Abortion

[The_Doc_Man]

I HATE ending any argument that way. I always have.

Adam, I understand and actually sympathize. However, my comment/question about "the tyranny of the majority" still remains relevant.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I HATE ending any argument that way. I always have.

I am not going to persuade Doc that late term abortions are murder and he is not going to persuade me that late term abortions are not murder. So, thre is nothing to discuss.

Once the fetus is viable, I believe it is a life and has rights. Before that, you can treat it like a growth and do what you want. And that still doesn't change my position that abortion is NOT an alternate method of birth control and to be taken lightly. If you are old enough to have sex, you are old enough to know the potential result. If your sex was unprotected, then get a morning after pill to ward off a pregnancy. If you are using birth control and it fails, you know or at least strongly suspect by 6-7 weeks. If you don't want a baby, take a test and have an abortion. By the time you get to the fifth month, there should be something very wrong with the fetus or the mother to allow an abortion.

The worst weekend of my life was spent with a good friend crying and comforting her over her abortion. She was in a bad marriage and had filed for divorce. Her husband raped her and she ended up pregnant. Being a single mother of three young children was going to be very difficult but being pregnant with a fourth was going to make it virtually impossible so she felt she had no option but an abortion. So I did what friends do. I supported her in her time of need knowing how painful this decision was to her. You might ask, why wasn't she using birth control? The answer is the Catholic church forbade birth control at that time and so she obeyed the tenants of her faith.

 

[conception_native_0123]

Her husband raped her

well I sympathize I guess. that's a tough situation to say the least.

 

[conception_native_0123]

my comment/question about "the tyranny of the majority" still remains relevant.

I know richard. my comment was a neutral one, with regard to the arguments here. Just thought I would chime in. to somewhat make a point I guess.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

A constructional approach to whether the fetus is human!!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1869669083915882977

 

[Jon]

If an unborn is one microsecond from birth, do some people believe that terminating that "entity" is not murder? Let's keep splitting that down to such a small period of time that the laws of physics mean that the "entity" has not physically changed during birth verses just prior to birth. Read that as all the cells are in the exact same state, all the molecules are in the exact same locations. Then what we are dealing with is the semantic definition of a child (with rights) based on location, rather than its physical state. If the child is outside, it is murder, but why would it not also be considered murder if it was inside?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If the child is outside, it is murder, but why would it not also be considered murder if it was inside?

One of the "tests" made according to those who believe this way is the severing of the umbilicus. That is, to some religions, the exact moment at which the fetus becomes a separate person. Another test is that moment when the fetus takes that first breath to start getting oxygen on its own rather than from mother's blood supply. For those who believe this way, the issue being discussed here isn't scientific. It is based on religious dogma. And I have no business sticking my nose into someone else's personal religious beliefs. The question isn't when the fetus becomes a baby from my viewpoint. It is when the pregnant woman things the fetus becomes a baby - and that isn't a scientific question. It is a personal philosophy question, the answer to which also defines the answer to your question, Jon. When do we gain the right to override a person's religious beliefs on a precise point of fetal/baby transition?

Particularly in the USA, the problem involves religious freedom. To arbitrarily pick one time over another is to indirectly favor or disfavor a particular religion, and we aren't supposed to do that. I know that we have in the past - such as banning the religious use of ganja weed commonly used by some of the folks from Caribbean nations. I know that some states allow polygamy because some religions allow it. I know that some religious - Church of Christ Scientist for one - who can refuse treatment for someone on religious grounds. My grandmother died of pneumonia because she refused treatment for three days after an accident. My point is that we make all sorts of exceptions for religions already, and some of them CAN be life-threatening. How is this any different?

Also, please note that my personal beliefs about that transition aren't in play here. My beliefs in the morality of interfering with another person's beliefs are where this discussion originates.

 

[AccessBlaster]

When a woman terminates a pregnancy they will refer to it as a fetus. But if the same woman dies in a car accident on the way to get the abortion, she died with her unborn baby.

On one hand you are devoid of emotions, it's just a clump of cells like cancer. On the other hand emotions run high because two people have died.

 

[NauticalGent]

Before I had granddaughters, I was a bit more objective on this subject. Now, not so much...

 

[Isaac]

When a woman terminates a pregnancy they will refer to it as a fetus. But if the same woman dies in a car accident on the way to get the abortion, she died with her unborn baby.

I think it's ridiculous when people pretend to not think it's a baby.

Well let's see here -- You're giving it a name in your family, you're buying baby clothes for it, you're prepping a crib and nursery, and you're calling it a baby. I'm pretty sure it really is a baby! It's not like they're confused, wondering if it's a table, lamp or chair.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think it's ridiculous when people pretend to not think it's a baby.

Well let's see here -- You're giving it a name in your family, you're buying baby clothes for it, you're prepping a crib and nursery, and you're calling it a baby. I'm pretty sure it really is a baby! It's not like they're confused, wondering if it's a table, lamp or chair.

You miss the point, Isaac. Personally, I would agree with you - but I know that religions exist that would not, and it is a dangerous precedent to discount another person's religion without certainty of cause. My previously stated feelings about Muslims are also conflicted because I have had many Muslim friends whom I know to be good and reasonable people. Then there are the members of Hamas and of the Wahabbi sect. When religion enters the picture, you are dealing with something that probably has been a part of a person's life since their earliest childhood memories. When a moral dilemma hits THAT situation, you have a massive cognitive dissonance to manage and there will be anger on both sides. That's why I won't make a categorical condemnation.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

you are dealing with something that probably has been a part of a person's life since their earliest childhood memories. When a moral dilemma hits THAT situation, you have a massive cognitive dissonance to manage and there will be anger on both sides.

Hi Richard, I just wanted to say I find your input on any subject fascinating, and always on point! The world would be a much better place if everyone thought about things to the depths that you do....

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you for the kind opinion, Tony. I enjoy your little snippets that you post as well. Some of your chose clips are truly magnificent examples of irony - and not always of the subtle kind.

 

[Pat Hartman]

To arbitrarily pick one time over another is to indirectly favor or disfavor a particular religion, and we aren't supposed to do that.

There is science to pick the dividing point. WHEN is the fetus viable outside of the womb? Granted, there is no exact moment. Since religions vary in their opinion from conception (or even before because some think contraceptives are against the will of God) to after birth when the umbilical cord is cut or the baby takes his first breath.

We are never going to agree on this but since I believe life starts BEFORE birth (the question is only exactly when), it is hard to condone late term abortions which I equate with murder of another living being.

The clip was very amusing but you can apply my logic to it also, at some point in the building process, its final use becomes apparent. So, if it takes 9 months to build the clinic, maybe it is not until the last month that it becomes viable as an abortion clinic

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There is science to pick the dividing point.

No there is not... not if the person in question is adhering to a religious answer. THAT is the problem in a nutshell. For those who are atheist or not strongly adherent to religious dogma, science holds AN answer - but not THE answer. The devout followers of one of the relevant religions hold their beliefs ABOVE science and THAT is the source of the problem. It is their right to do so since we do not discriminate against any creeds and any religions - equally. My personal beliefs in abortion don't matter. It is my personal beliefs on religious and philosophical freedom that drive this discussion. Where do you draw the line? Doesn't matter if the person on the other side doesn't acknowledge the validity of that line.

 

[Pat Hartman]

If my religion says I can kill my child, will society allow it? No. We don't allow animal sacrifices either so religious freedom does have limits. We don't allow Mormons to practice polygamy. Of course they still do. We just don't legally recognize the marriages. But for reasons that escape me, we do allow polygamous marriages if you are Muslim. Muslims also commit "honor" killings and they probably get away with it when they do it here because Sharia law is alive and well in established pockets of Islam.

Once society in general recognizes that life begins before birth, we are obligated to protect it so unless you are one of the adherents to "life doesn't begin until the mother says it does" - remember abortion after birth is allowed by New York and Virginia law - you can't be uncommitted on this issue.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If my religion says I can kill my child, will society allow it? No.

If you are a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist, and if your child has a treatable but potentially fatal disease, yes you can kill your child by refusing treatment on religious grounds. Does society allow it? YES. If someone wants to commit suicide (indirectly) by refusing treatment, will society allow it? YES. My paternal grandmother, who WAS a Christian Science member, actually DID that. DON'T tell me that society won't allow it. They DID allow it.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The examples are apples and oranges.
Your grandmother made the choice for herself not for you or some other person. Assuming she was mentally competent, she chose to die rather than to live in misery. I'm very sorry it came to that for her. It is a horrifying choice to have to make and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
In the case of the drugs, There is no way to PROVE that the drug will save the child. Probably, isn't good enough in their mind to violate their beliefs.
Abortion is KNOWINGLY taking the life of another. That is the difference. If you don't believe life exists prior to birth, then you would be OK with late term abortion. If you believe that life starts earlier, then you would not be OK with late term abortion. There is no middle ground here. Early term abortion, is a matter of your personal moral compass. But when the abortion doesn't entail taking another life, it is simply the removal of a bothersome growth.

I'm not suggesting that you must believe that life begins prior to birth. What I am saying is that there is no gray ground with this particular morality. If you do believe that life begins before birth, then the fetus is a human being and cannot be killed without a very good reason so you would defend the life of the baby rather than the mother's "right to choose". If you don't believe that life begins before birth or don't know, then you have no desire to interfere. There are not three choices here. There are only two. You defend the life of the unborn or you don't - for whatever reason. There is no middle ground that you keep trying to find.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The examples are apples and oranges.

Your response is an example of avoidance.

Abortion is KNOWINGLY taking the life of another.

Unless your religion says that the other isn't a person yet.

There is no middle ground that you keep trying to find.

I was never looking for a middle ground because to you it is always and only about the fetus or baby. But there IS a third party, the pregnant woman, and it is HER rights that become somewhat of a problem in this discussion.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I give up.