Abortion

[Rhyfelwyr]

I didn't see that pic in the OP, but from the way people are talking I'm glad I didn't, I definetely won't be searching for it in Google.

I suppose at 22 weeks the baby must look pretty human, which is why it seems so horrific. But untimately, as far as I'm concerned, any abortion is murder.

[CountArach]

I didn't see that pic in the OP, but from the way people are talking I'm glad I didn't, I definetely won't be searching for it in Google.

I suppose at 22 weeks the baby must look pretty human, which is why it seems so horrific. But untimately, as far as I'm concerned, any abortion is murder.

And allowing the mother to die when a simple abortion could have saved her life isn't?

[ICantSpellDawg]

And allowing the mother to die when a simple abortion could have saved her life isn't?

Who is arguing for that?

I have never met someone who was "pro-life" who seeks laws to stop mothers from defending themselves from death. I believe in self defense.

[CountArach]

Caledonian claimed "any abortion is murder". It sounds to me like he isn't standing up for that at all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In the horrible situation in which the mother's life was threatened directly by the pregnancy, then I would say there should be no laws against an abortion under those circumstances.

I think though you have to look at those cases individually. I'm no doctor so I don't know when and how exactly the mothers life could be threatened. Ultimately if her life is at risk she should have a choice.

[Viking]

In the horrible situation in which the mother's life was threatened directly by the pregnancy, then I would say there should be no laws against an abortion under those circumstances.

I think though you have to look at those cases individually. I'm no doctor so I don't know when and how exactly the mothers life could be threatened. Ultimately if her life is at risk she should have a choice.

If the fætus has the same rights to live as a years old human; then why it is right to kill it now? The fætus has done nothing wrong; it cannot help that it threatens the mother's life; one life is valued above the other, but why?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If the fætus has the same rights to live as a years old human; then why it is right to kill it now?

Logic.

The fetus has done nothing wrong, but the woman has a better chance of survival than a motherless fetus, the fetus is less developed than a mother, and, in case you haven't noticed, it would appear to me that adults have more rights than children in most countries.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If the fætus has the same rights to live as a years old human; then why it is right to kill it now? The fætus has done nothing wrong; it cannot help that it threatens the mother's life; one life is valued above the other, but why?

Are you not aware of self-defense statutes? Don't say that I get that from Religion - that is entirely secular and reasonable.

Check out this article:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In Praise of Criticism
By Kathleen Parker


Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the U.S. has afforded the American media and others an opportunity to remind us that the Catholic Church is "out of step" with modern times.

That is both a criticism and compliment -- praising with faint damnation.

What exactly about modern times would compel a pope to change his institutional mind about the fundamental belief in, say, the dignity of all human life?

The central life issue is, of course, abortion, about which even a majority of American Catholics (58 percent) differ from the church's view. Other related concerns include embryo-destructive research, cloning and assisted suicide.

The Catholic Church persists in opposing all of the above, insisting that life begins at conception, all life has value, no human being has the right to terminate the life of another. Case closed.

And, really, who would insist otherwise? In the abstract, few. In practice, millions.

Though we know that life biologically begins at conception, we've decided to disagree about when that life becomes "human."

And, though we sort of believe that all life has value, our actions suggest that we think imperfect life has less value. Increasingly, Down syndrome babies today are terminated, for instance.

If we quantify human life only according to productivity, then imperfect life inarguably is less valuable. But is it less human? Nazi eugenicists thought so. But measuring productivity requires a detached calculation -- and, inevitably, bureaucratic enforcement -- that defines inhuman.

This is not, by the way, a judgment of people who have made difficult choices. None of us really knows which path we would take until presented with the intersection that forces such contemplations.

Finally, all agree that no human being has the right to take another's life except in self-defense. Since most abortions are for reasons other than the mother's health, our current practices are possible only if the unborn are considered "not human."

Keeping that definition alive is the trick. Human or not? Who decides?

A majority of Americans are comfortable with the view that a woman, her doctor and her God should decide. But what if there were irrefutable proof that a fetus at conception is fully human? Would we then feel that government has a role in protecting unborn life?

These questions are especially tricky for Catholics. For those who side with the pope, the answer is clear: If life is a gift of the creator, then only the creator can be the ultimate arbiter of conception (though the church does allow for limiting and spacing babies on the basis of informed conscience, just not through artificial means).

To believe in God's autonomy over human life, however, is a hard sell. How does one justify creating more mouths when so many can't be fed? My own Catholic grandmother, the youngest of 11 children, was handed over to the nuns at age 4 when her family could no longer feed her.

And yet, the nuns did feed my grandmother. And she did manage to grow up and marry and create my father, who then created me. So.

Pro-choice arguments are, nonetheless, compelling. Privacy from government intrusion, yes. Women's autonomy over their own bodies, yes. All children wanted, well, of course. But none of those testaments to logic alters the essential truth that life begins when egg and sperm commingle and that every one of us was at that far end of the life continuum before we were able to dabble in ethics and trifle with electronic keyboards.

The question is how we reconcile what is true with what is merely convenient? That we might choose a path other than the pope's is the prerogative of a free people -- and no one recognizes that freedom with greater consistency than this pope. No one has to be Catholic.

But to ask Benedict to change the church's rules to suit modern appetites and lifestyles is to ask that he forsake the sanctity of human life for the benefit of earthly delights. Those are not his concerns.

Even for non-Catholics like me, there's something comforting about a stubborn pope in a world of moral relativity. Like a strong father, he ignores his children's pleas for leniency knowing that his rules, though tough, serve a higher purpose.

If Benedict were to relent and compromise the value of human life, what would be left to debate? Perhaps only one's own time to die. And then ...

Who decides?
kparker@kparker.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

[Viking]

Logic.

The fetus has done nothing wrong, but the woman has a better chance of survival than a motherless fetus, the fetus is less developed than a mother

But if killing a fætus really is murder, it doesn't seem quite right to murder someone innocent to let someone else survive.

and, in case you haven't noticed, it would appear to me that adults have more rights than children in most countries.

So are you suggesting that children doesn't have equally much right to life as adults?

Are you not aware of self-defense statutes? Don't say that I get that from Religion - that is entirely secular and reasonable.

Check out this article:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In Praise of Criticism
By Kathleen Parker


Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the U.S. has afforded the American media and others an opportunity to remind us that the Catholic Church is "out of step" with modern times.

That is both a criticism and compliment -- praising with faint damnation.

What exactly about modern times would compel a pope to change his institutional mind about the fundamental belief in, say, the dignity of all human life?

The central life issue is, of course, abortion, about which even a majority of American Catholics (58 percent) differ from the church's view. Other related concerns include embryo-destructive research, cloning and assisted suicide.

The Catholic Church persists in opposing all of the above, insisting that life begins at conception, all life has value, no human being has the right to terminate the life of another. Case closed.

And, really, who would insist otherwise? In the abstract, few. In practice, millions.

Though we know that life biologically begins at conception, we've decided to disagree about when that life becomes "human."

And, though we sort of believe that all life has value, our actions suggest that we think imperfect life has less value. Increasingly, Down syndrome babies today are terminated, for instance.

If we quantify human life only according to productivity, then imperfect life inarguably is less valuable. But is it less human? Nazi eugenicists thought so. But measuring productivity requires a detached calculation -- and, inevitably, bureaucratic enforcement -- that defines inhuman.

This is not, by the way, a judgment of people who have made difficult choices. None of us really knows which path we would take until presented with the intersection that forces such contemplations.

Finally, all agree that no human being has the right to take another's life except in self-defense. Since most abortions are for reasons other than the mother's health, our current practices are possible only if the unborn are considered "not human."

Keeping that definition alive is the trick. Human or not? Who decides?

A majority of Americans are comfortable with the view that a woman, her doctor and her God should decide. But what if there were irrefutable proof that a fetus at conception is fully human? Would we then feel that government has a role in protecting unborn life?

These questions are especially tricky for Catholics. For those who side with the pope, the answer is clear: If life is a gift of the creator, then only the creator can be the ultimate arbiter of conception (though the church does allow for limiting and spacing babies on the basis of informed conscience, just not through artificial means).

To believe in God's autonomy over human life, however, is a hard sell. How does one justify creating more mouths when so many can't be fed? My own Catholic grandmother, the youngest of 11 children, was handed over to the nuns at age 4 when her family could no longer feed her.

And yet, the nuns did feed my grandmother. And she did manage to grow up and marry and create my father, who then created me. So.

Pro-choice arguments are, nonetheless, compelling. Privacy from government intrusion, yes. Women's autonomy over their own bodies, yes. All children wanted, well, of course. But none of those testaments to logic alters the essential truth that life begins when egg and sperm commingle and that every one of us was at that far end of the life continuum before we were able to dabble in ethics and trifle with electronic keyboards.

The question is how we reconcile what is true with what is merely convenient? That we might choose a path other than the pope's is the prerogative of a free people -- and no one recognizes that freedom with greater consistency than this pope. No one has to be Catholic.

But to ask Benedict to change the church's rules to suit modern appetites and lifestyles is to ask that he forsake the sanctity of human life for the benefit of earthly delights. Those are not his concerns.

Even for non-Catholics like me, there's something comforting about a stubborn pope in a world of moral relativity. Like a strong father, he ignores his children's pleas for leniency knowing that his rules, though tough, serve a higher purpose.

If Benedict were to relent and compromise the value of human life, what would be left to debate? Perhaps only one's own time to die. And then ...

Who decides?
kparker@kparker.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

The fætus is defenceless, it cannot practise its own right to self defence. Not quite fair.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The fætus is defenceless, it cannot practise its own right to self defence. Not quite fair.

I was referring to the question "why should people have the right to defend their own lives even when it could cause the death of another"

The article is a separate thought.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But if killing a fætus really is murder, it doesn't seem quite right to murder someone innocent to let someone else survive.

It's simple probabilities. If it really is a danger to the life of the mother, not only may the fetus die anyways, but it won't have a mother. The logic is that it's better to have the mother survive - it's terrible, but necessary.

On the other hand, giving the mother the choice to kill the baby whenever she wants? That's terrible and unnecessary.

So are you suggesting that children doesn't have equally much right to life as adults?

So they do? Oh, excellent, we're making progress.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Obiously if the mother's life is at risk before the baby is capable of surviving on its own, then this sounds like a terrible thing to say, but you basically have to cut your losses.

Because if it is inevitable the baby will die with the mother anyway, then the mother may as well be saved. In these circumstances the mothers right to self-defence, or you could say to life, clinches it.

On a side note, feels weird to be backed up by the Pope. May I point out this is not just an issue for the Catholic Church, there is also a lot of opposition to abortion from Protestants, with Ian Paisly leading a campaign against it.

[Viking]

It's simple probabilities. If it really is a danger to the life of the mother, not only may the fetus die anyways, but it won't have a mother. The logic is that it's better to have the mother survive - it's terrible, but necessary.

Yeah, I think it is logic, but I do not think that logic leads us to that killing a fætus is murder. Methinks it's pure faith to assign human status to a cluster of cells that is not capable thinking, yet. Therefore I am pondering about why logic suddenly enters the stage.

So they do? Oh, excellent, we're making progress.

That's my viewpoint, but I was making a question.

I was referring to the question "why should people have the right to defend their own lives even when it could cause the death of another"

The article is a separate thought.

Okay.

Because if it is inevitable the baby will die with the mother anyway, then the mother may as well be saved. In these circumstances the mothers right to self-defence, or you could say to life, clinches it.

Well, ultimately, she brought this danger upon herself, as well as dragging someone innocent into it and getting him killed, rather than hoping for a miracle.

[Quirinus]

Obiously if the mother's life is at risk before the baby is capable of surviving on its own, then this sounds like a terrible thing to say, but you basically have to cut your losses.

Because if it is inevitable the baby will die with the mother anyway, then the mother may as well be saved. In these circumstances the mothers right to self-defence, or you could say to life, clinches it.

Does that mean that it is not murder when two stranded mountaineers kill their third companion to survive? All three of them won't survive if the third guy was not killed. They're cutting their losses, right?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Does that mean that it is not murder when two stranded mountaineers kill their third companion to survive? All three of them won't survive if the third guy was not killed.

If they can show with reasonable certainty that sacrificing one life saved the rest, and there really is no other choice, I honestly don't see why it should be.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Does that mean that it is not murder when two stranded mountaineers kill their third companion to survive? All three of them won't survive if the third guy was not killed. They're cutting their losses, right?

Sometimes not taking actions can be as bad as taking actions. If you don't kill one mountaineer, you are basically condemning both mountaineers, plus yourself, to death.

This is getting very horrible and complicated now.

I hope I am not abandoning my principles amongst all the confusion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sometimes not taking actions can be as bad as taking actions. If you don't kill one mountaineer, you are basically condemning both mountaineers, plus yourself, to death.

This is getting very horrible and complicated now.

I hope I am not abandoning my principles amongst all the confusion.

Clearly not. What do you mean they will all die unless they kill the third? What could possibly be happening that would demand a human sacrifice?

Have mountaineers gone retarded?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I think this hypothetical scenario involves three mountaineers on a rope. The rope will snap, dooming all of them, unless the one at the bottom is cut free, resulting in his demise, but the survival of the other two climbers.

Edit-Or perhaps they need to eat him to live.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think this hypothetical scenario involves three mountaineers on a rope. The rope will snap, dooming all of them, unless the one at the bottom is cut free, resulting in his demise, but the survival of the other two climbers.

Edit-Or perhaps they need to eat him to live.

Right. All of that delicious meat - they'd probably die anyway if they didn't keep the third guy for later.

They should all hang on - they will most likely all die anyway if they are just going to hang there. Imagine killing a guy right before you died. I wouldn't.

The reality is that they wouldn't be prosecuted because their life was in insane danger and that seemed like an alternative that would save the most lives.

If they just killed the third guy because he ate 1/3rd of the food or because he snored and they had a headache, there may be hell to pay.

[Quirinus]

Clearly not. What do you mean they will all die unless they kill the third? What could possibly be happening that would demand a human sacrifice?

Have mountaineers gone retarded?

If you'd stop knee-jerking to any contrary argument, you'd see that I meant the mountaineers would starve to death.

I think this hypothetical scenario involves three mountaineers on a rope. The rope will snap, dooming all of them, unless the one at the bottom is cut free, resulting in his demise, but the survival of the other two climbers.

Edit-Or perhaps they need to eat him to live.

The latter. The point of this exercise being, who chooses who dies? Note that I'm not arguing for anti-choice (or 'pro-life' or whatever one calls it). Just pointing out the contradiction in the argument that says "the fetus may be allowed to be aborted if and only if the mother's life is in danger, but at the same time, fetuses have full human rights and that killing one is tantamount to homicide".

[Ironside]

Taken from the other thread, I rather take this here.

That points out the real problem. It is either black or white with this issue, but people are drawn to middle ground -even if it doesn't make much sense.

Political reality suggests that if you find a "middle ground" less people will complain, but it says nothing about the moral reality.

So I do understand where you are coming from. I just 100% disagree. I also understand the greay area people. My disagreement lies within the 1%-99% area.

Read that article that I had posted earlier, I think that it sums up the argument nicely.

Tuff, abortion is very far from black and white. It goes into the question of "what is a Human?", "what is I?" and "what is life?" and while seemingly easy to see at first glance, it will incredibly complicated If I cut off someones head, but keep the body alive, did I commit murder? Your instinct say yes, but how can you define the poor person as dead without also defining a embryo without a nerve system as dead?

As you can see, you cannot even judge an adult and a embryo on the same scale for starters.

Using potential for life isn't gonna work either as then you'll need to define what potential for life that's acceptable and what's not, for example what to do with a foestus that in thid month is found to most certain be dead within a week the 5:th month, 7:th month, at birth, or a few years after? When are the potential for life low enough to be deemed dead in practice?

And besides, none of the countries that are forbidding abortion are actually granting the same rights as for a newborn or older person and thus in practice not considering an embryo to be fully "human". Otherwise, the question if it was a miscariage or negligent homicide would be pretty common.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If you'd stop knee-jerking to any contrary argument, you'd see that I meant the mountaineers would starve to death.


The latter. The point of this exercise being, who chooses who dies? Note that I'm not arguing for anti-choice (or 'pro-life' or whatever one calls it). Just pointing out the contradiction in the argument that says "the fetus may be allowed to be aborted if and only if the mother's life is in danger, but at the same time, fetuses have full human rights and that killing one is tantamount to homicide".

Right. I think the hanging argument is better. Both hanging. One man with one hand on the mountainside and the other hand supporting a guy further down. The first guy can let go and I don;t think anyone would have anything but support and condolences.

The eating argument isn't good because they probably won't die simultaneously, and when one eventually does die, the other two can eat him anyway.

[Ironside]

Right. I think the hanging argument is better. Both hanging. One man with one hand on the mountainside and the other hand supporting a guy further down. The first guy can let go and I don;t think anyone would have anything but support and condolences.

The eating argument isn't good because they probably won't die simultaneously, and when one eventually does die, the other two can eat him anyway.

You are aware that it has been cases with people forced to play that lottery and the winners have survived to tell the tale? Not always that easy as what you described above (that's stage one, stage two is when there's extreme starvation and the dead ones are already eaten...).

Crew members of the whaleship Essex for example...

But I guess that we could put in a situation where it's either the mother or the child that will die, or both. How to choose? The good old lottery?

[ICantSpellDawg]

People love to use the agreed upon exception to defend the corrupt rule.

[Ironside]

People love to use the agreed upon exception to defend the corrupt rule.

In a black and white world, there are no exceptions.

Welcome to the world of gray.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In a black and white world, there are no exceptions.

Welcome to the world of gray.

Some things are gray, others aren't. If you see things as ONLY gray, isn't that a figurative black and white?

Sub-figuratively

[Ironside]

Some things are gray, others aren't. If you see things as ONLY gray, isn't that a figurative black and white?

Sub-figuratively

No, but some areas are white or black enough to be agreeable by almost all to be black and white.

But the point is if you're saying life begins at conception,... because life begins at conception (this is the annoying position you end up in when you cannot define why without being forced to a bunch of clear exceptions) you're already in that grey area.

And when you're already there it's much easier to view things in a progressive scale where there isn't a sudden moment where "life" suddenly exists, but you can still see that it occurs during this time.

[RoadKill]

Here is my opinionn abortion. If aborting a seedling that is not human yet is considered abortion then I guess gettng nailed in the balls and killing milions of sperm is considered abortion as well.

So guys don't get kicked in teh balls or you're comited murder.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So guys don't get kicked in teh balls or you're comited murder.

No, you haven't. You're fifteen in Canada, right? You've probably taken at least two or three classes that tell you why your statement isn't true.

[RoadKill]

You just had to point that out didn't you..