Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by smothers

Why?

Actually, I don't even think the heart has to have started beating to be considered a person. But I know what the dictionary says, as well.

human
1. of, belonging to, or typical of mankind.
2. consisting of or produced by men [mankind].

person
1. a human being, esp. as distinguished from a thing or lower animal; individual man, woman or child.
3. a) a living human body. b) bodily form or appearance.

I am asuming you are talking about "legal rights". Unborn fetuses do not have these rights. In fact a person doesn't even have full rights until the 18th year. Legally, (maybe not ethically) a mother can kill her child late into her pregnancy.

Not "legal rights," because even what we consider basic human rights in America are not applied legally to many people in some countries. So legal has nothing to do with it. And the government is obviously not applying the right to life to the unborn. And that right to life is a basic human right. So the law is depriving the unborn of that right by allowing women to have abortions.

I agree, those who are born and are sentient have these rights.

And those who are unborn should have those rights as well.


P.S.
Learn to spell sentience.

 

[Lighthouse]

IMO, smothers and Skeptic are not persons. Bcause they have no brain to have activity and no heart to beat.

 

[Balder]

As I said, I do not support abortion, but I do not understand the violent opposition to the untimely killing of innocent babies by those who also believe that the loving Father of humanity also killed innocent babies (to punish adults, in Egypt), or ordered his people to cut down babies and infants with swords.

 

[Lighthouse]

Balder-
It all boils down to different time, different place and different circumstances. The Egyptians had enslaved His people and were beating them, daily...and killing them. Pharoah even ordered the death of every male born to the Israelites, from that point on. And vengeance is God's. So, He took vengeance. I am opposed to humans taking innocent human life. Especially when it is not about punishing anyone.

 

[avatar382]

Husband&Father, Good post, I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. Allow me to respond to a few of your points:

The link between "personhood" and brain activity is an arbitrary one made up for the convenience of the pro choice advocate.

At best it is mearly a personal definition without the support of the medical establishment (who do not try to establish personhood in the metaphysical sense) and in defiance of common sense.

It's not quite just brain activity that establishes personhood, it's sentience, being self-aware, having interests. A living creature lacking sentience is a vegetable.

Legally, a person is declared dead at brain death. I think this supports the notion that being self-aware is crucial to being a person.

Further, the premise that fetus’ do not have brain activity until 20 weeks is completely false. The brain is still developing to be sure and will continue to grow in capacity as the pregnancy works to term but the movements (yawning, thumb sucking, stretching etc.) that pre 20 weak babies routinely demonstrate (as well as their reaction to noises) are much to complex to be mere reflexes or automatic. Nope, the brain is quite active.

This could very well be true. I will not oppose the statement that a fetus could be sentient at 20 weeks.

However, saying that there is sentience at conception, at the zygote stage where the unborn is merely a collection of stem cells, is indefensible. Thus logically, there is a line between conception and 20 weeks where the unborn transitions from non-sentience to sentience.

The brain activity argument is bogus. If brain activity determines personhood than does diminished brain activity (brain damaged accident victims) diminish personhood. Is a mental illiness victim who had a frontal lobotomy only half a person?

Again, it's not just brain activity that is the issue, it's having self-awareness, having interests. A lobotomy patient may still be self aware, and was once self aware. Likewise, such a person may still have interests, and once had interests.

This is distinctly different than a zygote at a week that is not capable of and never had, to that point, self-awareness and/or interests.

If the brain activity has to be a certain type and quality of brain activity then we have to admit that some 5 year olds (retarded, comotosed) are not people. The whole stupid theory falls apart.

If the 5 year olds in question
1.) are not physically capable of self-awareness and have no interests in themselves or anything else
2.) never had self-awareness/interests, and never will (because they are incapable).
then I would say that yes, they are not people, they are human vegetables.

Abortion advocates know right from wrong, that’s why they must always qualify their support for abortion. They can’t just say "I’m for abortion period" they have to say "I’m for abortion…er…up until 20 weeks…because…you see…a baby does not have brain activity…well not much brain activity until 20 weeks…so I’m for abortion up to 20 weeks…but I will not condemn those who are for abortion after 20 weeks…because even though I…personally…believe that the baby is a person after 20 weeks others may not and who am I to say when a person…er…fetus…is a person…even though I decided that it’s at 20 weeks…and I know it’s true because I read it on the Internet…"

I argue that the position to allow abortion up to a point in pregancy (when the fetus becomes sentient) is a reasonable compromise between the rights of a sentient fetus and the rights of a mother carrying a very early non-sentient zygote which is naturally aborted in a sense a majority of the time, anyway.

Now I have a question for you (or anyone else that wishes to respond)
Is it your position that everything that is human in nature and alive is a person and should be given full rights as such? The reason I ask is because internal organs, human cells, etc are alive, and human in nature, yet are clearly not people.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by smothers

Why do you think humanity is a better basis than personhood?

Because personhood can and historically has been assigned arbitrarily. Slavery is one example.

 

[smothers]

Re: False Premise

Re: False Premise

Great post! You stated your position succintly. Another poster did an excellant job rebutted the subtantive arguments you made. My response would only be repeating what he said.

I would like to address a theme running through the TOL. Those who appear to hold a religious bent are in the habit of resorting to personal attacks. These attacks are entertaining, but their subtance doesn't add to the credulity of their arguments.

Smothers and others can’t stand the guilt so they discredit prolifers because they are "religious" (as if that is an automatic disqualification).

Not so. I don't care what you believe, I just care what you do. One's religiosity is irrelevant to the argument.

If a photo gives them pause, if they see the picture and find themselves admitting that the fetus is a baby, they accuse the photographer of "doctoring" (what a choice of words) the photo. The alternative to calling the photos doctored is calling themselves killers.

This is a classic ad homenom attack. You are attacking my motives in an attempt to discredit my position. The following facts...

I have two children
I have never fathered a child that was later aborted. (My sexual history is limited to my marriage.)
I have never encouraged anyone to get an abortion.
I mourned at the death of my first child who miscarraiged at 18 weeks.

... are irrelevant to the discussion. My argument, regardless of my motives are either correct or incorrect. Painting me as someone who thinks the photos were doctored to assuage my guilt is just plain silly. It even suggests that your position may be so weak that you want to attack the messenger.

Abortion advocates know right from wrong, that’s why they must always qualify their support for abortion. They can’t just say "I’m for abortion period"

I know right from wrong as well. Besides our disagreement on THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, can you cite another example where I do not know right from wrong?

My position is: I am for abortion until the beginning of the 13th week.

Keep repeating this until the guilt goes away:

"The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity… The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…I killed a bab…NO! NO! NO! The pictures are fake and they didn’t have brain activity…"

[/Quote]

Isn't it rather presumptive to suggest the only reason people don't like those photos is guilt from abortion? In reality you don't really know. You may be guessing this to reconcile the paradox between your disgust at this act and the fact there are people who disagree with you. But then, I don't know this either. In fact it is totally irrelevant to the discussion, isn't it?

Take care.

Mark

 

[Anne]

Hi Mark

Losing a child is really tough. Whether the child lost is born or not yet born the pain is the same, i.e. your child ( a person) has died.

Definitely by 18 weeks a child is self aware, sucking his thumb, maybe even his toes. They can be as active as possible within the limited space available to them.

A friend of mine, who is a doctor, was present when a patient miscarried at 8 weeks. He preserved the baby in a small bottle. I have seen the baby and when you look at the baby you know you are looking at a little person who has died. You can already see that it's a boy.

When we look at these little babes and are sad that they have died, how can it possibly be OK to kill such innocent defenseless children. I find that difficult to understand. Often a mother who has just miscarried her baby asks her doctors in despair "why did this happen, what went wrong", the doctor will reply that he doesn''t know. So if they don't know everything surely the ethical way is "First do no harm". No one (especially babies) would be harmed if the entire medical profession said "From conception this new person has the right to life (and no one has the right to kill him/her).

Almighty God said" Thou shalt not kill.
I don't know about your Bible but mine doesn't say in brackets (those who are self aware).

:doh: Often those who are blind drunk are not self aware. Does that mean it is OK to kill them

The person/self aware argument is totally ridiculous and should be abandoned. No support for it can be found in God's Word. As mentioned before it only furthers the agenda of those who have evil intentions: slave owners, Nazis and profiteering abortionists.:aikido:

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Crow

Because personhood can and historically has been assigned arbitrarily. Slavery is one example.

Crow that is a good point. One should not base personhood on something abbitary. I am basing my personhood assignment on something biological and measurable.

Slavery is morally repugnant. One reason I do not use the Bible as a basis for asigning personhood are found in the following verses.

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)


A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Versus such as these show how the Bible views some people as superior to others.

The following versus seem to support abortion. Accidental abortion was not worthy of murder. The child was the man's property and therefore subject to compensation.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

Mark

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by Anne

A friend of mine, who is a doctor, was present when a patient miscarried at 8 weeks. He preserved the baby in a small bottle. I have seen the baby and when you look at the baby you know you are looking at a little person who has died. You can already see that it's a boy.

Weren't you apalled that a doctor did not bury the child? It seems shocking that someone would take a baby and display it in a small bottle. If the baby is a person, shouldn't it be buried? Most women miscarriage at least once. If the fetus is a person, should it not be burried?

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by smothers

Weren't you apalled that a doctor did not bury the child? It seems shocking that someone would take a baby and display it in a small bottle. If the baby is a person, shouldn't it be buried? Most women miscarriage at least once. If the fetus is a person, should it not be burried?

Yes, it is shocking that someone might put a human being's body on display in a bottle; but not nearly as shocking as someone wanting to put that human being to death, for the sake of convenience. Yes, babies should be buried. My grandmother had a baby that was still-born, and they had no funeral. I don't believe that there would be any good come of it. She later needed comfort, at the funeral that she had for the fifteen month old infant that she lost. That death hit her more than any other, because, as she said, she just fell in love with the baby, and it died. Is a funeral done to benefit the deceased or the living? We don't 'hang around' like Hollywood portrays in the movies, because to be absent from the body is to be present with The Lord. The deceased baby whose body is on display would be proud if there were only one person who, upon seeing the body, repented of committing their abortion.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by smothers

Weren't you apalled that a doctor did not bury the child? It seems shocking that someone would take a baby and display it in a small bottle. If the baby is a person, shouldn't it be buried? Most women miscarriage at least once. If the fetus is a person, should it not be burried?

Why? Is there something "special" about being burried? Do you think the fetus's soul will become a ghost haunting the doctor's office or something? Are people who are cremated or set in tombs any less dead? Or any less people?


Let's take an imagination trip. Let's suppose for a moment that abortion is the murder of a young human person. Let's assume that young human person has a soul. Let's assume that the soul enters heaven and is as aware of itself and of the truth of reality as much as any soul we might imagine in heaven is. Now imagine that you are that soul. Wouldn't you be pleased if your former earthly body could do any good toward persuading others against the method of murder that abortion is?

It makes as much sense as a person willing to donate his or her body to medical research after death in hopes of curing some terrible disease.

 

[smothers]

Originally posted by philosophizer

Why? Is there something "special" about being burried? Do you think the fetus's soul will become a ghost haunting the doctor's office or something? Are people who are cremated or set in tombs any less dead? Or any less people?

You have missed the point. Like the sickening abortion photos, the display of human body parts is disgusting.

Let's take an imagination trip. Let's suppose for a moment that abortion is the murder of a young human person. Let's assume that young human person has a soul. Let's assume that the soul enters heaven and is as aware of itself and of the truth of reality as much as any soul we might imagine in heaven is. Now imagine that you are that soul. Wouldn't you be pleased if your former earthly body could do any good toward persuading others against the method of murder that abortion is?

It makes as much sense as a person willing to donate his or her body to medical research after death in hopes of curing some terrible disease.

I don't play "just imagine". I would rather deal with reality. This scenario is absurd and as likely as a literal Mother Goose.

 

[Anne]

The reality is that abortion is the brutal murder of innocent, defenseless babies. God commanded us not to murder. Therefore it is simple, abortion is NEVER OK.:nono:

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by smothers

Crow that is a good point. One should not base personhood on something abbitary. I am basing my personhood assignment on something biological and measurable.

Slavery is morally repugnant. One reason I do not use the Bible as a basis for asigning personhood are found in the following verses.

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)


A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Versus such as these show how the Bible views some people as superior to others.

The following versus seem to support abortion. Accidental abortion was not worthy of murder. The child was the man's property and therefore subject to compensation.

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25

Mark

Smothers, you utilize an arbitrary requirement, "personhood," to award the right to life, the most basic of human rights. The cut off you choose is 13 weeks of gestation.

As technology has advanced, brain waves are detectable at about 9 weeks now. It is difficult because the mother's body generates a great amount of background current and noise, but it has been done. There is brain activity in the first trimester.

I don't believe that any such qualification is necessary to recognize the right to life of the fetus, but I throw this in as an example of how one's "measurable" biological data is not necessarily absolutely correct as our ability to detect and understand natural phenomena has rendered a lot of "facts" fiction, and does so regularly.

On to the Biblical issue--

While the Bible recognized that some persons were slaves, do you see anywhere that it is OK to murder your slave if you don't want him? I don't.

The "abortion" you refer to in the Bible is miscarriage as a result of altercation between adults, an accidental death. Accidental death is not treated as murder in the Bible. From Genesis 21--note the two different penalties for murder and accidental death:

12 Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

Another example of how the scriptures distinguish between types of deaths, in this case accidental vs death due to reckless endangerment. Also from Genesis 21-

28 If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. Accidental death


29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. Reckless endangerment

30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. Payment as penalty for causing death by reckless endangerment, as opposed to intentional murder--the owner must pay whatever is demanded of him, the same as when a person causes a woman to miscarry.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by smothers

You have missed the point. Like the sickening abortion photos, the display of human body parts is disgusting.

Why do you find the human baby body parts, the product of abortion, to be disgusting? You can not escape the reality that abortion is murder in a most gruesome manner. You would rather believe a lie than acknowledge the truth. Anyone who supports and defends abortion is no better than a Nazi SS storm trooper. No honor, no class, no conscience, no humanity...soulless. A good Democrat.

 

[Lighthouse]

It doesn't even matter that God said not to murder. Murder is wrong, no matter what. God knew that, which is why He said not to. It didn't become wrong because He said not to. He said not to, because it was wrong. And abortion is murder.

 

[aikido7]

The photographs are graphic. Some call them disgusting and feel emboldened enough to outlaw all abortions, no matter what.

If it is a war on human life here, the ones who are doing the abortions and consenting to them have good intentions. Just like the bombing of civillians--it is a regrettable consequence of a higher good.

 

[Anne]

The primary intention of the abortionist is to make as much money as he can. They are greedy murderers who seem to have no conscience.

The mothers who allow their child/ren to be murdered are either ignorant or callous.

It is ridiculous to say the abortionists and those mothers have good intentions. That is absolute drivel.:kookoo:

Please enlighten us as to what you mean by "higher good".:doh:

 

[aikido7]

The photographs are graphic. Some call them disgusting and feel emboldened enough to outlaw all abortions, no matter what.

If it is a war on human life here, the ones who are doing the abortions and consenting to them have good intentions. Just like the bombing of civillians--it is a regrettable consequence of a higher good.

I am placing this warning here not to sensationalize this thread

Big red letters and coarse photography. Hmmm....

I would not want young kids to be looking over my shoulder when these images load. Many people are unable to stand looking at graphic pictures of dead babies.

And why not? Unrealistic censorship of true reality masquerading as "protecting children" is not defensible. Our children have to learn the truth, and good parents will have the love, maturity and imagination to teach their children about what really goes on in the world. Only by telling children the truth without the intent to upset and shock will the world be changed and the power of pornographic images--sexual or violent--will vanish and shrink

It was made evident in another thread that some people still do not realize the extent to which our society condones the murder of children.

Only the self-deluded cannot imagine their country or government is involved in henious and tragic crimes. It is about time we all realized that and used some imagination, morality and honor to come up with alternatives. The authority given to doctors, presidents and governments is giving aid and comfort to psychopaths.

There is a misconception that lumps of unrecognizable human tissue are being aborted.

Let us be truthful. "Lumps of unrecognizable human tissue" ARE being "aborted." When you say that:

This thread is going to show exactly what goes into the incinerators and medical waste containers

The thread is not going to show exactly ALL that goes into the trash. If it did, the thread would be not near as sensational. From a rabid critic of abortion, photographs of lumps of tissue are just way too boring.

so if you have a weak stomach or cannot bear to look at the images of dead children, please procede no furthur in this thread. If you wish to add photographs, please do so. Sometimes it is necessary to see the fruits of evil to understand the wickedness of those who promote the murder of babies. Look at these pictures yourself and decide if these are lumps of tissue.

It would be nice if we could only publish the pictures of terror and death to make the madness stop. It is pretty to think so. Maybe we should be posting pictures from Iraq that our "liberal news media" chooses to hide from us--the kind that Al-Jazeera likes to broadcast.

It has not worked in war--where cruelty and killing is often the conscious intent AND the result--and it will not work in abortion, as long as women and doctors make decisions out of an awareness of doing good in the world.

Crow, your inflamatory words would lead one to think that these doctors and these women are involved in something patently evil. Or that somehow taking one's medical oath seriously and at the same time making a good living from one's calling is impossible. Or feeling backed into a corner and unsupported by culture and society is being ignorant and callous.

Calling doctors and women murderers that have no conscience shows an ignorance of the human condition. Blanket condemnation is too simplistic.

I wish it WAS simplistic--because abortion is a distasteful and difficult matter. And because of that fact, the issue will never be "solved." It will never go away. The profound questions and themes it stirs up in us partly come from what it means to be a human being.

Crow, sorry to be so blunt, but abortion has always been as perennial as the grass and is as common as the air that humans breathe.