Abortion revisited

[betsy]

So if you guys are all confident in your claims that these babies aren't human, then why do you resist having an all out debate on it? Why are you so worried about that?

[Black Dog]

So if you guys are all confident in your claims that these babies aren't human, then why do you resist having an all out debate on it? Why are you so worried about that?

If these babies want equal protection they should stop being such freeloaders and stop loafing around other people's wombs for months on end.

[fellowtraveller]

Perhaps because some relativists - blinded by their ideology - had taken the illogical notion that the fetus is not human?

I see. You are not a relativist, but an absolutist.

Therefore, you must then believe that all human cells are precious, since every human cell can conceivaby be cloned into a human being. How do you feel about the unregulated slaughter of potential humans that occurs every day in barber shops and nail salons? Should we be bombing pharmacies that sell condoms? Should the word spermicide be changed to reflect the true nature of the product- homicide?

[Guest American Woman]

So if you guys are all confident in your claims that these babies aren't human, then why do you resist having an all out debate on it? Why are you so worried about that?

Obviously they are human embryos/fetuses; I don't think anyone says otherwise. You, however, are saying that they are "babies" at every stage of development in the sense that they are no different from a baby outside the womb, full term, viable, breathing, etc. Try getting insurance on an unborn baby, try claiming one as a tax deduction. You'll find out that an unborn child is different from one who has been born; an embryo and a fetus are different from an infant. They are babies, I won't argue that, but they are not viable, independent, breathing babies - and it's why we can freeze embryos, but we can't decide to freeze a new-born until we think the timing to care for a baby would be better. Also, while we can refer to an embryo and a fetus as a baby, we do not refer to a newborn as an embryo or a fetus - because they are not one and the same.

Edited May 25, 2012 by American Woman

[guyser]

Obviously they are human embryos/fetuses; I don't think anyone says otherwise. You, however, are saying that they are "babies" at every stage of development ...for a baby would be better. Also, while we can refer to an embryo and a fetus as a baby, we do not refer to a newborn as an embryo or a fetus - because they are not one and the same.

Well said.

[guyser]

I see. You are not a relativist, but an absolutist.

Therefore, you must then believe that all human cells are precious, since every human cell can conceivaby be cloned into a human being. How do you feel about the unregulated slaughter of potential humans that occurs every day in barber shops and nail salons? Should we be bombing pharmacies that sell condoms? Should the word spermicide be changed to reflect the true nature of the product- homicide?

Not to mention every teenagers bedroom morning noon and night, or in the shower.....

Betsy best not pick up any teenagers sock she finds in the bedroom.

The horror ! All those dead babies in that sock.

[cybercoma]

Perhaps because some relativists - blinded by their ideology - had taken the illogical notion that the fetus is not human?

It doesn't matter one bit whether you consider a fetus human or not. No one is under any obligation to use their body against their will to keep another person alive.

[Guest American Woman]

It doesn't matter one bit whether you consider a fetus human or not. No one is under any obligation to use their body against their will to keep another person alive.

This is true, but it's a bit more complicated than that since it also involves purposely ending "life," such as it is - which is why most people don't support abortion at any and every stage of pregnancy.

[cybercoma]

This is true, but it's a bit more complicated than that since it also involves purposely ending "life," such as it is - which is why most people don't support abortion at any and every stage of pregnancy.

I disagree. It's not purposely ending life. It's refusing to give up your own body to keep someone alive. That has a very different moral connotation.

Edited May 26, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

I disagree. It's not purposely ending life. It's refusing to give up your own body to keep someone alive. That has a very different moral connotation.

We can't go pull the plug on someone simply because we choose not to give of our body to keep them alive, so yes, in that regard, it is purposely ending a "life," such as it is. It is more complex than "no one is under any obligation to use their body against their will to keep another person alive." It's not as simple as that, or there would be little to debate/disagree with. In the final analysis, no one has the right to make that determination for someone else, but it is most definitely purposely ending a "life." How can you say otherwise? There is no perfect "moral" solution to this issue. Sometimes that's the way of it.

[cybercoma]

We can't go pull the plug on someone simply because we choose not to give of our body to keep them alive, so yes, in that regard, it is purposely ending a "life," such as it is. It is more complex than "no one is under any obligation to use their body against their will to keep another person alive." It's not as simple as that, or there would be little to debate/disagree with. In the final analysis, no one has the right to make that determination for someone else, but it is most definitely purposely ending a "life." How can you say otherwise? There is no perfect "moral" solution to this issue. Sometimes that's the way of it.

Every day that you choose not to donate bone marrow or blood and if you're not an organ donor, you "purposely end a life" according to your definition. You have the right to security of your body. No one can force you to use it against your will to keep someone else alive. Otherwise, the government could force you to be hooked into another human being to filter their blood, for example. That other person does not have any rights over your body though, nor would we expect it.

The only reason I'm going through this logical exercise is to say that it doesn't matter whatsoever if you consider a fetus a child or a human or a collection of cells. It is not an active murder. It is merely refusing to keep another person alive through your body.

Edited May 26, 2012 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Every day that you choose not to donate bone marrow or blood and if you're not an organ donor, you "purposely end a life" according to your definition.

Your comparison's don't work. In the situations you describe, all one does is choose not to donate. That's it. No action required. They don't have surgery to prevent donating bone marrow or blood. They don't do anything to prevent the person from perhaps getting the donation elsewhere and going on to live their life.

You have the right to security of your body.

I already agreed with that.

No one can force you to use it against your will to keep someone else alive.

I agree, but it's not as simple as the blood and/or bone marrow donations that you are trying to compare it to - for the reasons already stated.

Otherwise, the government could force you to be hooked into another human being to filter their blood, for example. That other person does not have any rights over your body though, nor would we expect it.

Again. That's a different situation. There is no action required other than the refusal to donate of their body to keep someone else alive. There's no alternate procedure involved in those situations - which definitely ends the life, with no other hope for survival.

The only reason I'm going through this logical exercise is to say that it doesn't matter whatsoever if you consider a fetus a child or a human or a collection of cells. It is not an active murder. It is merely refusing to keep another person alive through your body.

I never said it was murder. I said it was the decision to end a "life," and it is. The abortion procedure most definitely ends a life. If my daughter had chosen to have an abortion, my grandson would not be here. The abortion most definitely would have ended his life. I don't see that as arguable. It's a fact.

As I said, there is no perfect "moral" answer to the abortion issue, which I think becomes a different issue once the fetus is viable. Bottom line, it's not a decision anyone can make for someone else.

Edited May 26, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

Rehashed "my-body-my-choice" argument...... to free-loading baby in the womb (that's new!)...does not answer my question.

Your argument lies on your assertion that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. Well, anybody's right ends once it steps on another's right. Pro-choice are saying the fetus is not human. Pro-life says yes, the fetus is human.

There's only one way to find out which of us is right. Re-open the abortion debate as proposed by the MP and pro-life advocates.

RE-OPEN THE DEBATE!

What are you so afraid of?

Edited May 26, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Rehashed "my-body-my-choice" argument...... to free-loading baby in the womb (that's new!)...does not answer my question.

What question is that - as you ignore most of what's been said?

Your argument lies on your assertion that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body. Well, anybody's right ends once it steps on another's right.

You do realize that works both ways, right? You're actually supporting the pro-choice stance here, as carrying a fetus to term steps on the woman's rights if it's not her choice to do so.

Pro-choice are saying the fetus is not human.

As has already been pointed out to you, no one is denying that the embryo/fetus is human. Way to ignore what doesn't fit into your argument.

Pro-life says yes, the fetus is human.

Seriously. What do you think pro-choicers are saying - that the fetus is an alien? Once again. Pro-choicers say the fetus/embryo is a human fetus/embryo. Try responding to what's actually said instead of repeating your false claims.

There's only one way to find out which of us is right. Re-open the abortion debate as proposed by the MP and pro-life advocates.

Ummm. No. That would not "prove" which side is "right;" how do you propose it would do that?

RE-OPEN THE DEBATE!

What are you so afraid of?

How about hyperbole, dishonesty, and ignoring just about everything that's been said? You appear to excel at all three.

Edited May 26, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest Manny]

As has already been pointed out to you, no one is denying that the embryo/fetus is human. Way to ignore what doesn't fit into your argument.

Seriously. What do you think pro-choicers are saying - that the fetus is an alien? Once again. Pro-choicers say the fetus/embryo is a human fetus/embryo.

I think what she means is, pro-choicers say that the human fetus does not have any rights, compared to the human being. And the question in this debate is always, is there a dividing line between human being and cluster of cells, and if so where is that line.

My personal view is, if the fetus can survive outside of the womb then we should try to save its life. A full term foetus only days away from birth is a baby already, and to kill it would be unconscionable. Rather then give it birth and allow for adoption. Cells on the other hand die and mis-carry regularly, and sad though it may be, very few people feel compelled to hold a funeral for it. But those are just my views. I don't think there should be laws enforcing it, since all that does is make it go underground and make things worse for the woman. Rather, educate. Offer alternatives. It's a moral choice.

[Guest American Woman]

I think what she means is, pro-choicers say that the human fetus does not have any rights, compared to the human being.

But what she's saying is that pro-choicer's say that it's not human, and of course it is - it's a human embryo/fetus as compared to a "human being" in the sense that a human being is a separate, breathing, independent being.

And the question in this debate is always, is there a dividing line between human being and cluster of cells, and if so where is that line.

It's more than a cluster of cells; to diminish it that way to me is just the opposite of Betsy's claim that it's a baby in the same way as a baby that has been birthed and separated from the umbilical cord - and it's not. But it's more than a cluster of cells, too - it's a human embryo/fetus.

My personal view is, if the fetus can survive outside of the womb then we should try to save its life. A full term foetus only days away from birth is a baby already, and to kill it would be unconscionable. Rather then give it birth and allow for adoption.

I agree. I think there should be stipulations, and if the fetus is viable, a c-section rather than an abortion would serve the woman's and the baby's 'life interests.'

Cells on the other hand die and mis-carry regularly, and sad though it may be, very few people feel compelled to hold a funeral for it.

I agree with you except for the '"cells" die and miscarry' part; when a woman miscarries, it's referred to as 'losing the baby.' No woman I know has said "I miscarried some cells," nor do they feel that way; it is a real loss for anyone who wanted the baby.

But those are just my views. I don't think there should be laws enforcing it, since all that does is make it go underground and make things worse for the woman. Rather, educate. Offer alternatives. It's a moral choice.

I agree. As I said before, there is no easy "moral" answer for most people and it's not for someone else to decide. Many "pro-choice" people would never choose abortion for themselves, but they feel as if they don't have the right to make that call for someone else. And they don't.

[-TSS-]

If you have a house where a man and a pregnant woman live then how many people live in that house?

[kimmy]

The argument about abortion is often cast as clash between womens' rights and religious doctrine. But this article argues that religious doctrine has actually shifted dramatically during recent history due to political influences.

The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal. Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception. (...)

That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer. That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.

Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.

At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different.

Food for thought.

-k

[bleeding heart]

Your comparison's don't work. In the situations you describe, all one does is choose not to donate. That's it. No action required. They don't have surgery to prevent donating bone marrow or blood. They don't do anything to prevent the person from perhaps getting the donation elsewhere and going on to live their life.

No, because even if you were the only possible donor, no one could force you to participate. Cybercoma's right.

[Guest American Woman]

No, because even if you were the only possible donor, no one could force you to participate. Cybercoma's right.

No, he's not. No one could force someone to participate/donate, BUT refusing to donate would not involve choosing to go through a procedure that would result in the end of the person's life. They would simply not donate. End of story. It's a different situation.

[bleeding heart]

No, he's not. No one could force someone to participate/donate, BUT refusing to donate would not involve choosing to go through a procedure that would result in the end of the person's life. They would simply not donate. End of story. It's a different situation.

It's an imperfect analogy...which is to say, "an analogy," by definition. But it's not totally off-base.

Yes, the matter of an actual procedure is the distinction, I get that. But in both cases, a person's life is totally dependent upon one other person's life. That fact is more important, in any moral sense (which is what this entire debate is, at bottom), than the fact of the procedure, which does not increase moral culpability.

[Guest American Woman]

It's an imperfect analogy...which is to say, "an analogy," by definition. But it's not totally off-base.

In that it's not the same thing, yes, it is off base. In a donor situation, the person simply refuses to donate. That's it. In the abortion situation, it requires a procedure to end the "life;" it's purposely ending the "life." That's the purpose of having an abortion. It's not, hopefully, the purpose of refusing to donate an organ. Generally, people don't refuse to donate an organ because the end of life is the desired outcome.

Yes, the matter of an actual procedure is the distinction, I get that.

And it's a rather huge distinction.

But in both cases, a person's life is totally dependent upon one other person's life.

While that may be true, it's still not a similar situation. Pulling the plug because someone needs a kidney is quite a different matter from simply refusing to donate the kidney, also.

That fact is more important, in any moral sense (which is what this entire debate is, at bottom), than the fact of the procedure, which does not increase moral culpability.

Having a procedure to end a life is a different matter from simply refusing to donate an organ. That's my point. The issue is not the same as simply refusing to donate an organ - add requiring the person refusing to donate to pull the plug on the person needing the transplant and the situations become more comparable. Simply refusing to donate an organ puts the situation in fate's hands; having an abortion is putting it in the hands of the person making the decision. It's an instant end to "life," such as it is; it's the purpose of the procedure.

[bleeding heart]

In that it's not the same thing, yes, it is off base. In a donor situation, the person simply refuses to donate. That's it. In the abortion situation, it requires a procedure to end the "life;" it's purposely ending the "life." That's the purpose of having an abortion. It's not, hopefully, the purpose of refusing to donate an organ. Generally, people don't refuse to donate an organ because the end of life is the desired outcome.

And it's a rather huge distinction.

While that may be true, it's still not a similar situation. Pulling the plug because someone needs a kidney is quite a different matter from simply refusing to donate the kidney, also.

Having a procedure to end a life is a different matter from simply refusing to donate an organ. That's my point. The issue is not the same as simply refusing to donate an organ - add requiring the person refusing to donate to pull the plug on the person needing the transplant and the situations become more comparable. Simply refusing to donate an organ puts the situation in fate's hands; having an abortion is putting it in the hands of the person making the decision. It's an instant end to "life," such as it is; it's the purpose of the procedure.

But in this hypothetical, I could easily say, "the purpose of this person refusing the donation is because he wants to end the life." (We could ask why, but it's not relevant to our discussion.) We still could not legally force him to do anything.

The point, as cybercoma has pointed out, is that no one should be legally compelled to use their body to keep another person alive; and really, that renders the distinctions you (correctly) point out as moot, in face of the larger issue.

[betsy]

So you guys agree to re-open the debate? Or not? To determine once and for all if this human fetus has the same rights as you and I? Yes or no.

Edited May 26, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

So you guys agree to re-open the debate? Or not? To determine once and for all if this human fetus has the same rights as you and I? Yes or no.

There is no debate. A fetus does not have the same rights...and that's not thanks to some secular-leftist society, as a fetus has never had the same rights.