HOWDY LISA D !!!!! You found us !!!! yea!. Well there goes the nieghborhood, LOL, Just kidding. Good to see you ! How have you been ? I am glad you are here. :)
Well if you do get it, then you can't say that Conservatives oppose abortion to reign in personal freedom.
True, probably not a good characterization.
Oh violating ones beliefs is more wrong than killing a human being?
Essentially. I eat beef which comes from cows. I don't have a problem with a cow being killed. A Hindu might though. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by eating a cow, but if someone who did believe that went ahead and did it, I would think they had done something wrong. Probably a bit too relativistic for you though.
No one said to consider an unborn child a "full fledged person." The only thing we are talking about is ending their lives through butchery.
If the fetus isn't a person, then has any murder really been committed? Can the rights of a non-person actually outweigh those of a person (the mother)?
Ignorance. A human fetus is human. It isn't a dog or a cat or a mosquito.
They're all forms of life. What makes one better than another, and can you prove a fetus possesses those qualities?
We don't kill human beings without second thought. At least not until 1973.
Maybe you should read more history. But that aside, I don't think a woman getting an abortion without a second thought is likely the norm. I imagine for many, if not most, it's an agonizing decision as you yourself alluded to recently. But there may be times where it will be the best out a group of bad options.
It is special because the unborn child is HUMAN.
It will be at some point. If that's enough for you to consider it special that's your right, but what if someone doesn't agree with you?
If you leave the process alone, a process that has already began you will have a baby. Then you will have a young child. Then an adolescent and then an adult. If the person lives long enough he or she will die of old age. That won't happen if you abort the child.
Let's say I dig a hole in the ground intending to build a house. I get a foundation set and start building a frame. If the process continues I will have my house and a place to live. But let's say a storm comes by and destroys what I've built so far. Does that make me homeless now? No, it doesn't become a home until I move in. Until then it only has the potential to be a home. And if the process is aborted, no one becomes homeless as a result.
So we base it on your belief? What if you are wrong?
I might be. My point is we can't be sure which one of us is right and so we can't force our opinions on someone else to tell them that they can't or that they have to have an abortion. We have to let them decide that for themselves unless as a society we come to a large enough consensus that we shoose to force the minority dissenters to comply.
But you can force yours?
I'm not forcing you to have an abortion.
Everyone that is alive was conceived. You don't have an adult without it. If you abort, you are intervening into a process that most likely will result in an adult.
While it is true that all people began as conceptions, it does not logically lead to the conclusion that all conceptions must become humans. Indeed, many do not all on their own. And like all apple trees began as seeds, that doesn't mean every seed should be valued the same as a tree.
If the fetus isn't a person, then has any murder really been committed? Can the rights of a non-person actually outweigh those of a person (the mother)? Now you are changing the subject. Intially you said "full fledged" person. That is not the same as just person. We don't consider minors "full fledged" persons.
They're all forms of life. What makes one better than another, and can you prove a fetus possesses those qualities? Again you are changing the subject. Humans are considered different than animals. That is why youy can't get the death penalty for killing a dog.
First of all I am going to preface my remarks by saying that this is my opinion. That is the hard issue with abortion, opinions and emotions vary so much with abortion that it becomes personal to some.
Indeed, as I've been trying to show, it really all comes down to an opinion that may prove impossible to discover the truth about. Whether or not a fetus should be considered a person with rights that can supercede the rights of the mother. There are good reasons to believe either way, and we may never know for sure. So knowing that this difference of opinion exists, the question then becomes what is the best course of action to pursue?
I think it all comes down to a question of law and morals as well since we as a society decide laws based on a general moral compass.
I'd agree. The law tends to reflect what what people percieve as the prevailing moral standard. There were times in the past where some people could be killed at will because society saw them as property, and there was no legal consequence for doing so.
One of the first and foremost is the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
In our society today it is. Although there is a problem in that if a fetus has a right to life, it may well be in conflict with the mother's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and sometimes even in conflict with her own right to life).
That being said I would ask some questions as to when that life begins or wether or not it is considered a life. The right to life is a basic worldwide human law of nature.
Not so sure about that. When the lion eats the zebra, is he committing a crime against nature? Rather I would say the right to life is a basic tenet of civilized society.
But we have to decide if a human life is more important than a mosquito or a dog as you put it. I would say yes.
As would I. What I was really trying to ask was while a fetus is alive, and will become a human at some point, should we consider it a human right now?
I do feel that it is a life, a human life. (1) If it is not a human life then what is it?
Some would say just biological tissue with the potential to become a human.
A baby or fetus or zygote as the pro abortionists like to call it can be aborted at 5 months. There have been babies that lived normal healthy lives when born at 5 months.
Which is partly why I personally don't draw the line at viability. I draw the line at being born. At least the line as to whether or not I consider them a person. Although to reiterate, I'm not particularly in favor of abortion. I'd be perfectly happy if there was never another one. I'm just saying I don't consider it murder and I don't think outlawing it is a good idea. So even a late term abortion, while it's something I'm not in favor of, I wouldn't call it murder.
They still have the same eyes, mouth, nose, hair, ears etc. They both feel emotion and have the same brain activity. Nothing is [changed] except the food and oxygen source, nothing !
Which has a lot to do with why the goverment set the rules the way they did. I believe third term abortions are illegal except in cases of emergency. And I believe second term abortions have some obstacles as well.
So one minute it's nothing and in the 15 minutes it takes to deliver it it is now a person?
Could well be. There's still a lot we don't know about life and souls. I still have a hard time myself believing every fertilized egg has a soul. And I don't think a line can be drawn at any point between there and birth. So to me it seems to make the most sense to believe that the soul enters the body at birth and until then it's just a body.
I asked this in the answer a question w/ a ? forum. Why is it that when we are going to kill or abort a baby it's the only time we refer to it as a fetus?
I didn't answer it there because I couldn't think of a way to phrase it as a question, but I'm afraid the answer is all too obvious. If the baby is wanted, then the parents will be looking forward to the time it is born and will refer to it as a baby even in the womb. It's an emotional thing. If you're going to abort it, then you need to distance yourself from it and do away with the emotions as much as possible so you use the clinical term rather than the emotional one.
Indeed, as I've been trying to show, it really all comes down to an opinion that may prove impossible to discover the truth about. It is not an opinion that two human cells meet and develop into a child. That is fact.
Whether or not a fetus should be considered a person with rights that can supercede the rights of the mother. Abortion shouldn't be a "right" and therfore, this discussion should not be necessary.There are good reasons to believe either way, and we may never know for sure. No there is no good reason to abort on a whim.
In our society today it is. Although there is a problem in that if a fetus has a right to life, it may well be in conflict with the mother's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and sometimes even in conflict with her own right to life). The problem is that you don't have a right to liberty or pursuit of happiness when someone else's life is at issue.
As would I. What I was really trying to ask was while a fetus is alive, and will become a human at some point, should we consider it a human right now? The fetus is human whetehr you want to consider it to be or not.
Which has a lot to do with why the goverment set the rules the way they did. I believe third term abortions are illegal except in cases of emergency. And I believe second term abortions have some obstacles as well. By government you mean the Supreme Court that yusurped legislative authority.
Abortion shouldn't be a "right" and therfore, this discussion should not be necessary.
The right in question is whether or not a woman can be made to carry a child for nine months and subsequently give birth to it, all against her will. Normally in this society we would say that no one would ever be made to do such a thing against their will. But the side effect of the choice of not doing so is that the fetus must die, so then it becomes a question of the fetus's right to life versus what would otherwise be an unquestioned right of the mother.
Could well be. There's still a lot we don't know about life and souls. I still have a hard time myself believing every fertilized egg has a soul. And I don't think a line can be drawn at any point between there and birth. So to me it seems to make the most sense to believe that the soul enters the body at birth and until then it's just a body.
How ridiculous. It is human cells that meet and develop. It is a being because it has a seperate identity from its mother and it is alive.
If you're going to abort it, then you need to distance yourself from it and do away with the emotions as much as possible so you use the clinical term rather than the emotional one.
If it is not a being why must one distance themselves from it?
The right in question is whether or not a woman can be made to carry a child for nine months and subsequently give birth to it, all against her will. In most cases she had a the will to engage or not engage in sex. She should live with the consequences of those actions.
In our society today it is. Although there is a problem in that if a fetus has a right to life, it may well be in conflict with the mother's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and sometimes even in conflict with her own right to life).
I partially agree but the right to life being the first and foremost since without it none of the others matter. If you don't have life you have niether. I should note that in my opinion if the mother's life is in danger then ending the pregnancy would be warranted. Generally if the mother's life is in danger the child is in just as much if not more so there would be a definate time where it would be sad but warranted.
When the lion eats the zebra, is he committing a crime against nature? Rather I would say the right to life is a basic tenet of civilized society.
Note I did say human law of nature.
They still have the same eyes, mouth, nose, hair, ears etc. They both feel emotion and have the same brain activity. Nothing is [changed] except the food and oxygen source, nothing !
Which has a lot to do with why the goverment set the rules the way they did. I believe third term abortions are illegal except in cases of emergency. And I believe second term abortions have some obstacles as well.
Right so at some point even legally we see it or are having problems denying that it is a human life. There is zero difference between two identical babies one in the womb and one just born. in the case of twins for instance. The last one out has every exact quality that the sibling does. Except one is out and off of the mothers tube and one isn't. There is no other difference. as far as determining when "souls" are formed will never be answered but I can tell you that they have their own personality months before birth. like I said a 5 month old baby is apparently not human one minute and the minute they cut the cord o.k now she's suddenly a human and 4 minutes ago she wasn't ?
I asked this in the answer a question w/ a ? forum. Why is it that when we are going to kill or abort a baby it's the only time we refer to it as a fetus?
I didn't answer it there because I couldn't think of a way to phrase it as a question, but I'm afraid the answer is all too obvious. If the baby is wanted, then the parents will be looking forward to the time it is born and will refer to it as a baby even in the womb. It's an emotional thing. If you're going to abort it, then you need to distance yourself from it and do away with the emotions as much as possible so you use the clinical term rather than the emotional one.
That's exactly why they don't call it a baby when it's unwanted. To ease thier conscience. To make them feel better about themselves ending a life. They need to feel better about making a conscious decision to take it upon themselves to kill an unborn baby. I hope they sleep o.k But obviously by even using that term we see them denying or trying to deny that what is inside is a baby. That 5 month baby they are about to kill has feeling, it smiles, it has eyes a heart, a liver, a stomach, it feels pain, it sleeps , it is awake, it gets the hiccups, it has finger prints and it sucks it's thumb and it is killed because it's an inconvienence. But hey as long as it makes you feel better keep calling it a fetus, keep telling yourself that.
Normally in this society we would say that no one would ever be made to do such a thing against their will. But the side effect of the choice of not doing so is that the fetus must die,
Notice you didn't use the word baby in that paragraph or the whole post ? That's exactly what I mean. Try it using the word baby.
Normally in this society we would say that no one would ever be made to do such a thing against their will. But the side effect of the choice of not doing so is that the BABY must die,
Sounds alot worse doesn't it ? In fact it sounds pretty horrible. That's why I asked Why is it only called a fetus when we are going to abort it ? Why don't we say how's the fetus doing or when is the fetus due? and that's exactly why as you stated above. (Thanks for answering honestly.) It makes it easier for those who choose to kill a baby out of inconvienence or choice.
Why becuase I didn't call her any names or generalize about her ? I was thanking Allison for debating honestly and with courtesy. As opposed to your tactics ? saying something deep, like all liberals are morons or anyone who believes that is an idiot or generalizing by saying that liberals can't think for themselves and then wondering why someone won't listen. So unless you debate like that you are a moderate eh? If being civilized and having good debate makes me a moderate in your book, so be it. It's not your book I'm worried about.
Indeed, I'm not a female but a male. Allison is my last name, not really my first name.
As for calling it a baby over a fetus, you say it's a way to ease a guilty conscience. I think you can come at it from the other direction too. If you were to get pregnant, and you weren't planning on keeping it, why form an emotional attachment to begin with? "Fetus" is a correct term to use. Why would you even want to refer to it as a baby, implying an emotional connection that isn't there?
Which is a similar reason as to why I sometimes use the word fetus instead of baby when arguing. Baby is a word with a lot of emotion attached to it as well as a strong connotation to think of one that has already been born. Consequently it can confuse the issue with emotion.
Speaking of what to call it, have you noticed that you can't legally name a child until it is born? You can't get it a social security number or open a bank account for it. So even if you do call it a baby, there are lots of examples in society to show that it's not considered a real person until it comes out of the womb.
Speaking of what to call it, have you noticed that you can't legally name a child until it is born? You can't get it a social security number or open a bank account for it. So even if you do call it a baby, there are lots of examples in society to show that it's not considered a real person until it comes out of the womb.
Big deal we don't let them drive, vote or drink until later in life either. They used to wait until you were 12 or 13 before you got your s.s card too. So why is someone charged with two murders if they kill a pregnant woman ? They don't know if she was intending on keeping it. So in some ways we already do see it for what it is. A human or a baby. I still think calling it a fetus is an emotional cop out. Human is the correct term for us but we don't walk around calling eachother humans either.
BTW Sorry about the name mix up thing. I shouldn't have assumed, you know what they say about assuming. Sorry
There will never be a concensus about when a life begins.
I have always believed it to be at conception, but that comes from my spiritual and religious beliefs more than any scientific data.
Others very firmly believe that life begins when the first breath is taken outside the mother's body. That comes from their own personal upbringing, religious or spiritual beliefs.
I can say for certain only what I believe to be true, but knowing that others believe just as strongly opposing my truths.
I have known women who had abortions and I believe for them in their personal situations, it was the best choice for them. That's why they made the choice they did. In the situations I know about, the decision to have an abortion was not made lightly nor was it a matter of convenience for them. The situations were more complicated than any one person's convenience. I know of one woman who regrets the decision now years later, but knows given the same circumstances and the same issues at the time, her decision would have been the same.
I have also known women who after some consideration, chose not to abort their babies. It was a decision not made lightly nor was convenience part of that decision. The struggles for some have been numerous.
Adoption is often mentioned when abortion issues are discussed. Adoption is not the whole answer.
True. There are many waiting couples wanting to adopt a healthy baby. There are also thousands of children waiting for a family. They are often older, handicapped in some way or with medical problems, racially mixed, have fetal alcohol syndrome, drug induced physical and mental problems or are otherwise hard to place children. Some of these kids are eventually adopted. Others just grow too old for adoption and become wards of the state.
There are also thousands of children held in limbo and in foster homes waiting for the courts to terminate parental rights or for the families they were born to be able to live together as a unit. It's a real Catch 22 for them. They are getting older all the time, often come from physical or emotionally abusive backgrounds so carry those scars and make it hard for them to attach to anyone - though often you will hear them say they want to be a part of a family - and all the rest of the issues facing kids waiting for placement in an adoptive home.
Not all unwanted children are placed for adoption or aborted. Some just live in hell.
I thank God every day that my children's birth parents didn't abort them. I also pray for all those kids that live in hell. I see way too many of them in my work.
I see what you are saying Terry. Some would say, see their's the perfect reason to keep it legal. But their are kids living in hell that have parents as well. you have to take a test to get a liscense but not to bring a child into the world. There are also kids that come from orphanges or fostert homes that become productive members of society. But to those who would say keep it legal because of that I can see their logic behind that but to simply throw in the towel because a kid might not be wanted seems so very harsh. Yes the world that unwanted kids live in is harsh as well but we aren't even giving them the chance, we don't know what a child will turn out to become.
I heard Stephen Wright comment once that he had a dream that all the aborted babies came back to life and they were really mad. Funny if it weren't so sad and so true.
That's why I pray for those kids. There's always a chance they will become productive members of society and perhaps help right the wrongs that were done to them.
Others end up in prison - and we pay the bill there too.
It's why there is a debate. There's the good, the bad and the ugly in our society and one can find many examples of why any one of them would be a good reason to either continue to allow lawful abortions or to ban abortions entirely.
I know what the right answer is for me. I don't know though what the right answer is for anyone else. I believe it's between them and their God or conscience. I won't judge others for their beliefs in this debate.
Someones religion is very personal and I don't mean to pry and I am not asking this in a judgemental or condescending way, if you prefer not to answer I would understand. I have always wanted to ask someone who has deep beliefs that abortion is wrong for them but feels that choice of the individual is between them and God and feels they will be judged accordingly. How do you think you will be judged if you don't work to stop it or at the least speak out to stop it by denouncing it and calling for it to be illegal. Thereby putting an end to it? Just wondering how you can separate the two. How do you think you will be judged if you do nothing to stop it ?
Interesting question and I'll answer the best I know how.
Abortion is legal in this country. Abortions were performed regularly long before it became legal. No law will stop abortions.
In my opinion, abortions are morally wrong. That opinion is heavily based in my religious background.
So how does one combine those two views and then find myself sitting in an abortion clinic supporting a friend at a time when fertility treatments were being considered in my life?
I guess it's a matter of loving a friend in need. She was and is a deeply religious person who doesn't believe in abortion. It was a unique set of circumstances that made that option for her the right thing at the time. No friend turning her back would have stopped her. No law would have stopped her.
How will I be judged whether I speak out or not regarding a law? How will I be judged for walking into an abortion clinic with a friend? I guess I'll find out.
I pray my God judges me as was promised. There's not one of us without sin that we should throw stones. I just try to live my life the best way I know how.
The difference is public versus private. Your personal beliefs are private and will have an effect upon your behavior. But when you move into the public world, your beliefs have equal weight with those of others. So what you would choose not to do may not have an validity for all others. Your views to control others besides yourself? To some extent that is something we must all deal with - paying taxes for example. The abortion debate however takes public policy down to the most personal level and enters into the most private or relationships. Which is why there is so much difficulty with the issue. It is also why one person can be oof two minds about it - making it legally available and supporting a friend through it while being personally against it for themselves.
Apparently you all have not heard of the expression never counting one's chickens before they are hatched. Simply being pregnant does not guarantee a live birth nnor does it guarantee a healthy, fully formed and ready for life infant.
The present system allows for unlimited availablity within the first trimester, limited availablity diuring the second - meaning there has to be something wrong with the child, and the mother must be in imminent danger of dying or something went dreadfully wrong with the fetus to get an abortion in the third trimester. That is the current standings.
Which is why you cannot get a social security number, claim the child on your taxes, etc until the infant is really born and here. Because things can, and do, go wrong with the process.
Insurance companies will not insure a pregnant woman. She is only insurable beforehand or afterwards. Being pregnant is a high risk activity. For example, whilst in the hospital after giving birth to my first, I met a young woman who had to be strapped to a feeding tube because her fetus was literally eating her up alive from inside. She simply could not physically eat enough to keep herself alive without massive medical intervention. Even with this help she was a scarecrow with a huge award-winning pumpkin of a belly. I later learned that they had to do a c section at 7 months since the child was so huge that a natural birth was totally out of the question. The baby was the size of a Volkswagon. Some 20 pounds! Made my little 'just shy of 7' baby look like a midget. Yes, you are discussing this with an experienced mother of two absolute monsters. Also one who offered to take her sister-in-law's baby (adoption) rather than have her suffer an abortion but that was her choice. There's always a price to be paid of course. And she pays it even now so many years later. But do it all over again? Now I think she woulod have changed the underlying problem and have kept the child.
I stress however that one mistake should not ruin the rest of your life if at all possible. If you abort, you may be damning your soul to hell, if not you may be condemning yourself and the child to hell on earth. That is not a choice anyone else should make for you.
Jethro likes to say she had a choice to have sex and then she should live with the consequences of that decision. oik, but it just isn't her who has to live or die by that decision - as was said before the child - THE BABY - also has to live or die by it. So forget about the ideals you may have and take a look at what actually happens to unwed mothers and their children. Does the word PREY mean anything to you? Or do you think the world has changed all that much and we actually are kinder and gentler?
Jethro, whether or not you believe this... Until a certain point in development, the group of cells that are gathering to become a "Blastocyst" are just that, a group of cells. They are not YET, Human. They are human cells so they are human. The question at that point is whether it is a being.
They may hold the same genetic markers that make up the human genome, but they also have the ability to become any of hundreds of other animals, Besides becoming human.
This is like the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. If you have a human sperm and a human egg you will not get a cat.
I had a thought earlier this morning regarding a comment from yesterday. Luv2Fly talked about the two babies five months into the pregnancy where one had been born and one had not and said that there were no differences between them. Well actually there are some differences between them. One is breathing air, one is not. One is living on it's own, one is still essentially a parasite to the mother. On some levels the differences are almost nil and on other levels the differences are monumental. And somewhere in there may be the difference between a person and a mere body.
Well actually there are some differences between them. One is breathing air, one is not. One is living on it's own, one is still essentially a parasite to the mother. On some levels the differences are almost nil and on other levels the differences are monumental. And somewhere in there may be the difference between a person and a mere body.
There are no differences. Only excuses and rationalizations for butchery one and not the other.
How do you think you will be judged if you don't work to stop it or at the least speak out to stop it by denouncing it and calling for it to be illegal.
But now couldn't that statement be taken to apply to most any sin? Should we make adultery illegal? Not keeping the Sabbath? Not honoring your father and mother? According to the Bible there is no distinction between sins in that any sin can damn you to Hell. So shouldn't they all be illegal? And how will you be judged if you don't work to stop these things or at least denounce them and call for them to be made illegal?
Yes the world that unwanted kids live in is harsh as well but we aren't even giving them the chance, we don't know what a child will turn out to become.
This goes back to the theological aspect of it.
A child that is never born is incapable of anguishing over a life that never happened. So the issue has only two remaining components. One, what is our loss as a society for not having produced this child after all? That's is and will always be unknown. For every Mozart or Mother Theresa that is aborted it's just as likely we could have aborted a Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer. And whatever it was, we'll never know and thus it would be hard to miss it.
The other component is the idea that there is a soul suffering somewhere now because it never got it's chance to be born. Personally, from a theological standpoint, I don't find this very logical. I think I read somewhere that something like 40% of fertilized eggs never make it to being born, and abortions are a very small portion of those. Most are due to natural causes. I find it hard to believe that 40% of all souls get "wasted" because they got assigned to an egg that never attached to the uterus wall or some such thing. I find it hard to believe the same God that created this universe in all it's wonder would suddenly be so sloppy and inefficient (and by the way, if you don't believe in God, this argument is already preaching to the choir most likely). Also, if God is omniscient, he would know which babies will actually be born and which will not, and don't you think he'd assign souls accordingly? So I can't believe that the soul starts at conception. And I can't think of any good point after that for it to start other than at birth.
And then this goes back to the first point. If indeed the aborted fetus didn't yet have a soul, then whatever soul would have gone into that body would just end up in another one instead, and thus the world hasn't really lost anything.
And once again, jethro, in his no doubt mighty wisdom, has gone on with the personal attacks. He refuses to acknowledge and he and his kind have perpretrated many crimes that could in themselves be classified as BUTCHERY and yet feels totally qualified to label where he will. He is the example of what happens when you live an unexamined life.
The Bible itself is the tract, a history if you will, of a religious war written by the winners. I would think very carefully before subscribing to any of its definition of sin. For example, if you aren't an adherent, then honoring the Sabbath is meaningless. If you really look at the list, the sins therein can all be classified as betrayals of one kind or another.
And yes, those cells in utero are undifferentiated during the first several weeks - they could not become a cat but they could become a chimpanzee. The evolution of humankind is repeated in the womb, first just cells, then amphibian, mammalian and then, finally, primate. Only at the end of the first trimester does it become irrefutably human rather than chimpanzee. We share approx 98% of our genetics with chimpanzees, you will remember.
HOWDY LISA D !!!!! You found us !!!! yea!. Well there goes the nieghborhood, LOL, Just kidding. Good to see you ! How have you been ? I am glad you are here. :)
Hey, there's actually some reasonable debate going on here. Congratulations, everyone!
You're kidding, right?
Not in the least.
Moderate Conservatives take as much of a stand as Right Wingers. They just don't "Walk in line" according to what is spoon fed to them.
They think for themselves. They aren't dittoheads that must be told what to think.
It is about time to put an end to that!
To what?
reasonable debate
Well if you do get it, then you can't say that Conservatives oppose abortion to reign in personal freedom.
True, probably not a good characterization.
Oh violating ones beliefs is more wrong than killing a human being?
Essentially. I eat beef which comes from cows. I don't have a problem with a cow being killed. A Hindu might though. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by eating a cow, but if someone who did believe that went ahead and did it, I would think they had done something wrong. Probably a bit too relativistic for you though.
No one said to consider an unborn child a "full fledged person." The only thing we are talking about is ending their lives through butchery.
If the fetus isn't a person, then has any murder really been committed? Can the rights of a non-person actually outweigh those of a person (the mother)?
Ignorance. A human fetus is human. It isn't a dog or a cat or a mosquito.
They're all forms of life. What makes one better than another, and can you prove a fetus possesses those qualities?
We don't kill human beings without second thought. At least not until 1973.
Maybe you should read more history. But that aside, I don't think a woman getting an abortion without a second thought is likely the norm. I imagine for many, if not most, it's an agonizing decision as you yourself alluded to recently. But there may be times where it will be the best out a group of bad options.
It is special because the unborn child is HUMAN.
It will be at some point. If that's enough for you to consider it special that's your right, but what if someone doesn't agree with you?
If you leave the process alone, a process that has already began you will have a baby. Then you will have a young child. Then an adolescent and then an adult. If the person lives long enough he or she will die of old age. That won't happen if you abort the child.
Let's say I dig a hole in the ground intending to build a house. I get a foundation set and start building a frame. If the process continues I will have my house and a place to live. But let's say a storm comes by and destroys what I've built so far. Does that make me homeless now? No, it doesn't become a home until I move in. Until then it only has the potential to be a home. And if the process is aborted, no one becomes homeless as a result.
So we base it on your belief? What if you are wrong?
I might be. My point is we can't be sure which one of us is right and so we can't force our opinions on someone else to tell them that they can't or that they have to have an abortion. We have to let them decide that for themselves unless as a society we come to a large enough consensus that we shoose to force the minority dissenters to comply.
But you can force yours?
I'm not forcing you to have an abortion.
Everyone that is alive was conceived. You don't have an adult without it. If you abort, you are intervening into a process that most likely will result in an adult.
While it is true that all people began as conceptions, it does not logically lead to the conclusion that all conceptions must become humans. Indeed, many do not all on their own. And like all apple trees began as seeds, that doesn't mean every seed should be valued the same as a tree.
If the fetus isn't a person, then has any murder really been committed? Can the rights of a non-person actually outweigh those of a person (the mother)? Now you are changing the subject. Intially you said "full fledged" person. That is not the same as just person. We don't consider minors "full fledged" persons.
They're all forms of life. What makes one better than another, and can you prove a fetus possesses those qualities? Again you are changing the subject. Humans are considered different than animals. That is why youy can't get the death penalty for killing a dog.
Now you are comparing inanimate objects with human beings. How ridiculous.
First of all I am going to preface my remarks by saying that this is my opinion. That is the hard issue with abortion, opinions and emotions vary so much with abortion that it becomes personal to some.
Indeed, as I've been trying to show, it really all comes down to an opinion that may prove impossible to discover the truth about. Whether or not a fetus should be considered a person with rights that can supercede the rights of the mother. There are good reasons to believe either way, and we may never know for sure. So knowing that this difference of opinion exists, the question then becomes what is the best course of action to pursue?
I think it all comes down to a question of law and morals as well since we as a society decide laws based on a general moral compass.
I'd agree. The law tends to reflect what what people percieve as the prevailing moral standard. There were times in the past where some people could be killed at will because society saw them as property, and there was no legal consequence for doing so.
One of the first and foremost is the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
In our society today it is. Although there is a problem in that if a fetus has a right to life, it may well be in conflict with the mother's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and sometimes even in conflict with her own right to life).
That being said I would ask some questions as to when that life begins or wether or not it is considered a life. The right to life is a basic worldwide human law of nature.
Not so sure about that. When the lion eats the zebra, is he committing a crime against nature? Rather I would say the right to life is a basic tenet of civilized society.
But we have to decide if a human life is more important than a mosquito or a dog as you put it. I would say yes.
As would I. What I was really trying to ask was while a fetus is alive, and will become a human at some point, should we consider it a human right now?
I do feel that it is a life, a human life. (1) If it is not a human life then what is it?
Some would say just biological tissue with the potential to become a human.
A baby or fetus or zygote as the pro abortionists like to call it can be aborted at 5 months. There have been babies that lived normal healthy lives when born at 5 months.
Which is partly why I personally don't draw the line at viability. I draw the line at being born. At least the line as to whether or not I consider them a person. Although to reiterate, I'm not particularly in favor of abortion. I'd be perfectly happy if there was never another one. I'm just saying I don't consider it murder and I don't think outlawing it is a good idea. So even a late term abortion, while it's something I'm not in favor of, I wouldn't call it murder.
They still have the same eyes, mouth, nose, hair, ears etc. They both feel emotion and have the same brain activity. Nothing is [changed] except the food and oxygen source, nothing !
Which has a lot to do with why the goverment set the rules the way they did. I believe third term abortions are illegal except in cases of emergency. And I believe second term abortions have some obstacles as well.
So one minute it's nothing and in the 15 minutes it takes to deliver it it is now a person?
Could well be. There's still a lot we don't know about life and souls. I still have a hard time myself believing every fertilized egg has a soul. And I don't think a line can be drawn at any point between there and birth. So to me it seems to make the most sense to believe that the soul enters the body at birth and until then it's just a body.
I asked this in the answer a question w/ a ? forum. Why is it that when we are going to kill or abort a baby it's the only time we refer to it as a fetus?
I didn't answer it there because I couldn't think of a way to phrase it as a question, but I'm afraid the answer is all too obvious. If the baby is wanted, then the parents will be looking forward to the time it is born and will refer to it as a baby even in the womb. It's an emotional thing. If you're going to abort it, then you need to distance yourself from it and do away with the emotions as much as possible so you use the clinical term rather than the emotional one.
Indeed, as I've been trying to show, it really all comes down to an opinion that may prove impossible to discover the truth about. It is not an opinion that two human cells meet and develop into a child. That is fact.
Whether or not a fetus should be considered a person with rights that can supercede the rights of the mother. Abortion shouldn't be a "right" and therfore, this discussion should not be necessary.There are good reasons to believe either way, and we may never know for sure. No there is no good reason to abort on a whim.
In our society today it is. Although there is a problem in that if a fetus has a right to life, it may well be in conflict with the mother's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and sometimes even in conflict with her own right to life). The problem is that you don't have a right to liberty or pursuit of happiness when someone else's life is at issue.
As would I. What I was really trying to ask was while a fetus is alive, and will become a human at some point, should we consider it a human right now? The fetus is human whetehr you want to consider it to be or not.
Some would say just biological tissue with the potential to become a human. It is biological HUMAN tissue, just like you.
Which has a lot to do with why the goverment set the rules the way they did. I believe third term abortions are illegal except in cases of emergency. And I believe second term abortions have some obstacles as well. By government you mean the Supreme Court that yusurped legislative authority.
Abortion shouldn't be a "right" and therfore, this discussion should not be necessary.
The right in question is whether or not a woman can be made to carry a child for nine months and subsequently give birth to it, all against her will. Normally in this society we would say that no one would ever be made to do such a thing against their will. But the side effect of the choice of not doing so is that the fetus must die, so then it becomes a question of the fetus's right to life versus what would otherwise be an unquestioned right of the mother.
Could well be. There's still a lot we don't know about life and souls. I still have a hard time myself believing every fertilized egg has a soul. And I don't think a line can be drawn at any point between there and birth. So to me it seems to make the most sense to believe that the soul enters the body at birth and until then it's just a body.
How ridiculous. It is human cells that meet and develop. It is a being because it has a seperate identity from its mother and it is alive.
If you're going to abort it, then you need to distance yourself from it and do away with the emotions as much as possible so you use the clinical term rather than the emotional one.
If it is not a being why must one distance themselves from it?
The right in question is whether or not a woman can be made to carry a child for nine months and subsequently give birth to it, all against her will. In most cases she had a the will to engage or not engage in sex. She should live with the consequences of those actions.
Allison,
Thank you for the thoughtful answers and debate.
I partially agree but the right to life being the first and foremost since without it none of the others matter. If you don't have life you have niether. I should note that in my opinion if the mother's life is in danger then ending the pregnancy would be warranted. Generally if the mother's life is in danger the child is in just as much if not more so there would be a definate time where it would be sad but warranted.
Note I did say human law of nature.
They still have the same eyes, mouth, nose, hair, ears etc. They both feel emotion and have the same brain activity. Nothing is [changed] except the food and oxygen source, nothing !
Right so at some point even legally we see it or are having problems denying that it is a human life. There is zero difference between two identical babies one in the womb and one just born. in the case of twins for instance. The last one out has every exact quality that the sibling does. Except one is out and off of the mothers tube and one isn't. There is no other difference. as far as determining when "souls" are formed will never be answered but I can tell you that they have their own personality months before birth. like I said a 5 month old baby is apparently not human one minute and the minute they cut the cord o.k now she's suddenly a human and 4 minutes ago she wasn't ?
I asked this in the answer a question w/ a ? forum. Why is it that when we are going to kill or abort a baby it's the only time we refer to it as a fetus?
That's exactly why they don't call it a baby when it's unwanted. To ease thier conscience. To make them feel better about themselves ending a life. They need to feel better about making a conscious decision to take it upon themselves to kill an unborn baby. I hope they sleep o.k But obviously by even using that term we see them denying or trying to deny that what is inside is a baby. That 5 month baby they are about to kill has feeling, it smiles, it has eyes a heart, a liver, a stomach, it feels pain, it sleeps , it is awake, it gets the hiccups, it has finger prints and it sucks it's thumb and it is killed because it's an inconvienence. But hey as long as it makes you feel better keep calling it a fetus, keep telling yourself that.
Thank you for the thoughtful answers and debate.
Your sounding a lot like a moderate, rob.
Allison,
This is from one of your posts to Jethro.
Notice you didn't use the word baby in that paragraph or the whole post ? That's exactly what I mean. Try it using the word baby.
Sounds alot worse doesn't it ? In fact it sounds pretty horrible. That's why I asked Why is it only called a fetus when we are going to abort it ? Why don't we say how's the fetus doing or when is the fetus due? and that's exactly why as you stated above. (Thanks for answering honestly.) It makes it easier for those who choose to kill a baby out of inconvienence or choice.
<
<Your sounding a lot like a moderate, rob.>>
Why? Because he recognizes the fact that people may honestly differ and that doesn't make them evil?
Something like that.
Jethro,
Why becuase I didn't call her any names or generalize about her ?
I was thanking Allison for debating honestly and with courtesy. As opposed to your tactics ? saying something deep, like all liberals are morons or anyone who believes that is an idiot or generalizing by saying that liberals can't think for themselves and then wondering why someone won't listen. So unless you debate like that you are a moderate eh? If being civilized and having good debate makes me a moderate in your book, so be it. It's not your book I'm worried about.
1) aw, you're being referred to as a female again :)
2) By government you mean the Supreme Court that usurped legislative authority.
what legislative authority did they usurp?
Goody for you, rob.
ouch :)
OK, everyone, let's have a cookie.
Macadamia nut with white chocolate,,,,,,,mmmmmmm cooookies.
Indeed, I'm not a female but a male. Allison is my last name, not really my first name.
As for calling it a baby over a fetus, you say it's a way to ease a guilty conscience. I think you can come at it from the other direction too. If you were to get pregnant, and you weren't planning on keeping it, why form an emotional attachment to begin with? "Fetus" is a correct term to use. Why would you even want to refer to it as a baby, implying an emotional connection that isn't there?
Which is a similar reason as to why I sometimes use the word fetus instead of baby when arguing. Baby is a word with a lot of emotion attached to it as well as a strong connotation to think of one that has already been born. Consequently it can confuse the issue with emotion.
Speaking of what to call it, have you noticed that you can't legally name a child until it is born? You can't get it a social security number or open a bank account for it. So even if you do call it a baby, there are lots of examples in society to show that it's not considered a real person until it comes out of the womb.
Big deal we don't let them drive, vote or drink until later in life either. They used to wait until you were 12 or 13 before you got your s.s card too.
So why is someone charged with two murders if they kill a pregnant woman ? They don't know if she was intending on keeping it. So in some ways we already do see it for what it is. A human or a baby. I still think calling it a fetus is an emotional cop out. Human is the correct term for us but we don't walk around calling eachother humans
either.
BTW Sorry about the name mix up thing. I shouldn't have assumed, you know what they say about assuming. Sorry
I foresee a lot of legal wrangles in the next ten years over the legal status of an unborn child.
There will never be a concensus about when a life begins.
I have always believed it to be at conception, but that comes from my spiritual and religious beliefs more than any scientific data.
Others very firmly believe that life begins when the first breath is taken outside the mother's body. That comes from their own personal upbringing, religious or spiritual beliefs.
I can say for certain only what I believe to be true, but knowing that others believe just as strongly opposing my truths.
I have known women who had abortions and I believe for them in their personal situations, it was the best choice for them. That's why they made the choice they did. In the situations I know about, the decision to have an abortion was not made lightly nor was it a matter of convenience for them. The situations were more complicated than any one person's convenience. I know of one woman who regrets the decision now years later, but knows given the same circumstances and the same issues at the time, her decision would have been the same.
I have also known women who after some consideration, chose not to abort their babies. It was a decision not made lightly nor was convenience part of that decision. The struggles for some have been numerous.
Adoption is often mentioned when abortion issues are discussed. Adoption is not the whole answer.
True. There are many waiting couples wanting to adopt a healthy baby. There are also thousands of children waiting for a family. They are often older, handicapped in some way or with medical problems, racially mixed, have fetal alcohol syndrome, drug induced physical and mental problems or are otherwise hard to place children. Some of these kids are eventually adopted. Others just grow too old for adoption and become wards of the state.
There are also thousands of children held in limbo and in foster homes waiting for the courts to terminate parental rights or for the families they were born to be able to live together as a unit. It's a real Catch 22 for them. They are getting older all the time, often come from physical or emotionally abusive backgrounds so carry those scars and make it hard for them to attach to anyone - though often you will hear them say they want to be a part of a family - and all the rest of the issues facing kids waiting for placement in an adoptive home.
Not all unwanted children are placed for adoption or aborted. Some just live in hell.
I thank God every day that my children's birth parents didn't abort them. I also pray for all those kids that live in hell. I see way too many of them in my work.
I see what you are saying Terry. Some would say, see their's the perfect reason to keep it legal. But their are kids living in hell that have parents as well. you have to take a test to get a liscense but not to bring a child into the world. There are also kids that come from orphanges or fostert homes that become productive members of society. But to those who would say keep it legal because of that I can see their logic behind that but to simply throw in the towel because a kid might not be wanted seems so very harsh. Yes the world that unwanted kids live in is harsh as well but we aren't even giving them the chance, we don't know what a child will turn out to become.
I heard Stephen Wright comment once that he had a dream that all the aborted babies came back to life and they were really mad. Funny if it weren't so sad and so true.
That's why I pray for those kids. There's always a chance they will become productive members of society and perhaps help right the wrongs that were done to them.
Others end up in prison - and we pay the bill there too.
It's why there is a debate. There's the good, the bad and the ugly in our society and one can find many examples of why any one of them would be a good reason to either continue to allow lawful abortions or to ban abortions entirely.
I know what the right answer is for me. I don't know though what the right answer is for anyone else. I believe it's between them and their God or conscience. I won't judge others for their beliefs in this debate.
Terry,
Someones religion is very personal and I don't mean to pry and I am not asking this in a judgemental or condescending way, if you prefer not to answer I would understand. I have always wanted to ask someone who has deep beliefs that abortion is wrong for them but feels that choice of the individual is between them and God and feels they will be judged accordingly. How do you think you will be judged if you don't work to stop it or at the least speak out to stop it by denouncing it and calling for it to be illegal. Thereby putting an end to it? Just wondering how you can separate the two. How do you think you will be judged if you do nothing to stop it ?
Interesting question and I'll answer the best I know how.
Abortion is legal in this country. Abortions were performed regularly long before it became legal. No law will stop abortions.
In my opinion, abortions are morally wrong. That opinion is heavily based in my religious background.
So how does one combine those two views and then find myself sitting in an abortion clinic supporting a friend at a time when fertility treatments were being considered in my life?
I guess it's a matter of loving a friend in need. She was and is a deeply religious person who doesn't believe in abortion. It was a unique set of circumstances that made that option for her the right thing at the time. No friend turning her back would have stopped her. No law would have stopped her.
How will I be judged whether I speak out or not regarding a law? How will I be judged for walking into an abortion clinic with a friend? I guess I'll find out.
I pray my God judges me as was promised. There's not one of us without sin that we should throw stones. I just try to live my life the best way I know how.
The difference is public versus private. Your personal beliefs are private and will have an effect upon your behavior. But when you move into the public world, your beliefs have equal weight with those of others. So what you would choose not to do may not have an validity for all others.
Your views to control others besides yourself? To some extent that is something we must all deal with - paying taxes for example. The abortion debate however takes public policy down to the most personal level and enters into the most private or relationships. Which is why there is so much difficulty with the issue. It is also why one person can be oof two minds about it - making it legally available and supporting a friend through it while being personally against it for themselves.
Apparently you all have not heard of the expression never counting one's chickens before they are hatched. Simply being pregnant does not guarantee a live birth nnor does it guarantee a healthy, fully formed and ready for life infant.
The present system allows for unlimited availablity within the first trimester, limited availablity diuring the second - meaning there has to be something wrong with the child, and the mother must be in imminent danger of dying or something went dreadfully wrong with the fetus to get an abortion in the third trimester. That is the current standings.
Which is why you cannot get a social security number, claim the child on your taxes, etc until the infant is really born and here. Because things can, and do, go wrong with the process.
Insurance companies will not insure a pregnant woman. She is only insurable beforehand or afterwards. Being pregnant is a high risk activity. For example, whilst in the hospital after giving birth to my first, I met a young woman who had to be strapped to a feeding tube because her fetus was literally eating her up alive from inside. She simply could not physically eat enough to keep herself alive without massive medical intervention. Even with this help she was a scarecrow with a huge award-winning pumpkin of a belly. I later learned that they had to do a c section at 7 months since the child was so huge that a natural birth was totally out of the question. The baby was the size of a Volkswagon. Some 20 pounds! Made my little 'just shy of 7' baby look like a midget.
Yes, you are discussing this with an experienced mother of two absolute monsters. Also one who offered to take her sister-in-law's baby (adoption) rather than have her suffer an abortion but that was her choice. There's always a price to be paid of course. And she pays it even now so many years later. But do it all over again? Now I think she woulod have changed the underlying problem and have kept the child.
I stress however that one mistake should not ruin the rest of your life if at all possible. If you abort, you may be damning your soul to hell, if not you may be condemning yourself and the child to hell on earth. That is not a choice anyone else should make for you.
Jethro likes to say she had a choice to have sex and then she should live with the consequences of that decision. oik, but it just isn't her who has to live or die by that decision - as was said before the child - THE BABY - also has to live or die by it. So forget about the ideals you may have and take a look at what actually happens to unwed mothers and their children. Does the word PREY mean anything to you? Or do you think the world has changed all that much and we actually are kinder and gentler?
Jethro, whether or not you believe this... Until a certain point in development, the group of cells that are gathering to become a "Blastocyst" are just that, a group of cells. They are not YET, Human. They are human cells so they are human. The question at that point is whether it is a being.
They may hold the same genetic markers that make up the human genome, but they also have the ability to become any of hundreds of other animals, Besides becoming human.
This is like the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. If you have a human sperm and a human egg you will not get a cat.
If you have a human sperm and a human egg you will not get a cat.
for some reason i do see myself agreeing with jethro on that.
I had a thought earlier this morning regarding a comment from yesterday. Luv2Fly talked about the two babies five months into the pregnancy where one had been born and one had not and said that there were no differences between them. Well actually there are some differences between them. One is breathing air, one is not. One is living on it's own, one is still essentially a parasite to the mother. On some levels the differences are almost nil and on other levels the differences are monumental. And somewhere in there may be the difference between a person and a mere body.
Well actually there are some differences between them. One is breathing air, one is not. One is living on it's own, one is still essentially a parasite to the mother. On some levels the differences are almost nil and on other levels the differences are monumental. And somewhere in there may be the difference between a person and a mere body.
There are no differences. Only excuses and rationalizations for butchery one and not the other.
How do you think you will be judged if you don't work to stop it or at the least speak out to stop it by denouncing it and calling for it to be illegal.
But now couldn't that statement be taken to apply to most any sin? Should we make adultery illegal? Not keeping the Sabbath? Not honoring your father and mother? According to the Bible there is no distinction between sins in that any sin can damn you to Hell. So shouldn't they all be illegal? And how will you be judged if you don't work to stop these things or at least denounce them and call for them to be made illegal?
If you don't see the difference you are hopeless, Allison.
Yes the world that unwanted kids live in is harsh as well but we aren't even giving them the chance, we don't know what a child will turn out to become.
This goes back to the theological aspect of it.
A child that is never born is incapable of anguishing over a life that never happened. So the issue has only two remaining components. One, what is our loss as a society for not having produced this child after all? That's is and will always be unknown. For every Mozart or Mother Theresa that is aborted it's just as likely we could have aborted a Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer. And whatever it was, we'll never know and thus it would be hard to miss it.
The other component is the idea that there is a soul suffering somewhere now because it never got it's chance to be born. Personally, from a theological standpoint, I don't find this very logical. I think I read somewhere that something like 40% of fertilized eggs never make it to being born, and abortions are a very small portion of those. Most are due to natural causes. I find it hard to believe that 40% of all souls get "wasted" because they got assigned to an egg that never attached to the uterus wall or some such thing. I find it hard to believe the same God that created this universe in all it's wonder would suddenly be so sloppy and inefficient (and by the way, if you don't believe in God, this argument is already preaching to the choir most likely). Also, if God is omniscient, he would know which babies will actually be born and which will not, and don't you think he'd assign souls accordingly? So I can't believe that the soul starts at conception. And I can't think of any good point after that for it to start other than at birth.
And then this goes back to the first point. If indeed the aborted fetus didn't yet have a soul, then whatever soul would have gone into that body would just end up in another one instead, and thus the world hasn't really lost anything.
And once again, jethro, in his no doubt mighty wisdom, has gone on with the personal attacks.
He refuses to acknowledge and he and his kind have perpretrated many crimes that could in themselves be classified as BUTCHERY and yet feels totally qualified to label where he will. He is the example of what happens when you live an unexamined life.
The Bible itself is the tract, a history if you will, of a religious war written by the winners.
I would think very carefully before subscribing to any of its definition of sin. For example, if you aren't an adherent, then honoring the Sabbath is meaningless. If you really look at the list, the sins therein can all be classified as betrayals of one kind or another.
And yes, those cells in utero are undifferentiated during the first several weeks - they could not become a cat but they could become a chimpanzee. The evolution of humankind is repeated in the womb, first just cells, then amphibian, mammalian and then, finally, primate. Only at the end of the first trimester does it become irrefutably human rather than chimpanzee.
We share approx 98% of our genetics with chimpanzees, you will remember.
they could not become a cat but they could become a chimpanzee.
You're kidding right?
Then why do we never see anyone giving birth to a chimpanzee?
<
<We share approx 98% of our genetics with chimpanzees, you will remember.>>
And 70% with flour. But that "bun in the oven" ALWAYS turns out to be a human baby.