ARCHVE: Attention all sick pro-aborts
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
NSMinistries
Resident Servant
My wife and I have discussed it when we first were married, we would opt for the Baby. Its not easy to decide that but we both felt it was the right thing to do.
Evangelion
New member
Jes.
Jes.
Jes -
That's because I wasn't talking about the available options - I'm talking about the rationale which drives a girl who has already decided that she doesn't want to give birth. I wanted to leave the "options" question to one side for a moment, because the first issue we have to look at is "What is the rationale that drives a decision to abort?" Many girls would say to themselves "Well, if I don't want the child in the first place, why wait until it arrives and give it away? Why not just terminate it now?"
You can see for yourself that raw pragmatism is the driving force behind this mentality - and it does make sense, even though I find it repugnant.
Sure. I would also like to address the "substance abuse/addition" and "cultural stigma" exceptions at some point.
Agreed. The interesting thing here is that the doctor won't perform the act unless the mother gives consent. She has to come to him with the idea first, and then the procedure will go ahead.
I find this morally inadequate, because the abortion was the mother's idea, and she gave consent to the murder of the child, which would not have happened otherwise - but I admit that I can't fault it legally. It's just that I would prefer to see the blame distributed in two equal shares.
Again, I find this morally inadequate. In fact, your entire argument boils down to the fact that the mother should not be held responsible for the death of the foetus - which means that you have now successfully demolished the pro-life position.
That's a problem, and you'll need to address it at some stage.
In the third trimester? Yes. And I would want to see the mother prosecuted with an equal share of the blame.
I think that my qualification will bring us back into disagreement.
But for the most part, we do appear to have a consensus.
That's OK. You have to realise that the abortion issue doesn't get the same amount of attention in Australia that it does in the USA. It's not the be-all and end-all of Australian politics.
It's one of many (equally significant) political issues in Australia, and it's treated with equal dignity.
Jes.
Jes -
That's because I wasn't talking about the available options - I'm talking about the rationale which drives a girl who has already decided that she doesn't want to give birth. I wanted to leave the "options" question to one side for a moment, because the first issue we have to look at is "What is the rationale that drives a decision to abort?" Many girls would say to themselves "Well, if I don't want the child in the first place, why wait until it arrives and give it away? Why not just terminate it now?"
You can see for yourself that raw pragmatism is the driving force behind this mentality - and it does make sense, even though I find it repugnant.
Sure. I would also like to address the "substance abuse/addition" and "cultural stigma" exceptions at some point.
Agreed. The interesting thing here is that the doctor won't perform the act unless the mother gives consent. She has to come to him with the idea first, and then the procedure will go ahead.
I find this morally inadequate, because the abortion was the mother's idea, and she gave consent to the murder of the child, which would not have happened otherwise - but I admit that I can't fault it legally. It's just that I would prefer to see the blame distributed in two equal shares.
Again, I find this morally inadequate. In fact, your entire argument boils down to the fact that the mother should not be held responsible for the death of the foetus - which means that you have now successfully demolished the pro-life position.
That's a problem, and you'll need to address it at some stage.
In the third trimester? Yes. And I would want to see the mother prosecuted with an equal share of the blame.
I think that my qualification will bring us back into disagreement.
But for the most part, we do appear to have a consensus.That's OK. You have to realise that the abortion issue doesn't get the same amount of attention in Australia that it does in the USA. It's not the be-all and end-all of Australian politics.
It's one of many (equally significant) political issues in Australia, and it's treated with equal dignity.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
You mean your return "from the dead"?
Then why bring it up here, other than to stir up trouble?
Not really, my return implies nothing more than a casual interest in some of the topics discussed.
Certainly I'll answer it. Since my answer is brief, I'll answer it here. I am not a philosopher, nor a theologian, so my answer is simply "No." I don't spend my time contemplating the intricacies of how to condone child rape, apparently unlike a number of the folks here...If you wish to answer this, I'd ask that you start another thread.
If you don't wish to answer this, I'll completely understand.
In keeping with your line of questioning, perhaps you could tell me whether or not you believe that killing unborn children is absolutely wrong?
NSMinistries
Resident Servant
My wife thinks that she has lived enough of her life that a child would need the chance to go ahead and do the same. Myself it would be hard, but thats what she wants and I have to beleive if God wanted her to die by letting the baby live than its the way its going to be. But the Dr. better do everything he/she can to save both.
Evangelion,
On the pro-life side, we feel that if abortion were made illegal, then people would be more likely to recognize that their actions (intercourse) had consequences (pregnancy), and then choose their actions based on those consequences. That would then bring down the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and if it were still a problem, we could handle things at that point in some other manner that did not involve an action that we consider to be murder. We on the pro-life side feel that working to keep abortion legal while simultaneously working to reduce unwanted pregnancies is feeding a repeating cycle, and the only way we see to end that cycle is to make abortion illegal.
Sure. What are those exceptions? May I get a preview?
Anyway, on abortion: I am open to options either way on whether or not to punish the woman. One of the points that pro-choice people make is that a woman who has been through an abortion has already been punished because of the trauma of the abortion procedure. Another thing to keep in mind is that the doctor generally has invested time in learning how to perform the abortion, and money in buying equipment for the procedure, whereas the time of the patient has been invested in, shall we say, other pursuits. (When I say that, remember that we're putting off the rape exception until we handle the general case)
However, all the points you make on who to punish are 100% correct. If a law we write ends up punishing both doctor and patient, that's fine with me.
The pro-life argument does have to make the case for personhood of the fetus at conception before any other points can be addressed. If we pro-lifers cannot do that, then politically speaking, all our other points are moot. I think that's part of the reason that pro-lifers use those bloody pictures so much in discussion... we/they focus on that one point to the exclusion of all others.
I'll split this to a separate post.
He also handled all the arguments in a non-biblical manner. He did touch on the Bible in the book, but he did not base his arguments on the Bible. That made a significant point to me, because no matter how I feel about the Bible, I do feel that one of the central tenets of western civilization is that if we as Christians keep our Bible out of political discussions, we gain the benefit of knowing that we get access to the Bible in our private discussions.
I do agree with you that pro-life vs. pro-choice discussions in the USA do tend to turn into shouting matches going across picket lines more often than they should, and that does cause me concern. That's also part of the reason I spoke up now on the issue. Maybe I can bring a bit of dignity from the pro-life side of the house to the ongoing discussion of the issue here on TOL. I hope I do.
I do see that, and us on the pro-life side of the issue may be looking at the issue with a bit more idealism and less pragmatism, but we're not totally empty on pragmatism. On the pragmatic side, we see unwanted pregnancies occurring because abortion seems to be getting used as just another method of birth control. And abortion being just another method of birth control does make sense if personhood of the fetus prior to viability is a personal choice, rather than a societally imposed one.
On the pro-life side, we feel that if abortion were made illegal, then people would be more likely to recognize that their actions (intercourse) had consequences (pregnancy), and then choose their actions based on those consequences. That would then bring down the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, and if it were still a problem, we could handle things at that point in some other manner that did not involve an action that we consider to be murder. We on the pro-life side feel that working to keep abortion legal while simultaneously working to reduce unwanted pregnancies is feeding a repeating cycle, and the only way we see to end that cycle is to make abortion illegal.
*Jes scratches his head*
Sure. What are those exceptions? May I get a preview?
You are correct on this, and this may be a bit of my personal bias on who to punish coming into play, possibly due to my being from the US. One of the things we try to do over here when we look at a problem and attempt to address it through the legal system is to punish as few people as possible in order to solve that problem. As an example, when we looked at our drug problem and were considering how to address it, our first focus was to punish the dealers rather than the users, partly because there generally are fewer dealers than users (or at least, that idea made sense). Also, a decision to become a dealer (traditionally) involves a larger investment of resources than a decision to become a user. And that may be a poor comparison to abortion, but does that illustrate my principle to you?
Anyway, on abortion: I am open to options either way on whether or not to punish the woman. One of the points that pro-choice people make is that a woman who has been through an abortion has already been punished because of the trauma of the abortion procedure. Another thing to keep in mind is that the doctor generally has invested time in learning how to perform the abortion, and money in buying equipment for the procedure, whereas the time of the patient has been invested in, shall we say, other pursuits. (When I say that, remember that we're putting off the rape exception until we handle the general case)
However, all the points you make on who to punish are 100% correct. If a law we write ends up punishing both doctor and patient, that's fine with me.
The pro-life argument does have to make the case for personhood of the fetus at conception before any other points can be addressed. If we pro-lifers cannot do that, then politically speaking, all our other points are moot. I think that's part of the reason that pro-lifers use those bloody pictures so much in discussion... we/they focus on that one point to the exclusion of all others.
Yup.I think that my qualification will bring us back into disagreement.
I'll split this to a separate post.It's not the be-all of my personal politics either. Up until about two years, I was pro-choice, and for the exact same reasons that you are... viability. I then read ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments by Randy Alcorn. In it he brought up the viability issue and handled it for me, in a manner similar to what I presented to you in that longer post on page five of this thread.
He also handled all the arguments in a non-biblical manner. He did touch on the Bible in the book, but he did not base his arguments on the Bible. That made a significant point to me, because no matter how I feel about the Bible, I do feel that one of the central tenets of western civilization is that if we as Christians keep our Bible out of political discussions, we gain the benefit of knowing that we get access to the Bible in our private discussions.
I do agree with you that pro-life vs. pro-choice discussions in the USA do tend to turn into shouting matches going across picket lines more often than they should, and that does cause me concern. That's also part of the reason I spoke up now on the issue. Maybe I can bring a bit of dignity from the pro-life side of the house to the ongoing discussion of the issue here on TOL. I hope I do.
4
4 A.M. Prayer
Guest
Originally posted by Projill
Just glad you're back to lend your well-reasoned voice on occassion.
I too am glad to see Zak's return; a keen mind and wit; he was the first here at TOL to send me a personal welcome and message back in 2000 when I first came on board; the little things mean a lot.
But to put things in context, Zak's slant on the Christian faith has been, in large part, shaped from his past experience in a flawed Pentecostal movement he was involved in, I believe, as a pastor, not to mention the "sicko" here at TOL who actually threatened Zak's family some time ago if I'm understanding things correctly so let's keep his critiques in perspective as our opinions are certainly all shaped by experience.
Projill writes...
Come on Projill, don't sell yourself short! Your as good as any of the "skeptics" at running from the issues, ignoring responses and dodging questions!
Personhood at Conception?
Personhood at Conception?
Evangelion,
First, I do need to put forth a few assumptions:
1) If person A intentionally kills person B, then person A should be charged with murder. That comes from the definition of person (personhood).
2) For the purposes of #1, an adult human is a person.
3) For the purposes of #1, an egg and a sperm side by side, not yet united, is not a person.
4) Somewhere between #2 and #3, personhood is obtained.
Are all those fair enough assumptions based on the standards we agree on for western civilization?
I'm going to assume yes, and continue (instead of waiting for a response and splitting to a separate post).
The transition between #2 and #3 is a fairly well documented transition. There could be several points at which personhood is obtained. Conception and viability are two of those, and the ones to consider here since they are the two we have discussed.
If we place the point of personhood at conception, then we are saying that personhood is obtained solely based on being a member of the human race. That's when the sperm's chromosomes combine with the egg's chromosomes to become the chromosomes of the human genome. That's the point that I claim, the point that makes the most sense to me.
On the other hand, if we say viability is the point, we are saying that personhood status depends on something other than the human genome. We're saying personhood depends on development level. I think that idea runs counter to the ideals of western civilization. Could someone lose personhood if they developed incorrectly? Could they develop past the point of personhood?
Part of the measure of our civilization is that we extend personhood status where it may not have previously been extended. When we extended personhood based on skin color, that was an advancement. When we extended personhood status based on gender, that was another advancement. And so on.
We on the pro-life side see removing personhood from someone based on development level as an action that does a severe detriment to our civilization.
Thoughts, comments?
Personhood at Conception?
Evangelion,
First, I do need to put forth a few assumptions:
1) If person A intentionally kills person B, then person A should be charged with murder. That comes from the definition of person (personhood).
2) For the purposes of #1, an adult human is a person.
3) For the purposes of #1, an egg and a sperm side by side, not yet united, is not a person.
4) Somewhere between #2 and #3, personhood is obtained.
Are all those fair enough assumptions based on the standards we agree on for western civilization?
I'm going to assume yes, and continue (instead of waiting for a response and splitting to a separate post).
The transition between #2 and #3 is a fairly well documented transition. There could be several points at which personhood is obtained. Conception and viability are two of those, and the ones to consider here since they are the two we have discussed.
If we place the point of personhood at conception, then we are saying that personhood is obtained solely based on being a member of the human race. That's when the sperm's chromosomes combine with the egg's chromosomes to become the chromosomes of the human genome. That's the point that I claim, the point that makes the most sense to me.
On the other hand, if we say viability is the point, we are saying that personhood status depends on something other than the human genome. We're saying personhood depends on development level. I think that idea runs counter to the ideals of western civilization. Could someone lose personhood if they developed incorrectly? Could they develop past the point of personhood?
Part of the measure of our civilization is that we extend personhood status where it may not have previously been extended. When we extended personhood based on skin color, that was an advancement. When we extended personhood status based on gender, that was another advancement. And so on.
We on the pro-life side see removing personhood from someone based on development level as an action that does a severe detriment to our civilization.
Thoughts, comments?
NSMinistries
Resident Servant
Day 1 Conception (Websters Med. def.) the beginning of pregnacy
1 week attaches to wall of womb
2 weeks stops mothers menstrual period
3 weeks heart is beating
6 weeks brain waves measurable move and responds to touvh
8 weeks feels pain sucks thumb grasps swims
2 1/2 months body completly formed even fingerprints
3 months all organ systems funtioning
after 3 months nothing new develops -There is only growth in size and maturity
Makes ya wonder when its human (sarcastic statement)
1 week attaches to wall of womb
2 weeks stops mothers menstrual period
3 weeks heart is beating
6 weeks brain waves measurable move and responds to touvh
8 weeks feels pain sucks thumb grasps swims
2 1/2 months body completly formed even fingerprints
3 months all organ systems funtioning
after 3 months nothing new develops -There is only growth in size and maturity
Makes ya wonder when its human (sarcastic statement)
Atheist_Divine
New member
NSMinistries,
Define "human".
Define "human".
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Re: Personhood at Conception?
Re: Personhood at Conception?
Thanks for a clear presentation of your position, jes1994.
I have a question for your consideration, if you're interested in a "real world" situation.
I am told by cellular biologists of my aquaintance that they now have the capability, in laboratory situations, to take an unfertilized human egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult (dipliod) cell. The egg is not "fertilized" in the traditional sense but doesn't seem to care and begins dividing merrily away. Unfortunately, if the nucleus is taken from fully differentiated tissue (muscle, nerve, bone, etc.) then the result of the cell division will tend to produce tissue of that type rather than a complete human being.
I would assume, based on your writing, that you would "extend personhood" to any collection of diploid cells (cells with full sets of human chromosomes) capable of developing into an adult human whether those cells actually develop that way or not. In a sense, your guideline would extend personhood to what amounts to a tissue culture.
Is that a fair assessment? If not, where would you draw the line?
Re: Personhood at Conception?
Thanks for a clear presentation of your position, jes1994.
I have a question for your consideration, if you're interested in a "real world" situation.
I am told by cellular biologists of my aquaintance that they now have the capability, in laboratory situations, to take an unfertilized human egg and replace its nucleus with the nucleus from an adult (dipliod) cell. The egg is not "fertilized" in the traditional sense but doesn't seem to care and begins dividing merrily away. Unfortunately, if the nucleus is taken from fully differentiated tissue (muscle, nerve, bone, etc.) then the result of the cell division will tend to produce tissue of that type rather than a complete human being.
I would assume, based on your writing, that you would "extend personhood" to any collection of diploid cells (cells with full sets of human chromosomes) capable of developing into an adult human whether those cells actually develop that way or not. In a sense, your guideline would extend personhood to what amounts to a tissue culture.
Is that a fair assessment? If not, where would you draw the line?
Zakath,
What I would suggest for this situation is to work with the cellular biologists to establish workable criteria for saying that a particular cell culture had grown into a piece of ordinary human tissue. Something along the lines of 'this cell culture is one centimeter, and appears to be a piece of ordinary human tissue that will not grow into a person'. Maybe use time instead of length. Maybe some kind of test could be developed.
Anyway, then we say that once our cell culture has grown to a given length, we do or do not have personhood. Until that the cell culture in question has grown to the given length, we do have to treat a collection of diploid cells as a person, and need extraordinary justification for taking action that will end that person's life.
I do have to say that this is a very interesting situation. I did not know about it. Thank you.
Coming from you, I take that as quite a compliment. Thank you.
Sure. One of the reasons I'm here at TOL is to learn.
That is a fair assessment, at least of what I have posted up to this point anyway.
What I would suggest for this situation is to work with the cellular biologists to establish workable criteria for saying that a particular cell culture had grown into a piece of ordinary human tissue. Something along the lines of 'this cell culture is one centimeter, and appears to be a piece of ordinary human tissue that will not grow into a person'. Maybe use time instead of length. Maybe some kind of test could be developed.
Anyway, then we say that once our cell culture has grown to a given length, we do or do not have personhood. Until that the cell culture in question has grown to the given length, we do have to treat a collection of diploid cells as a person, and need extraordinary justification for taking action that will end that person's life.
I do have to say that this is a very interesting situation. I did not know about it. Thank you.
NSMinistries
Resident Servant
any being that has the ability to become self aware. Including those that have medical problems that make it hard for them to be self aware (mental and physical defects that if were not present would allow a standard life.)
Elena Marie
New member
Hi Gerald--
During my second pregnancy, I chose to take medication to delay labor and delivery that could have caused serious complications for me, including sudden intracranial hemmorhage and other side effects in addition to continuous vomiting and other less serious but very unpleasant effects. I made this choice in order to save my child, and I made it very plain to my physician that the child's life took precedence over my own. Of course he protested, but I was serious and remained serious until the end of the pregnancy. So yes, I made that choice and would make it again if need be.
Elena Marie
New member
Great ad.