Abortion

[Spensed]

If folk were really against abortion, they would focus their energies on increasing education about sex, safe sex and contraception, and adoption options.

Instead, they pay lip service to doing that and spend their time trying to tell other people what to do, shooting abortion doctors and such.

Abortion has become just another "family values" code word for anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-women, etc., etc.

As the car sticker says: Against Abortion? Don't Have One.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Thoughts?

I believe it is murder, period.

Then so is eating meat, eating vegetables and menstruating.

 

[FirmaFan]

Thoughts?

I believe it is murder, period.

Sam Harris has said some great things with regards to abortion, and, more specifically, stem cell research, which I will borrow from heavily - follow the youtube link at the bottom to hear the whole lecture. First of all, as defined by law, abortion is not murder. Abortion, specifically for stem cell research, is done at about 3 - 5 days after conception, when the zygote is a collection of about 150 cells. For perspective, their are over 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly, which works much like our own with neurotransmitters and action potentials radiating along neurons. Everything we equate with having an experience, with cognitively being aware of an event, requires AT LEAST that many cells. Compare the removal of a 150 celled zygote to what you do every time you swat a fly to understand the kind of event that is experienced when you kill a fly vs performing an abortion for stem cell research. There is, of course, the argument that it will eventually create a living organism, that it contains the whole genetic code that defines what an individual is. This is true for every cell with a nucleus in your body. All those cells, under the right technological, medical, and scientific circumstances, have the potential to create a living being. If the termination of cells that hold the potential to create life is murder, simply scratching your nose is the equivalent to global genocide. Then, when motivated by religious beliefs, there is the idea of the soul, and that, regardless of the number of cells the abortion is terminating, the termination is the destruction of a soul. The biblical origins of this are (like everything else in the bible) not without contradiction. Firstly, the bible is very clear that "life" actually begins at birth, when god breaths life and soul into the person. But, even if the soul exists before birth (which goes against the bible), before birth also means before inoculated with original sin (an event which also occurs at the moment of birth), so, without sin, these souls, once terminated, receive a get-into-heaven-free pass. Of course, there is no actual evidence a soul even exists, and humoring such nonsense leads to simple followup questions that can not be answered - a fertilized egg has one soul, but there is always the possibility of the egg splitting, creating monozygotic twins, does that mean one soul became two? Or how about two zygotes merging, forming what's known as a chimera - did two souls just become one? To think of abortion as murder is most of the time motivated by the idea that you can not sacrifice one soul for another, which is why uber-god fearing Bush decided to pull the plug on stem cell research funding. Remember, stem cells are taken from a 150 celled zygote with no biological ability for human experience, and those are the ones being saved by eliminating stem cell research, favored over the cancer patients, burn victims, MS sufferers, the blind, etc who all could one day benefit from stem cell research. A collection of 150 cells with no feelings, memory, emotion, or consciousness, can not be sacrificed to help a four year old child severely burned in a house fire, all because the former president took an idea from a book written in the bronze age (that was, mind you, heavily plagiarized from earlier works - the story of Jesus was written long long long before Jesus's birth - the character simply had a different name) and, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, modern medical advances, and the benefit of 2000 years of learning, Bush decided he'd rather side with an unsubstantiated book authored by bronze age near-savages.

In Brazil, when a 9 year old girl that, after being brutally raped, became pregnant with twins, the wonderful Roman Catholic Church forbade abortion, citing that "it's the law of god: do not kill. We consider this murder", even though, allowing a 9 year old to carry to term will most likely end in the death of both her and the twins - a nine year old is simply not "built" to carry to term. As far as souls go, the sacrifice of 3 under the premise of saving 2, goes against the "conservation of souls" principles laid down by the religion - but, with religion, as with all delusions, there is little room for reason. I am not accusing the original poster of religious fanaticism, and could very well have completely secular reasons for his stance on abortion, but, to side with the Roman Catholic Church with regards to their opinion on the ethics of allowing the 9 year old Brazilian girl an abortion takes some serious fanatical thinking, and the only thing I can think of with the ability to cause such misguided logic and reason is an otherwise rational human being is religion. The delusions of one man are an insanity, the shared delusions of many is a religion.

[rant]end[/rant]

Youtube link to the Sam Harris lecture from which most of this material was borrowed:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Equfju9kJfA&feature=related[/ame]

 

[chuck10x]

doesnt matter if it couldnt survive on its own. it doesnt have the mothers DNA therefore it is not a part of her body and is a separate life. so when you say surviving on its own, are you using viability as your begining of life?

as far as morning after pill goes, my understanding is that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the wall of the uterus and therefore kills the embryo. if so, then I say its murder.

Pregnancy begins when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus.
Preventing the egg from implanting is not abortion since pregnacy has not begun.

 

[alley]

A skin or a blood cell is a part of your body. It has your DNA. A fertilized egg is an indepent and separate life. And yes I believe the morning after pill is murder.

A fertilized egg is not independent at all---and something the size of the tip of a pencil is not a human being...yet.

 

[Alpha1851]

As the car sticker says: Against Abortion? Don't Have One.

I love that! Clever! I'm puzzled by those who consider abortion murder, but they don't consider the death penalty, or war murder. A life is a life.

I'm pro-choice all the way, even for late term abortions. I'm concerned about children who are born into homes w/ parent(s) who don't really want them there. Right now, there are so many kids who need adopted, and "the system" is nowhere for a child to grow up. The economy is tanking right now. Let's have one less child that's supported by the govt.

Abortion is highly regulated, it's not something that is achieved quickly or w/o thought. I was surprised to learn that it's actually quite difficult to get one. First, facilities are few and far btwn. Some states don't have a doctor at all who will perform the procedure. Second, after finding a facility, there's the counseling and 24 hour waiting period that is often mandatory. There are laws dictating who can get one, what age they must be, etc.

Unwanted pregnancy is a real problem. Currently, many of our schools do not provide sex ed, and some of those that do give a brief look into sexuality, only discuss abstinence. Parents and the surrounding community seem to dismiss their child's sexuality as well. This certainly doesn't help the situation.

Also, I've found that people are not aware of the various state laws regarding birth control. It's not as easy to obtain as a person might think. In many states, a woman under the age of 18, cannot get birth control w/o both her parents permission. That's Mom AND Dad. In others, at least one parent must give permission. There are also a few where once the minor has reached a certain age, they can obtain bc on their own. Also, bc and condoms don't always work perfectly.

Sterilization for either the male or the female is not easily achieved either. Most doctors refuse to perform either procedure until the couple is thirty five, or has two children.

These aren't excuses to persuade anyone that abortion is a viable option, but it's good to know the facts. If your main interest is protecting life, instead of worrying about abortion, society might be better served by concentrating on the real issue--how do we stop the majority of unwanted pregnancies. Is there anything we can do differently that will have an impact? Better education and resources? Making bc more easily obtained? Making condoms and bc free? Letting men know about male bc and women know about female condoms?

 

[Kulindahr]

At what point is it murder? There is absolutely zero brain activity until 20 weeks, when some nerves begin to develop, and then some form of brain activity doesn't begin until 24 weeks.

Not so: brain activity begins around 13-16 weeks; the actual figure is dependent on quite a number of factors in the mother's behavior, such as iron intake, drinking or drug use, amount of sleep, or levels of fatigue.

There's a persistent myth among anti-abortion extremists that brainwaves have been record at forty days; even though the person they cite has repudiated their claim, they persist at it. What has been measured at forty days is electrical firing in the brain, as incipient brain tissue gives off random "twitches".

Brainwaves indicative of dreaming have been recorded as early as 18 weeks.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am against abortion. It is murder.

But I'm not for making it illegal.

I'm not going to tell people what to do with their bodies.

Whose body?

If you believe it's murder, then there's a person present who is not the woman's body, nor part of it. If you don't believe in telling people what to do with their bodies, how can you countenance allowing women to decide what to do with another person's body?

 

[Kulindahr]

The question that has to be answered here is whether or not we're dealing with a human person: if we are, then abortion is murder; if we aren't, it isn't.

We have laws which define the end of life; quite simply, we need law to define when a human life begins. Without that definition, the argument is so much noise.

Many right-wing Christians will insist that a human life begins at conception. Plainly, that is one possibility, because before that point it's undeniable that no human life is present. But while that is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient for the purpose at hand: asserting that a human person 'occurs' at the moment of conception is unsustainable scientifically, undemonstrable biblically, and laughable philosophically.

Another common argument is "viability", but that's another chimera; viability is a condition undefinable except in terms not of the organism in question but of factors in the society of which it has yet to become a member -- specifically, the medical-technological sophistication of the society. But it is also dependent on the economic status of the mother, such that the child of a rich mother is more "viable" than one of a poor mother. Again, we're dealing with a definition that has no merit.

From the other end of things we have the definitions of death. The two most common are cessation of the heartbeat, and cessation of brain/neural activity. Of these, the latter is more dependable, since a heart may often be restarted -- and not many would wish to assert that this constitutes bringing a person back from the dead.

Even so, what about applying the heart-beat test to determine if we have a human person? The earliest that doctors can detect a heartbeat (using doppler) is about 9 weeks. At that point, however, the developing organism has no brain to speak of, certainly nothing with which autonomous control over the body can be exercised. Yet such control is generally considered an essential characteristic of a person; even a "totally paralyzed" individual is able to blink eyes -- and we recognize such a person as an exception. Indeed, such a condition is the exception which proves the rule; it is not normal, so we contrast it with the ordinary marks of personhood.

And yet, we know that the fully paralyzed individual is nonetheless still a person. By what attribute do we determine this? What is it about the person which leads us to recognize that he/she is in fact a person? Quite simply, it's conscious mental activity.

That leads us to the other test for death: cessation of brain activity. By the converse, the beginning of life, of human personhood, is best set at the beginning of recognizably individual brain activity -- such as dreaming.

From the point of view of science, that definition is satisfactory. From the point of view of the Bible, it is also satisfactory; it meets the possibilities in verses such as "in my mother's womb You knew me" -- and in fact a number of early church Fathers supported this view, from their knowledge, arguing that until the developing embryo exhibited movement on its own, God had not yet imparted a soul. The modern equivalent of that is that if there are not yet independent brain waves that indicate the ability to recognize stimuli and respond to the environment, then no soul is present. And to philosophers it is a sound answer, resting on the premise that a person is a being of independent thought and action.

Of course one problem is that to know when brainwaves of such requirement are present requires a high level of technology. Fortunately, the phenomenon on which those early church Fathers seized is sufficiently related to the brainwave level required that it can serve: "quickening", it has been called for centuries; it is when the child begins to move on its own, not merely the twitching of limbs as muscle practice their motions or as neurons warm up for real use, but coordinated movement indicating there is a mind behind it.

So in terms of the law, we could hardly do better than setting the beginning of life at quickening. For the hesitant, we could even set it earlier by a bit. But once that moment has come, we'd know that legally, there's a person present, a person due all the protections of the law.

 

[CupCake]

I wonder how many pro-lifers make weekly trips to the local restaurant where they can consume the meat of animals that weren't granted any sort of dignity or life.

Oh yes darling! If all life is valuable then why do "Pro Lifers" who should be called "Anti choicers" like Sarah Palin hunt and kill animals and shoot innocent dogs from helicopters? Plus she is in favor of War which people must die in and I am sure some "pro lifers" are for the death penalty too.... LIFE IS LIFE right?

 

[Alpha1851]

The question that has to be answered here is whether or not we're dealing with a human person: if we are, then abortion is murder; if we aren't, it isn't.

No, not really. We dispose of people all the time, and it's not considered murder. Innocent civilians are slaughtered during war. Convicted criminals are ruthlessly executed under the death penalty. Doctors will supply excessive amounts of morphine in order to stop pain, and quicken death. In your state, physicians can end their patient's life under the Death w/ Dignity Act. Parent's can sacrifice one twin for the other when they're conjoined. Hospitals can stop treatment on patients when there's little or no benefit to the patient's health and the treatments are costly. Family members can decide to "pull the plug" when they're loved one is ventilated and is unlikely to recover. Parents can refuse nec. medical treatment for their children when the treatment goes against their religion. During disasters and other emergencies, people are triaged based on how bad off they are, what type of supplies are available to fix their problems, how many "helpers" are available, and so on. Some people are passed over for whatever reason and are left to die.

As a society, we allow people to starve to death. We allow them to freeze to death. We allow our elderly to die from lack of proper health care. As citizens, unless there's some legal obligation involved, we have the right to walk right by someone who is lying in their own blood and desperately calling out for help. We allow folks to kill, so long as it's done in self defense. Even if the perpetrator did not act in self defense, we often negate some of their guilt when the perpetrator has a good legal excuse. In each of these situations, someone dies at the hands of another. Yet, none take the murder label.

Life is certainly valuable, but the value isn't limitless.

 

[construct]

Thoughts?

I believe it is murder, period.

It is not, period.

Since you believe that abortion is murder, do you also believe that the woman and the doctor should be imprisoned for, say, twenty to life? Would you rather they both be executed?

 

[01solara]

[F Sans MS]If folk were really against abortion, they would focus their energies on increasing education about sex, safe sex and contraception, and adoption options.

Instead, they pay lip service to doing that and spend their time trying to tell other people what to do, shooting abortion doctors and such.

Abortion has become just another "family values" code word for anti-sex, anti-gay, anti-women, etc., etc.

As the car sticker says: Against Abortion? Don't Have One.[/FONT]

There are many pro life groups that provide safe homes for poor unwed pregnant ladies. They provide prenatal care and emotional support. They are in every major city and many smaller ones as well. You act as if an abortion doctor is murdered every day. That is ridiculous and untrue but proabortion people routinely assign the same labels to those who genuinely care for and help women in that situation. Too many people worship at the altar of choice. I don't think that all abortion should be illegal but call it what it is abortion not choice. If a doctor performs these procedures he is aborting babies there should be no sugar coating of it with the word choice. I could not in good conscience tell a rape or incest victim that they have to carry a child that resulted from this for nine months and then have to be reminded of it every day for the rest of their life. That said the majority of abortions are done for birth control not because of rape or incest. Having talked to women who have had abortions everyone that I have talked to has talked about the emotional pain that follows and that nobody told them how hard it would be before the abortion was done. That is a true shame,

 

[KTheLibra]

Oh yes darling! If all life is valuable then why do "Pro Lifers" who should be called "Anti choicers" like Sarah Palin hunt and kill animals and shoot innocent dogs from helicopters? Plus she is in favor of War which people must die in and I am sure some "pro lifers" are for the death penalty too.... LIFE IS LIFE right?

We all know that animals don't have souls. That's why they were put here by Jesus. So we could kill and eat them. Oh yeah, and kill them just to adorn our fucking walls with their carcasses. Cause it's fun. God tells us to.

 

[CupCake]

We all know that animals don't have souls. That's why they were put here by Jesus. So we could kill and eat them. Oh yeah, and kill them just to adorn our fucking walls with their carcasses. Cause it's fun. God tells us to.

This was a joke right lol?

If not then I disagree I think animals have souls BTW the human species are animals just more intelligent animals... I am not a christian because I am an abomination according to that fairy tale... Also the bible states a bunch of animals such as pork and shrimp as unclean and that you should not eat.... Your not supposed kill and eat all animals hun.... Do you eat lions and tigers and bears too? How about dogs and cats or rats? didn't think so....

 

[CupCake]

But like I said if your "Pro Life" ( which is really anti choice) then you should believe all life is valuable! NO WAR,NO HUNTING,NO EATING OR WEARING ANIMALS,NO DEATH PENALTY.... Keep it 100

 

[KTheLibra]

This was a joke right lol?

If not then I disagree I think animals have souls BTW the human species are animals just more intelligent animals... I am not a christian because I am an abomination according to that fairy tale... Also the bible states a bunch of animals such as pork and shrimp as unclean and that you should not eat.... Your not supposed kill and eat all animals hun.... Do you eat lions and tigers and bears too? How about dogs and cats or rats? didn't think so....

Yes, I was being sarcastic. My opinion is the exact opposite of my previous statement. LOL.

 

[CupCake]

Yes, I was being sarcastic. My opinion is the exact opposite of my previous statement. LOL.

lol I figured.... Still wanted to remake my point ahaha

 

[KTheLibra]

lol I figured.... Still wanted to remake my point ahaha

It's perfectly alright. LOL.

 

[thatcrap]

Meh. It's a non-issue.