Abortion

[Kulindahr]

So, for example, if the mother of the 9 year old Brazilian girl who was impregnated when her step-father raped her discovered the pregnancy after the point where brain waves were detected, the 9 year old should be forced to give birth to twin? That's a rather perverse result, Kuli, don't you think.

In such a situation, there's no result that isn't perverse. That's when you enter what a professor of mine once called "the ethics of the absurd", when there's no good choice, no obvious right or wrong, no way to go without someone getting hurt.

I suppose in a sufficiently primitive society, it would be possible to carry that long and not be aware, but I can't quite conceive of the situation occurring. But if it did, and I were, say, the family's pastor/priest (local trusted authority figure), I would explain the situation to them all, and then note that this is one of those cases which demonstrates just hopw sinful a world we're stuck in, that there can be times when no one can tell you to "do the right thing", because there isn't any "right thing" to do. My advice would be simple: in a situation like this, it comes down to a judgment call, and that call can only be made by the person who will have to live with it most closely. That means, in this case, the little girl.

Some kids at 9 can think through such things and decide; some can't. Assuming she could, I'd tell them to leave it up to her -- and if anyone in the village disagreed with her choice, I'd quote what Jesus said about questions concerning a different disciple: "That's between him and me -- you do your duty" (that's the KFV, 'Kulindahr's Freewheeling-translation Version).

There's a sense in which Kurn's position is correct, but it's in the extreme, not in the norm -- just as it's all right to shoot another human being... in the extreme, not the norm.

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

For those of you who are pro life out here I have a question for you. If you are prolife are you a praticing vegan. The reason that I ask this is because if you vaule human life so much then why are you eating meat. The amont of grain it takes to feed cattle, pigs, chicken, and so on and so fourth could easily feed the world's population and then some, hell, even just marginally cutting back on the amount of meat the world consumes would have the same effect.

Perhaps I am comparing apples and oranges here, but I do not think so...

 

[Kulindahr]

You are NOT in control of the language..sorry....if you don't want to respond to the intent and content of my posts don't, but don't try to make it about language and definition...If seen a lifetime of that from the right....ever read 1984?

By use of deceptive terms, you make it about language. "Collection of cells" reduces the unborn to nothing different than the remains on a slaughter-house floor, or, for that matter, mashed potatos -- those are "collections of cells". A term is required which indicates that what's being discussed is a coherent organism.

I don't see how you get that but OK. It has been my observation that many who are the 'head' of such organizations are men and I wonder how they can possibly understand what it means to be pregnant for 9 months with all the attendant problems and dangers.

You made an absolute assertion, which requires absolute underpinning.

OTOH, what difference does it make whether the head of a pro-life group be able to "understand what it means to be pregnant for 9 months with all the attendant problems and dangers"? Do you think that no men should be gynecologists? Do you think that a military genius should not be able to really understand war just because he's been confined to a wheelchair all his life? Would you refuse to trust an airplane designed just because he was afraid of heights?

All that's required is the understanding that a person is deserving of full protection, regardless of where he lives.

Bolding of the quote above is mine....I really fail to see how you got that from what I said and I still haven't seen this science you continue to site.

It's very simple: scientifically and logically, the only real change between ten seconds before birth and ten seconds after is one of location, and some attendant phenomena. So if at the start of those first ten seconds we're not dealing with a person, and at the end of the second ten we are, then what makes a person is the change of location.

I think a baby that is born and able to survive on it's own is indeed a person...I personally have a problem with a lot of the heroics used in medicine to sustain 'life'...I suppose that is also going to be part of this discussion in the future. The Shivo case....what a travisty by the religious right.

So infanticide and killing your own children are fine, because until age fourteen or so, what human is able to "survive on its own"?
Using that in Roe was a stupid move by the court, and it's still a useless argument.

Why do you think that is the only answer? I would say conciousness, self awareness.

Which brings you to brain waves as the definition of personhood -- because without positing a soul, our enter personal awareness and makeup reside in the brain.

First, you are presuming to know my mind and those of 'many others' You are making a mistake with your argument here...you are still operating under the definition of life at conception and you continue to presume that you and your ethical reasoning should apply to everyone....you yourself have given yourself the 'ethical right' to eliminate living people under your belief system. I can only wonder how far that would go....do you suppose there are those who's religion tells them that homosexuals are an abomination and should be eradicated....and failing that at least abused and subject to various laws and regulations? You will no doubt tell me there is a difference....and somehow manage to miss the point.

"Life at conception"?
I believe that?
Really?
What a surprise! I'd better write that down or I'll forget it.

What's your fascination with religion here? I haven't given a religious argument for anything yet!

I would like to see some proof that late term abortions are used to any great extent by women who have total access to abortion. I would like to see some evidence that this is common and needs to be interfered with by self-righteous believers is Jesus. As I've said before, something you just don't get, this is a personal issue....not something the state needs to be involved with.

Frequency is irrelevant -- unless you want to argue that if murder becamse uncommon, be should allow it.

Yes, it's a "personal issue" -- an issue about who is and who is not a person. Persons have rights; they come with consciousness. And if the unborn is a person, it has the very same rights the mother does.

This issue is being discussed, I'm guessing, because of the health care bill coming up. The anti-choicers are against funding of abortions, just as they have been against stem cell research and birth control and sex education....I call that vile.

That's an issue in the health-care bill?
I didn't know the thing was that far along.

 

[Kulindahr]

What was really perverse about the Catholic Church response in this case is that the bishop excommunicated the mother who brought her daughter to the clinic for an abortion and the medical professionals who performed the abortion. Of course, the bishop did not excommunicate the step-father who raped the the girl. As far as I know, no Catholic Bishop in Latin American, or anywhere in the world, ever excommunicated any Catholic dictators responsible for murdering thousands of political opponents (often the Church gives tacit or explicit support to these dictators since they are only murdering "godless, atheist communists").

The real tragedy there, to me, is that one of the greatest Western Saints was a bishop who stood up to the Roman Emperor, meeting him halfway down the aisle of the cathedral and blocking his way forward with his shepherd's staff -- because the emperor had loosed his legions to slaughter and rape the populace, instead of just fighting the enemy soldiers. He could have been killed for it -- but he wasn't; the emperor submitted and publicly repented.

If I were a bishop down there, I would have excommunicated the man -- and if the Pope objected, I would have told the Pope where to go.

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

Yes, an apple is a living entity. I will grant you this, but does it have the capcity to think or feel... Also, eating an apple is a little bit easier on me because I do not have to hear it scream.

But, what I am ultimately getting it at here is if you are pro-life on one issue you should be pro life on all issues. What I was getting at with the vegan point is that by consuming large quantities of meat you are contributing to people starving. The tons upon tons of grain used to feed livestock could feed the world easily. And, also do a huge benefit to the environment because of the pollution created by the animals...

How do you pick and choice which life is worth saving or which life is not. We all have a mulitude of choices we make each day that effects all life on this planet. It seems to me if a person was truely pro life it would extend far and beyond the plane of just being anti-abortion.

I do think if we lived in a less sexually repressed society that the rate of abortions would drop dramatically. I do not think the key to preventing abortions is to stop them. Even before Roe V. Wade abortion was not uncommon. Back alley abortions were common, and not only was the life of the baby aborted but often times that of the mother.

Sex has never been exclusive to married couples. From the dawn of time until this very second. The people with a religous conviction against abortion and birth control, and no sex before marriage, and this and that are not being realistic, and never were.

One of the most effective ways I could see in ending abortion would be the promotion of safe sex, taking the taboo away from sex...

 

[boogalee]

I've said all I'm going to here about this subject. Kuli is busy preaching and I'm not interested....

 

[PhunkSpunk]

Thoughts?

I believe it is murder, period.

so is sepsis in the setting of a back alley.

we don't get pregnant. we're not the ones who are going to have our physiology profoundly altered; we're not the ones that are going to throw a massive pulmonary embolus, or any one of a number of things that can go awry in a 'routine' pregnancy. so unless wanted, the gravid state is a pathological one.

it takes two to tango, yet only one is left holding a bag. it's entirely up to a woman to decide whether or not she wants to be pregnant.

 

[JB3]

so is sepsis in the setting of a back alley.

we don't get pregnant. we're not the ones who are going to have our physiology profoundly altered; we're not the ones that are going to throw a massive pulmonary embolus, or any one of a number of things that can go awry in a 'routine' pregnancy. so unless wanted, the gravid state is a pathological one.

it takes two to tango, yet only one is left holding a bag. it's entirely up to a woman to decide whether or not she wants to be pregnant.

Again with the 'you have a penis so you can't be involved in the decision' argument.

Let me ask you this; if the mother decides she does not want to have the child, but the father does, don't you think he has the right to have a say considering the baby consists of his genetic material as well as hers? Just because he isn't carrying the child doesn't mean that his right to be involved in the decision ends.

 

[Kurn]

What about the personhood of the child?

You still have as yet to explain how the woman is more of a person than the child, and why this 'personhood' should have any influence on the formation of laws.

A woman is more of a person than a child and much more of a person than a fetus.
The reason is that a woman has the capacity to enter into various contractual discussions and, generally, converse. The fetus is potentially a person. Not really a person. Yes, it should be respected. But the woman herself is normally the beginning and end of any discussion of abortion or non-abortion.

Not youse guys. Not me. God? God has already given the prerogatives to the Woman, and the religions are the ones that are anti-God and anti-life. IT'S THE WOMAN'S BUSINESS AND NOT ANYBODY ELSE'S.

I'm sorry, but it's blood-sucking to make yourselves feel morally alive with this issue, which is what you're doing essentially. Others have misled you into doing it for the most part. It's wrong. If you want to prevent abortion you must do so from a standpoint of peace and respect towards the person and prerogatives of the Woman.

 

[01solara]

I thought the OP was about when life begins...a definition of 'life'...

Abortion on demand is needed by women for many reasons. I say again, it is a difficult decision and generally not one taken lightly...even by the dreaded feminists. There is regret attached to many needed decisions in life but that doesn't make the decision the wrong one for that individual. I will say that one of the things that religion does is generate guilt....

Religion most definitely generates guilt and I might add fear as well. However, religion is not the only thing that creates guilt. I had to make the decision about when to stop giving my father oxygen and to let him go watching his lungs fill with fluid while it took 36 hours for him to die much of it labored and raspy attempts to get air. I understand agonizing decisions. I also understand that you can make decisions that don't lead to later regret. When my dad was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer I resolved to handle things in such a way as I could look back with not regrets. I lived 3 hours away but I spent every bit of time with him that was possible, saw that I did everything to ensure his every need was met and was there with him every night he was in the hospital and hospice center. I don't think my step monster spent more than a single night with him in the hospital after he got sick. Sorry to be so long. The idea is that we all face difficult decsions in life but we don't have to make choices that lead to regret and guilt.

 

[JB3]

A woman is more of a person than a child and much more of a person than a fetus.
The reason is that a woman has the capacity to enter into various contractual discussions and, generally, converse. The fetus is potentially a person. Not really a person. Yes, it should be respected. But the woman herself is normally the beginning and end of any discussion of abortion or non-abortion.

Not youse guys. Not me. God? God has already given the prerogatives to the Woman, and the religions are the ones that are anti-God and anti-life. IT'S THE WOMAN'S BUSINESS AND NOT ANYBODY ELSE'S.

I'm sorry, but it's blood-sucking to make yourselves feel morally alive with this issue, which is what you're doing essentially. Others have misled you into doing it for the most part. It's wrong. If you want to prevent abortion you must do so from a standpoint of peace and respect towards the person and prerogatives of the Woman.

Okay, but you still haven't answered my question of WHY the woman is more of a 'person' than the child. I get the feeling you're just making shit up at this point.

 

[Kulindahr]

For those of you who are pro life out here I have a question for you. If you are prolife are you a praticing vegan. The reason that I ask this is because if you vaule human life so much then why are you eating meat. The amont of grain it takes to feed cattle, pigs, chicken, and so on and so fourth could easily feed the world's population and then some, hell, even just marginally cutting back on the amount of meat the world consumes would have the same effect.

Perhaps I am comparing apples and oranges here, but I do not think so...

But, what I am ultimately getting it at here is if you are pro-life on one issue you should be pro life on all issues. What I was getting at with the vegan point is that by consuming large quantities of meat you are contributing to people starving. The tons upon tons of grain used to feed livestock could feed the world easily. And, also do a huge benefit to the environment because of the pollution created by the animals...

How do you pick and choice which life is worth saving or which life is not. We all have a mulitude of choices we make each day that effects all life on this planet. It seems to me if a person was truely pro life it would extend far and beyond the plane of just being anti-abortion.

No, you're not comparing apples and oranges -- you're just crossing from a narrow aspect of the pro-life subject to a broad one.
We wouldn't even all need to totally stop eating meat, in order to feed the world's population; from the research I've done, I figured that if everyone had meat just three times a week, plus on holidays, hunger could be done away with. So I've been working on cutting back my meat consumption to that level. So far, I've managed meatless breakfasts (when I explained to my mom on a visit once why I didn't want any bacon or sausages with breakfast, she thought about it, and now has no meat for breakfast either), and most of my lunches are meatless. I'm working on that third meal of the day....

I do think if we lived in a less sexually repressed society that the rate of abortions would drop dramatically. I do not think the key to preventing abortions is to stop them. Even before Roe V. Wade abortion was not uncommon. Back alley abortions were common, and not only was the life of the baby aborted but often times that of the mother.

Sex has never been exclusive to married couples. From the dawn of time until this very second. The people with a religous conviction against abortion and birth control, and no sex before marriage, and this and that are not being realistic, and never were.

One of the most effective ways I could see in ending abortion would be the promotion of safe sex, taking the taboo away from sex...

The results of education in safe sex have varied from place to place; it has on occasion actually resulted in more pregnancies. I support sex education, but I wouldn't count on it to reduce the number of abortions.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've said all I'm going to here about this subject. Kuli is busy preaching and I'm not interested....

You sure have a way of fixating your mind on something and cramming people's actions into that mold!

I haven't even ventured a religious argument for a position on the abortion issue, and you think I'm preaching....

I suggest you get the religious blinders off and start thinking rationally.

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

I was testing a new arguement to see how effective it was, and to see what holes others could poke in it. I was curious. And, yes I broaden the issues of the Pro-life bit, because I wanted to see how far people expanded and to what degree.

It seems to me that Pro life would mean a person dedicated to ending abortion, abolishing hunger and poverty, seeing an end to the death penalty, and any numerous other issues that are in regard to life.

I do not necessarily see how a person can pick and choice an issues if they label themselves pro life. Now, if they out right say they are simply anti-abortion fine, but it seems to me that Pro life goes leaps and bounds beyond abortion.

I do not really see a solution in trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would create a black market for abortion. There is no simple solution to the problem. It is literally one of those situation where there is a rock and and a hard place.

I am not a fan of abortion by any means, but generally I do not think overtunring Roe v. Wade would be a solution either. I do not like the idea of abortion being used for birth control; however, I do believe that there is times where it is necessary. Especially in the instances of rape and incest, when the life of the mother is at danger, and any number of other issues.

I do feel in the cases where the father of the child wants the baby and when the woman does not. Ultimately though I will side with the mother because she is the one that endures the 9 months of pregancy and everything that comes with it.

And, to note if the mother truely does not want the child the environmental stress she can place on the unborn child while in the womb could be paramount rather it be alcohol, crack, or cigarattes, not to mention the effects of not truely wanting to be a mother. Remarkable research has been done in recent years while not conclusive suggest that the attitude of the mother effects the child in the womb, the situation surrounding the birth does also.

I was speaking to a friend of mind who is a therapist, and she and I were discussing instance of traumatic birth and how it affects the child. My birth was traumatic.

My mother who was 15 at the time went through hell trying to have me. They ultimately ended up having to restart her heart twice, and she is lucky to be alive. How that effects me I cannot truely say? However after discussing this with my friend it leaves me questioning.

My father was 18 and a high school graduate, my mother she dropped out at 14 to have me. The prospects of achieving even a low middle class standing was near impossible. I am not sure about introducing childern into situations where proverty, hunger, the lack of affection, or any number things is a great idea.

Proverty is perhaps the number one reason why most crimes are committed. Number two is probably a lack of education. It is a horrible circle that we are in and unforuantely there is no solution.

The only good solution would be a multi-faceted approach that took into account many, many more factors than simply being for or against abortion. While I am not all that found of the idea, I am also not found of the idea of childern growing in a situation where food is not readily available, medication and medical treatment that may or may not be available, and the rate of crime that become a burden to all of society because of hopelessness brought on because of these conditions.

I am not saying abortion is the solution to all of these problems but prohibiting abortion would surely contribute greatly to all of them.

Also, I would like to note for those of you who are anti abortion are you going to choose to produce childern the old fashion way, or will you go out an adopt a child who is in desperate need of a loving mother and father or a combonation of both.

 

[boogalee]

Religion most definitely generates guilt and I might add fear as well. However, religion is not the only thing that creates guilt. I had to make the decision about when to stop giving my father oxygen and to let him go watching his lungs fill with fluid while it took 36 hours for him to die much of it labored and raspy attempts to get air. I understand agonizing decisions. I also understand that you can make decisions that don't lead to later regret. When my dad was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer I resolved to handle things in such a way as I could look back with not regrets. I lived 3 hours away but I spent every bit of time with him that was possible, saw that I did everything to ensure his every need was met and was there with him every night he was in the hospital and hospice center. I don't think my step monster spent more than a single night with him in the hospital after he got sick. Sorry to be so long. The idea is that we all face difficult decsions in life but we don't have to make choices that lead to regret and guilt.

How awful for you and you Dad. I'm sure he appreciated your devoted attention and company during his illness. I can understand your need to make sure there were no regrets in this regard...I too had a father that died of cancer. I'm a tenacious fighter and I fought for my father's ability to die with dignity regardless of the disapproval of family. I learned long ago we can only do our best and realize at some point we are not in control of many things in life.

I make a difference where I can and often are unaware of the difference I have made.

Regret comes in many forms...I suppose you are referring to the regret some women feel about having an abortion. I've never known such a woman, ever....I'm not saying they don't exist but using regret as an argument for legislating against abortion doesn't work for me. .

As an aside...I have had women tell me that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer...total nonsense. There are also claims being made that birth control pills etc. are unsafe...that the rhythm method is an improvement...what a crock.

I find it inexcusable to misinform women in an effort to control them. I see this being done by certain groups claiming that abortion has lasting physical and psychological effects that are detrimental to a woman's health. The information they disseminate is false and misleading.

 

[boogalee]

You sure have a way of fixating your mind on something and cramming people's actions into that mold!

I haven't even ventured a religious argument for a position on the abortion issue, and you think I'm preaching....

I suggest you get the religious blinders off and start thinking rationally.

I suggest you pull your head out of the dark place....

 

[Kulindahr]

Could you explain how you are feeding anyone by not eating meat?

Indirect effect.

The grain involved in giving me one meal of beef would feed at least six other people a meal, if the grain production went for people.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suggest you pull your head out of the dark place....

???

I'm not the one making things up about what other people have said. You seem to have a religious fixation, seeing religion where there isn't any.

I've never asserted that life begins at conception, or that personhood begins at conception -- and there's not a trace of such a position in any of my posts. I haven't made a religious argument in this thread about when personhood begins, so I'm not "preaching".

If you think I'm doing these things, then it's your job to set out where I have -- good luck; because it's not there. What I've done is argue from reason, on a scientific basis, where we not only should, but in fact generally do regard personhood as residing and existing -- a position you revealed that you implicitly hold.


Now, unless accusing me of "preaching" is a coward's maneuver for ducking out of a rational dispute... where's you substantiation of your statements about my position?

 

[Kulindahr]

Yeah, IF the grain production went for people. That isn't a guarantee at all. Do you know for sure that it will? That it will go to people who otherwise would have starved?

No, which is why I'm not a fanatic about it. But if meat consumption keeps the way it is, the grain most definitely won't go for people.

At this point, thanks to the way Bush screwed energy matters, I suspect that the grain that would have fed the critter I'm not eating will go to ethanol.

 

[JB3]

No, which is why I'm not a fanatic about it. But if meat consumption keeps the way it is, the grain most definitely won't go for people.

At this point, thanks to the way Bush screwed energy matters, I suspect that the grain that would have fed the critter I'm not eating will go to ethanol.

A lot of the grain that is fed to animals cannot be fed to humans, period. And don't forget that the almighty Obama is continuing and increasing ethanol subsidies started under Bush.