Should abortion be legal? No at all? Only if the mother-to-be's health is at risk? If the mother-to-be was a victim of rape? What do you think?

Is it reasonable in a world with a rapidly growing population to deny women the right to Abortin?

Hand grenade time .....


might be better to also ask what background the posters answer come from (Roman Catholic/CofE- buddahist..etc) - to see if there is a basis from one sect...


Me- Cof E (age 42)
and I support abortion as a right -however am open to have the date when it is not allowed lowered ..
also I am one for the death penalty - but only as a means of thinning the herd.
gbp

Hand grenade time .....


might be better to also ask what background the posters answer come from (Roman Catholic/CofE- buddahist..etc) - to see if there is a basis from one sect...
Didn't know how to do that without making the poll too complicated. Hopefully people will post their background when they comment:)

Me- Cof E (age 42)
and I support abortion as a right -however am open to have the date when it is not allowed lowered ..
also I am one for the death penalty - but only as a means of thinning the herd.
gbp
My lack of religion is common knowledge. I would allow abortion only in the first 3 months and despite what Gemma-the-husky may think of me I do oppose the death penalty if only because it is impossible to reverse it if you find out a mistake has been made.

Southern Baptist here (age 51):
I find it a difficult question. In principle, I think it is wrong, but I do not believe that we should condemn those who practice (patients or doctors/clinics). I am definitely opposed to the government paying for it, especially if it is used for birth control. I'm not sure about other circumstances (you just never know till you've been there).

I am just as opposed (or possibly more opposed to) damaging the property of or persons who engage in abortion. Killing "abortion doctors" is just wrong and I don't want to associate myself with people who do.

I believe people should control their loins and it would help alleviate a lot of the problems.

I believe people should control their loins and it would help alleviate a lot of the problems.
But the youth of today no longer have any control:mad:

But the youth of today no longer have any control:mad:

I totally agree. That is part of my dilemma. Once a person has tasted what sex has to offer, control can become a secondary (tertiary?) consideration. And some people don't learn control even with a court order.

Pretty touchy subject.

I have two opinions on this.

Personal opinion:

I would be against the idea of abortion. For one thing, it's incongruent to claim women's rights when babies are people all the same. I'm painfully aware of the ever-lasting debate over whether a fetus become a person and so forth, but for my personal purposes, I consider mitosis to be sufficient condition to be a different person and thus should have their rights just like anyone else.

Furthermore, it seems to me that voluntary sterilization is a proper solution if one desires not to have children. Abortion just seems messy way to handle this. Now this does not of course cover all contingencies and I don't intend that to be the complete solution. I'll be honest as well - I haven't quite made up my mind as what to think about extreme circumstances such as rape leading to unplanned pregnancy and am very sympathetic for the hardships this causes. 9 months may be too much, especially to recover from a trauma. For medical emergency, it's a bit more clear cut - I'll trust doctor's counsel. Nonetheless, I am fully aware that such position is not fully consistent, which is partially why it bothers me to the point that I've yet to make up my mind properly on those complicated scenarios.

Now that's my personal opinon.. Now to my second opinion which deals more with the legal framework:

I do not think regulation or legislation is the right answer here. We cannot legislate morality. To ask government to intervene in what is essentially a moral question is complete foolishness. Government's business is to enable us to live as a society, and definitely not to decree how we should live our lives.

Furthermore, it is my belief that any kind of legislation on morality usually create more problems than it solves. Red tapes & restrictions holds back doctors from providing the best medical care, create black & gray markets, and like it or not, any restrictions or endorsements is in effect a endorsement of the same code of morality, which I do believe goes against the spirit of US Constitution's First Amendment, freedom of religion.

For this reason, I am inclined to think that government should have never had any say in this matters and left up to the people to do as they think fit. We have to come to the terms that ultimately, moral issues are also personal decisions and therefore does us no good to try and coerce anybody else to conform to a given set of morals.

I wholeheartedly 100% oppose abortion, it is against my personal and religious beliefs.
But, it is not my issue to tackle, if a woman feels that it is the right thing to do then that is between her and who she understands as God or her higher power and personal morals.
I am saddened by the thought of persons who find this a difficult decision to make, for them it may be a scar they will have to carry in their heart thoughts and spirit for the rest of their lives. It is equally unfortunate for those who really see abortion as just a procedure in the same light and consideration as the inconvenience of a visit to the dentist, however, you can not teach humility to some people who have different morals.


BTW - polls are a waste of time as there are 6 persons who have posted to this thread, yet only 4 of us have bothered to post to the poll.

I didn't vote because there is not an option that reflects my feelings.

BTW - polls are a waste of time as there are 6 persons who have posted to this thread, yet only 4 of us have bothered to post to the poll.
My apologies if I have put the wrong options on the poll. One lives and learns

As they say, you can please some of the people some of the time;)

Talk about your "can of worms" questions! I think the debate should center on what to me is the essential question: "when does life begin?" I would support abortion before that point, not after. A woman's "right to choose" is not a viable stand-alone argument in my view. A woman shouldn't have the right to take a life before birth any more than she would after.

That said, I don't have an answer to that essential question. Is it the moment sperm fertilizes egg? I tend to think not. Is it not until the moment of birth? I tend to think not then either. Babies not carried to term can still be perfectly viable, so I don't see how a baby delivered at 9 months is a life, but the same baby at 8 1/2 months is not.

The problem with this debate is that I'm not sure we even have the capacity to determine when life begins. Scientists, theologians and philosophers have struggled with the question of "what is life" for as long as man has been on earth. I doubt we'll solve it here! :p

But the youth of today no longer have any control:mad:

I think you would be in that group genius boy.

My personal feeling is that this should never be allowed. But then again, you have the question of what happens if a woman is raped? That is always tough, as not all women want kids.

I would simply say though, that if people are stupid enough to do something they shouldn't, then so be it, but don't punish another life because of it.

I would simply say though, that if people are stupid enough to do something they shouldn't, then so be it, but don't punish another life because of it.

And I would use the exact same rationale to say that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. If a woman wants an abortion and you punish her by making her have the kid, what kind of quality of life is that kid going to have? Would you want to be the baby your mom was forced to have? I know I wouldn't.

As to when life begins, I think it begins when a baby can survive outside of the womb.

And I would use the exact same rationale to say that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. If a woman wants an abortion and you punish her by making her have the kid, what kind of quality of life is that kid going to have? Would you want to be the baby your mom was forced to have? I know I wouldn't.

I have to agree, but remember that adoption is usually the option in such case. Or if one doesn't want an accident, there's always sterilization. Birth control is certainly an option but like everything else, there's a risk and one has to be prepared to accept the risks.

So while I disagree with the notion of abortion and my set of morality tells me that it makes no sense, I know better than try and impose my set of morality on others. It's really unfair, yes, but as you said, forcing it only begrudges people. Persuading them of other alternatives is far more preferable than forcing them.

As to when life begins, I think it begins when a baby can survive outside of the womb.

That's still problematic, unfortunately. Take preemie for example. Should a baby that was born three months too early and thus required a incubator to mature and eventually grow into a healthy adult (I have a relative who is a living proof of this) be disqualified by that criteria? I think not.

This is part of reason of why I am inclined to want to define life at mitosis because I reasoned that by going to a low level definition (e.g. molecular level) this deals better with more wide range of scenarios than some arbitrary definitions. Many people talk about pregnancy as having trimesters, but that is really arbitrary definition based on major milestones which could be reached at slightly different timeframes. It seems to me that by defining life at mitosis when the DNA has changed so it's no longer mother's or father's DNA but now something else is much less arbitrary and subjective.

This is a tremendous can of worms any day that you open it and in any country where you try to open it.

On the one hand, I know that a woman in the situation of need to have an abortion is already in trouble (and I don't mean that in the euphemistic sense used 40+ years ago.) On the other hand, I'll never have to make that decision. I didn't have to in the past and now my wife and I are too old. For us personally, it is a moot point. In the USA, we have a few factors to consider. I'll try to enumerate them clearly enough to then use them as the basis for my position.

1. (Legal) The US Constitution is vague regarding the beginnings of life. However, it makes one (and ONLY one) reference in passing. Based on our constitution, civil rights apply to naturalized or natural-born citizens. There is no mention of potential life or developing life. Rights accrue at birth.

This is a back door, to be sure, but it sets a reference point of birth. Obviously, naturalized citizens must take an oath, which means they must already be born and in fact old enough to be considered to have the capacity to take an oath. So though it is at best an implication, the US constitution implies that life begins at birth.

2. (Religious) The US constitution and its amendments expressly allow people to expect the right to freely exercise the tenets of their religion. Religions vary on when life begins, from conception to quickening to severing the umbilicus to the first breath. (Yes, that wide a range.) As much as I study this, I can only come to the conclusion that setting an early cut-off point disenfranchises the woman who is practicing her religious beliefs and is a member of the crowd that believes "the breath is the life." Setting too early a cutoff point tells that woman that her religion is inferior. But the USA disallows any legal decisions to occur that make such an implied statement.

3. (Legal/Religious) In cases where the child, already born, must face a life-saving treatment but the parents' religion doesn't believe in medicine, courts have ruled that the parents have the legal right to deny such treatment. Insane though it is, I see that as proof that the parents have the right to decide to allow the life of that child to end even after birth, contravening the rights granted by the US constitution. Why, then, does everyone get MORE bent out of shape if the woman decides to stop the pregnancy before that situation could happen?

4. (Pragmatic) Before the US Roe v. Wade decision, abortions occurred in back alleys where young girls were maimed, killed, sterilized, and generally treated to an uncertain fate. Often, both woman and fetus died. By allowing abortions in a clinical environment, you save one of those lives. But you can't stop abortions. They've been around since the time of the Pharoahs. The Hippocratic Oath refers to abortifactants. Seems like we haven't gotten rid of abortions yet, after well over 3000 years of recorded history to the times of the Pharoahs.

5. (Pragmatic) If the prospective mother so badly doesn't want that fetus to become a child, how badly will that child be treated in life later? Based on typical outcomes, the child would grow up unloved, in poverty, or in an overloaded foster care system. The child would become a ward of the state, potentially unloved, exploited, and/or abused. People say, "Put the child up for adoption." Probably would be good except that the number of children far outnumber the number of prospective adoptive parents. I can't justify this number because I don't remember where I saw it, but I think I recall that the ratio is on the order of 8 to 10 abandoned children to 1 prospective adopter. So most kids put into the care of the state are going to foster care or orphanages.

6. (Legal/Pragmatic) The pregnant woman facing abortion is, more often than not, facing it alone. The sperm donor has already fled the scene (and probably bragged about yet another conquest.) Leaving the woman "holding the bag." She has no effective method to coerce his support because he can just leave the state or go into hiding. (See #7 point below.) This asymmetry of responsibility places the woman in an untenable condition where, no matter what is really the right answer, she is unlikely to make it due to the familial, societal, economic, and biological pressures placed on her.

7. (Personal experience) In the two cases where I know all of the details, the sperm donor who cut and ran totally abandoned the mothers, both of whom shouldered a terrible burden but eventually accepted the birth of the child. The children (both girls) suffered very difficult childhoods and grew up unable to make good choices for the men in their lives. One is my stepdaughter, whom I've tried to love as a good father. But it isn't always easy.

8. (Idiocy) In the USA, many schools are forbidden to use the words "birth" and "control" in the same sentence for fear that the religious extremists will storm the school and hang the principal. In effigy if s/he's lucky. Post-pubescent but uneducated children in "ripening" bodies can be described in simple terms - prime candidates for parenthood.

9. (Idiocy/Pragmatism) When someone says, "Just say 'NO' to underage sex" they are talking from a part of their brains that is detached from reality. Kids TUNE OUT the adults most of the time on a good day, so when an adult starts a lecture on the perils of sex, the kids hear BLAH BLAH BLAH. Adolescent celibacy is like jumbo shrimp and military intelligence. An oxymoron.

10. (Religious) Every Christian I've ever met claims the soul cannot be destroyed. If the fetus is terminated and had no soul (yet), then nothing much happened. But even if the fetus had a soul, termination if its host body couldn't destroy it. So what's the reason for the furor?

Having pointed out these relevant factors, I think abortion should be legal, but stronger legal and societal tools are needed to make the sperm donors take responsibility for their actions. I would prefer that we take steps to prevent the pregnancy before abortion ever becomes the issue.

Teach birth control and make sperm donors get serious punishment for starting an unwanted life. We would punish them for ending a life improperly, wouldn't we? I don't think any woman should have to bear a child she doesn't want, particularly under tough economic circumstances and sperm-donor abandonment.

I wish it were not this way, for I regret the need for abortion. And that is the dilemma. We hate the event but cannot eliminate the need. And eventually this is why I place myself in the category of saying that it is a woman's right. If it is a sperm donor's right to "love 'em and leave 'em" then it should be a woman's right to put that liaison out of her life and her body completely.

Stated another way: If we cannot prevent the condition, why do we then want to step in and compound the problem?

Rather obviously, I've studied this question at a deep philosophical level and still cannot come up with an answer that I like. It's that pragmatic streak in me, I guess, that says it doesn't matter how theoretically perfect your answer might be if it doesn't solve the problem.

I can't disagree with such a well thought out position. Just a couple of "interesting" questions:


1. (Legal) The US Constitution is vague regarding the beginnings of life. However, it makes one (and ONLY one) reference in passing. Based on our constitution, civil rights apply to naturalized or natural-born citizens. There is no mention of potential life or developing life. Rights accrue at birth.


Just curious, does that mean that you can put a vacuum hose in a non-citizen's skull cap and suck their brain out? Surely that's not what the framer's meant? If their language was so ambiguous and clearly doesn't fit, how do we know they intended to define life? By the way, this argument is what makes the nastiest form of abortion legal (I think it's called "late term abortion").


2. (Religious) The US constitution and its amendments expressly allow people to expect the right to freely exercise the tenets of their religion. Religions vary on when life begins, from conception to quickening to severing the umbilicus to the first breath. (Yes, that wide a range.) As much as I study this, I can only come to the conclusion that setting an early cut-off point disenfranchises the woman who is practicing her religious beliefs and is a member of the crowd that believes "the breath is the life." Setting too early a cutoff point tells that woman that her religion is inferior. But the USA disallows any legal decisions to occur that make such an implied statement.

The breath is the life crowd have to face a similar argument: If I get in an industrial accident and burn my lungs up, temporarily stopping my breathing (for potentially minutes, or longer), again skull cap/vacuum? Even if I'm going to die anyway? Not OK. I'm clearly alive...though at the moment not a very productive member of society. Breathing on your own or via an apparatus does not define life though not doing so could quickly mean death. I would think a similar argument could be made for blood coursing through your veins.

I don't even pretend to have any answers. I do know I don't like 2 things related to this topic for which I will not withhold personal judgment:
1. The government paying for people to undo their foolish mistakes. Where's the personal accountability? I like Banana's proposed solution: give them a 1 way sterilization if they can't afford an abortion, can't keep their legs crossed, and can't deal with a child.
2. When people destroy property or people illegally kill another person. No, it's not OK to shoot abortion doctors or bomb clinics. I have a very low opinion of anyone who does, especially in the name of God. God told me it's NOT ok to do that.

When does life begin?

Here is my grandson to be at 20 weeks, would you like to be the one that kills him.

Brian

BTW I clicked option 2

I have declined to cast a vote on this subject since as a man I will never face the torment and gut-wrenching involved in the decision to have the child or not.

Until 1940, it was legal for a woman to have an abortion until the child had moved on its own (referred to at the time as "quickened"). A group of religious persons felt abortion was wrong at anytime and pressured the US Congress and Canadian Parliament to pass laws making abortion illegal at anytime. This was the birth of the back alley butchers. Women whose lives were at risk or were the victims of rape were out of luck.

When does life begin? I feel at birth. At birth the child is capable of survival outside the womb. Even though the child is moving beforehand, is it capable of survival outside the womb? In most cases it is not.

My main objection to the way abortion is currently handled is that it is being used as a form of retro-active birth control. Nowadays you can buy condoms almost everywhere and with the STDs around, they should be used as a matter of course. The primary function of sex is to reproduce. This is whats going to happen if you don't take the necessary safeguards.

1. The government paying for people to undo their foolish mistakes. Where's the personal accountability? I like Banana's proposed solution: give them a 1 way sterilization if they can't afford an abortion, can't keep their legs crossed, and can't deal with a child.

Just wanted to point out that while I would favor sterilization as dictated by my set of morals, it does not mean I would support a government program for such. I'm one of those wild-eyed raving lunatic that dare to think that government has no place in our personal lives, and that many programs such as welfare and entitlements should be privatized. Abortion and the associated social programs are no different- leave the matters to private organizations to require sterilization in exchange of additional support, provide adoption services & safe housing for the duration, or just straight abortion. Government simply does not belong here.

When does life begin?

Here is my grandson to be at 20 weeks, would you like to be the one that kills him.

Brian

BTW I clicked option 2
I can never figure out those pics, is he kicking yet?;)

When does life begin? I feel at birth. At birth the child is capable of survival outside the womb. Even though the child is moving beforehand, is it capable of survival outside the womb? In most cases it is not.

As I asked another poster who had similar belief, how do you account for my relative who was born three months too early, was the size of Barbie doll and required incubator to survive and is now the tallest and healthy female in the family. I'm sure you don't think she would be disqualified?

Just wanted to point out that while I would favor sterilization as dictated by my set of morals, it does not mean I would support a government program for such.
Who else should control and monitor it then, wealthy private enterprise?

George, the questions about the rights of non-citizens are in courts right now and will probably stay there for a while longer. I agree that it seems bizarre, but the detainees at Guantanomo are in exactly this "nutcracker" and therefore are in legal limbo.

To my limited understanding, part of the problem is that some folks don't understand the REAL structure of the USA. (Sadly, including some U.S. congressmen.) We are a coalition of 50 states. The EU is finally doing what we've been doing, and look how bumpy it gets when it was their INTENTION to merge. This fine point becomes operative when you talk about international treaties. Lawyers are making money hand-over-fist to argue that international treaties do not bind individual states.

The most recent example of this was when a Mexican national was put to death for a murder. The evidence wasn't in question. It was his legal status that spurred the big controversy. Apparently Texas didn't follow the rules of some U.N. sponsored treaty and let this guy talk to the Mexican Embassy to get legal assistance. Texans answered that they didn't ratify the treaty and that it only applies to federal crimes. They pointed out that USA citizens in Mexico who are stupid enough to join the drug-trafficking business don't get that particular break either. Mud-slinging, of course, has ensued.

My best answer to your question is thus that it depends on treaties and on whether the local law enforcement agencies are in a forgiving mood at the time, which is SURELY the wrong answer even if it is the technically correct one.

Brian, your counter-question is inappropriate because it misses the point of my stated restrictions. NONE of my comments apply to cases where the mother (and family) WANT the child to be born. A child born to a loving family who welcomes him/her as a blessing has a much better (though still not 100%) chance to grow up under good circumstances.

Good luck with the grandkid, by the way. I know I wouldn't trade mine for the world, but again, they were born to a situation where they were wanted and loved. Again, my comments about abortion don't apply.

To simplify it, my postion stated earlier is that a woman in a state of desperation is going to solve her problem. You can make her a criminal and force the child into a system that is overloaded and under-successful, or you can work to change the system, or you can work to prevent the desperate situation in the first place. But once the woman becomes desperate for a timely solution, you've already lost any chance to do something constructive. Therefore, don't compound the disaster that happened months earlier. Go with it and work to prevent future reoccurences.

On another comment, the "offer sterilization" approach was tried in Georgia, USA back between WW I and WW II. Eventually folks recognized that the sterilization was being applied unevenly and it became a race issue. It also failed to address the real problem, which was that men can't keep it in their pants and young girls are willing to offer them another place to keep it - for a while.

At base, this is a discussion over whether one can control a primal urge - to procreate. I believe the answer is that we will never fully succeed, though perhaps we can control the effects with birth control and sex education as a way to at least minimize the damage being done.

I can never figure out those pics, is he kicking yet?;)

He is very active, but not kicking hard enough for anyone but his mum to feel.


Doc As you can see by my response I said yes in certain circumstances, but I do believe too many people just say yes without considering all aspects, and I believe one of those is would you do it seeing the lifelikeness of the foetus.

It has already been pointed out how inappropriate the test of viablility outside the womb is.

Brian

I like Banana's proposed solution: give them a 1 way sterilization if they can't afford an abortion, can't keep their legs crossed, and can't deal with a child.

It's interesting that you ask about personal accountability but then specifically mention "can't keep their legs crossed". The man in the pair has just as much responsibility as the woman.


My main objection to the way abortion is currently handled is that it is being used as a form of retro-active birth control.


I agree. In a perfect world there would be no abortions because everyone who didn't want a child would use protection every time, and every child that is born would be wanted and have a loving family waiting for them.

I think the tactics used by the anti-abortion people has really turned this into a nasty argument. In the USA they are the crazy Christians. They will print pictures of fetuses at various stages and seek to scare people into thinking their way. A few of them even go so far as to kill doctors who perform abortions.

We will always have disagreements on various issues, but IME the people willing to kill over their beliefs always do so in the name of religion. That in itself reassures me that I'm on the right 'side' of this issue.

It's interesting that you ask about personal accountability but then specifically mention "can't keep their legs crossed". The man in the pair has just as much responsibility as the woman.


There aren't many men seeking abortions, are there? I did think to say "keep it in their pants" but it really doesn't fit very well, does it?

Yes, either person could prevent the unwanted pregnancy.

OK, you all know my religious beliefs, as for abortion I can't fathom out why anyone should have an unplanned pregnancy these days unless they were raped, if they were, I can understand why they wouldn't want to have the child. If they weren't, they were playing Russian Roulette anyway, have they never heard of safe sex? It's down right irresponsible.

I clicked option 2, I think abortion should be an option under certain circumstances..

My sister in law fell pregnant, (unplanned) after already having two children, and due to finances they decided not to keep the child, thus it was aborted.. only a year later to then plan to have another child anyway.. This I do not agree with..
Still she has to live with that on her conscientance, why was the third conceived child any less a child than the fourth one that was planned.

My wife and I have two children, and she would love a third, but our finances do not permit it, therefore we are taking precautions to ensure that we do not face the dilemma faced by her sister.

have they never heard of safe sex?
Do you mean lock the doors so as not to get caught in the act?:confused:

As I asked another poster who had similar belief, how do you account for my relative who was born three months too early, was the size of Barbie doll and required incubator to survive and is now the tallest and healthy female in the family. I'm sure you don't think she would be disqualified?

So your relative was BORN and with a little help SURVIVED OUTSIDE THE WOMB.
Your point seems to reinforce my point.

I think the tactics used by the anti-abortion people has really turned this into a nasty argument. In the USA they are the crazy Christians. They will print pictures of fetuses at various stages and seek to scare people into thinking their way. A few of them even go so far as to kill doctors who perform abortions.

We will always have disagreements on various issues, but IME the people willing to kill over their beliefs always do so in the name of religion. That in itself reassures me that I'm on the right 'side' of this issue.

It's interesting that in 30 years of political pressure and battles for the hearts and minds of the public over the issue of abortion, very little has changed.

At the beginning:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
Undecided - 60%

Currently:
Pro abortion - 20%
Anti abortion - 20%
Undecided - 60%

So your relative was BORN and with a little help SURVIVED OUTSIDE THE WOMB.
Your point seems to reinforce my point.

I may have misunderstood your point but in your original assertion:

Even though the child is moving beforehand, is it capable of survival outside the womb? In most cases it is not.

which left me with the impression that this would rule out premature births and other situations involving extra medical intervention. If a baby that is born prematurely and requires incubator, the baby certainly didn't 'survive outside the womb'- the baby needed something to replace the womb until the term and thus would be disqualified.

More to the point, if a baby can be bought to life successfully even with those additional hardships & intervention, then it was 'alive' to belong with, hence my question to you.

I voted option 4, as i feel it is every woman's right. It's not my job to decide when a baby is "alive" or decide if it's ok for them to terminate that life. That's between them and God, and they'll have to square with it one day, not me.

That's between them and God, and they'll have to square with it one day, not me.
Assuming there is one

I
When does life begin? I feel at birth. At birth the child is capable of survival outside the womb. Even though the child is moving beforehand, is it capable of survival outside the womb? In most cases it is not.


My daughter tells me that Liverpool Womens hospital consider 24 weeks is the point when the baby becomes viable.
Years ago this would not have been the case, in the future who knows what the age will be, that is why I say this viability test is nonesense.

Brian

Bri, I think you expressed it much better than I did. :)

It's funny that you should post this now. In church on Sunday we had a guest preacher named Dr. Richard Land. Dr. Land is the President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist convention. He spoke about this very issue. It was a very compelling sermon. I haven't checked, but I am sure if you would like to hear it, it is probably posted on my church's website (http://www.sagemontchurch.org). Of course I am biased towards the generic Christian view (That abortion is wrong in all circumstances), not neccesarily the Southern Baptist view, on most issues, I agreed with most of the things he had to say. I just thought you guys might like to see that this debate continues everywhere.

He was mainly here in Houston to protest a new Planned Parenthood that is being built.

See the following links for some more info on that (I know, two of these links are very biased):

http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=6091&issue=2/9/2009 (http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=6091&issue=2/9/2009)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3971316/new-abortion-clinic-in-houston/?playlist_id=87249 (http://video.foxnews.com/v/3971316/new-abortion-clinic-in-houston/?playlist_id=87249)

http://www.click2houston.com/news/22229286/detail.html

I voted Under Certain Circumstances but my vote was not based on any morality type of issue.

I just think there needs to be some responsibility and jumping into bed should not be a free ride to welfare or other gov't support.

Assuming there is one

As a man who's has a loving wife, 2 children, and more than a few close calls (one of them being a few weeks ago when a 6 point buck came thru my car window), that's an assumtion i'm totally willing to make.

Of course I am biased towards the generic Christian view (That abortion is wrong in all circumstances),

So the pregnant mother with 2 kids and whose life is at risk and the only way to save it is to abort the baby , well tough they have just both got to die.

Brian

As a man who's has a loving wife, 2 children, and more than a few close calls (one of them being a few weeks ago when a 6 point buck came thru my car window), that's an assumtion i'm totally willing to make.

Do we take this to mean that if you hadn't escaped those close calls you wouldn't believe in God?

Brian

So the pregnant mother with 2 kids and whose life is at risk and the only way to save it is to abort the baby , well tough they have just both got to die.

Brian

And for 99.99% of religious people the "it's God's will" won't hold up because that 99% would have surgery themselves to prevent death.

And "we have no right to choose which one lives" does not hold up as the baby would only survive with medical intervention.

So the pregnant mother with 2 kids and whose life is at risk and the only way to save it is to abort the baby , well tough they have just both got to die.

Brian

Yes, I don't like it, but yes. I operate under several assumptions here. 1.) The God of the Bible created this Earth and all things in and on it.

2.) We are all subject to the consequences of the sin that entered this world through the actions of Eve.

3.) Sin effects everything, our minds, actions, and also the way the earth itself operates, giving occasion for desease and the decay of our bodies over time.

4.) We will all die, there is no out to that. Not only will we all die, but our time is already set before we are even born. See Psalm 139 for that.

5.) We are given standards to live by. I do not like the effects of sin, (the fact of a mother who will die in childbirth, I am not heartless like that, and neither is God.) But I do believe that a baby is alive. So choosing abortion in that case is committing murder over allowing a natural occurrence.

6.) Someday, God will restore His earth to what it was intended to be, and this heartache will be no more. Until then there are sacrifices, hardships, evils, hurts, and sorrows that we all have to live through. But for those who believe in God, and in Jesus Christ and what he did for humanity through His death, burial and ressurection, (provided payment for our sin, reconciliation to God) we have Hope. Hope in eternal life, one without death.

I am very well aware that many people on this site don't agree with me. There are even Christians who don't agree with the "No abortions ever" sentiment. So please take this for what it's worth (my opinion and what I believe to be absolute Truth), but please don't discount it's worth and what it could mean to your life.

So you would never kill, in any circumstances, not even to protect your wife and children?

Brian

So you would never kill, in any circumstances, not even to protect your wife and children?

Brian

When it comes down to these things, I know murder is wrong. I don't know how to answer your question. I will talk with my pastor about this question as it is a good one. (I'll have a better answer for that in a few days. Off the top of my head the difference is probably self-defense vs. murder, but I am not sure.) But please, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to set myself up as judge over life and death. I have certainly not been given the authority to do so. I am also as equal of a sinner to anyone else, so I am in no position to judge another's actions. Anything I say, is based on God's law, He is the ultimate Judge. So I will fight for the Truth, but in the end, I am not responsible for the outcome on either side of the line.

Edit: of couse in my case it would be my "husband and children" :p

I am not trying to put you on the spot or change your views, merely understand them.

As I said erlier in the thread I selected option 2, I also agreed that we would be killing a living being.

Brian

I am not trying to put you on the spot or change your views, merely understand them.

As I said erlier in the thread I selected option 2, I also agreed that we would be killing a living being.

Brian

I understand, I find it hard to explain one view without opening up so many others that the original view is based upon....

I'd have less issue with the religious position if less of them were pro death penalty.

Personally I'm against abortions with no reason but I also believe no one should be allowed to dictate to another person what they can or cannot do with their own body, unless the person is insane.

I'd have less issue with the religious position if less of them were pro death penalty.

Personally I'm against abortions with no reason but I also believe no one should be allowed to dictate to another person what they can or cannot do with their own body, unless the person is insane.

Oddly enough maybe to you, I don't like the death penalty. I don't think we should let people commit heinous crimes over and over, but there has to be a better way to handle things.

Governments consistently tell people what to do with their bodies.

You're not allowed to commit suicide. You're not allowed to take illicit drugs. During prohibition, you were not allowed to drink. In many jurisdictions, you are not allowed to smoke in many places.

Now the issue is that people find a way to do all kinds of things that aren't allowed. That is the issue we had with abortion before Roe v. Wade. And then there was the huge crime problem related to prohibition. And there is the huge crime problem related to illicit drugs. And people still find ways to commit suicide.

Governments seem to have the ability to tell us all manner of things and to even kill us if we disobey. As a Christian, I am told to obey my government, even if they want me to do something I don't want to do for whatever reason. This is another reason I'm squishy on the whole abortion issue: my government has stated it is "allowed".

Governments consistently tell people what to do with their bodies.

You're not allowed to commit suicide. You're not allowed to take illicit drugs. During prohibition, you were not allowed to drink. In many jurisdictions, you are not allowed to smoke in many places.

Now the issue is that people find a way to do all kinds of things that aren't allowed. That is the issue we had with abortion before Roe v. Wade. And then there was the huge crime problem related to prohibition. And there is the huge crime problem related to illicit drugs. And people still find ways to commit suicide.

Governments seem to have the ability to tell us all manner of things and to even kill us if we disobey. As a Christian, I am told to obey my government, even if they want me to do something I don't want to do for whatever reason. This is another reason I'm squishy on the whole abortion issue: my government has stated it is "allowed".

You make an excellent point. I am going to start volunteering at a place called the Crisis Pregnancy Center, soon. And this place offers counseling and support to women who are pregnant. Being a pro-life organization it seeks to inform women about all of their available options and how each option could effect them, not only physically but emotionally too. And to offer support to those who decide to keep their babies, whether or not they give them up for adoption at a later time. I am not sure what they do for those who choose abortion, at least not yet. (I suppose I'll learn a lot once I start vounteering.) I do no that they do not offer abortion services however, but here is a wikipedia link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center)

What I like about the idea, is that women are informed, before they make a decision. And are given options with support. I know that the ones around here even have a home where women who are told that they cannot stay at home and have their baby are able to go to, where they get support and shelter through their preganancy.

George excellent point about us having to obey our government. Fortunately for us, our government is still one where we are able to vote and make our opinions known, and our laws allow for protestation.

George excellent point about us having to obey our government. Fortunately for us, our government is still one where we are able to vote and make our opinions known, and our laws allow for protestation.

Totally agreed. But I pick my battles and this is one I don't even understand, much less think can be solved. But since the government has legalized abortion, I don't think it is the Christian's job to enforce no-abortion (especially by destruction of property or murder).

I would totally support a clinic like the one you're talking about. I'd even almost go so far as to say it's OK to send public funds there (sorry Banana!). I just don't believe the government should be paying for people to make the same mistakes over and over without any penalty for doing the wrong thing, potentially killing innocents (thus my support of sterilization). I guess you can tell I don't think I'll ever be running for public office!

I'd even almost go so far as to say it's OK to send public funds there (sorry Banana!). I just don't believe the government should be paying for people to make the same mistakes over and over without any penalty for doing the wrong thing, potentially killing innocents (thus my support of sterilization). I guess you can tell I don't think I'll ever be running for public office!

LOL, fair enough. I've long ago accepted that my position on 'how things ought to be' was a bit um, out of there? ;)

My perspective is that exactly because of public funding and 'legislating morality' thing we've got going on here, almost everything has been politicalized when it always should have had been a personal and private decisions.

I already mentioned the problem of government taking a position in the realms of public policy and thus politicalizing what should have been a personal decisions. I'm wholly in favor of allowing people to form organizations and raise money to provide services consistent with their system of beliefs - just don't ask anybody else to pay for it by force (aka taxation), please. IMHO, this is the only consistent system to coexist with so many different people with their beliefs, system of morals and what nots.

I fear that if I were to run for office I'd be in the same bin with the likes of LaRoche, Robertson, Paul, and just about other wackos. :D

I'm not sure I really understand this whole government issue in abortion. Some of you guys are saying you don't want the government to decide if abortion should be legal or not, or at least that is what it seems you're saying.

Who exactly should determine if abortions are legal?

I'm not sure I really understand this whole government issue in abortion. Some of you guys are saying you don't want the government to decide if abortion should be legal or not, or at least that is what it seems you're saying.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Government has no place in questions of morality. It should never have been a political issue and should have remained a personal decision, IMHO.

Who exactly should determine if abortions are legal?

Everyone decide for themselves. Not government's problems nor is it anybody's place to impose their code on anybody else.

EDIT: To be explicit - I'm also saying this is a legal nonissue. People ought to be free to do what they want to, set up an abortion clinic or a crisis pregnancy center or whatever is consistent with what they believe and service the clients who come to them voluntarily. No need to be told by fiat or mandate by a bunch of clowns who won a popularity contest.

Why does the subject of Abortion have to turn into a religious debate, when clearly it is about the taking of a life unnecassarily, and not about a persons faith or who they worship.

Not every thing in this world revolves around religion you know.

The subject is; is it right to have the decision to end an unborn life, and under what circumstances if any is it right to make this decision.

And clearly the situation that I described in an earlier post is not the correct circumstances to abort a life, especially when later a new life is created...

Believers and Non Believers, please get off your soap boxes...

Scott, I think you are missing that fundamentally, abortion is a moral question and as such will be answered according to one's moral framework, which various religions & philosophies will be used to answer the question. To say it shouldn't be answered in such context is akin to saying that you can ask a question about arithmetic but you can't answer in mathematical terms, as I see it. People didn't draw their conclusions about abortions in a vacuum, they did so in context of how they approach the world in general - else, they wouldn't be very consistent, would they be?

Why does the subject of Abortion have to turn into a religious debate, when clearly it is about the taking of a life unnecassarily, and not about a persons faith or who they worship.
.

You're right Scott, it's not about who or what you worship or don't worship, it's about morals. However, a great deal of our morals do come from our religious beliefs and/or those of our forefathers. Like it or not, religious or not, we all pass moral judgment on our fellow humans. Perhaps the key to peace is to get past this obstacle, however, I cannot see it happening in my lifetime.

I don't agree with abortion, unless there is a very good reason for it (on that subject Krystal, I can't understand a God that would offer us the technology to save a life - through abortion - and condem the use of it) and I do feel very sad for anyone who has had to go through that process for any reason. For the life of me though, I cannot pass judgement and say hand on heart "I would never ever do that" (except for the fact that I'm waaaay past having to worry about that of course :D).

Totally agreed. But I pick my battles and this is one I don't even understand, much less think can be solved. But since the government has legalized abortion, I don't think it is the Christian's job to enforce no-abortion (especially by destruction of property or murder).

I don't know about this being governments responsibility or not. It is certainly not my job to enforce no abortion in the ways you mention.... that would be very hypocritical. But, especially as a woman, I feel it is my responsibility as a Christian to voice what is right and wrong, to not do that (as others here have even mentioned) would be the same as condoning murder in my eyes... But I agree that a person needs to pick their battles, there are several discussions I do not get involved in, because I don't want to argue (I can get heated sometimes), or I just plain don't know enough, even though I know my general stance.

I don't know about this being governments responsibility or not. It is certainly not my job to enforce no abortion in the ways you mention.... that would be very hypocritical. But, especially as a woman, I feel it is my responsibility as a Christian to voice what is right and wrong, to not do that (as others here have even mentioned) would be the same as condoning murder in my eyes... But I agree that a person needs to pick their battles, there are several discussions I do not get involved in, because I don't want to argue (I can get heated sometimes), or I just plain don't know enough, even though I know my general stance.

Just to clarify Krystal, you are 100% certain that if you were raped by someone with a genetic mutation that would guarantee your child would, in fact, be the anti-Christ, guaranteeing death and destruction in its wake, you would not have that child aborted?

I don't agree with abortion, unless there is a very good reason for it (on that subject Krystal, I can't understand a God that would offer us the technology to save a life - through abortion - and condem the use of it) and I do feel very sad for anyone who has had to go through that process for any reason. For the life of me though, I cannot pass judgement and say hand on heart "I would never ever do that" (except for the fact that I'm waaaay past having to worry about that of course :D).

Ouma, I completely agree with your sentiment. But I think the issue here is the taking of one life for another. Again, I want to reiterate, that the reason such decisions even exist is because of the effect of sin on the world. I believe that God cries with the loss of every life. (Just as He cried with the sisters of Lazarus when Lazarus died even though He raised him to life again.) One day God will come and rid the earth of sin, and these things will no longer plague us. I know that my opinion here could start the debate about where life begins. I suggest that every person has been planned and designed by God, Psalm 139 says that we are all knitted together in the womb by Him. And that it is a wonderful work of His. I am not saying that the babies life has more value than the mother's only that nothing justifies murdering the baby for the sake of the mother.

Just to clarify Krystal, you are 100% certain that if you were raped by someone with a genetic mutation that would guarantee your child would, in fact, be the anti-Christ, guaranteeing death and destruction in its wake, you would not have that child aborted?

I would never abort my child. But as this is a more personal question, here I will speak to me and my choices. I believe that God has my days planned, and that there is a specific purpose for my life. There is no way I could ever know who or what my child could be without God speaking to me directly. If God commanded that of me then yes I would. But the thing is, God would not. God is just and unchangeable if nothing else, He would never command me to do something that goes against laws that He has put in place.

I would never abort my child. But as this is a more personal question, here I will speak to me and my choices. I believe that God has my days planned, and that there is a specific purpose for my life. There is no way I could ever know who or what my child could be without God speaking to me directly. If God commanded that of me then yes I would. But the thing is, God would not. God is just and unchangeable if nothing else, He would never command me to do something that goes against laws that He has put in place.

Oh Krystal, I do hope you never have to cross the bridge where you don't think of the child growing in your belly as your child, I hope you never have to cross the bridge where your theories, trust and faith are put to such an awful test, and I hope that you never lose your innocence.

Oh Krystal, I do hope you never have to cross the bridge where you don't think of the child growing in your belly as your child, I hope you never have to cross the bridge where your theories, trust and faith are put to such an awful test, and I hope that you never lose your innocence.

I certainly hope not either. Given the fact that doctors were telling my parents to pull the life support away from me and my twin sister who were born 3 months early in 1980, after my moms body went into spontaneous abortion, and the fact that they didn't. I am very conscious of life in the womb. Also I have a friend who works in a neonatal unit here in Houston and she is constantly telling me stories of babies being born much earlier then even I was.

If such a thing ever happens to me, as the scenario you asked me about (excepting the anti-Christ part, as I wouldn't ever know that) I would hope that I would be able to follow through on my convictions.

As an interesting aside, here is another article about that planned parenthood center. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/6821521.html) Also as an aside, I really do wish that we as the human race did not have to contend with such issues, it just breaks my heart. According to this article 8,000 babies last year were aborted in the Houston area alone.

Edit: Also, I am not as innocent as I seem, I come from a home with a schizophrenice and alcoholic mother, a step-dad who was an alcoholic and a drug abuser, so I have seen and been a part of plenty of hardships that life can offer. My faith and belief is founded on the things that God has brought me through. :) But I will leave off this vein of the conversation as I know this is not the place for it...

I certainly hope not either. Given the fact that doctors were telling my parents to pull the life support away from me and my twin sister who were born 3 months early in 1980, after my moms body went into spontaneous abortion, and the fact that they didn't. I am very conscious of life in the womb. Also I have a friend who works in a neonatal unit here in Houston and she is constantly telling me stories of babies being born much earlier then even I was.

If such a thing ever happens to me, as the scenario you asked me about (excepting the anti-Christ part, as I wouldn't ever know that) I would hope that I would be able to follow through on my convictions.

As an interesting aside, here is another article about that planned parenthood center. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/6821521.html) Also as an aside, I really do wish that we as the human race did not have to contend with such issues, it just breaks my heart. According to this article 8,000 babies last year were aborted in the Houston area alone.

Edit: Also, I am not as innocent as I seem, I come from a home with a schizophrenice and alcoholic mother, a step-dad who was an alcoholic and a drug abuser, so I have seen and been a part of plenty of hardships that life can offer. My faith and belief is founded on the things that God has brought me through. :) But I will leave off this vein of the conversation as I know this is not the place for it...

LOL, I find most "true Christians" have an innocence about them, regardless of their background. As a non-Christian, I also believe that life is sacred and should be preserved and cherished as much as possible, however, I do have a whole lot of conflict with regard to where do you draw the line? I wouldn't kill an animal, therefore I go through long periods of vegetarianism, but still go back to eating meat. I can't stand the thought of a spider crawling over me in the night so I'll kill any I find in my bedroom and promptly throw up because of it. For these, and many more reasons, I find it difficult to say that I would never ever do (insert anything here).

Having said that, I can, hand on heart, say I would never, ever, ever, have an abortion - I can testify to that because I know for a fact my body would never ever put me in that situation ;) Ah, at last, one less conflict for me to worry about.

Scott, I think you are missing that fundamentally, abortion is a moral question and as such will be answered according to one's moral framework, which various religions & philosophies will be used to answer the question. To say it shouldn't be answered in such context is akin to saying that you can ask a question about arithmetic but you can't answer in mathematical terms, as I see it. People didn't draw their conclusions about abortions in a vacuum, they did so in context of how they approach the world in general - else, they wouldn't be very consistent, would they be?

I don't believe that I am missing the point, the questions is is it right or wrong, is it moral to do this or is it immoral.

A non believer can make this distinction just as well as a believer, so religion does not play a part, it is about your personal view as to whether it is right or wrong.

If religion guides your morals then so be it, but this is not a religious question that can only be answered by those who have faith...

God is just

If God is just, then why did he allow Children to die in the Asian Tsunami, why did he allow children to die in the Haiti earthquake...

or are you gonna give me some nonsense as the priests did in Indonisia by saying that the children died due to sins they committed in their former lives :rolleyes::mad:

I don't believe that I am missing the point, the questions is is it right or wrong, is it moral to do this or is it immoral.

Still, morals has their sources. As I said, they don't exist in a vacuum but are a part of a much larger worldview we choose to adopt for ourselves, and may include the religion and/or philosophy we adopt. I don't think it is helpful to ignore the worldview and the assumptions behind it when posting an answer to a question. In many ways, the assumptions determine what the answer will be and I do think understanding the assumptions is key here.

A non believer can make this distinction just as well as a believer, so religion does not play a part, it is about your personal view as to whether it is right or wrong.

If religion guides your morals then so be it, but this is not a religious question that can only be answered by those who have faith...

Um, we're actually in agreement- I'm not sure where you got the idea that I would claim only 'believers' have the privilege to answer the question.

If God is just, then why did he allow Children to die in the Asian Tsunami, why did he allow children to die in the Haiti earthquake...

or are you gonna give me some nonsense as the priests did in Indonisia by saying that the children died due to sins they committed in their former lives :rolleyes::mad:

Please see my post about sin that is in all the world, it is inherent in the world itself, not just people, and I do mean ALL people, we are born into it, we sin by the very fact that we do not perfectly follow God's law. EVERYONE will die because sin is present in the world, I don't mean that in a mean way, just that the aging process and every kind of death is there because sin is in the earth and on the earth. I am not picking on anyone, everything unjust in this world is a result of a fallen world that will one day be restored and redeemed... That is the history the Bible gives. God grieves just as much over the lives of these poor people as you and I and most of the world does, that is why He is not leaving us in this sin, but provides a way out of it, and a hope for a better future.

This thread is in danger of turning into another discussion on religion.

Brian

This thread is in danger of turning into another discussion on religion.

Brian

So very true, I'll be happy to reply to any other questions about my posts in a new thread so this one stays on topic.

God grieves just as much over the lives of these poor people as you and I and most of the world does, that is why He is not leaving us in this sin, but provides a way out of it, and a hope for a better future.

I think religion is a fascinating subject, and people's beliefs are often varied. So, I've a few questions for you, and you can feel free to answer them or not. I'm not trying to catch you in an "ah ha!" moment or anything, and you do seem like a nice person, so hopefully you'll answer these.


Do you notice the correlation at all between God's provided way out (i.e. worship him), and the fact that throughout history this act has been tied to an organization (i.e. church)? As a lover of history, I've studied many relgions both before and after Christianity, and I've always thought this was an obvious point that even religious people would have to see.
Is your faith tied to any facts? In other words, is there anything that could be discovered that would seriously make you question your faith? If so, give an example, and if not, do you see any correlation between mind control/brainwashing and organized religion?
Being as there are many religions in the world, and thousands throughout history that are no longer around, do you believe that all of those religions were wrong, and yours is the correct one?
And lastly, before Christianity was discovered (or introduced), all of the humans alive did not have the opportunity to be Christians, as it did not exist. Since these people did not worship God, what happened to them afterlife wise?

I think religion is a fascinating subject, and people's beliefs are often varied. So, I've a few questions for you, and you can feel free to answer them or not. I'm not trying to catch you in an "ah ha!" moment or anything, and you do seem like a nice person, so hopefully you'll answer these.


Do you notice the correlation at all between God's provided way out (i.e. worship him), and the fact that throughout history this act has been tied to an organization (i.e. church)? As a lover of history, I've studied many relgions both before and after Christianity, and I've always thought this was an obvious point that even religious people would have to see.
Is your faith tied to any facts? In other words, is there anything that could be discovered that would seriously make you question your faith? If so, give an example, and if not, do you see any correlation between mind control/brainwashing and organized religion?
Being as there are many religions in the world, and thousands throughout history that are no longer around, do you believe that all of those religions were wrong, and yours is the correct one?
And lastly, before Christianity was discovered (or introduced), all of the humans alive did not have the opportunity to be Christians, as it did not exist. Since these people did not worship God, what happened to them afterlife wise?


I'll try to answer in a new thread, but it'll probably be after lunch time (it's 11:20 a.m. here, I go to lunch at noon)

Edit: Here is the new thread. (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=186736)

Lutheran, 24, USA. I oppose abortion unless the woman's life is at risk.

I believe in the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. While I do believe needless abortion violates all three of those principles, it particularly violates the life one. I'm not coming at this with the old "when is it a life" angle, but rather the angle of what it means to have the right to life to begin with.

I think that if you truly believe in the right to Life, this also means you have the right to be born to experience that Life in the first place.

If a woman wants an abortion and you punish her by making her have the kid, what kind of quality of life is that kid going to have? Would you want to be the baby your mom was forced to have? I know I wouldn't.\\


I don't understand this argument. To me, it's the same as walking down a street and judging people based off of how their personal situations are. I'd hardly advocate death for someone who has had a rough life. Thankfully I don't see vans rolling down streets euthanizing people who have had difficult lives.

Additionally, we have a personal responsibility for our actions and must live with the consequences of all our actions.

Additionally, we have a personal responsibility for our actions and must live with the consequences of all our actions.

Including being raped.

Brian

In the case of rape of an innocent person, does it mean the resulting baby is somehow "less" of a human and therefore doesn't deserve being brought up to be a part of society? Isn't labeling "rape" as ok but "abortion-as-birth-control" just classism of what's right is not?

To me, life is life regardless of the "class".

In the case of rape of an innocent person, does it mean the resulting baby is somehow "less" of a human and therefore doesn't deserve being brought up to be a part of society? Isn't labeling "rape" as ok but "abortion-as-birth-control" just classism of what's right is not?

To me, life is life regardless of the "class".
The comment in red is provocative, at the very least.
Nobody in any post has suggested that rape is 'ok' and suggesting otherwise is a rather pathetic attemp to skew Brian's point.

The comment in red is provocative, at the very least.
Nobody in any post has suggested that rape is 'ok' and suggesting otherwise is a rather pathetic attemp to skew Brian's point.

I don't believe I did that. I guess you can go back and re-read. But there are folks who legitimatize rape as a reason for abortion, but not when it was consensual.

I just don't understand how rape can make a difference if a birth should occur or not.

I don't believe I did that. I guess you can go back and re-read. But there are folks who legitimatize rape as a reason for abortion, but not when it was consensual.

I just don't understand how rape can make a difference if a birth should occur or not.
You asked if labelling X as ok but Y as not okay was no more than classism of what's right and waht's wrong.
Quote:
"Isn't labeling "rape" as ok but "abortion-as-birth-control" just classism of what's right is not?"
That suggests that someone at some point has labelled rape as ok.
Are you now saying that nobody has?

If they haven't - and they definitely haven't - why bring it up?

I think that if you truly believe in the right to Life, this also means you have the right to be born to experience that Life in the first place.


Things that do not exist do not have rights. Therefore, the question of when something exists is essential.


I don't understand this argument. To me, it's the same as walking down a street and judging people based off of how their personal situations are.
I'd hardly advocate death for someone who has had a rough life. Thankfully I don't see vans rolling down streets euthanizing people who have had difficult lives.


Classic strawman.


Additionally, we have a personal responsibility for our actions and must live with the consequences of all our actions.

It seems really odd to me that you want to punish someone's mistake of being irresponsible with suddenly being responsible for a life.

Laxster -

your arguement - isn't spelled out in a logical way

Rape is Rape period - it is never ok
if a lady get pregnat after this - to enforce that they carry this is a extra burnden/punishment (?) - a bit of a double wammy.

I can perfectly understand women who terminate at this point...

your arguement - isn't spelled out in a logical way
Well, it might not appear to be logical because it doesn't follow the normal knee-jerk reactions these conversations can have. My main point is that regardless of how the conception occured, it occured. Through nature it results in a human. The Founding Fathers of the United States believed very much in inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For life to occur, something has to be born. If something is not born or a natural process is interfered with, you are taking away the possibility for it to be born, thus undermining what Life actually is -- regardless of when you believe it occurs!

I never said rape was okay. It is obviously a very terrible thing, and I can understand WHY someone possibly might want to abort the pregnancy. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, and that the life shouldn't exist.

A rape doesn't reduce the worth of the resulting baby. How can we place value on some lives and not on others just because the circumstances weren't the way we wanted them?

Things that do not exist do not have rights. Therefore, the question of when something exists is essential. Life is an inalienable right. Regardless of if you think it is a human, or nothing more than a blob of cells, it cannot be debated that it is a living human upon birth. To believe in life, something has to be born for that life to be experienced! The argument is no less diminished regardless of your personal definition of what constitutes being alive.

I never said rape was okay.


Actually you did.

Isn't labeling "rape" as ok

Nobody else had said it was ok, so you must be the one labelling it so.

How can we place value on some lives and not on others just because the circumstances weren't the way we wanted them?

What about the value of the life of the raped woman, as Garry said carrying that baby could be a double whammy preventing the woman from getting her life back on track.
It may not be an easy decision but not everybody is prepared to hide behind the priests' skirts.

Brian

Actually you did.

Nobody else had said it was ok, so you must be the one labelling it so.

You're not going to get anywhere by talking sense.
I was told to go back and reread his post (didn't change what he wrote, but it killed a few seconds).

If something is not born or a natural process is interfered with, you are taking away the possibility for it to be born, thus undermining what Life actually is -- regardless of when you believe it occurs!


So would you say birth control pills and condoms are interfering with a natural process?


To believe in life, something has to be born for that life to be experienced! The argument is no less diminished regardless of your personal definition of what constitutes being alive.

This is circular logic.

I truthfully believe it's a woman's right to get an abortion. When you start to overcomplicate the issue by adding conditions to something that is currently already legal, it can only lead to more trouble than it's worth.

For those who say they are against it, but okay with it when a woman is raped, how can that be okay? Most arguments I hear for anti-abortion state it's murder to do. It's a living being. How can you then condemn that living being just because it was concieved out of a crime it had nothing to do with?

You are right Alc, and I am starting to get a bit fed up with the thread as the Bible quoters refuse to think and just quote what they have been told.

Think I'll go and watch Abu City duff up Manure.

Brian

Actually you did.
Where? I NEVER said that, nor do I think rape is ever okay.

Nobody else had said it was ok, so you must be the one labelling it so.
Ah, but that's an assumption on your part, which I've just cleared up. Multiple times.

What about the value of the life of the raped woman, as Garry said carrying that baby could be a double whammy preventing the woman from getting her life back on track.
It may not be an easy decision but not everybody is prepared to hide behind the priests' skirts.
It's not just about ONE life, it's about TWO lives, and taking responsibility for another life under your care! Look, I realize rape is an awful thing. But so is interfering in the right to life -- especially when the life is on the cusp of being experienced!

And if you yourself aren't capable of taking care of another human, there are plenty of people who are and who would gladly do so! I know a couple who literally waited for months to take in an adopted child.

Life is such a wonderful, amazing thing! Sometimes I think I'm drunk on it. I'm so grateful to be here on this earth, to make friends, to experience everything I care to, good AND bad! I just don't understand how a rape legitimizes taking away everything a person can have to live for or how it could possibly be construed to mean that there is no responsibility involved between the mother and resulting child.

[QUOTE=Adam Caramon;924989]So would you say birth control pills and condoms are interfering with a natural process?

QUOTE]

Once we go down that path I'm outa here since I can't see a thing without my specs.

Brian

for or how it could possibly be construed to mean that there is no responsibility involved between the mother and resulting child.
Where's the mother going to get her love for said child, don't tell me, god

I just don't understand how a rape legitimizes taking away everything a person can have to live for or how it could possibly be construed to mean that there is no responsibility involved between the mother and resulting child.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make you right. Someone else's body is their own business. What gives you any right to try and dictate what they may or may not do with it?

You're not going to get anywhere by talking sense.
I was told to go back and reread his post (didn't change what he wrote, but it killed a few seconds).

And still no one can seem to find anywhere stating that I believe rape was "ok". :rolleyes:

You are right Alc, and I am starting to get a bit fed up with the thread as the Bible quoters refuse to think and just quote what they have been told.
Who is a "Bible quoter" here? My reasoning is A) a line of reasoning most people don't stop to consider, and B) a secular line of reasoning.

In my opinion, government doesn't belong legislating who can die, and who cannot. We have a right to life, ergo a right to be born. And no one has brought up any legitimate reasons as to how you couldn't possibly have that right to be alive after you were conceived. I am open to hearing real reasons (not excuses). But I guess a lot of people refuse to think and instead trot up the same tired dogma over-and-over again.

Unless anyone has anything new to contribute on this topic, I'm out. Live and let live, right? :D

And still no one can seem to find anywhere stating that I believe rape was "ok". :rolleyes:
Okay, lets' keep this simple.

If someone wrote
'Isn't labelling bullfighting as ok but fox hunting as not, just classism of right and what isn't?'
They would be saying that someone, somewhere had said that the former was ok and the latter was not.

If someone wrote
'Isn't labelling taking heroin as ok but taking crack as not, just classism of right and what isn't?'
They would be saying that someone, somewhere had said that the former was ok and the latter was not.

If someone wrote
'Isn't labelling taking sexism as ok but racism as not, just classism of right and what isn't?'
They would be saying that someone, somewhere had said that the former was ok and the latter was not.

You wrote
'Isn't labeling "rape" as ok but "abortion-as-birth-control" just classism of what's right is not?'
Since nobody else has said that rape is ok, what are people supposed to get from your statement, if not the fact that you're saying that rape is ok?

Who is a "Bible quoter" here? My reasoning is A) a line of reasoning most people don't stop to consider, and B) a secular line of reasoning.

I am a Bible quoter, he might be talking about me.:)

In my opinion, government doesn't belong legislating who can die, and who cannot. We have a right to life, ergo a right to be born.

So let me see if I follow. The Founding Fathers, in the act of forming our government, said we have the right to life. I.E., our government gave us the right to life. But you don't think the government should be legislating who can die.

The government giveth and the government can taketh away, no?

I am a Bible quoter, he might be talking about me.:)

I'm sure of it. Since nobody else ever quoted any scripture. Odd since you had the decency to start a new thread when it was pointed out to you.

What gives you any right to try and dictate what they may or may not do with it?

The individuals on this forum have no rights to tell you to do anything, unless you ask.

However, the government seems to have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies as there are whole sets of laws that do so (we covered this earlier in the thread). And government is supposedly run by the will of the people. So, potentially, people could have the laws changed so they can tell you not to have an abortion, not that you'll ever need one.

I think that may be a little short-sighted, though. I'd hate to see the back-alley abortion doctors start back up.

I'm sure of it. Since nobody else ever quoted any scripture. Odd since you had the decency to start a new thread when it was pointed out to you.

It's alright, I don't mind his frustration with it. Although I must say, that usually people require ideas to come from somewhere other than the person's own opinion, I don't see why me saying where mine are based from can be frustrating, as I am not touting my own dreamed up opinion, but showing evidences/sources (whether it is agreed with or not) for the opinion I have. I do think, I just think about things differently, and in a very different frame of reference.

If that statement wasn't aimed at me, then nevermind to this post :)

Originally posted by Brianwarnock:

the Bible quoters refuse to think and just quote what they have been told.

So let me see if I follow. The Founding Fathers, in the act of forming our government, said we have the right to life. I.E., our government gave us the right to life. But you don't think the government should be legislating who can die.

The government giveth and the government can taketh away, no?
No. That's where you go wrong. I bolded that statement. While the argument is also a secular one, our Founding Fathers believed that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness were inalienable rights, given to us by God and that government has no right to interfere with them. Only God can take these things away from us. Or, if you don't believe in God, then nothing can take these away.

Certainly not the "more perfect Union" that they were trying to establish.

The individuals on this forum have no rights to tell you to do anything, unless you ask.

However, the government seems to have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies as there are whole sets of laws that do so (we covered this earlier in the thread). And government is supposedly run by the will of the people. So, potentially, people could have the laws changed so they can tell you not to have an abortion, not that you'll ever need one.

I think that may be a little short-sighted, though. I'd hate to see the back-alley abortion doctors start back up.

Just because the government can tell people what they may and may not do to their bodies doesn't mean they should tell people.

Looking back at the points regarding the government saying what you can and can't do to your body there's not much there. Taking drugs isn't illegal in the UK, the act of suicide isn't illegal either. Saying you can't smoke in certain areas isn't saying you can't smoke. The government really don't have many laws dictating what can be done with your body, unless you could provide some references to the laws, and not badly reported newspaper stories please.

As the orginator of this thread I would like to make a few points.

1. If abortion is made illegal then there will still be abortions carried out in dirty back street rooms with the woman running a high risk of death.

2. IMHO abortion is often a solution of last resort and may be the lesser of two evils. There are very few absolutes in our lives. We have to make compromises every day. I would normally never steal but if my wife and family were starving I would try to get them food even if I had to steal it.

3. You don't need religion to live a decent, moral life.

Just because the government can tell people what they may and may not do to their bodies doesn't mean they should tell people.

I may agree with that statement (just a few limitations). The fact is, they can and do tell us what to do with our bodies.

The government really don't have many laws dictating what can be done with your body, unless you could provide some references to the laws, and not badly reported newspaper stories please.

You could have done this with a simple google search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide lists the history of governments telling us (along with the law names) that we couldn't commit suicide. I think the reason so many governments later banned their laws is that they are unenforceable. The laws are still on the books in some jurisdictions. BTW, even though suicide is not illegal in most jurisdictions in the US, there are still penalties associated with attempting to commit suicide (most "attempters" are committed or at least forced to undergo therapy).

For drug abuse, the laws are numerous in the US. Another wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_abuse) states:

Use of these drugs may lead to criminal penalty in addition to possible physical, social, and psychological harm, both strongly depending on local jurisdiction.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_abuse#cite_note-mosby-1)IMHO, the only reason smoking hasn't been totally outlawed in some communities is that the US has proven that prohibition doesn't work. But since most Americans spend most of their time in public places, it is almost the same as telling them they can't smoke. Many people go through the unpleasant withdrawal trying to quit smoking when these types of laws come to their jurisdiction.

Yes, the government can tell you what you can and cannot do with your body, whether they should or not. For instance, in China, you cannot lay down in front of a government tank (they didn't even have to write that into law). There are severe penalties for that.

As the orginator of this thread I would like to make a few points.

1. If abortion is made illegal then there will still be abortions carried out in dirty back street rooms with the woman running a high risk of death.

2. IMHO abortion is often a solution of last resort and may be the lesser of two evils. There are very few absolutes in our lives. We have to make compromises every day. I would normally never steal but if my wife and family were starving I would try to get them food even if I had to steal it.

3. You don't need religion to live a decent, moral life.

At last someone who talks sense.. :)

It's alright, I don't mind his frustration with it.

If that statement wasn't aimed at me, then nevermind to this post :)

Originally posted by Brianwarnock:

It wasn't aimed at you, although you had started the bible quoting the thread had stayed polite and courteous, my frustration was with another poster who twisted words and who I thought, mistakenly as I now find on rereading his posts , had also quoted from the bible.

Please accept my apologies if I offended you.

Brian

It wasn't aimed at you, although you had started the bible quoting the thread had stayed polite and courteous, my frustration was with another poster who twisted words and who I thought, mistakenly as I now find on rereading his posts , had also quoted from the bible.

Please accept my apologies if I offended you.

Brian

None taken. Apology accepted. :D

there are some bright sparks out there -

if we are saying that goverment should not tell us what to do with our bodies- therefore by default they have to legalise abortion... - they are not telling you to have one - but giving the individual the right to - if they were to make it illegal then they telling us what to do with our bodies

You will not get a clear black and white answer to this ...
event the church alllows abortion on certain grounds - so if you are a god squad person - then the church has its own gey area's (mainly where the life of the mother is in danger plus a few other exceptions)
so we need to a small degree ignore some of the church dotrine on this ...
also if you are a god squad person - the church can be wrong and has been in the past , you are meant to make your own mind up, not blindly follow some preachers rambling (the Pope)

and for those of us whom don't believe in the church version of god (or god full stop) then its a bit extreme to impose your beliefs on us .. thats going a bit too far -=- for those who aren't of a faith - we base our morals on views, science and gut feeling ..

I rant ..

there are some bright sparks out there -

if we are saying that goverment should not tell us what to do with our bodies- therefore by default they have to legalise abortion... - they are not telling you to have one - but giving the individual the right to - if they were to make it illegal then they telling us what to do with our bodies

You will not get a clear black and white answer to this ...
event the church alllows abortion on certain grounds - so if you are a god squad person - then the church has its own gey area's (mainly where the life of the mother is in danger plus a few other exceptions)
so we need to a small degree ignore some of the church dotrine on this ...
also if you are a god squad person - the church can be wrong and has been in the past , you are meant to make your own mind up, not blindly follow some preachers rambling (the Pope)

and for those of us whom don't believe in the church version of god (or god full stop) then its a bit extreme to impose your beliefs on us .. thats going a bit too far -=- for those who aren't of a faith - we base our morals on views, science and gut feeling ..

I rant ..

You speak of the church in very general terms, not all churches do, none of the one I have allow it, I have been members of the Baptist church or the Reformed Presbyterian church (PCA).

You speak of the church in very general terms, not all churches do, none of the one I have allow it, I have been members of the Baptist church or the Reformed Presbyterian church (PCA).

It wasn't a personal dig - it was a genealisation - any offence given was not intentional - I have read your posts and they are presented openly and with grace, some of the other posts are bring in in God/church- founding fathers into this and they are not being as open as yourself on the subject -
they are walking around a church moral view - but not standing up for it - your post was open at the outset - and your point made (I don't agree with it - but I respect it )
I offer an apoligie if I have offended you,

Reglion in the UK is a subject that we usually don't discuss - as it usually ends in an arguement or a fight (our track recond on relgion isn't very good- so we try to accomodate every view)

"You speak of the church in very general terms, not all churches do, none of the one I have allow it, I have been members of the Baptist church or the Reformed Presbyterian church (PCA"

If by carry the unborn child to full term the life of the mother is put into danger - then the RC church does allow abortion, as does Cof E

not being a member of either of the churches mentioned - I Lack the information to make that statement -but for RC and CofE this is correct,

aplogises for the over genrealisation ...-

Reglion in the UK is a subject that we usually don't discuss - as it usually ends in an arguement or a fight (our track recond on relgion isn't very good- so we try to accomodate every view)

That brings up a question of mine. I have heard from dubious sources that there is such a thing as a 'Jedi' religion in the UK, and apparently it is really big there. From what this source told me, UK is a lot more secular than the US is, so I was just curious if this Jedi religion is actually popular there and how it is viewed by the general public.

It wasn't a personal dig - it was a genealisation - any offence given was not intentional - I have read your posts and they are presented openly and with grace, some of the other posts are bring in in God/church- founding fathers into this and they are not being as open as yourself on the subject -
they are walking around a church moral view - but not standing up for it - your post was open at the outset - and your point made (I don't agree with it - but I respect it )
I offer an apoligie if I have offended you,

Reglion in the UK is a subject that we usually don't discuss - as it usually ends in an arguement or a fight (our track recond on relgion isn't very good- so we try to accomodate every view)

Oh, Gary, I am soooo not offended, if I were I wouldn't be participating in this conversation as I would be too mad (I loose my temper pretty easily, one of my biggest sins) to answer in a credible way...:D Religion is something that generally ends in arguments even here in the US. I once had an argument with my father when I switched from Baptist to PCA, where he told me that I was following after strange gods. Which, in Christian speak, was a huge blow/insult. He thinks differently now, but at the time we were screaming at each other.... And Baptist and PCA are both typical Christian denominations.

if your happy and it works for you - great-
i have found that the church's don't relate to the common person - so I don't have much time for them - Imust admit that the Church of englands view on women vicars -is brillaint - and is a step in the right direction (for me anyway)

That brings up a question of mine. I have heard from dubious sources that there is such a thing as a 'Jedi' religion in the UK, and apparently it is really big there. From what this source told me, UK is a lot more secular than the US is, so I was just curious if this Jedi religion is actually popular there and how it is viewed by the general public.

every 10 years we have a census - and if 10,000 are in a cult /religion,/ group they have to be registered as such - so its a joke on our census- to which about 20,000 signed up to - ..Goverement didn't like it -but what the hell -

"You speak of the church in very general terms, not all churches do, none of the one I have allow it, I have been members of the Baptist church or the Reformed Presbyterian church (PCA"

If by carry the unborn child to full term the life of the mother is put into danger - then the RC church does allow abortion, as does Cof E

not being a member of either of the churches mentioned - I Lack the information to make that statement -but for RC and CofE this is correct,

aplogises for the over genrealisation ...-

You know, I don't know much of anything about the church in Europe, sigh, there are so many things I want to study and so little time. Not only concerning the history of religion but access, php, html, more about American history, I'd like to study my geneology...etc.... Not to mention I so want more time to study my Bible.

I For instance, in China, you cannot lay down in front of a government tank (they didn't even have to write that into law). There are severe penalties for that.
And if you're a student in the US you can't take part in a peaceful protest in front of the National Guard either, sorry, what was your point again?

Why can you not protest in front of the National Guard in the US?

And if you're a student in the US you can't take part in a peaceful protest in front of the National Guard either, sorry, what was your point again?

Well at least within the last 40 years?

That brings up a question of mine. I have heard from dubious sources that there is such a thing as a 'Jedi' religion in the UK, and apparently it is really big there. From what this source told me, UK is a lot more secular than the US is, so I was just curious if this Jedi religion is actually popular there and how it is viewed by the general public.
It was passed around on the internet that during the last census if enough people put down their religion as Jedi then the government had to accept it as a viable religion. I put down that it's my religion because I don't think it's any of the governments bloody business, or anyone elses for that matter, I also wanted to put "unknown" as my ethnicity but there wasn't an option for that so I ticked all the boxes;)

if your happy and it works for you - great-
i have found that the church's don't relate to the common person - so I don't have much time for them - Imust admit that the Church of englands view on women vicars -is brillaint - and is a step in the right direction (for me anyway)
And Catholicism which of course not just has a history of abuse against young boys but as an institution which tries not just to cover up the abuse but to protect the abusers too:mad:

And Catholicism which of course not just has a history of abuse against young boys but as an institution which tries not just to cover up the abuse but to protect the abusers too:mad:


I'm with you all the way on this Rich - lets hang em....

I'm with you all the way on this Rich - lets hang em....
That privilege is reserved for those whose constitution make great claim on protecting the sanctity of life, ie., The US., Iran, China etc.,etc.,

I believe that abortion should be legal for several reasons.
Mostly, I try to take religious perspectives out of the equation because law is not really suppose to make decisions based on religion. (not to mention we as a species have no unified view on which religion is correct, or if any are).

Logic: If a woman wants an abortion, she will get an abortion. Making it illegal simply makes the conditions of an abortion far more dangerous. There are stats that indicate abortion levels decline when abortion is illegal, but you must ask, how many doctors performing illegal abortions would list how many abortions they have done in a survey?..answer, none.
If a woman makes the choice (and lets not forget, this is a choice she has likely thought about, this isn't like choosing an outfit), then i would rather know that she will have the option to get it done in a safe environment so that we only loose one life, and not two.

Everytime a woman gives birth, there are risks. We cannot legally force a person to subject their body to anything in order to save a life. Otherwise the argument could be made that people would have to donate their kidney to save the life of another. I'm not here to argue if a fetus is a person. because really, to my argument, and my logic, it doesn't matter. The rule should apply to all people.

Access guy - you bring up an interesting (and probably very valid) point - that when abortions are illegal, it is quite possible that the actual numbers don't change. But reporting DOES change. Abortion has been around since the time of Hippocrates, 'cause the Hippocratic Oath mentions abortifactants. (He called it a pessary, I believe.) The only change is who reports it.

Regarding religious denominations that allow abortion: Before I became atheist, I was a Methodist. The discussion came up with the pastor. He said that for Methodists, it is a matter of conscience because the Methodist heirarchy doesn't (or at least didn't, at that time) have a position one way or the other. So chalk up one for Methodists.

IMHO the abortion debate boils down to two arguments - a moral/religious one and a legal one. Right now, the legality of abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is predicated on the medical evidence that strongly implies that a fetus cannot survive outside of the mother until at least the second trimester, and therefore cannot be considered a separate life until then. So, LEGALLY, since there is no life, there is no citizen and hence no applicability of laws protecting a citizen. As crude as it might sound, until the second trimester, medically, the decision of a mother to abort is no different than her decision to have a tumor excised. MORALLY/RELIGIOUSLY, the definition of when "life" begins is usually different and often hotly debated. If you agree with the above postulation, it is easy to reconcile being in favor of legal abortion, yet against the death penalty, for in the case of the latter you are taking a life, whereas in the former you are not - legally. When you argue abortion, be clear from which side you are arguing - the legal side or the moral side - and you might be more readily welcomed into the argument by the "other" side.

C Smithwick - you have touched on exactly the problem that causes everyone to do the dance. There are multiple definitions by which one could view the problem, and we cannot even get the two sides to agree on which set of definitions to use, much less to get them to debate the validity of the definitions themselves.

Simple answer. The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies. Stage of development, dependencies on other persons, or other factors are only secondary to the fact that it is living and is not the mother and not the father, and is genetically indistinguishable from itself as a 3 year old child, 17 year old teenager, 45 year old adult, or 93 year old on his or her deathbed. The circumstances in which the new life comes into existence can never be enough to consider the intentional ending of its life justified, as sympathetic as they might be.

I agree with Eva. Bottom line, if you don't want to get pregnant use contraceptives. Every teenager should be made aware of the other uses for condoms (not just to make balloons) condoms are life savers. Wear it don't dare it.

I agree with Eva. Bottom line, if you don't want to get pregnant use contraceptives. Every teenager should be made aware of the other uses for condoms (not just to make balloons) condoms are life savers. Wear it don't dare it.Victims of rape often don't get the chance. Anyway no method of contraception apart from abstinence is 100% perfect.

Not having read this thread, this might be risky; but I thought I'd throw out my solicited opinion:

Any women that wants an abortion should be able to get one.

IMO if EVERY child in the world were a WANTED child the world would be a much better place.

Children can sense when they're viewed as a bother, as unwanted. It's tough enough in this world with-out starting with no support.

IMO if EVERY child in the world were a WANTED child the world would be a much better place.

Children can sense when they're viewed as a bother, as unwanted. It's tough enough in this world with-out starting with no support.

It would also help if mothers wern't so selfish by going out to work. They should be home raising the children, then the kids wouldn't be pushed from pillar to post with many people teaching it things that can confuse it.

If money is a problem, then don't have the kid until you can afford it. If you're stupid enough to get preggers - then lose the foetus and go on the pill.

I'm sick of these women moaning on about having to take time off work to babysit their own kid. There was a mother on the wireless today moaning on that a local primary school is only doing three days a week to "break in" the kids gently - then build up to 5 days after 6 months. So mum has to babysit for the 2 days or pay a childminder.

Col

If money is a problem, then don't have the kid until you can afford it. If you're stupid enough to get preggers - then lose the foetus and go on the pill.


I agree with most of this (not sure it is solely the woman's responsibility to make sure the children have a good upbringing). However, I laughed at the pregger's part. You make it sound like a disease.

"I'm sorry miss, you've come down with a terrible case of the preggers."

Simple answer...
Ah, if only the many, many people who have debated this at great length had come to you in the first place.

While you're at it, could you sort out the whole 'Does God exist?' thing, as that seems to come up again and again here. What about the whole right to bear arms, debate?

Both of these, as with abortion, have produced some lengthy discussions. Perhaps you could resolve those in around a hundred words, too?

Ah, if only the many, many people who have debated this at great length had come to you in the first place.

While you're at it, could you sort out the whole 'Does God exist?' thing, as that seems to come up again and again here. What about the whole right to bear arms, debate?

Both of these, as with abortion, have produced some lengthy discussions. Perhaps you could resolve those in around a hundred words, too?
But that would spoil all the fun of an interesting discussion:D

But that would spoil all the fun of an interesting discussion:D
And wouldn't we feel foolish when we find out that what appear to be complicated topics, involving varying viewpoints, can be resolved in a few sentences?:D

The woman who chooses to have an abortion is favoring murder over the joy that only a child can bring - even one that is born from rape.

By the way, has anyone ever asked a woman who was raped and kept her baby if she regretted it? If it brought her more pain? It is a complete propaganda that offering a woman an abortion actually helps her cope or reduces the pain of being raped. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that undergoing an abortion causes significant psychological and emotional trauma, not to mention physical trauma on women. Post-abortion infertility is not as uncommon as we would like to think. See the "Silent No More" website.

As an alternative to contraceptives, look up FertilityCare, a method of avoiding pregnancies and women's healthcare that is 99% effective and is completely natural and doesn't carry the risks and side effects that chemical contraceptives have.

The woman who chooses to have an abortion is favoring murder over the joy that only a child can bring - even one that is born from rape.
Your opinion - and one you are perfectly entitled to - but still JUST an opinion. Worth no more or less than anyone else's. Although it must be easier to view things as black and white.

By the way, has anyone ever asked a woman who was raped and kept her baby if she regretted it?

Is this a serious question? You do appear to think that you're the only one who's ever given this matter any thought. Of course people have considered this. A 30 second serahc on google came up with this link, among others.
http://www.helium.com/items/1435492-keeping-a-child-after-rape
Once again, if there was one uniform way in which women react, the answer would be as clean-cut as you make out.

It is a complete propaganda that offering a woman an abortion actually helps her cope or reduces the pain of being raped.
Based on....? Have you spoken to every woman who was ever in this situation? Then hos can you possibly say that none were helped?

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that undergoing an abortion causes significant psychological and emotional trauma, not to mention physical trauma on women.
Again, based on...? If the evidence were overwhelming - for OR against - the debate would be over. The fact that you believe the answer to be 'simple' doesn't alter the fact that many people see differently.

The question behind question is 'does God exist'?

If God does not exist then moral absolutes do not exist. This point cannot be debated. Abortion is no better or worse then removing lint from your belly button.

If God does exist then one must find out what God says about abortion.

The question behind question is 'does God exist'?

If God does not exist then moral absolutes do not exist. This point cannot be debated. Abortion is no better or worse then removing lint from your belly button.

If God does exist then one must find out what God says about abortion.
According to this link http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morality,
morality can be (but isn't necessarily) religion-based. I tend to think that certain moral standards/rules/call them what you will would exist in order for society to function, even if we hadn't invented religion.

As far as finding out what God thinks about abortion is concerned, since every religion seems to have a different idea of what God wants in general and it's all open to interpretation anyway, that's not going to be much help to us.:confused:

According to this link morality can be (but isn't necessarily) religion-based. I tend to think that certain moral standards/rules/call them what you will would exist in order for society to function, even if we hadn't invented religion.

If moral absolutes exist they must come from God, otherwise they are simply personal preferences. If a society agrees on a set of morals they're still just personal preferences on a larger scale. And I doubt societal morals are ever actually upheld. Are there really no homosexuals in Iran? Societal morals, by observation, change over time. All depends on where and when you live. That makes them relative, unless someone can identify a morality gene and prove that it evolves. Good luck.

I appreciate the honesty of Richard Dawkins: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

The fact that intentionally ending the newly conceived life is murder is not an opinion. The science supports it based on the evidence I stated previously,

"The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies. Stage of development, dependencies on other persons, or other factors are only secondary to the fact that it is living and is not the mother and not the father, and is genetically indistinguishable from itself as a 3 year old child, 17 year old teenager, 45 year old adult, or 93 year old on his or her deathbed."

Medical textbooks will state as much. This isn't a issue of morality or religion or culture. It is a question of science.

I'm not sure how I insinuated that I was the only person to have thought of this before, but you still haven't addressed my question. My question is to bring to light the great amount of ambiguity regarding the "facts" that abortion is really a healthy choice for women post-rape - or at any time. I have certainly never seen any "facts," however I have seen facts demonstrating the exact opposite.

Sometimes things are simple. Ending the life newly conceived boy or girl (because it is one or the other at the moment of conception) is murder. There is no fundamental difference between it and itself at any other stage in life. Different amounts of dependencies, different levels of cognition, different appearances, etc.

It is propaganda because it is contrary to the facts and there is a lot of money to be made in abortion. There are a lot of strong feelings about abortion, but we don't make decisions regarding right and wrong based on feelings. We base them on facts. And please don't tell me that what is right for me may be wrong for you, because then we have no grounds for considering stealing wrong, murder wrong, child molestation wrong, etc. And that is rather ridiculous.

Your suggestion that the debate would be over if there were overwhelming evidence one way or the other is, respectfully, a bit naive. Since the evidence is not overwhelming that abortion is healthy and is a benefit to individuals and to society, then considering if the "pro-choice" side is in fact wrong in their assessment (and especially that the new life is not "alive" or "human"), then wouldn't the more prudent and responsible position go something like this:

"Since the evidence is not overwhelming, we should consider abortion illegal lest we risk the murder of innocent life?"

The fact that intentionally ending the newly conceived life is murder is not an opinion. The science supports it based on the evidence I stated previously,



Abortion is not illegal though. The debate as to whether it is muder or not will go on forever.

The long and short of it is that too many women have kids after a night of passion and vodka - then they expect the state to pay child benefit and all the other perks whilst they go to work and fob the kid off on someone else. It costs the taxpayer billions. There should be no child benefits at all.

Women (who have historically brought up kids) should not be allowed to go to work whilst the kid is less than say 15 or 16. It's a pain on the employer when the woman rings to say little Jimmy is sick so she can't work - also they have to tollerate maternity leave for months and legally hold her job open. It's just stupid.

If you get preggers then you should leave work when the brat is due or if you need the money then abort it and don't have unprotected sex.. . . . . .simples.

If you get preggers via rape then the same applies, don't expect the state to pick up the tab.

There are too many freeloaders sponging from the state and women and their brats are a high percentage.

Col

I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.

I agree there is a major behavioral problem among women and men, and that reducing the number of children born outside of marriage is a desirable task. However, kill your child to save the taxpayers some money is quite a statement, and displays rather obviously a distorted and inverted sense of priorities. Given the psychological and emotional trauma that is well documented in post-abortive women and men (fathers are also deeply affected), I highly doubt that offering abortions as an alternative will result in a healthy and high functioning society, especially since once a woman has an abortion she is highly more likely to have a second and third abortion, increasing the trauma exponentially.

Another little known fact, based on research done by the Guttenmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country) is that contraceptives increase the occurrence of abortions, since contraceptives do not always work, nor are they taken as prescribed. Contraception and abortion are the same mentality - I don't want you - so why would we expect anything but that?

The fact that intentionally ending the newly conceived life is murder is not an opinion.


Sure it is, you even say in your next post that murder is specifically defined as an illegal killing. As abortion is not illegal, then it is, by definition, not murder. Your choose to label it murder, that is all.


This isn't a issue of morality or religion or culture. It is a question of science.


Of course it is an issue of morality, religion, and culture. It would be nice if we could simplify everything, but that's not the case. A fetus, at the moment of conception, can not survive outside of the womb. So to imply that the fetus has everything it needs to survive is quite silly.


I'm not sure how I insinuated that I was the only person to have thought of this before...


I can help you with that. Based on your tone, your matter-of-a-fact statement, etc., you seem to be implying that there are no shades of grey in this matter, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid.


I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.


All I see are a bunch of opinions, which are worth about as much as everyone else's.


Another little known fact, based on research done by the Guttenmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country) is that contraceptives increase the occurrence of abortions, since contraceptives do not always work, nor are they taken as prescribed. Contraception and abortion are the same mentality - I don't want you - so why would we expect anything but that?


Sounds like a statistic with your explanation based on your understanding of what the statistic means.

I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.

I'll wager that for every "scientific" fact that proves that abortion is taking a life, you will find one that says the opposite. There are reports commissioned that will prove anything if it is worded correctly.

I agree there is a major behavioral problem among women and men,

You're not wrong there honey:rolleyes:

and that reducing the number of children born outside of marriage is a desirable task.

The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. As long as our teen girls go out on a Friday and Saturday night, get bladdered on booze, then get into sex with any passing bloke, then that will be the case. Just go to any town on a Saturday night and see how many teenage girls are so drunk they are lying on the ground.

However, kill your child to save the taxpayers some money is quite a statement, and displays rather obviously a distorted and inverted sense of priorities.

Why? One abortion can save thousands in child benefit and other benefits to an unmarried mum.

Given the psychological and emotional trauma that is well documented in post-abortive women and men (fathers are also deeply affected), I highly doubt that offering abortions as an alternative will result in a healthy and high functioning society,

The alternative is what? If they suffer the trauma you describe then that's tough - they should be more careful.

I think that this will go on forever - I wouldn't worry your pretty little head about it love.

Col

Of course it is an issue of morality, religion, and culture. It would be nice if we could simplify everything, but that's not the case. A fetus, at the moment of conception, can not survive outside of the womb. So to imply that the fetus has everything it needs to survive is quite silly.

I think you missed Eva's point. The notion of being a separate living entity doesn't rely on whether it requires certain conditions to survive.

Like all living things, the fetus has all the required elements to thrive as a separate entity under certain given conditions.

I always see the argument that self sufficiency is a criterion for life as somewhat inadequate. None of us are self-sufficient.

However, kill your child to save the taxpayers some money is quite a statement, and displays rather obviously a distorted and inverted sense of priorities.

I couldn't agree more. Abortion should be subsidised by taxpayers.

Good to see things haven't changed here.

"Sure it is, you even say in your next post that murder is specifically defined as an illegal killing. As abortion is not illegal, then it is, by definition, not murder. Your choose to label it murder, that is all."

I think you misunderstood... I said abortion is legal in the US and what is defined in the US as murder is illegal, however, abortion is murder, and therein lies the inconsistency. The definition of murder is the direct and intentional killing of another human being. This definition spans time and is not confined to nor was created in our lifetime or the past 500 years. I don't just make up definitions.


"Of course it is an issue of morality, religion, and culture. It would be nice if we could simplify everything, but that's not the case. A fetus, at the moment of conception, can not survive outside of the womb. So to imply that the fetus has everything it needs to survive is quite silly."

When I said the fetus has "everything it requires for life" I was speaking genetically. Uninterrupted, the fetus would continue to develop until natural death. I stated, various levels of dependencies are not enough to consider someone not a human being or not alive. As Dan-Cat rightly stated, none of us are self-sufficient.


"I can help you with that. Based on your tone, your matter-of-a-fact statement, etc., you seem to be implying that there are no shades of grey in this matter, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid."

I apologize if you have read into my writing a certain tone, but I am confident in what I'm saying and there really are no shades of grey. I don't think people who disagree with me are stupid, just, respectfully, wrong.

"All I see are a bunch of opinions, which are worth about as much as everyone else's."

Especially over the last century, but going far beyond that, there has been a requirement that religion "prove" itself in science. Science is seen to be "true" and "real" because it is what we can test, replicate, and prove. It is said there is no proof for religious beliefs, or that it boils down to societal needs and expectations. "All we know is what we see." I have provided scientific facts of human existence, and now you want to say, "well, on just this one topic we can't rely on science - no - we will ignore science because whether the fetus is a human being and is alive is more complicated than it? In fact, since religions all provide different principles on the matter, we can't find our answer in religion, and therefore we have no means of deciding its rightness or wrongness, so to each his own.

Too bad, based on that, there is no absolute right or wrong. Just what's best for me.

"Sounds like a statistic with your explanation based on your understanding of what the statistic means."

Right. Interesting you can judge me wrong on my interpretation of the statistic when you haven't seen it for yourself.

"I'll wager that for every "scientific" fact that proves that abortion is taking a life, you will find one that says the opposite. There are reports commissioned that will prove anything if it is worded correctly."

Post your wager and provide me a scientific fact that proves that the embryo is not as I described.

Is a fertilised egg a human being?

Is a fertilised egg a human being?

Yes. Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

Yes. Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.

So do the 40% or so of these eggs which don't implant and develop in the womb go to purgatory as well with all the other unbaptised kids?

I think you missed Eva's point. The notion of being a separate living entity doesn't rely on whether it requires certain conditions to survive.


"Simple answer. The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies."

"With all that is required for life" is pretty hard to misconstrue.


Like all living things, the fetus has all the required elements to thrive as a separate entity under certain given conditions.


Right, similiar to a raw egg over a fire. If heat is applied, eventually the raw egg will become a cooked egg. But to call the raw egg a cooked egg would not be correct, right? What if the heat is removed? Would we still consider the raw egg as a cooked egg due to the fact that we assumed it would eventually become a cooked egg?


I always see the argument that self sufficiency is a criterion for life as somewhat inadequate. None of us are self-sufficient.

Can you imagine the legal nightmares that would exisit if a fetus at the time of conception was considered the same as a living baby? If a woman miscarried, there could be investigations into what caused her to do so, as a baby just died. Maybe the father stressed her out one day, and that stress caused her to miscarry. Would the father be charged with 2nd degree murder?


I think you misunderstood... I said abortion is legal in the US and what is defined in the US as murder is illegal, however, abortion is murder, and therein lies the inconsistency.


You would be correct if we all agreed to your assertion that "abortion is murder". But once again, you're categorically wrong. Can you murder a tree? No, because a tree is not a human being. Legally, a fetus is not a human being.

Your evidence for "abortion is murder" seems to be "because I said so", while law and the dictionary disagree with you.


I stated, various levels of dependencies are not enough to consider someone not a human being or not alive.


Which is an opinion not supported by current US (and I imagine many others nation's) law.


I have provided scientific facts of human existence...


You have provided quotes and statistics, and then added in your interpretation of them.


Right. Interesting you can judge me wrong on my interpretation of the statistic when you haven't seen it for yourself.


I know that this debate has been going on for 50+ years, and I have reason to suspect that if your evidence was as overwhelmingly convincing as you seem to think it is, I would have read about it in the news before hearing it on a forum dedicated to Microsoft Access.

"Simple answer. The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies."

"With all that is required for life" is pretty hard to misconstrue.

You seem to be managing it. It's obviously absurd to suppose that any living entity has "all that is required for life" in and of itself. No living entity has such a quality. The point is to match the fetus with a living being. That is, that the entity will thrive under favorable conditions.



Right, similiar to a raw egg over a fire. If heat is applied, eventually the raw egg will become a cooked egg. But to call the raw egg a cooked egg would not be correct, right? What if the heat is removed? Would we still consider the raw egg as a cooked egg due to the fact that we assumed it would eventually become a cooked egg?

There are varying degrees of existence in a common lifecycle. This doesn't disqualify base qualities to be consistent throughout. Unique DNA etc etc. The point is whether these base qualities are enough to define life. Eva argues that it is.



Can you imagine the legal nightmares that would exisit if a fetus at the time of conception was considered the same as a living baby? If a woman miscarried, there could be investigations into what caused her to do so, as a baby just died. Maybe the father stressed her out one day, and that stress caused her to miscarry. Would the father be charged with 2nd degree murder?

A woman that is pregnant is treated differently by our society. Look at Col's recent posts. To argue that our common perception of a fetus as a bundle of cells is not realistic in my opinion. If you are pregnant, you are going to have a baby unless something intervenes. This is how society views it. It's just that the pro-abortion view seeks to dismiss this ubiquitous perception.

You seem to be managing it. It's obviously absurd to suppose that any living entity has "all that is required for life" in and of itself. No living entity has such a quality. The point is to match the fetus with a living being. That is, that the entity will thrive under favorable conditions.


We're not talking about shelter, clothing, food, etc. We're talking about being able to survive outside of the womb. Are you familiar with the breath test for fetuses? If a fetus dies physicians check to see if there is any oxygen in the lungs. If the fetus took a breath, then it is assumed it lived. Do you think a fetus at the time of conception could take a breath outside of the womb?

You (and Eva) seem to be arguing from your own subjective stances, which is completely fine. I take exception when Eva tries to claim that science backs her interpretation, however. It is quite clear that the law does not.


Eva argues that it is.


I'd argue that it is not. Our opinions are equally unimportant.



If you are pregnant, you are going to have a baby unless something intervenes. This is how society views it. It's just that the pro-abortion view seeks to dismiss this ubiquitous perception.


The something that intervenes could be anything, though. Some women miscarry 3 and 4 times before they finally face the fact that they have little to no chance of being able to produce a living baby.

As far as society is concerned, American society is still largely Christian in nature. And the Christian mythology asserts that all life is sacred, a gift from god, etc, etc. It should be no suprise that, based on this foundation, that society (in general) views pregnancy as you explain.

They also believe that everything happens for a reason, god works in mysterious ways, a guy herded two of every creature imaginable into a boat and survived a world-wide flood, etc. You get the idea.

I think you are missing the point - abortion is murder. There is no debate based on scientific facts. I understand our society has made it legal and that "murder" is illegal, but that is one of the gross inconsistencies in our current laws. If you look at Roe v. Wade (in the US), you will see that there were great errors, misinformation, and inconsistencies that went into making that decision.

As a simple statement of fact abortion is not murder. In the UK murder is a crime with a mandatory life sentence. Abortion provided it is done in the correct manner is legal. A fundamental difference in my opinion. If it is legal then it's not murder - Simples.

You may think abortion should be made illegal. In that case use the democratic process to change the law but be aware many women will die painful deaths as a result of botched illegal abortions. If you think that is better well that is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I think you are wrong

We're not talking about shelter, clothing, food, etc. We're talking about being able to survive outside of the womb. Are you familiar with the breath test for fetuses? If a fetus dies physicians check to see if there is any oxygen in the lungs. If the fetus took a breath, then it is assumed it lived. Do you think a fetus at the time of conception could take a breath outside of the womb?

You (and Eva) seem to be arguing from your own subjective stances, which is completely fine. I take exception when Eva tries to claim that science backs her interpretation, however. It is quite clear that the law does not.


I was trying to clarify that you are both NOT talking about the same thing. Eva is talking about an entity that will flourish in favorable circumstances. You are talking about an entity that will flourish outside of the womb. In a sense I see Eva's perspective if you view the earth (atmosphere, sunlight etc etc) as a womb in macrocosm. What these conditions are, are irrelevant to the argument. It is the effect of their removal that is the point.



I'd argue that it is not. Our opinions are equally unimportant.

Kind of takes the fun out of things. I'm not quite sure what your motivations are for contributing then.




The something that intervenes could be anything, though. Some women miscarry 3 and 4 times before they finally face the fact that they have little to no chance of being able to produce a living baby.

Not sure what your point is here. We're talking about a willful decision to interrupt a process. Not something that is beyond our control.


As far as society is concerned, American society is still largely Christian in nature. And the Christian mythology asserts that all life is sacred, a gift from god, etc, etc. It should be no suprise that, based on this foundation, that society (in general) views pregnancy as you explain.

They also believe that everything happens for a reason, god works in mysterious ways, a guy herded two of every creature imaginable into a boat and survived a world-wide flood, etc. You get the idea.

I get the idea but I don't think it has much to do with religion. It's just a common sense point of view that conception will likely end in a birth. It may not but society *should* dictate that you give up your seat for a pregnant woman. She's nurturing something that is going to become a child. To not take this viewpoint seems a little odd to me.

I was trying to clarify that you are both NOT talking about the same thing.


But we actually are. We're talking about a fetus. We're just looking at it from different perspectives. Her view is that once the flag is planted, the country is owned, the claim is legitimate and all legal rights and protections should be granted. Even in the cases of rape and incest.


Not sure what your point is here. We're talking about a willful decision to interrupt a process. Not something that is beyond our control.


My point is that for some women, even though conception can happen, they can never deliver that fetus to term. In such cases, the fetus will never become a living baby. So it doesn't always follow that fetus = baby.


It may not but society *should* dictate that you give up your seat for a pregnant woman.

As to that, I give up my seat for a woman regardless if she is pregnant or not.

Under the terms proposed here by some posters, every time a woman completes a menstual cycle without becoming pregnant it could be considered murder. Under favourable conditions that egg had the capacity to become a human being.

All it needed was a tiny amount of sperm to reach the human status afforded to a fertilized egg. Far less then the contribution made by a woman in gestation and no doubt many men would happily provide it.

Under the terms proposed here by some posters, every time a woman completes a menstual cycle without becoming pregnant it could be considered murder. Under favourable conditions that egg had the capacity to become a human being.

All it needed was a tiny amount of sperm to reach the human status afforded to a fertilized egg. Far less then the contribution made by a woman in gestation and no doubt many men would happily provide it.

No, the egg only has 23 chromosomes and, while it belongs the the human species, is not itself a human being. Human beings have 46 chromosomes.

Even though conception can happen, they can never deliver that fetus to term. In such cases, the fetus will never become a living baby. So it doesn't always follow that fetus = baby.

When exactly does fetus=baby?

No, the egg only has 23 chromosomes and, while it belongs the the human species, is not itself a human being. Human beings have 46 chromosomes.

Oh. So it is the chromosome count that matters?

Then people with Down's Syndrome are clearly not human because they have 47.

Oh. So it is the chromosome count that matters?

Then people with Down's Syndrome are clearly not human because they have 47.

I knew you were going to say that. People with Down's Syndrome begin with 46 chromosomes, 23 contributed each by the egg and sperm. Then something goes wrong in the process of normal human development and one of the chromosomes split. They are fully human, but with an abnormal number of chromosomes.

Besides, the embryo is not a potential human being, it is a human being.

Nobody has refuted that human life begins at conception.

Nobody has refuted that human life begins at conception.

I don't think that is the issue, the issue is whether taking human life is always wrong. Life is easy for those that view the world in absolutes.

This is not my first post and my views are available early in the thread.

Brian

So two unfertilized eggs also constitutes a human being since between them they have 46 chromosomes. I have little doubt that they could be combined to make a viable embryo, if not now, in the near future.

Life does not begin at conception. Life is continuous and has been for over four billion years.

Animals have been cloned from adult cells so when did that life "start".

Picking points where life "starts" is inevitably arbitrary.

So two unfertilized eggs also constitutes a human being since between them they have 46 chromosomes. I have little doubt that they could be combined to make a viable embryo, if not now, in the near future.

Two unfertilized eggs do not constitute 'a unique existence'. They are separate entities. You're not reading Eva's argument.

Life is easy for those that view the world in absolutes.
And, umpteen posts later, we're back to my original statement.

Black is black, white is white. There is no grey.
My interpretation of science and any social implications it holds is true. Anyone who disgrees is wrong. There's no room for debate.

As to that, I give up my seat for a woman regardless if she is pregnant or not.

Neatly side-stepped but it doesn't contest the fact that common social perception regards an unborn fetus as something of value.

Smoking is not advised during the pregnancy. Society frowns on those that do. Why so if the fetus has no value until it breathes?

And, umpteen posts later, we're back to my original statement.

Black is black, white is white. There is no grey.
My interpretation of science and any social implications it holds is true. Anyone who disgrees is wrong. There's no room for debate.

I think you're being a little harsh.

There have been several different opinions voiced in response to Eva's statement. Different opinions on where life starts and whether it is correct to take that life. All responded to by Eva in a respectful tone. It's triggered a conversation and that is a good thing.

All good debates stem from a premise.

At every ovulation an egg is reaches a point where under favourable conditions it could become a baby. Any woman who does not seek fertilization on every cycle is guilty of denying that life.:rolleyes:

The fact is there is an immense input after the fertilization before the blastocyst can become a baby. Denying a woman the choice to not undertake that task is a silly as demanding she fertilizes every egg.

I think you're being a little harsh.

There have been several different opinions voiced in response to Eva's statement. Different opinions on where life starts and whether it is correct to take that life. All responded to by Eva in a respectful tone. It's triggered a conversation and that is a good thing.

Which is where the responses differed from her original post. She started her contribution by statting that the answer was simple and went on to imply that there was a definite answer and anyone disagreeing was wrong.

I should probably habe kept quiet and left her to it, it just grates on my nerves when people take such an emotional subject and imply that they somehow have the definitive answer, in spite of their posts being as full of personal interpretation as anyone else's.

All good debates stem from a premise.
And are ended by someone stating that they 'know' something and refusing to listen to any dissent.

At every ovulation an egg is reaches a point where under favourable conditions it could become a baby. Any woman who does not seek fertilization on every cycle is guilty of denying that life.:rolleyes:

The fact is there is an immense input after the fertilization before the blastocyst can become a baby. Denying a woman the choice to not undertake that task is a silly as demanding she fertilizes every egg.

An egg does not have the power in and of itself to become a baby. Given its normal development, it will die just as it began, an egg. A fertilized egg, however, is no longer an egg. What is it? Science shows that it is a member of the human species, not the mother, not the father, but unique unto itself. Given its normal development, it will eventually become an adult.

The input given the blastocyst is nutrition. Its entire developmental process is initiated from within and not from without. The mother, while providing the correct living conditions for the blastocyst to continue to develop, does not start the process nor control the process. It is self-initiated.

The fertilized egg is not a part of the mother's body. Therefore, she has no right to choose. To say she does is to say she has the right to choose to end its life moments before birth, immediately after birth, or any other time, for that matter, because there is no difference other than those differences I stated before.

Whether life begins at conception is the crux of the issue. If so, you are intentionally ending the life of another human being by having an abortion, regardless how easy it is to do, how little attachment you might seem to think you have to it, how much it doesn't yet have arms, legs, and a face, how difficult your life will be because of it, how acceptable by our current society, etc. Any other discussion is really pointless.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_fertilized_egg_is_not_a_hu.php

Different view, so no doubt invalid.

Which is where the responses differed from her original post. She started her contribution by statting that the answer was simple and went on to imply that there was a definite answer and anyone disagreeing was wrong.

I should probably habe kept quiet and left her to it, it just grates on my nerves when people take such an emotional subject and imply that they somehow have the definitive answer, in spite of their posts being as full of personal interpretation as anyone else's.

And are ended by someone stating that they 'know' something and refusing to listen to any dissent.

Simple (used in a more philosophical tone rather than a snarky tone, which I really avoid) means not complex. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. This is argument I just demonstrated is a simple argument.

Silly, we can't all be right - in fact, there is only one right answer, either human or not human. But I suppose you don't think you are right and I am wrong.

Simple (used in a more philosophical tone rather than a snarky tone, which I really avoid) means not complex. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. This is argument I just demonstrated is a simple argument.

Yes, and if I say A = 2 and B = 2, then A = B is correct.
If I am saying that A and B = 2, based on my interpretation of the facts, then this equation holds true.
If I am ignoring information from other sources that state A = 5, 6 or 7, then the equation does not hold true.
You have interpreted 'facts' in a way that suits your argument.

Silly, we can't all be right - in fact, there is only one right answer, either human or not human. But I suppose you don't think you are right and I am wrong.
I don't think there is a 'right' answer to this subject. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there are few subjects where that is more true. This is where we differ.

Yes, and if I say A = 2 and B = 2, then A = B is correct.
If I am saying that A and B = 2, based on my interpretation of the facts, then this equation holds true.
If I am ignoring information from other sources that state A = 5, 6 or 7, then the equation does not hold true.
You have interpreted 'facts' in a way that suits your argument.

I don't think there is a 'right' answer to this subject. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and there are few subjects where that is more true. This is where we differ.

No, I should have explained. This is a diagram of a simple logical argument (truly, of all people, programmers should understand this). Our discussion really is a simple logical discussion.

I am not ignoring anyone. Until now, you haven't provided any premises on which life does not begin at conception. I briefly read the article you linked to in your previous post. What part exactly do you agree with?

An egg does not have the power in and of itself to become a baby. Given its normal development, it will die just as it began, an egg. A fertilized egg, however, is no longer an egg. What is it? Science shows that it is a member of the human species, not the mother, not the father, but unique unto itself. Given its normal development, it will eventually become an adult.

The input given the blastocyst is nutrition. Its entire developmental process is initiated from within and not from without. The mother, while providing the correct living conditions for the blastocyst to continue to develop, does not start the process nor control the process. It is self-initiated.

The fertilized egg is not a part of the mother's body. Therefore, she has no right to choose. To say she does is to say she has the right to choose to end its life moments before birth, immediately after birth, or any other time, for that matter, because there is no difference other than those differences I stated before.

Whether life begins at conception is the crux of the issue. If so, you are intentionally ending the life of another human being by having an abortion, regardless how easy it is to do, how little attachment you might seem to think you have to it, how much it doesn't yet have arms, legs, and a face, how difficult your life will be because of it, how acceptable by our current society, etc. Any other discussion is really pointless.

Firstly, I would say you make the unborn sound more like a paracite than a human, in which case, surely it should be up to the woman to get rid of it if she wishes.

Secondly, what exactly are you terming as "life" is it a sentient being? Is it aware?

Thirdly, would you hesitate to kill a flea? It also lives off you but is separate to you.

Finally, I just cannot fathom the reason for this debate!! If you've had concentual sex then you will surely have taken precautions if your intention is not to conceive?? So what on earth are we debating? If it wasn't concentual then obviously there has to be a case for termination because of the further trauma that can be caused to the victim.

I am not ignoring anyone. Until now, you haven't provided any premises on which life does not begin at conception. I briefly read the article you linked to in your previous post. What part exactly do you agree with?
The idea that life begins at conception.

I quote from the article
"Life does not begin at conception."
The writer explains this statement quite well.

And are ended by someone stating that they 'know' something and refusing to listen to any dissent.

This isn't actually happening here. Eva is addressing each of your responses. You are being listened to. It makes for good reading.

This isn't actually happening here. Eva is addressing each of your responses. You are being listened to. It makes for good reading.
Eva has decided her opinion, based on what she terms 'facts'. Any attempts - by myself, Adam, or anyone else - to argue that these 'facts' are just opinion are not being addressed, beyond saying that the definitely ARE facts.

To paraphrase Monty Python, a discussion isn't the automatic gainsay of whatever the other person says.

Firstly, I would say you make the unborn sound more like a paracite than a human, in which case, surely it should be up to the woman to get rid of it if she wishes.

Secondly, what exactly are you terming as "life" is it a sentient being? Is it aware?

Thirdly, would you hesitate to kill a flea? It also lives off you but is separate to you.

Finally, I just cannot fathom the reason for this debate!! If you've had concentual sex then you will surely have taken precautions if your intention is not to conceive?? So what on earth are we debating? If it wasn't concentual then obviously there has to be a case for termination because of the further trauma that can be caused to the victim.

Before answering your question, I'd like some clarification. What do you mean by sentient being and aware. Do you propose that being sentient and/or aware is a requirement of being human and, since human, then therefore possessing some quality that would compel us to protect its existence, the way we do children and adults?

If you believe that the value of a child growing in his mother's womb is analogous to the value of a flea, we should be having a different discussion. However, if you did believe that, you would then be completely accurate in making the analogy and in judging that abortion is no different than swatting a flea. But do you really want to do that? Since I think you would agree that it is wrong to murder another human being (child, adult), then you would have to then determine the point at which that embryo, fetus, whatever, possesses that value that makes it intrinsically different from that of other animals.. If you think humans do not have any more value than a flea or any other animal, for that matter, then there is no compelling reason I couldn't murder someone for the fun of it.

When exactly does fetus=baby?

According to the US scientific and legal definition, life begins with birth, not conception. This means that abortion is NOT legally murder, because there is no unique life being taken that is recognized by the legal process.

One of the most hypocritical arguments of the pro-life agenda is that life begins with conception and that abortion ends that life. Most pro-lifers have the position that in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother is at risk, abortion is ok. The hypocricy lies in that aspect of a pro-life position. Why is it okay to "kill" the innocent "baby" for the crimes of the father and/or mother (such as cases of incest)? What about when the mother is at risk? Why is it ok to "kill" one "life" to save another?

I believe this should be what it has always been, a decision made on a case by case basis by the potential mother and their doctor. Government should have no business sticking its ugly nose into private practice. Are there and will there continue to be people who take advantage of it? Absolutely! But I truly believe the vast majority of women who have abortions, do NOT do so lightly. They weigh their options and toughly choose what's best for their individual situation. The widespread opinion that women are constantly getting pregnant and choosing to abort without a second thought and repeatedly is just a little ridiculous.

According to the US scientific and legal definition, life begins with birth, not conception. This means that abortion is NOT legally murder, because there is no unique life being taken that is recognized by the legal process.

To what definition are you referring? The discussion is not whether abortion is legally murder, it is whether it is in fact murder. The concept of murder transcends legal systems.

One of the most hypocritical arguments of the pro-life agenda is that life begins with conception and that abortion ends that life. Most pro-lifers have the position that in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother is at risk, abortion is ok. The hypocricy lies in that aspect of a pro-life position. Why is it okay to "kill" the innocent "baby" for the crimes of the father and/or mother (such as cases of incest)? What about when the mother is at risk? Why is it ok to "kill" one "life" to save another?

You are absolutely right. If murder is intentionally and directly killing a human being, and if the newly conceived is alive, then abortion is murder, and it is murder for all people, all places, and all times. It transcends societies and legal systems.

I believe this should be what it has always been, a decision made on a case by case basis by the potential mother and their doctor. Government should have no business sticking its ugly nose into private practice. Are there and will there continue to be people who take advantage of it? Absolutely! But I truly believe the vast majority of women who have abortions, do NOT do so lightly. They weigh their options and toughly choose what's best for their individual situation. The widespread opinion that women are constantly getting pregnant and choosing to abort without a second thought and repeatedly is just a little ridiculous.

I wouldn't say that women are getting second, third abortions without a second thought, but there are huge societal pressures, pressure from the father, pressure from parents, self-induced pressures based on the inconvenience of a child, the ending of a career, etc. Women who do have one abortion are more likely to get another, and if its not alive, why shouldn't she? Why would this even be a tough decision?

The idea that life begins at conception.

I quote from the article
"Life does not begin at conception."
The writer explains this statement quite well.

It seems his position is that human life is continuous, beginning at some point eons ago, continuing until some undetermined point in the future, and with many endings in between (deaths).

Since life does not begin at conception but has been continuous since its one beginning, there is nothing significant distinguishing (going backwards) the newly conceived from the pre-fertilized egg. Going forward, then, you must agree that there is nothing distinguishing the newly conceived from itself days later, 3 months later, 9 months later, when it is a 1 day old newborn, 2 year old child, etc. There are no beginnings to life, according to his argument, only one.

You see, if there is only one "life," it is still either all valuable or none of it valuable. And by saying that it is permissible to end the life of the newly conceived, you must be saying that none of it is valuable, and therefore it is permissible to end anyone's life at any time.

So two unfertilized eggs also constitutes a human being since between them they have 46 chromosomes. I have little doubt that they could be combined to make a viable embryo, if not now, in the near future.

Fine. And when that happens and a new member of the human species is created, at that point it will be wrong to end its life.

A woman that is pregnant is treated differently by our society. Look at Col's recent posts.

I personally don't give a toss if a woman is pregnant or not. And yes they are treated differently.

What I do object to is the state paying them child benefit until the kid is 18.

I also object to women swanning off on paid maternity leave and expecting to walk back into their job after birth. (which they do)

I also object to them demanding time off from work because little Johnny has a snivel or the school is having a non-pupil day.

If you want kids then do it and pay for it yourself. If you're working, then you leave work when it's born.
Society is too bloody cotton-woolish about a self inflicted medical condition. It's very expensive for taxpayers and the economy in current trying times.

If the benefits wern't available, nor maternity leave, then maybe just maybe our drunk teenagers would think twice before dropping their knickers. And maybe parents would think twice if they had to foot the bills in total.

Child benefit money only goes on booze and fags anyway (for the Mum not the kid)

Col

To what definition are you referring? The discussion is not whether abortion is legally murder, it is whether it is in fact murder. The concept of murder transcends legal systems.


I think the more appropriate question is, what definition are you referring to? Not the legal definition, not the dictionary definition, then what? Maybe we could wrap this whole conversation up in a nice ribbon by you telling us what you define as murder, then we could discuss it from there?

The consideration of the morality of "taking a human life" in the earliest phases of development is an arbitrary decision.

Some people consider all animal life as sacred and live their life as a vegetarian. Some of them are as adamant as Eva is about the morality of their decision and insist it is "wrong" to kill an animal for food. But once again it is an arbitrary and personal choice.

Fact is a baby CAN exist with the support of anyone who is willing to give it. It would be wrong to deny it the opportunity. The development of a fetus is dependent on a particular person in what is essentially a parasitic relationship. In my morality, the choice to host that relationship remains the choice of the woman.

If Eva is adamant that abortion is murder, I wonder how she feels about soldiers killing each other in war. Is that murder?

It is after all, the taking of a life. Yet most countries are happy to allow it to happen.

Is there a difference?

Col

You see, if there is only one "life," it is still either all valuable or none of it valuable.
And by saying that it is permissible to end the life of the newly conceived, you must be saying that none of it is valuable, and therefore it is permissible to end anyone's life at any time.
Again, your opinion only, not a fact.
If I or anyone else says that I think {whatever} about one stage of life, it doesn't automatically mean we feel the same way about all stages. As stated before, not everyoine views things in a fixed, binary way.

If we accept that spermatazoa are alive - if only, as one of the later commentors on the link I supplied stated, to distinguish them from those things that are dead - then (by your reasoning) killing any of them would also be 'murder', correct? So, for example, is using a condom murder?

To quote one of the other commentors on the same link
"The reason so many of these people look for such simplistic answers is ....... Because they cannot see shades of gray, they must have precise and absolute categories for each thing they consider. Thus neither egg nor sperm are human; once they fuse to form a fertilized egg, then it must be fully human. If not, the next discrete point in development for them is birth. That won't do as it renders the vast majority of their argument moot."

There's also the point raised by another poster. Is killing in self-defence justifed, in your opinion? What about arbotions in cases where allowing the development to full term would kill the mother but might allow the baby to survive? Since a single fertilized egg cannot be 'murdered' (to use your personal definition of the word - Adam's question is a fair one) under any circumstances, presumably any person threatening to harm you or your family should also be allowed to continue? If not, why not?

I think the more appropriate question is, what definition are you referring to? Not the legal definition, not the dictionary definition, then what? Maybe we could wrap this whole conversation up in a nice ribbon by you telling us what you define as murder, then we could discuss it from there?

The direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being.

I had referenced it previously, but I should have been more explicit. My apologies. This definition will need a little unpacking, but it will have to wait until I'm not at work. :)

There's also the point raised by another poster. Is killing in self-defence justifed, in your opinion? What about arbotions in cases where allowing the development to full term would kill the mother but might allow the baby to survive? Since a single fertilized egg cannot be 'murdered' (to use your personal definition of the word - Adam's question is a fair one) under any circumstances, presumably any person threatening to harm you or your family should also be allowed to continue? If not, why not?
Answered partially by post 191.
Killing an innocent person is murder.

Still leaves open the point that, in the opinion of many people (some biologists included), a fertilised egg isn't a person. So, by what definition is the egg considered a person?

Got this from the freedictionary.com website.
This definition seems to be the one that's being used.

A living human.

'Human' being defined on the same website as

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Unfortunately, this is still going round in circles, as it's entirely subject to opinion whether or not a fertilised egg is yet part of this species.

The direct and intentional killing of an innocent person.


That's a swiss cheese definition. If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes and does drugs and that causes the death of the fetus, it would not, by your definition, be murder.

Not to mention defining "innocent". If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.

I find this definition interesting, as it appears to be a religious-based one. If a person kills another person, that is murder. But if state then performs a lethal injection on the killer, that is not murder as the killer was not innocent (I'm assuming this is what you mean).

Heck, if a vigilante tracks down a murderer and kills him, that would also not be murder under this definition.

Seems very Old Testament-ish.

That's a swiss cheese definition. If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes and does drugs and that causes the death of the fetus, it would not, by your definition, be murder.

Not to mention defining "innocent". If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.

I find this definition interesting, as it appears to be a religious-based one. If a person kills another person, that is murder. But if state then performs a lethal injection on the killer, that is not murder as the killer was not innocent (I'm assuming this is what you mean).

Heck, if a vigilante tracks down a murderer and kills him, that would also not be murder under this definition.

Seems very Old Testament-ish.
I'll jump in here before anyone else does ;)
I agree with virtually everything there, except this bit
If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.
The fetus itself is innocent, surely? The rapist, not at all, but the fetus?

As for the rest of it, yes it seems a bit old testament. You can kill without it being murder as long as the person you kill has wronged someone first?

That's a swiss cheese definition. If a pregnant woman drinks and smokes and does drugs and that causes the death of the fetus, it would not, by your definition, be murder.

Not to mention defining "innocent". If a rapist impregnates a woman, I would not call that fetus innocent.

I find this definition interesting, as it appears to be a religious-based one. If a person kills another person, that is murder. But if state then performs a lethal injection on the killer, that is not murder as the killer was not innocent (I'm assuming this is what you mean).

Heck, if a vigilante tracks down a murderer and kills him, that would also not be murder under this definition.

Seems very Old Testament-ish.

I do not have time right now to respond to all of this, but a few comments:

Woah, the fetus is guilty for the crime of its father???? Please clarify, since that can't be what you mean.

While it may jive with many religious definitions, it is not a religiously based definition. I am keeping all religion out of the discussion.

Answered partially by post 191.
Killing an innocent person is murder.

Still leaves open the point that, in the opinion of many people (some biologists included), a fertilised egg isn't a person. So, by what definition is the egg considered a person?

If you'll allow me to correct my definition, I intended to use the word "human being" since "person" has a different definition and is not yet relevant to the debate. Thank you for clarification.

If you'll allow me to correct my definition, I intended to use the word "human being" since "person" has a different definition and is not yet relevant to the debate. Thank you for clarification.
Okay, going back to the same dictionary site, a human being is defined as

1. A human.

2. any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

3. a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child

Ignoring the first definition (as it's of no help and seems a little facetious).

Second definition. Prior to birth, the foetus doesn't possess any of the characteristics listed for Hominidae, so couldn't it be argued that it isn't human? I'm not saying that it's a different species, just that it isn't yet human. In the same way I'd argue that an egg isn't a chicken until it hatches.

The last one is interesting. Clearly, a foetus isn't a man or a woman. Ths same site, on two different lines, comes up with two contradictory definitions for a child.
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. An unborn infant; a fetus
Seemingly, you can take your pick. Either a child starts its existence at birth or it does so earlier. Which brings us full circle.

If you assume 'child' to include unborn fetuses (feti?) and you take 'murder' to be any killing of an innocent, then there is no arguing that abortion is murder.

If, however, you assume 'child' to mean 'has been born' and/or you take 'murder' to mean an unlawful killing, then there is no arguing that abortion is not murder.

Glad we got that sorted. :confused:

The fetus itself is innocent, surely? The rapist, not at all, but the fetus?


I don't think so, but that's why innocent is such a subjective term. I would compare this to invaders taking over someone else's land. Sure, the soldiers might kill the natives to make room for the settlers, but are the settlers innocent in any wrong doing? The settlers are there on land that does not belong them due to violent actions taken by others on their behalf.

If the natives return, kill the settlers and take their land back, would you think the natives are suddenly the bad guys? That the settlers were innocent?

Regardless, I don't think a fetus at conception is inside the womb hoping that its mother doesn't terminate. And furthermore, I think it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice to force a woman to have her rapist's baby if she didn't want to.

Directed generally towards Eva and the defenition of murder
Your previous arguments were that the intentional killing of a human being is wrong.
Self defence, the killer should go to jail?
If a woman kills a rapist in an attempt to get away, should she go to jail?
If a fetus poses a risk to a mother (Every pragnency carries a risk) could we not infer that the fetus is not innocent? Or is it impossible for said fetus to be anything but innocent because it has yet to start life?

For me, the real question is not if the fetus is even alive, i think likely most people would agree that abortion kills a living fetus. That statment would be very hard to argue.
The question for me is, are there any reasons in which the killing of the fetus should be allowed under man-made law?

Another point to consider,
If two twins were born connected and perhaps shared vital organs, in which doctors could safely assume that leaving the twins connected would cause almost certain death, would it be best to save one twin? or let them both die? should we legally not even give the option and just say "well, your both ef'd cuz that's how god made you?"

I don't think so, but that's why innocent is such a subjective term. I would compare this to invaders taking over someone else's land. Sure, the soldiers might kill the natives to make room for the settlers, but are the settlers innocent in any wrong doing? The settlers are there on land that does not belong them due to violent actions taken by others on their behalf.

If the natives return, kill the settlers and take their land back, would you think the natives are suddenly the bad guys? That the settlers were innocent?

In this analogy, the settlers have decided where to settle. Regardless of whether or not they meant to cause harm, they did make the conscious decision to go to that location. A foetus, however, is incapable of deciding this, so has to be innocent? However, since I still believe the foetus isn't a conscious being in the sense that the mother is, applying concepts like innocence or guilt in order to decide if it can be removed is not very useful.

Regardless, I don't think a fetus at conception is inside the womb hoping that its mother doesn't terminate. And furthermore, I think it would be a horrible miscarriage of justice to force a woman to have her rapist's baby if she didn't want to.
Agreed.

In this analogy, the settlers have decided where to settle. Regardless of whether or not they meant to cause harm, they did make the conscious decision to go to that location. A foetus, however, is incapable of deciding this, so has to be innocent?


That's true, but even in the case of slaves, for example, who were forced to colonize an area. They wouldn't get a pass from the natives simply because they didn't have a choice in coming there. Its the native's land, and they have every right to kick out an unwelcomed invader.


However, since I still believe the foetus isn't a conscious being in the sense that the mother is, applying concepts like innocence or guilt in order to decide if it can be removed is not very useful.


That is the crux of the matter. I think it bares stating (probably repeating) that no one is truly pro-abortion. No one thinks that abortions are a great thing and want to see more of them. Those people that are pro-choice believe a woman should have the right to terminate if she so chooses.

In these debates, I think the quality of life that the child would have should it be born is often forgotten. I can't imagine being the child of a woman who wanted to have me aborted but wasn't allowed to. That would most likely be a miserable existence fraught with severe psychiatric issues.

That's true, but even in the case of slaves, for example, who were forced to colonize an area. They wouldn't get a pass from the natives simply because they didn't have a choice in coming there. Its the native's land, and they have every right to kick out an unwelcomed invader.

True. However, if they were told to move on, it's possible they could settle elsewhere. Even, at the risk of sounding like a BNP headcase, going back where they came from.

That is the crux of the matter. I think it bares stating (probably repeating) that no one is truly pro-abortion. No one thinks that abortions are a great thing and want to see more of them. Those people that are pro-choice believe a woman should have the right to terminate if she so chooses.

In these debates, I think the quality of life that the child would have should it be born is often forgotten. I can't imagine being the child of a woman who wanted to have me aborted but wasn't allowed to. That would most likely be a miserable existence fraught with severe psychiatric issues.
Agreed. I don't think anyone here is arguing they're a good idea, but calling them 'murder' is (at best) debatable, as opposed to being a fact.

The direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being.

I had referenced it previously, but I should have been more explicit. My apologies. This definition will need a little unpacking, but it will have to wait until I'm not at work. :)

Okay, then I refer back to what I believe is the definition of killing. According to the legal and MY definition of killing, something has to be considered alive and by alive, I mean a distinct life that can survive without direct attachment to another life. Based on this, I don't believe that a fetus is alive until it CAN survive on it's own outside it's or another host. So, no, in my opinion, abortion is NOT murder because the fetus is not actually alive.

You also must consider what "innocent" means in your statement. If you're religious (Christian), none of us are "innocent." So if you're providing this fetus with the definition of being a distinct life, and you are religious, you must also tag this life as non-innocent. Right? :rolleyes:

Nobody wants an abortion. An abortion is like a social car wreck. It's like a social root canal. Imagine the despair you have to be in for an abortion to look attractive. Imagine how much laughter and joking around there is in the halls of an abortion clinic.

Being 'right' about abortion is irrelevant.

Cheers,

2. any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage


This definition has serious problems, at best.

The two parts of this, taken equally, implies that a human being must be (ignoring the mention of extinct) both living and have articulate speech and erect carriage. If not, no human being. This would mean that those born seemingly without the ability to communicate, or those who cannot walk are not human. Infants possess none of these abilities. I think, rather, that this definition is unfortunately too ambiguous to be useful. :(

While I can appreciate that the newly conceived doesn't look anything at all like an adult, or act like an adult, does not communicate like an adult or consume the food an adult does, and that there are many compelling emotional and practical reasons for finding a way for it to not be human, there just isn't any science to support it. Does an embryo look like a 3 month, 1 day old fetus, for those that think abortion is wrong after the 3rd month, does a 3 month old fetus look like a 9 month old fetus, does a 9 month old fetus (still attached to the mother in a "paracitic" way) look like a 2 year old, like an adult, etc. Do any of them act like the other? Do any of them eat the same food or in the same manner? Do all of them display the same level of cognizance?

Regarding the comment about paracitic, until we developed formula, infants were still parasitic. Did they suddenly gain the right to be protected once they were freed from being attached to their mother?:confused:

There are many types of developmental processes which that we undergo until death. We are not done cooking, even at birth. The brain is still growing until, some researchers say, until somewhere between 11 and 15 years old. We don't stop growing in height until 22 or 23. We don't start having the ability to communicate until sometime in utero. When we become aged, our bodies start degenerating - backwards development, in a sense. The process is continuous.

If the newly conceived isn't yet human, what makes it human and when does that happen? The definition above will not work unless you deny human status to many groups.

And you can't say that the newly conceived is less human. If so, based on what? Based on the definition above? If so, people that are handicapped are less human
than people that are not. If you were once fully human but then were in a crippling accident, do you become less human?

I am not arguing that their abilities to function as humans is not diminished. It is right and good for us to try to prevent what makes people handicapped or crippled because it would allow them to act in a way that fully actualizes their potential as human beings.

Not to mention we would have to have a scale on which we grade being human.

The consideration of the morality of "taking a human life" in the earliest phases of development is an arbitrary decision.

Some people consider all animal life as sacred and live their life as a vegetarian. Some of them are as adamant as Eva is about the morality of their decision and insist it is "wrong" to kill an animal for food. But once again it is an arbitrary and personal choice.

Fact is a baby CAN exist with the support of anyone who is willing to give it. It would be wrong to deny it the opportunity. The development of a fetus is dependent on a particular person in what is essentially a parasitic relationship. In my morality, the choice to host that relationship remains the choice of the woman.

So the instant before birth, a parasite and okay to end its life if the woman chooses, the moment after birth, no? and what about when the baby is delivered but the umbilical cord is still attached?

Parasitic relationship... ouch... are you a parent? Can you look at your children and say, if things had been really tough, your mother and I might have ended your life at 8 or 9 months because you were only a parasite and not worth even the least legal, not even to mention, parental protection?

And don't say that after they were born you knew them and formed a relationship with them and now you couldn't imagine life without them and that is why you couldn't say that to them, but that you would be able to if you hadn't, because that would imply that knowing someone grants them the status of being human.

Okay, then I refer back to what I believe is the definition of killing. According to the legal and MY definition of killing, something has to be considered alive and by alive, I mean a distinct life that can survive without direct attachment to another life. Based on this, I don't believe that a fetus is alive until it CAN survive on it's own outside it's or another host. So, no, in my opinion, abortion is NOT murder because the fetus is not actually alive.

You also must consider what "innocent" means in your statement. If you're religious (Christian), none of us are "innocent." So if you're providing this fetus with the definition of being a distinct life, and you are religious, you must also tag this life as non-innocent. Right? :rolleyes:

As stated in a previous post to another member, the moment before birth, receiving all sustenance from the mother, it is right to end its life, the moment afterwards, no. Umbilical cord attached yet delivered? Where does that fall?

You can say it isn't alive, but really you are just making up a definition and are going against hundreds and hundreds of years of the definition of what it means to be alive. If that is the case... I don't even know how to respond to that!

Innocence in the definition is to distinguish between killing those that are guilty of something specific and those that are not guilty. Something that truly killed another and truly knew what he was doing, is truly guilty. Something that did not do anything is innocent. It is a state of innocence in the realm of actions, having not committed anything, not in a religious sense of original sin.

Something that did not do anything is innocent. It is a state of innocence in the realm of actions, having not committed anything, not in a religious sense of original sin.

"something" as in a fetus and not a "someone" as in a person? :D

i would suggest that in very short order in life, humans do a guilty act, be it swating a bug, stealing, lieing...
So that would imply that realistically, only people say... 5 years old and under can actually be murderd.
I swore at age 2 apparently. That's not very innocent. Had I been killed there after by my stressed out parents, thankfully they wouldn't have been tried for murder correct?

Would that also mean you are pro death penalty?

"something" as in a fetus and not a "someone" as in a person? :D

i would suggest that in very short order in life, humans do a guilty act, be it swating a bug, stealing, lieing...
So that would imply that realistically, only people say... 5 years old and under can actually be murderd.
I swore at age 2 apparently. That's not very innocent. Had I been killed there after by my stressed out parents, thankfully they wouldn't have been tried for murder correct?

Would that also mean you are pro death penalty?

I guess it goes to show I shouldn't answer posts at 12:30 in the morning. I should have used the word "someone."

I guess I'm a little surprised. Are we really debating what the word innocent means? Not guilty of a particular act, not in the much more general sense you are referring to.

Yes. The death penalty would be justified in cases where there was no other way of protecting the public. This means, however, that in a developed society such as we have in the United States, England, etc., with resources to prisons, confinements, and the like, it might be very difficult to find such justification. This, of course, is predicated upon the right and responsibility of the state to provide some measure of security for its citizens.

This is based on the intentional and innocent part of the definition. The state does not intend to execute the criminal. It intends protect its citizens, and would do so another way if it were possible. When you read the word intend, think motivation. The state doesn't set out to execute criminals because criminals should be executed (the motivation, or intention), but executes criminals when necessary because it has a responsibility to protect its citizens (the motivation, or intention).

I guess it goes to show I shouldn't answer posts at 12:30 in the morning. I should have used the word "someone."

Haha, yes I did figure you didn’t mean to do that, but had to use the slip. 


I guess I'm a little surprised. Are we really debating what the word innocent means? Not guilty of a particular act, not in the much more general sense you are referring to.


The thread was debating what murder was defined as... only to define it with an equally ambiguous term.
The point I’m trying to make, is that some words are subjective in their meanings. Innocence is never universal, and the same goes for the opinions on what murder is. (I point back to my previous post in which I refer to a killing in self-defense)



…This is based on the intentional and innocent part of the definition. The state does not intend to execute the criminal. It intends protect its citizens, and would do so another way if it were possible. When you read the word intend, think motivation. The state doesn't set out to execute criminals because criminals should be executed (the motivation, or intention), but executes criminals when necessary because it has a responsibility to protect its citizens (the motivation, or intention).

Seriously, the state does not INTEND to execute the criminal. “Let’s strap this guy to a chair, hit him with a pile of voltage and good amount of current and see if that fixes him… oh, what.. he died?”
It’s very much a “you killed someone, now we will kill you back” theory.
Inmates are on death row for YEARS and during those YEARS they are not a threat to society, so why after 20 years on death row do they become a serious risk which the prison walls can no longer contain?
Using that same logic, one could probably argue that the mother isn’t motivated to kill the fetus. She simply has no other way to ensure that she survives. She is protecting her own body from the risk of a pregnancy. It just so happens when you remove the threat, it dies.

Ok, here’s a question I would love to know your thoughts on based on your opinions.
Which life, is more important to you, the mother’s or the fetus?
Are they of equal importance? If they are of equal importance, is it RIGHT for the government to say that a woman can’t choose to kill the fetus if in fact she is concerned with the risk it poses to herself? If it is right, then again whose life is more important?

This definition has serious problems, at best.

Yeah, I'll openly admit that. However, a disabled person would be covered by the other two definitions. I was trying to find some definition of 'human' that could also cover a foetus but didn't manage it. I just felt that saying I couldn't would sound too much like I hadn't tried. Listing the first three I found and explaining how a foetus didn't match up to any of them was the closest I could get.

This is based on the intentional and innocent part of the definition. The state does not intend to execute the criminal. It intends protect its citizens, and would do so another way if it were possible. When you read the word intend, think motivation. The state doesn't set out to execute criminals because criminals should be executed (the motivation, or intention), but executes criminals when necessary because it has a responsibility to protect its citizens (the motivation, or intention).
Yes, it does intend to kill the person. Locking him/her up for the rest of their life would equally protect the rest of the citizens. The decision to kill is probably a lot cheaper than keeping them in prison and I know there are numerous other arguments in favour of the death penalty (as there are against it) but saying it's 'necessary' to kill someone doesn't really hold true.

Yeah, I'll openly admit that. However, a disabled person would be covered by the other two definitions. I was trying to find some definition of 'human' that could also cover a foetus but didn't manage it. I just felt that saying I couldn't would sound too much like I hadn't tried. Listing the first three I found and explaining how a foetus didn't match up to any of them was the closest I could get.


Yes, it does intend to kill the person. Locking him/her up for the rest of their life would equally protect the rest of the citizens. The decision to kill is probably a lot cheaper than keeping them in prison and I know there are numerous other arguments in favour of the death penalty (as there are against it) but saying it's 'necessary' to kill someone doesn't really hold true.

I've been entirely too busy to post lately, but I'll post a super quick reply...

If that is what the state intends, then I would say that it isn't justified - I mean in order to do something that is a good action, it has to be a good thing that you are doing and you have to do it for the right reason.

If you help an old lady across the street because you are showing off, well, you may have done a nice thing for the lady, but it wasn't a good action. You have to help her across the street because you are being helpful. Similarly, if you do something evil, but not meaning to do so, you the punishment you receive may be less than it would be if you had done it on purpose.

I would say that in order for the state to be doing something fully good, they would have to be executing the criminal out of protection for society (this really would have to take place in a society where there is chaos, and a prison wouldn't reliably be able to hold a criminal) and not doing so out of revenge.

I would say that in order for the state to be doing something fully good, they would have to be executing the criminal out of protection for society (this really would have to take place in a society where there is chaos, and a prison wouldn't reliably be able to hold a criminal) and not doing so out of revenge.
So, since society isn't in that state, all executions of criminals are also to be considered murder?

If you help an old lady across the street because you are showing off, well, you may have done a nice thing for the lady, but it wasn't a good action. You have to help her across the street because you are being helpful. Similarly, if you do something evil, but not meaning to do so, you the punishment you receive may be less than it would be if you had done it on purpose.

I would say that in order for the state to be doing something fully good, they would have to be executing the criminal out of protection for society (this really would have to take place in a society where there is chaos, and a prison wouldn't reliably be able to hold a criminal) and not doing so out of revenge.

If you truely belive in what you posted here, would it not stand to reason that a person getting an abortion with the intent to spare a child a life of missery and/or hurt would be a "good action"
or being as killing is ok in your view if it protects society (currently living people) and the mother to be is a currently living person, then she could have an abortion to protect herself from risk of death, and that would be a "good action"....yes?

So, since society isn't in that state, all executions of criminals are also to be considered murder?


No, because the person is not innocent and justice is deserved, especially since it is the responsibility of the state to bring about a type of justice so as to provide a safe society. It does, however, make it an abuse of justice and would call for some sort of reform. We all know that the prison system needs reform anyway, just roll this one into it! :)

If i recall, the reason we are discussing this is because we are attempting to define murder. To repeat, murder can be defined by different societies as having different requirements, however, the concept of murder I am speaking about is something that belongs to the natural law. This is something that transcends legal systems and societal norms. It applies to all people of all times because it is something inherent in nature that is understandable.

We perceive that it is a grave wrong to kill another human being. If a society at any time has or will permit such a thing, we would still perceive it and it would still be a grave wrong, regardless of what the state allows.

I really wish I had more time...

No, because the person is not innocent and justice is deserved...


Which bring up a multitude of additional questions. If someone is found guilty by a jury of their peers, sentenced to death, and eventually executed, but was really not guilty the whole time, would you say that the jury, the state, etc, murdered that individual? They intentionally killed the individual, they didn't think the person was innocent, but he was.


To repeat, murder can be defined by different societies as having different requirements, however, the concept of murder I am speaking about is something that belongs to the natural law.


Natural law means different things to different people. In general, most people would say that killing another person is wrong, immoral, etc. But when you add any number of variables (self-defense probably #1 among them), the killing becomes justified.

The American legal system even differentiates between types of murder (1st degree, planned out, 2nd degree, in anger and such, etc.).

Once again, it seems you're talking from a religious angle. As if there is a higher power than the legal system that all of us must answer to. It may be that way to you, but for many people its not. And in the legal sense, it is most definitely not accurate.

Natural law means different things to different people.
Wow! I just looked up 'natural law'. It's a term I've heard before but never realy had a fixed understanding of. Saying it means different things to different people is one hell of an understatement! :D

Wow! I just looked up 'natural law'. It's a term I've heard before but never realy had a fixed understanding of. Saying it means different things to different people is one hell of an understatement! :D

While there are multiple interpretations of the natural law, all classical interpretations of the natural law would agree that to kill another human being in the way we are discussing is against the natural law. And that is the interpretation of natural law I am discussing. Can we at least agree that to kill someone just because I like to do so is wrong for all people of all times and of all societies - regardless of what the society or law permits?

Which bring up a multitude of additional questions. If someone is found guilty by a jury of their peers, sentenced to death, and eventually executed, but was really not guilty the whole time, would you say that the jury, the state, etc, murdered that individual? They intentionally killed the individual, they didn't think the person was innocent, but he was.



Natural law means different things to different people. In general, most people would say that killing another person is wrong, immoral, etc. But when you add any number of variables (self-defense probably #1 among them), the killing becomes justified.

The American legal system even differentiates between types of murder (1st degree, planned out, 2nd degree, in anger and such, etc.).

Once again, it seems you're talking from a religious angle. As if there is a higher power than the legal system that all of us must answer to. It may be that way to you, but for many people its not. And in the legal sense, it is most definitely not accurate.

It jives with many religions, but is not based on religion. It is based on reason. If someone came up to me and said according to their interpretation of the natural law, they are justified in killing whomever they want for whatever reason they want, they are wrong. Not because I think they are, but because according to what is perceptible through our reason. This natural law is not something human beings created, it is something we understand based on nature.

To kill someone in self-defense would be justified because you do not set out to kill the attacker in cold-blood, your motivation or intention is to protect yourself. You did end their life, but you did so because you have a primary responsibility to protect yourself and those in your care.

Remember, you have to meet all the requirements of the definition of murder in order for it to be so. The direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being.

Can we at least agree that to kill someone just because I like to do so is wrong for all people of all times and of all societies - regardless of what the society or law permits?
Yes, agreed. However, nobody has argued otherwise?

Ignoring certain deliberately provocative comments one poster made a while back, most people are arguing about:
1. Foetus/Person - is it one or not?
2. Abortion/murder - are they the same?
3. Cases where abortion should be an option e.g. where it endangers the mother's health, rape, incest, etc.

Surely, nobody has said that you should be allowed to kill because you 'like to do so'.

It jives with many religions, but is not based on religion. It is based on reason. If someone came up to me and said according to their interpretation of the natural law, they are justified in killing whomever they want for whatever reason they want, they are wrong. Not because I think they are, but because according to what is perceptible through our reason. This natural law is not something human beings created, it is something we understand based on nature.


Natural law, like undefined unalienable rights, are incredibly tenuous. No one is going to be put in prison for violating natural law unless there is also a corresponding actual law.

For centuries, women have relied on various types of contraceptives to prevent brithing a child. Some were teas, some were eating plants, etc. What you're suggesting is that the morning after pill is a murder weapon. That a woman that drinks a cup of a certain type of tea after a mating is committing murder.

That's beyond ridiculous. I understand people's disgust towards late-term abortions, and I understand how people feel when women use abortion as a form of birth control. But, under your definition, there are many secret murderers in our society.


Remember, you have to meet all the requirements of the definition of murder in order for it to be so. The direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being.

So, in the example of the executed man who ends up being innocent, is it the guy who administers the lethal injection that's guilty of murder? The jurors are not guilty of murder, because they didn't directly do it. What about in those situations where, using an electric chair, they have 3 guys throw a switch, and none of the three knows which is the correct switch? Would all 3 be guilty of murder, or only the one with the "live" switch?

Seems paper-thin to me.

Yes, agreed. However, nobody has argued otherwise?

Ignoring certain deliberately provocative comments one poster made a while back, most people are arguing about:
1. Foetus/Person - is it one or not?
2. Abortion/murder - are they the same?
3. Cases where abortion should be an option e.g. where it endangers the mother's health, rape, incest, etc.

Surely, nobody has said that you should be allowed to kill because you 'like to do so'.

The portion of interest in my question is for all people, of all times. If we agree upon this, then we agree that there is a "law" that is discernible and reasonable and applies to human beings regardless of what their opinion is. If that is the case, what other "laws" are discernible and applicable to all people at all times? I would argue that based on the science we now have that humanity begins at conception, and if and only if it begins at conception, then to end the life of the newly conceived human being out of inconvenience, at the very least, is considered murder, the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being, regardless what society accepts.

If we can agree on that, I think we've come a long way. The other issues to discuss that have been at least partly discussed (as you have said):

1. when does human life begin
2. are there cases in which one can justly end the life of another

Natural law, like undefined unalienable rights, are incredibly tenuous. No one is going to be put in prison for violating natural law unless there is also a corresponding actual law.

For centuries, women have relied on various types of contraceptives to prevent brithing a child. Some were teas, some were eating plants, etc. What you're suggesting is that the morning after pill is a murder weapon. That a woman that drinks a cup of a certain type of tea after a mating is committing murder.

That's beyond ridiculous. I understand people's disgust towards late-term abortions, and I understand how people feel when women use abortion as a form of birth control. But, under your definition, there are many secret murderers in our society.

I don't know about secret murders because I don't think all people know what they are doing, but unjust killings to say the least. Yes, the morning after pill falls in the same category since it creates a hostile environment for the newly conceived. Similar to starving it to death.



So, in the example of the executed man who ends up being innocent, is it the guy who administers the lethal injection that's guilty of murder? The jurors are not guilty of murder, because they didn't directly do it. What about in those situations where, using an electric chair, they have 3 guys throw a switch, and none of the three knows which is the correct switch? Would all 3 be guilty of murder, or only the one with the "live" switch?

Seems paper-thin to me.

Natural law is the basis for actual laws.

When someone is committing an act, to determine if the act they are committing is in accord with the natural law (specifically murder in this case), we have to look at that particular person's intentions and actions. The fact that they are directly involved in ending the person's life is unquestionable, however, what is their motivation? Perhaps it would be to kill out of revenge. If so, not a just action. If to do their job (specifically in this case since it is not up to the executioner to determine innocence or guilt, it would be the legal system's responsibility), then it would be justified and would not be murder.

No, the jurors would not be guilty of murder. If, however, a juror knows for certain that the criminal did not commit the crime, but votes guilty anyway, and knows that a guilty vote will likely end in an execution, then he is not only guilty of lying, but also of indirectly killing an innocent person. Maybe that would be in a remote fashion considered murder, I haven't figured that out yet. ??

What about in those situations where, using an electric chair, they have 3 guys throw a switch, and none of the three knows which is the correct switch? Would all 3 be guilty of murder, or only the one with the "live" switch?

To have a clearer example, if three intruders had guns, but only one had a bullet, and they were aiming at an innocent individual, and all three pulled the trigger...

What were their intentions? Certainly to kill the innocent individual. Sure, in a very minor almost insignificant way the one with the bullet is most responsible for the individual's death, and he would be guilty of murder, but the intention was the same in all three men. They are at the absolute very least accomplices in the murder.

Natural law, like undefined unalienable rights, are incredibly tenuous. No one is going to be put in prison for violating natural law unless there is also a corresponding actual law.

Seems paper-thin to me.

How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?

Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.

B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.

How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?

Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.

B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.


I would argue that we can know there is a "supreme law giver" based on that very fact, however, I didn't want to get into that discussion. You are absolutely right.

I would argue that we can know there is a "supreme law giver" based on that very fact, however, I didn't want to get into that discussion. You are absolutely right.


You have to decide this first. Any question of right and wrong must start here.

How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?

Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.

B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.
This assumes that we're talking about absolute morality as opposed to the kind of morality that has evolved within societies in order for them to function.

This assumes that we're talking about absolute morality as opposed to the kind of morality that has evolved within societies in order for them to function.

Can anyone explain how morality evolves scientifically? Has morality been found in the human genome project? If it could be proven that morality evolves, well then, can we actually say group A's morality is better than group B's? What gives anyone moral supremacy to make such a judgment?

Is it morally better to be self righteous than to be hypocritically honest? There is no golden measuring stick. The individual decides at the moment which is most self serving. After all, tomorrow it could be more beneficial to decide the other way. And who's to say it's wrong to flip flop?

Can anyone explain how morality evolves scientifically? Has morality been found in the human genome project? If it could be proven that morality evolves, well then, can we actually say group A's morality is better than group B's? What gives anyone moral supremacy to make such a judgment?

Is it morally better to be self righteous than to be hypocritically honest? There is no golden measuring stick. The individual decides at the moment which is most self serving. After all, tomorrow it could be more beneficial to decide the other way. And who's to say it's wrong to flip flop?
So do societies today regard the same things as being moral/immoral that societies 100 or 1000 years ago would? If not, then 'moral' standards have evolved, probably out of necessity.

I doubt anyone is trying to tie the process into genetics.

So do societies today regard the same things as being moral/immoral that societies 100 or 1000 years ago would? If not, then 'moral' standards have evolved, probably out of necessity.

I doubt anyone is trying to tie the process into genetics.

Even attaching the word 'evolved' to morals is misleading. It is not provable scientifically. Regardless of whether or not morals change over time, a golden standard still does not exist.

If a moral changes, how does one know the change is correct with out an unchanging standard? And it's only reliable until another change is accepted.

If a moral never changes does it become the standard? It still is only a preference because there's no reason why it cannnot be superseded tomorrow.

Even attaching the word 'evolved' to morals is misleading. It is not provable scientifically. Regardless of whether or not morals change over time, a golden standard still does not exist.

If a moral changes, how does one know the change is correct with out an unchanging standard? And it's only reliable until another change is accepted.

If a moral never changes does it become the standard? It still is only a preference because there's no reason why it cannnot be superseded tomorrow.

End of that line of discussion, then. :confused:

God doesn't exist, so your gold standard doesn't exist, so we can progress no further with this line of thought.

OR

God does exist, so your golden standard does exist, but we have no way of knowing if current morality is moving closer to it or not since all opinions on exactly what the golden standard is are completely subjective.

Natural law is the basis for actual laws.



I would argue that we can know there is a "supreme law giver" based on that very fact, however, I didn't want to get into that discussion. You are absolutely right.


Yeah, what I figured from the beginning, sort of destroys your whole argument.


How can there be such a thing as natural law if there is no supreme natural lawgiver?



Natural law or the law of nature (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) and is thus universal.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-Ref-1-0) As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature) and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.


I don't see anything about a supreme natural lawgiver in the definition. I don't think that a 'natural law' has to be 'given' either.


Which is most plausible?

A. Mankind has an intuitive sense of morality instilled in it by a creator who is the supreme lawgiver. Therefore morality actually exists.


That's a different can of worms. But, I'll answer anyway. If there is a creator, and a supreme lawgiver, and this lawgiver instilled his sense of morality into humans, then all humans would be moral people unless the supreme lawgiver is not that good at instilling.


B. Mankind has a sense of morality who's source is beyond evolutionary explanation. Since there is no supernatural source for it, morality is nothing more than a personal preference. It is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions in the brain. Raping an infant is morally equivalent to eating lunch.


I wouldn't say it is beyond evolutionary explanation. Humans in general want security. They don't want to be killed. They don't want to have their stuff stolen. Therefore, overtime, they came to an understanding with other humans in their groups to not do these things, and they became known as "Bad Things". Eventually the bad things got codified into laws.

End of that line of discussion, then. :confused:

God doesn't exist, so your gold standard doesn't exist, so we can progress no further with this line of thought.

OR

God does exist, so your golden standard does exist, but we have no way of knowing if current morality is moving closer to it or not since all opinions on exactly what the golden standard is are completely subjective.

If God doesn't exist we agree that a golden standard does not exist. And so any question of abortion is a personal preference. I like my fetus' with mustard and relish on a hotdog role. You may prefer them born in a hospital for the purpose of house chores.

If God exists his existence is objective and his proofs are also objective despite any creature's subjective opinion.

There is no god. There is no proof that there is other than a book on far-fetched fairy tales.

Some people think there is a god, only to use that as an excuse for starting wars.

Most Americans believe there is a god and that god is American. Which is why they always witter on about it. "God bless America", "I will pray for you" - utter rubbish (trash).

Col

Yeah, what I figured from the beginning, sort of destroys your whole argument.

I'm not sure how it does. It is argued whether or not one can know that there is some sort of "lawgiver" using reason alone. I happen to think you can, but these "natural laws" are, like I said, based on nature and reason, not because "God said so." Even if you do hold that you can know that there is a lawgiver, it is not true (I don't think) that we can know much about him other than that he is good.) My argument is based on human reason, since human reason is universal, whereas "what God says" is debated.


Natural law or the law of nature (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language): lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) and is thus universal.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#cite_note-Ref-1-0) As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature) and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.
I don't see anything about a supreme natural lawgiver in the definition. I don't think that a 'natural law' has to be 'given' either.

based on what I said above, the natural law is not binding on all people of all times because they are "God's rules." Forget about the God aspect...whether we can prove a God exists from the natural law is a different debate, so let's just assume he doesn't exist. The natural law is binding on all people at all times because it is based on human nature which all people of all time share.

That's a different can of worms. But, I'll answer anyway. If there is a creator, and a supreme lawgiver, and this lawgiver instilled his sense of morality into humans, then all humans would be moral people unless the supreme lawgiver is not that good at instilling.

I wouldn't say it is beyond evolutionary explanation. Humans in general want security. They don't want to be killed. They don't want to have their stuff stolen. Therefore, overtime, they came to an understanding with other humans in their groups to not do these things, and they became known as "Bad Things". Eventually the bad things got codified into laws.

I'd say that our understanding of the natural law evolves so long as it is more in line with human nature, but the natural law itself does not evolve.

I'd also argue that human beings are moral people, not moral in the sense that they want to be good people, but that their actions have a rightness or a wrongness about them, and that we can judge their rightness or wrongness based on the natural law.

I'm sort of lost on what y'all think. Do you agree that, through reason, we can ascertain certain guiding principles, especially that one should not murder another human being (refer to previous definition of murder, which allows for capitol punishment when necessary - prisons aren't trustworthy, etc, and for self-defense - primary responsibility is to protect oneself and those in their responsibility) and that this would apply to all people of all times regardless of legal or social norms?

If we cannot agree on this, then we can go no further in our discussion, because the entire debate hinges on this principle.

1. If we can know through reason that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being

2. If human life is equally valuable

3. If the newly conceived is a human being

4. Then abortion is wrong for all people of all times.

If this is the conclusion one comes to, then no number of sympathetic circumstances can justify it.

That's a lot to agree upon, but that is how the argument has to go.

Thoughts? I'm sure you've voiced some of them before, but I'm interested in knowing on what points from beginning to end you disagree with.

I wish that you had numbered your points but as I see it

Then abortion is wrong for all people of all times.

If this is the conclusion one comes to, then no number of sympathetic circumstances can justify it.

conflicts with

refer to previous definition of murder, .................... and for self-defense - primary responsibility is to protect oneself and those in their responsibility)

The abortion can be to protect the mother and her existing family.

Brian

I'm not sure how it does. It is argued whether or not one can know that there is some sort of "lawgiver" using reason alone.


When most people refer to natural law, they are speaking of those tenets that humans have adopted through the years. Killing another person is generally wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. However, these natural laws came about naturally, through time, as society evolved.

Your view is that a supreme being and creator of the universe designed these nautral laws and then magically implanted them in human's minds. As such, you hold these natural laws as much more important than most other people would, as to you they are divine, they are more important than anything any individual society on earth can come up with.


Do you agree that, through reason, we can ascertain certain guiding principles, especially that one should not murder another human being (refer to previous definition of murder, which allows for capitol punishment when necessary - prisons aren't trustworthy, etc, and for self-defense - primary responsibility is to protect oneself and those in their responsibility) and that this would apply to all people of all times regardless of legal or social norms?


I would disagree. I don't think that there are any moral standards except those that a particular society venerates. At times when murder was quite common place (tribal raids, border clashes, etc), murder wasn't wrong when it was inflicted on groups other than your own group.

When the Europeans came to America, they slaughtered the Native Americans. Was this morally wrong? Today we can look back and make that judgment with today's standards, but at that time, the Native Americans were outside of the European's group, and thus considered less than human. To the European society it was not wrong to cleanse the land of the Native Americans.

And 200 years from now? I'm sure society will look back on us and see how immoral we were based on many of our actions. Morals are constantly evolving as society's expectations and outlooks change.


Out of curiosity Brian (or any of the Europeans), in the UK and Europe in general, there is a lot more socialized medicine than in the US from what I understand. Are women able to get abortions there, and if so, is it considered like any other medical procedure? Are there any stipulations that say taxpayer money cannot be used for abortions?

It is possible to have an abortion on the NHS, but it is on a case by case situation and certain conditions have to be met. A search on NHS abortion will give a number of sites giving more information.

The abortion can be to protect the mother and her existing family.

Brian

I totally agree with your point Brian! i'm glad someone else finally made it, i've been waiting to see how an anti-choice perspective responds to this while maintaing all life is equally important. typically i find they jump over this argument.

I wish that you had numbered your points but as I see it



conflicts with



The abortion can be to protect the mother and her existing family.

Brian


Thanks for the suggestion. They are numbered.

Hopefully this will answer your question as well, Access_guy49. Sorry I didn't get to it before.

I think we could agree that there is a hierarchy of responsibilities in regards to protecting life:

1. Self
2. Family
3. Others

The act of putting one's family or others' lives before one's own would be considered heroic. Therefore, the threat to one's family is not considered a sympathetic circumstance, it is a responsibility.

If the newly conceived is a human being, then it is part of her family.

A few sympathetic circumstances:
Take the extreme example, a woman wants an abortion because she just doesn't want a baby. She could otherwise handle one just fine, married, lots of money, emotionally capable, etc...

or

A woman wants an abortion because she doesn't want to leave her career...

or

A woman wants an abortion because her husband doesn't want children....

------------

Self-defense is not self-defense of your interests, which is what every scenario would boil down to other than "there is a great chance you will die if you continue the pregnancy."

Regarding that point, I will have to post a bit later.

The act of putting one's family ... lives before one's own would be considered heroic. Therefore, the threat to one's family is not considered a sympathetic circumstance, it is a responsibility.

I'd do it out of love, and definitely wouldn't consider it heroic.


Self-defense is not self-defense of your interests, which is what every scenario would boil down to other than "there is a great chance you will die if you continue the pregnancy."

So mental and emotional breakdowns don't count? It's just life or death.

My wife is coming home from the hospice today, she is now past the expected end date. I shall do all in my power to make her last days comfortable and happy, even meaningful if possible, as I believe that there is more to being alive than just breathing. And I'll do it out of love not resposibility.

You and I appear to live in different worlds.

Yes abortion is killing a living entity but if some brute had raped my wife I would not only want him dead but his bastard too.

Brian

I believe that there is more to being alive than just breathing.

Brian hits the nail on the head.

Eva's argument puts quantity above quality. An extra baby is preferable to being able to provide a better life for the already living. It is an odd position to take for someone on a small planet that will reach a population of seven billion humans sometime around the end of this year.

Being able to provide a better life works not only on a family scale but the whole planet. The world will eventually reach an unsustainable population. Truth known, it probably already has. Every extra human jeopardises life for all.

Foregoing a life before it has really begun is far more responsible than completing an unintended pregnancy.

I would argue that based on the science we now have that humanity begins at conception

I know you don't agree Eva but this conclusion is based on an arbitrary definition of humanity, not science.

In another post you argue that the difference between a three-month-old and a three-month-and-one-day fetus is negligible and extended it through to birth. That is simply concatenating small steps and pretending there isn't a world of difference between an embryo a few milimetres long and a full term baby.

You arbitrarily define fertilization as the one defining step in the commencement of life because it suits your sense of morality. Others could just as easily point out that the difference between an unfertilized egg (ie a single cell) and a fertilized egg (still a single cell) is a femtogram (probably much less) of chemicals.

Thus, "scientifically" it is obvious the difference between a two week embryo and a three month old fetus is vastly greater than the difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized egg.

Moreover a very large percentage of fertilized eggs do not go onto become babies compared to the number of three month fetuses that reach full term. Many "late periods" and even "ontime periods" involved a fertilized egg that failed to prosper.

This is because the combination of genes is random and many combinations don't work. Some couples cannot produce viable embryos because they are histo-incompatible and their ancestry has taken then on the first step toward speciation.

Should we mourn the death of a "human being" every time the aspiring mother bleeds?

I'd do it out of love, and definitely wouldn't consider it heroic.




So mental and emotional breakdowns don't count? It's just life or death.

My wife is coming home from the hospice today, she is now past the expected end date. I shall do all in my power to make her last days comfortable and happy, even meaningful if possible, as I believe that there is more to being alive than just breathing. And I'll do it out of love not resposibility.

You and I appear to live in different worlds.

Yes abortion is killing a living entity but if some brute had raped my wife I would not only want him dead but his bastard too.

Brian

I am truly sorry for you and your wife.

----------------------------------------------------

I don't mean heroic like nobody would do it, but wouldn't you feel a sense of awe and pride for a fellow man that takes the bullet for his wife? Of course it's out of love, and of course the most of us would do it in a heartbeat, but it doesn't diminish the quality of the act. It is a heroic act, and the person who does it is a hero.

And of course we take care of our own because of love, not only responsibility, but love can have a subjective dimension and responsibility does not. Responsibility provides the justification for why we take care of certain people before others, but love provides the motivation.

Mental and emotional breakdowns are not certain, and certainly there is the choice of adoption. Breakdowns are, no disrespect intended, a weightless justification for an abortion when there are options like adoption.

And if your 15 year old son is in such trouble and is so defiant that he is causing you an emotional and mental breakdown and it is quite literally destroying your family because he is so destructive to his siblings, are you justified in killing him out of self-defense?


His bastard, too? That makes my heart sick...

Brian hits the nail on the head.

Eva's argument puts quantity above quality. An extra baby is preferable to being able to provide a better life for the already living. It is an odd position to take for someone on a small planet that will reach a population of seven billion humans sometime around the end of this year.

Being able to provide a better life works not only on a family scale but the whole planet. The world will eventually reach an unsustainable population. Truth known, it probably already has. Every extra human jeopardises life for all.

Foregoing a life before it has really begun is far more responsible than completing an unintended pregnancy.

Of course, that is, as I outlined before, if you think the life has not yet begun.

Not at all is my argument about quantity, however, it is certainly not about quality, either.

That argument is about one person deciding for another what they think their life should be like. Saying that it is even at all remotely possible for one to consider ending another's life because of the lack of quality, which is completely subjective, then there is absolutely no rational argument that can prevent us from saying, "why don't we just wipe out all the people in poverty stricken areas where they live in their own feces since their quality of life is not good enough," the measure of which we don't know since it is completely subjective.

Talking about a quality of life is based on feelings of love, I will not argue that, but I will say that while noble, they are misplaced. We love humanity, so in an attempt to reduce pain, we give everyone in Africa or India a sleeping pill. Quietly go to sleep and never wake up again. No more painful life.

Morals are constantly evolving as society's expectations and outlooks change.
You need to watch out when saying things like this. I said much the same thing a little while back and opened a wee can of semantic worms ;)

I know you don't agree Eva but this conclusion is based on an arbitrary definition of humanity, not science.

In another post you argue that the difference between a three-month-old and a three-month-and-one-day fetus is negligible and extended it through to birth. That is simply concatenating small steps and pretending there isn't a world of difference between an embryo a few milimetres long and a full term baby.

You arbitrarily define fertilization as the one defining step in the commencement of life because it suits your sense of morality. Others could just as easily point out that the difference between an unfertilized egg (ie a single cell) and a fertilized egg (still a single cell) is a femtogram (probably much less) of chemicals.

Thus, "scientifically" it is obvious the difference between a two week embryo and a three month old fetus is vastly greater than the difference between a fertilized and an unfertilized egg.

Moreover a very large percentage of fertilized eggs do not go onto become babies compared to the number of three month fetuses that reach full term. Many "late periods" and even "ontime periods" involved a fertilized egg that failed to prosper.

This is because the combination of genes is random and many combinations don't work. Some couples cannot produce viable embryos because they are histo-incompatible and their ancestry has taken then on the first step toward speciation.

Should we mourn the death of a "human being" every time the aspiring mother bleeds?

My head spins when I hear that there is no scientific evidence that life begins at conception. I am standing on the shoulders of scientific giants when I say that because it has been well established since the 1800's!

It used to be considered that lie began at quickening, when the mother felt her baby move. With the improved technology of the microscope and human genetics our understanding changed. This is mainstream science! Now I'm the one who feels we are living in two different worlds!!!

And those fertilized eggs that don't survive actually die. I don't think that argument actually has any weight.

If she knows what is happening, a woman who miscarries, even early on, will mourn.

If she knows what is happening, a woman who miscarries, even early on, will mourn.

Or she may be thrilled, depends on the person doesn't it?

Based on all your arguments in the past few posts, i have a situation which i would really like to know your take on:

Would you suggest that there should be a law that the government passes in which parents would have to, by law, donate organs to their children in order to save their life in the event they are a match and there is a reasonable level of medical certainty that both parties would live? The law wouldn't give the parents a choice in the matter?
I'm not saying most parents wouldn't do this anyways, but... should it be law?
Both parties are living human beings, and one is dependant on the other for survivaly, much like a mother must give her body to sustain the life of the fetus even if it poses a risk to herself.

That argument is about one person deciding for another what they think their life should be like. Saying that it is even at all remotely possible for one to consider ending another's life because of the lack of quality, which is completely subjective, then there is absolutely no rational argument that can prevent us from saying, "why don't we just wipe out all the people in poverty stricken areas where they live in their own feces since their quality of life is not good enough," the measure of which we don't know since it is completely subjective.

Talking about a quality of life is based on feelings of love, I will not argue that, but I will say that while noble, they are misplaced. We love humanity, so in an attempt to reduce pain, we give everyone in Africa or India a sleeping pill. Quietly go to sleep and never wake up again. No more painful life.

Rubbish. I am saying that a person has the right to make a choice about sustaining the quality of life of those already born by not bearing another child into a situation where resources are limited.

People in parts of Africa are making that kind of decision every day about their children. They choose which of their children will be given the limited food while allowing another to die.

Are their decisions misplaced? Should they give them all an equal chance and let them all die together? Should the woman go ahead and have another baby knowing that it will jeopardise the lives of the children she alreay is struggling to support?