough questions. If your goal is to sound like you've got it handled, this is the tactic to pick. If you want to actually wrestle through some ethical issues, this is not the tactic to pick. Remember that, in the U.S., a foetus can be at its _day of delivery_ and still be aborted.


 
James, you and I have already (I think) agreed that in our view, ideally, both sides would recognize that the legal and ethical status of abortion changes over the course of a pregnancy.

However, while it may feel unfair to some to ask who is more important, a petri dish or an post-delivery infant, I think it is also unfair to make the whole abortion debate about the 8 month or 9 month old fetus. 

In reality, only 1.4% of abortions in the United States are performed at 21 weeks or later (i.e., 5 months or later -- the very outer limits of viability). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm. (The CDC does not keep statistics offering a breakdown of gestational age after 21 weeks, but anecdotal evidence suggests that third-trimester abortions are very rare indeed).

60.5% of abortions are performed before week 8 (the embryo stage), 18.4% in weeks 9 and 10, and 9.6% in weeks 11 and 12, meaning that in total, over 87% of abortions occur in the first trimester.

I'm profoundly disturbed by those handful of abortions that occur post-viability, and I'd like to know more about the circumstances surrounding them, and I'd be willing to prohibit them except in case of a severe threat to the physical health of the mother.

But the reality is that most abortions involve something quite different then heart-rending images of babies being ripped limb from limb, and we should remember that.


----------



## JamesM

Jana337 said:


> No, I am really not interested in getting bogged down in the fetus debate.
> 
> Moreover, Wikipedia: (T)he number of abortions past 24 weeks (is estimated) to be 0.08%. I believe that within this group of late abortions, the number of abortions falls exponentially with time, and I am convinced - although I do not have any data to back up the claim - that the the number of abortions of fetuses that could survive with medical help (past 28 weeks if I am not mistaken) is minuscule. And abortion at 9 months does not sound like a credible concept either. Again, I am no specialist but I'd say anytime during the 9th month, doctors can induce labor or use the caesarean section and help deliver a baby, which should be - correct me if I am wrong - safer for the woman as well. A woman would hardly want to abort that late just because it strikes her fancy.
> 
> I am afraid that you did not address my point.
> 
> Jana


 
Getting "bogged down" in the foetus debate is precisely the piont, Jana.  It is determining where the line is drawn between something that is not human and something that is human. 

I do not know what the Wikipedia article is based on.  I'll be happy to look into it. Just this morning, though, I was reading a 1987 study that had 1/3 of the abortions happening in the 3rd trimester, not .008%, so I question the number.  1/3 also seems high, but at least it was a documented study, not an estimate.

From that point on, your post is entirely based on belief and assumption.  You believe that the number drops exponentially.  You are convinced that a doctor wouldn't perform a 9-month abortion.  You don't think that an abortion at 9 months sounds credible.  

This is all speculation. Let's deal with facts about the actual incidence.

From a pragmatic point of view, then, if  only .008% of all abortions would be prohibited by a ban on third-trimester abortions, would it not be a reasonable compromise to ban them (except for cases where the mother's life is endangered)?  The issue is most heated when discussing third-trimester abortions.  If you really think that .008% is an accurate number, then we're talking about 7,000 out of the 895,000 abortions in the U.S. yearly being affected by this law.  It would go a long way towards easing the tension over the issue.

Is that not a pragmatic solution?


----------



## Sallyb36

I think that it would not be unreasonable to consider a foetus as a human being with it's own rights when it is physically capable of existing outside of the womb.


----------



## ElaineG

> Just this morning, though, I was reading a 1987 study that had 1/3 of the abortions happening in the 3rd trimester, not .008%, so I question the number. 1/3 also seems high, but at least it was a documented study, not an estimate.


 
Absolutely not.  Please check out the CDC statistics I've linked above.  90% first-trimester, some fraction of 1.4% third-trimester.

By the way, .08% (8 hundredths of one percent) of 875,000 is approximately 700 third-trimester abortions, not 7,000 something.


----------



## JamesM

ElaineG said:


> Absolutely not. Please check out the CDC statistics I've linked above. 90% first-trimester, some fraction of 1.4% third-trimester.
> 
> By the way, .08% (8 hundredths of one percent) of 875,000 is approximately 700 third-trimester abortions, not 7,000 something.


'
Sorry.  You posted the CDC statistics while I was writing my post.  The interesting thing is that the .08% is not backed up by the statistics cited as the source, which shows more like a 1% ratio.  Still, it's clear it's not the bulk of abortions either way.

As you said, we both agree that the situation changes over time.  I don't think our laws reflect that.  I am not arguing for a ban on abortions, but I am arguing for strict restrictions on aborting a fetus that is viable outside its mother's womb.  Somehow, though, many people seem to think that any argument for any restriction is irrational or unwarranted.  You are not one of them.

I'm interested in looking at the CDC statistics.  Thanks for providing the link.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> Your wording seems like yet another biblical interpretation.
> If you are pre-disposed to believe that doctors' "best clinical judgment" is easily determined by a patient's request for agreement, then you would not find much of a restriction. If you believe that "best clinical judgment" is independent of a patient's wishes, _i.e.,_ it is objective and professional, there may be very considerable restrictions. One way to determine which type of clinical judgment is really in use in California might be to seek data about the number of requests for third trimester abortions, together with the number accepted, the number rejected, and the specific details for each category.
> Short of that, any supposition one may make is obviously speculative rather than factual.


 
Unfortunately, no data is collected about the number of requests for third trimester abortions nor the number accepted, from what I've found so far.  Only estimates are available.  The study cited by the Wikipedia article also bemoans this fact, that the statistics were poor before and have gotten less specific and less accurate as time has gone on. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "biblical interpretation".  I have never used the Bible in any of my position statements.  Why are you painting this as a religious issue when I am discussing it as an ethical one?

What I am saying, from a purely logistical standpoint, is that if the restriction is that the doctor must agree that you should have the late-term abortion, the practical restriction amounts to finding a doctor who evaluates the situation the same way you do.  In other words, it would require shopping around for a doctor who thought that it was necessary.  In a place like California, there are a tremendous number of doctors, all with their own interpretation of best clinical judgment.  It still comes down to one doctor's opinion in this case.


----------



## JamesM

Looking at the CDC data, I find some disturbing details about the source of the data.

1) Gestational age is voluntarily reported and not always provided. No statistic given on total number of reports vs. number of reports that included gestational age.

2) The data was based on voluntary reporting from states and excluded several states, including two of the most populous states: California and New York. Any statistics that exclude from their database nearly 60 million of the roughly 300 million people in the U.S. are not something I would consider reliable. We're talking about 1/5 of the population of the U.S. not being covered by these statistics.

I'm not trying to "knock down" the statistics. I'm simply pointing out that a body like the CDC, which we would expect to have the some of the most reliable statistics available, are still very questionable. I agree that facts and statistics would be helpful. We do not require collection of that data, though, even in an aggregate form.


----------



## modus.irrealis

emma42 said:


> Modus, what intelligent arguments have you heard in the last, say, fifty years that a black man/woman/child is not a person?  Then, what intelligent arguments have you heard that a foetus is not a person?  I realise that "intelligent" could be considered a subjective term, but really...



Why are you limiting this to the last fifty years? Were there arguments before then that you'd consider intelligent? And no, I don't consider any to be intelligent. As for arguments denying personhood to the fetus, I find all of them extremely unconvincing and probably non-intelligent from that perspective.

I should add, though, that I've made over-broad statements in my earlier posts, and I don't think it all comes down to the personhood of the fetus. There are arguments that accept the personhood of the fetus and still argue for legal abortion and I think those arguments are intelligent and some are convincing (e.g. when the mother's life is at risk). Abortion would then be a subset of homicide and treated accordingly.



> Your analogy continues to hold no water.


So who should be the arbiter of which arguments are intelligent and which is not? And what if these arbiters one day agreed with me that abortion was murder -- would you then change your mind and say alright, my previous position is no longer intelligent so I'll change?


----------



## maxiogee

a2a87 said:


> That's in the mosaic law but the principle behind that law still applies.


It does?
In what country does the principle behind any mosaic law apply?
Other than murder and theft, which are contrary to many codes of living and are not exclusive to Mosaic Law, what proof can you offer that this principle is "applicable"?


----------



## LouisaB

JamesM said:


> '
> As you said, we both agree that the situation changes over time. I don't think our laws reflect that. I am not arguing for a ban on abortions, but I am arguing for strict restrictions on aborting a fetus that is viable outside its mother's womb. Somehow, though, many people seem to think that any argument for any restriction is irrational or unwarranted. You are not one of them.


 
As a Brit, I've been horrified to discover from this thread the nature of abortion laws in the US, and that (in theory) in some states, it's possible to have a termination after the foetus is viable outside its mother's body, and even right up to the moment of delivery.

I can understand this if the mother's life is endangered. But please, could someone explain to an ignorant Brit under what other possible circumstances such a thing could be justified? Not deformity in the baby, surely, for the mother still needn't choose to keep it herself, and to kill it for its deformity would be simple eugenics. Not the mother having been raped, surely, for she would have known that, and could have aborted months earlier. What kind of trauma makes it possible for a woman to carry a baby happily for eight or nine months - and then suddenly decide to murder it? And in this case, it _would_ be a decision to murder it rather than simply remove it from her body, otherwise surely she'd simply have a Caesarian, which would separate them while keeping the baby alive.

If a foetus is viable outside its mother's body, then none of my previous defences of the pro-choice arguments apply. When I say 'I don't understand', I'm honestly not trying to use rhetoric, I really mean just that. I _don't_ understand, and am desperate for someone to explain.

Please?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Hi cuchuflete,



cuchuflete said:


> Aha, so we are discussing reflections.  That's ok.  I was writing about what the law does, directly.  You are writing about what it reflects.  We will always go zooming by one another if we do that.  There is no conceivable disagreement between us, so long as we address different topics.



I'm not sure what the two different topics are -- I, at least, see them as two sides of the same coin.



> The law, as I understand it, will either allow a woman to abort or not.  The law does not address any fetus during the first trimester of a pregnancy.  That law governs the actions of a person of an age and physical maturity that allows her to conceive an embryo.
> Such laws directly ignore the fetus, but do certainly reflect on it. Now I understand your statement about the imposition of views.    If we consider an embryo to be a legal entity, than allowing abortion does indeed impose a view on an embryo, while imposing a distinct view on the woman to whom the embryo is attached. Not allowing abortion imposes different views on both embryo and on the woman.
> 
> If the court case which allowed abortion made mention of fetal tissue—I don't know if it did or not—then a view may have been directly applied.  If it did not, then a view is reflected, while a woman is directly governed if and only if she chooses to end a pregancy.



There's nothing here I really disagree with on first reading, except that I'd maybe add that not considering an embryo to be a legal entity, is a view in and of itself.



> And those who believe in the rights of a pregnant woman to end a pregnancy could say the same--that the principles of justice are the basis for her rights.  For people with that view, restricting or ending the right to an abortion would be a violation of the principles of justice.



I would certainly hope that people that think women have a right to an abortion (limited or not) want to see that reflected in their country's laws, and I would find it odd if they were happy with a vague legal situation.


----------



## Jana337

JamesM said:


> Getting "bogged down" in the foetus debate is precisely the piont, Jana.  It is determining where the line is drawn between something that is not human and something that is human.


I agree that it is a topic of vital interest and importance and that it is makes sense to talk about it. However, my own opinion about the abortion issue does not particularly rely on where you draw the line. And unlike you, many pro-lifers would outlaw abortions even in the first weeks of pregnancy. It was them that I tried to address in my first post in this thread. I believe that the pro-life camp fails does not give a sufficient attention to illegal abortions, as if a ban solved it all.





> I do not know what the Wikipedia article is based on.  I'll be happy to look into it. Just this morning, though, I was reading a 1987 study that had 1/3 of the abortions happening in the 3rd trimester, not .008%, so I question the number.  1/3 also seems high, but at least it was a documented study, not an estimate.


Elaine corrected you, so I won't comment on it.





> From that point on, your post is entirely based on belief and assumption.  You believe that the number drops exponentially.  You are convinced that a doctor wouldn't perform a 9-month abortion.  You don't think that an abortion at 9 months sounds credible.
> 
> This is all speculation. Let's deal with facts about the actual incidence.


Yes, I do not profess to be an expert in this area, so what I say is based partly on some (superficial if you want) research and partly on my belief and assumption. I think I made some common sense assumptions. But I know I may be wrong, so I padded my posts with qualifications. 

Pragmatic, isn't it? 

Jana


----------



## emma42

modus, would you point out to me where I have claimed that only my arguments are intelligent?

I did say that "intelligent" could be considered a subjective term, but I thought we could perhaps agree on the word's meaning without a lengthy debate on semantics.  I was obviously wrong.


----------



## modus.irrealis

emma42 said:


> modus, would you point out to me where I have claimed that only my arguments are intelligent?



I don't think I claimed anywhere that you made that claim.


----------



## emma42

modus, I must have misunderstood your last paragraph in post # 505 - sorry.


----------



## ElaineG

> The data was based on voluntary reporting from states and excluded several states, including two of the most populous states: California and New York. Any statistics that exclude from their database nearly 60 million of the roughly 300 million people in the U.S. are not something I would consider reliable. We're talking about 1/5 of the population of the U.S. not being covered by these statistics.


 
That's incorrect.  New York State is reported and included.  New York City reports separately and appears on the charts as its own entity and then as totalled with the rest of New York State.  California stopped reporting to the CDC in 1997 (why is probably one of those unique Californian questions that only they can answer).  The other two states that don't report are Alaska and New Hampshire, both of which I suspect are fairly statiscally insignificant.



> For 2002, CDC compiled data that were voluntarily provided from 49 reporting areas in the United States: 47 states (excluding Alaska, California, and New Hampshire), the District of Columbia (DC), and New York City (NYC).


 
I agree that it's curious why California doesn't report, but as far as what we're discussing here -- the _tiny_ percentage of post-viability abortions, you will see that the statistic for 21 weeks plus has remained constant from before the time California stopped recording, so I think we can be confident that that omission doesn't drastically distort the statistics.

Again, post-viability abortion seems dramatic and shocking, and I'm opposed to it in most cases, but it is really the shock value that people use to get people agitated about the right to choose.

Very few doctors perform post-viability abortions.  They are not done at clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, and I once heard anecdotally from my gynecologist that even here in liberal NYC she didn't know a single doctor that would perform third-trimester abortions.  

Post-viability abortions _are_ illegal in much of the United States, and severely practically limited in places where it is not.


----------



## Poetic Device

Has anyone posted the actual laws or a link to the actual laws in the United States?  What about the other countries?


----------



## Jana337

Poetic Device said:


> Has anyone posted the actual laws or a link to the actual laws in the United States?  What about the other countries?


I hope this summary is useful.

Jana


----------



## ElaineG

Here's an interesting set of links to world abortion laws:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/population/abortion/abortionlaws.htm

I've been looking for an up-to-date accurate site collecting the 50 states' laws, and haven't found a good summary yet. I'll post it when I find it.

Here is an excellent, reasonably neutral and extremely up-to-date survey of American abortion laws:  http://www.stateline.org/live/printable/story?contentId=121780#current


----------



## Poetic Device

Thank you for the links.

"I can see clear-ly now, the rain has gone..."

:^)


----------



## cuchuflete

James,
My remark about what seemed to be a "biblical interpretation" was not intended to paint you as having introduced religion.  It was a reference to the endless disputes about what biblical passages mean, according to the preconceptions of the interpreter.  Likewise, you seem to want to interpret your state's third trimester abortion regulations in a certain way.
Yes, in theory, one could go "doctor shopping".  In theory, some physicians might agree to declare a mother's condition such that a third trimester abortion would be permissible, where the great majority of competent physicians would not.
Extrapolating from those possibilities to an assumption that all or most or many requests for third semester abortions are granted is another matter entirely.  The tone of your statements suggests that you think some significant number of such requests are granted by compliant doctors.  That may be true, but as yet I've seen nothing factual to suggest it.  

If one is an optimist about the ethics of most physicians, then such decisions would be judged to be highly unlikey.  That's neither more nor less speculative than assuming that abortion is easily available on request for women in the third trimester of pregnancy.  


Modus,


> I'm not sure what the two different topics are -- I, at least, see them as two sides of the same coin.


 We have differect starting points in our thinking.  For me, unlike you, they are two entirely separate coins.  

If a law is passed based on an assumption that an embryo or fetus is not a person, that legislated view does not impose any restriction on a pro-lifer, nor does it require any participation by that pro-lifer in the ending of a pregnancy.
The pro-life citizen is not even required to agree with the thinking of the law.   Whatever may be imposed is not enforceable on any pro-lifer, which makes the matter inconsequential in the affairs of a pro-lifer, other than if that pro-lifer might want to act to impede the choice of another citizen.  While I don't expect you to agree, that seems to be an imposed view that prevents nothing but the intrusive imposition of a pro-life restriction on a pro-choice citizen.


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> Has anyone posted the actual laws or a link to the actual laws in the United States?  What about the other countries?



Hi PD,
Have you read posts 490 to 510?


----------



## TrentinaNE

> then we're talking about 7,000 out of the 895,000 abortions in the U.S. yearly being affected by this law


If you're one of the 7,000, it could be an extremely big deal. The personal account in this article involves a late second-term abortion, but I've read about similar situations where the extreme deformity of the fetus was not detected until early in the third trimester. 

After reading Gretchen Voss's account of the D&E procedure, it's difficult for me to imagine that a woman would willingly undergo one if it weren't medically needed. Individual perspectives, of course, could vary.  

Elisabetta


----------



## Kajjo

JamesM said:


> But you continue to argue this from the stage of undefined cells in a cluster in the woman's womb, Kajjo.  The issue becomes much more difficult when you have an eight- or nine-month old foetus in a woman


Dear James,
your comments are mostly on target and again I have to agree with you. The thread turned to late-term abortion just recently and the fire-fighter analogy aims more at early-stage abortions.

To be honest, personally I find it difficult to justify very late-term abortions, too. I believe an viable unborn with brain activity and motoric skills probably is in need of protection.

However, pro-life supporters usually (and so in this thread) are _categorically_ against any abortion and against any regulation based on pregnancy duration. You will remember that early on I tried to negotiate a compromise between both sides, i.e. allow early-stage abortions and restrict late-term abortions. This is just my personal opinion, though.

What I want to achieve with the fire-fighter analogy is to make people realise that there _actually is_ a difference between early-stage embryos and viable babies. Once that would be agreed on, the next step would be to agree that very early-term abortion is not murder in the common sense. I flat-out cannot believe anyone really feeling some-cell stages are babies and persons.

What I read in this thread are many, many extremists' point of views but rarely pragmatic common sense and willingness to compromise.



> So, you may continue to make this about cell vs. baby, if you like, but by doing so you are simplifying the actual comparison and avoiding the really tough questions.


I hope that I showed you that the really tough question is whether there is a difference between foetus and baby _at any stage_. We need to get away from extreme opinions. _Both extremes _are not convincing at all (unlikely extreme #1: a nine-month viable baby is no human being / unlikely extreme #2: a 64-cell stage is a person with all rights).

I do not think that this very-late term issue is on-target. Most abortions are early stage and most pro-choice arguments aim at early-stage. Amazingly enough, pro-lifers talked about "from conception on" all the time in this thread -- here the controversy is most drastic!



> If your goal is to sound like you've got it handled, this is the tactic to pick.


I hope you do not really have that meaning of me. I always tried to reason rationally, logically and politely. I talked about compromises long ago in this thread.

I would like to receive your honest reply to the fire-fighter problem. I really consider this at the core of our discussion. 

Kajjo


----------



## JamesM

Hi, Kajjo.  I don't think that you are unreasonable at all, but I do get the impression that you like to argue the extremes rather than shoot for the middle.  If your concern, though, is primarily with people who think that an fertilized egg should be treated exactly like a human being, I can see why you'd focus there.

Regarding the firefighter example, I think I already answered it, but probably not directly.  I was one of the people who said that an embryo is a "potential human", which to me is different than a human being. 

If you want to get into sticky territory, try phrasing it so that the firefighter can save an unborn late-term foetus or the mother, but not both, and then ask which one he saves.   I know that's not where you trying to go and that it would take this off in a different direction.  

I think the 8- and 9-month abortions are more frequent than statistics show, and I have not found a set of statistics that look very comprehensive yet.  Nevertheless, they are not the majority of abortions, as far as I can tell.  Still, even with under-reporting and huge gaps in the statistics (no New York and California, for example) we're still talking about thousands a year _reported_, just in the U.S.   The frustration I feel over this issue and dealing with pro-choice supporters is similar to your frustration with pro-life supporters. Most attempts to discuss protecting the foetus from late-term abortion is seen as "the thin end of the wedge" and the walls go up.  

There is much common ground to be found in that late-term area.  It seems to me that more protection for viable foetuses would reduce the tension, as I've said before.  I wouldn't consider that the first step to complete bans on abortion, nor would I support such a thing.  I do think, though, that it would remove what might be an over-sensationalized component of the debate and allow for some room to talk more calmly.  

But as long as both groups assume an "absolute" stance, there isn't much chance of any compromise.  I just think there are many, many people out there who are in the middle and would be better served by a compromise type of legislation.


----------



## badgrammar

I'm just wondering, where is this information on these abortions occuring in the 8th and 9th month?  I don't think you can "abort" a full term fetus, at 8 or 9 months.  After 27 weeks of gestation, just about any fetus is viable, and I'd say it's unheard of that a woman aborts in in the 8th or 9th month.  I have to wonder where you get that information?   

That would entail removal of the full term baby by caesarean, and then actually killing it, which makes no sense at all.  What "late-term" abortions usually refers to are abortions between the 20th and 27th week.  At the 28th week, or beginning of the month eighth month, most infants today can survive an early birth in a modern facility.  So there is no reason, other than a medical emergency or the death of the unborn child, that a woman would "abort" electively at such a late date. 







JamesM said:


> Hi, Kajjo.  I don't think that you are unreasonable at all, but I do get the impression that you like to argue the extremes rather than shoot for the middle.  If your concern, though, is primarily with people who think that an fertilized egg should be treated exactly like a human being, I can see why you'd focus there.
> 
> Regarding the firefighter example, I think I already answered it, but probably not directly.  I was one of the people who said that an embryo is a "potential human", which to me is different than a human being.
> 
> If you want to get into sticky territory, try phrasing it so that the firefighter can save an unborn late-term foetus or the mother, but not both, and then ask which one he saves.   I know that's not where you trying to go and that it would take this off in a different direction.
> 
> I think the 8- and 9-month abortions are more frequent than statistics show, and I have not found a set of statistics that look very comprehensive yet.  Nevertheless, they are not the majority of abortions, as far as I can tell.  Still, even with under-reporting and huge gaps in the statistics (no New York and California, for example) we're still talking about thousands a year _reported_, just in the U.S.   The frustration I feel over this issue and dealing with pro-choice supporters is similar to your frustration with pro-life supporters. Most attempts to discuss protecting the foetus from late-term abortion is seen as "the thin end of the wedge" and the walls go up.
> 
> There is much common ground to be found in that late-term area.  It seems to me that more protection for viable foetuses would reduce the tension, as I've said before.  I wouldn't consider that the first step to complete bans on abortion, nor would I support such a thing.  I do think, though, that it would remove what might be an over-sensationalized component of the debate and allow for some room to talk more calmly.
> 
> But as long as both groups assume an "absolute" stance, there isn't much chance of any compromise.  I just think there are many, many people out there who are in the middle and would be better served by a compromise type of legislation.


----------



## cuchuflete

I've been looking for information about 8th and 9th month abortions, and there is very little to be found, other than a few mentions of removal of fetuses that had died in the womb.

I can't support the viewpoint that a nine month fetus is not "viable" any more than I can accept the idea that a two week old fetus is a person.  I suspect that very late term abortions do—or at very least should—involve serious medical problems with no other solution.  

My opposition to such late term abortions is, of course, totally objective, and has nothing at all to do with the fact that I was born almost exactly 3 months premature, and spent about 90 days in an incubator.  But I wonder about the real meaning of the term "viable".  Without extraordinary medical intervention, babies born very premature would die.  With such intervention, some—not all—survive.


----------



## Kajjo

I seriously doubt any information about 9th-month-abortions with the exception of dramatic health issues in which case the name "abortion" would not be appropriate anyway.

I believe that the majority of pro-choice supporters are against 8/9th-month abortions. This is off-topic with regards to this thread. Almost all arguments of pro-lifers aimed at early-stage abortions. This is what we need to discuss and where the controversy is felt.

Maybe we should rephrase the question:
*Should a woman have the right to freely choose to abort a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks?
*
I sincerely believe that the answers to this question separate pro-life and pro-choice sides.

Kajjo


----------



## JazzByChas

JamesM said:
			
		

> I was one of the people who said that an embryo is a "potential human", which to me is different than a human being.


 
Hmmm...

Let's try this analogy: If we take a seed...it is only a seed...will not change or do anything until it is planted. Once it is planted, it starts to grow. So at what point in time is it a tree/flower/bush/vine or whatever? 

I think that a human sperm and a human egg are "potential" human beings...but once they have been "planted" i.e. have conjoined, they are no longer "potential..." they are human beings in the first stages of life. The are "viable." If you uproot a sapling or plant in its early stages of life, you have killed a plant, albeit young. 

Now, what makes us human is our ability to think/reason, one would argue, and this makes us different from flora. Well, at what point do humans reason? I don't anyone has proven that embryos don't process thoughts...

I guess one could humorously say, "No one has asked them."


----------



## cuchuflete

JazzByChas said:


> Now, what makes us human is our ability to think/reason, one would argue, and this makes us different from flora. Well, at what point do humans reason? I don't anyone has proven that embryos don't process thoughts...


I don't think anyone has proven that embryos do process thoughts in the earlier stages.  Mere electrico-chemical activity in a primitive organ may show some process, but is it reasoning?

This is an interesting line of enquiry, but it's not likely to be persuasive in either direction.  

Please don't take this as sarcasm.  There are some people who think flora have feelings and souls.  I don't think so, but I'm as powerless to prove that a plant doesn't have a soul as I am to scientifically demonstrate that a human does.


----------



## JazzByChas

cuchuflete said:


> I don't think anyone has proven that embryos do process thoughts in the earlier stages. Mere electrico-chemical activity in a primitive organ may show some process, but is it reasoning?
> 
> This is an interesting line of enquiry, but it's not likely to be persuasive in either direction.


 
And this is where we get into the "faith" aspect of a lot of scientific theories and speculations. Some things cannot be empirically proved, e.g. whether or not we have a "soul," or what takes place after one dies. Or do spiritual beings exist, as another example. What makes us human is our soul/spirit, or ego/id or whatever you want to call it. And thinking and reasoning, as well as feelings, and emotions are rather tricky to define, aside from the electrochemical activity. This is where one has to take that quantum leap from empirically provable to that which is not.

As an example, how does one prove one has a spirit, however you may define it? Rather subjective undertaking, to say the least...


----------



## Poetic Device

cuchuflete said:


> Hi PD,
> Have you read posts 490 to 510?


 

I have, and this is what I have to say about it.

I understand why you pointed out 490 and thank you very much for that. However....



> modus, would you point out to me where I have claimed that only my arguments are intelligent?
> 
> I did say that "intelligent" could be considered a subjective term, but I thought we could perhaps agree on the word's meaning without a lengthy debate on semantics. I was obviously wrong.


 
This here is post 510. What does that have to do with my question? I'm sorry. I'm just very slow...


----------



## Fernando

cuchuflete said:


> I don't think anyone has proven that embryos do process thoughts in the earlier stages.  Mere electrico-chemical activity in a primitive organ may show some process, but is it reasoning?



Let me say that it has been proven that no embryo has reasoning. This is an scientific truth. They perform electric and chemical activity in their nucleus but it is not reasoning.

Of course, no 8th month foetus has composed a symphony nor has developed the simplest reasoning as "Plato is a human, all humans are mortals, etc." Childs before 3 year old are easily beaten by baby-chimpanzees with the same age.

No severely Parkinson-affected human (no matter his age) is able to perform simple activities, nor is any person in comma (reversible or not).

Another scientific truth is that you are, in many aspects, defined by your DNA and all your cells (except red cells, which have no nucleus) have the same DNA (or half of it, such as sperm).

Meanwhile, embryos do NOT have the same DNA of the rest of your cells. So, I think it is legitimate to say that, scientifically, they are NOT the "part of the body of the woman". I understand people saying that they are not "the same" as a grown-up man, but not the motto "it is our body".


----------



## JazzByChas

Fernando said:
			
		

> Let me say that it has been proven that no embryo has reasoning. This is an scientific truth. They perform electric and chemical activity in their nucleus but it is not reasoning.


 
I would like to read the literature on the proof, Señor...that would be very fascinating reading, to be sure!


----------



## tvdxer

tokyowalker said:


> As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion.
> 
> So... why are Biblical literalist Christians so strongly opposed to abortion?
> 
> I'm not asking whether or not they SHOULD be opposed.. just.. what is their rationale?
> 
> Is their position based on Biblical teaching?
> 
> If it is simply based on the commandment "Do not kill", then why are the same groups not pacifist?
> 
> If these Christians think that killing innocent grown-up people is justified in some circumstances to avert a greater suffering/injustice, then why is this argument not extended to killing the unborn?



I'm not a "Biblical literalist" Christian, rather a Catholic.  But I think the reasons Catholics and fundamentalist Christians are opposed to abortion is very similar, if not the same.  In fact, many of the reasons, if modified, are shared with those who oppose abortion from other religious and secular perspectives as well.

That said, I don't think being against abortion is so much a religious position for Christians as a moral one.  The 5th Commandment (in the Catholic Bible) of the Christian and Jewish Decalogue reads "Thou Shalt Not Kill"; but that law is nearly universal to all moral systems, even if most make certain exceptions.  Now most interpretations of this commandment consider this law to apply to human beings (as do other moral systems).  Thanks to biology, embryology, etc., we now know that an individual can trace their beginnings not to birth or to "quickening" but to conception, as this is the point at which they were identifiable as an individual organism (at least if they were not born twins, but the debate over abortion generally concerns the later embryonic and fetal stages of development).  For all Christians, each human being has a soul, and for many, conception seems to be the logical time to place ensoulment at, because this is the point at which the individual is physically created from the sperm and ova.   But I don't think "ensoulment" is necessary in formulating an anti-abortion position; it can also be done from a secular "human rights" standpoint as well.  Later positions based on "self-awareness" or a conception of "personhood" tend to be rather arbitrary as they place a point on a slope of individual mental and physical development.  It was considered acceptable in many societies to put a newborn baby to death; perhaps they set the "point" of personhood later.  

As for pacifism, most Christians seem to hold that it is morally acceptable, even obligatory at times, to take necessary and proportional defensive action against an aggressor, even if that action might lead to the aggressor's death.  The embryo or fetus is not an aggressor in any humane definition of the term.  Rather, it is the child of the pregnant mother and father.  Christian morality, and I would think most other ethical systems, teaches that the mother and father are responsible for the care, survival, and education of their offspring.  Certainly "terminating" it through abortion would not be seeing to its survival, but rather destruction.

Of course, this is all somewhat more abstract and therefore less obvious than, say, the immorality of killing an innocent 6 year old kindergartner.  With this in mind, I don't go around calling those who support abortion rights "murderers", because to me many of them are likely honest people who are simply confused, under the influence of a newer liberal ideology that places individual freedom to do "whatever I want" over one's responsibilites towards others, at least in sexual matters, pregnancy being brought into the realm of the sexual.  Hence the woman's right to "do what she wants" with her body is elevated above her responsibility as a mother to provide care and love for her child.  

Then there's the concept of radical no-strings-attached sexual freedom common today.  Abortion is often used either as a form of birth control or a backup to failed birth control.  Were it not legal, women would not have the "right" to prevent the natural consequences of unrestricted sexual activity from being realized.


----------



## Montesacro

tvdxer said:


> Of course, this is all somewhat more abstract and therefore less obvious than, say, the immorality of killing an innocent 6 year old kindergartner. With this in mind, I don't go around calling those who support abortion rights "murderers", because to me many of them are likely honest people who are simply confused, under the influence of a newer liberal ideology that places individual freedom to do "whatever I want" over one's responsibilites towards others, at least in sexual matters, pregnancy being brought into the realm of the sexual. Hence the woman's right to "do what she wants" with her body is elevated above her responsibility as a mother to provide care and love for her child.


 
What does _honest people _mean? _Honest_ according to who? _Honest_ according to what?

Why should they be _confused_? They are not sheep who have lost contact with their shepherd, they have not gone astray, they have not left the right path.
Obviously their reasoning is based on postulations that are different from those of Christians.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Given that this thread is 27 pages long, and

given that the cultural guidelines have changed since 26.9 of those pages were written, and

given that since its most recent resurrection people are already debating morals rather than discussing cultural viewpoints ......

this thread is now closed.


----------

