Abortion

[Smart_Guy]

The fact that a pregnant woman's body is being shared and depended on by another human being is moot.

You mean by the baby or the husband?

 

[ZenMonkey]

You mean by the baby or the husband?

The fetus living inside her womb (obviously).

 

[Smart_Guy]

The fetus living inside her womb (obviously).

Thank you for the clarification.

I thought maybe it could possibly be the father since the fetus is part of him too.

I'm not a native English speakers so I make such misunderstandings form time to time. Sorry about that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How about we put the Bible to the side permanently on a subject It doesn't mention?
Tom

Are you saying the Bible is silent on the issue of killing or terminating life and potential life?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not true. There are countries where abortion was or is illegal (often with the exception of life threatening pregnancies.) Regardless of this provision, this still causes all sorts of problems as you have sexually abused children not able to get a life saving or medically necessary abortions and you end up with stories like this one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...bortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html
Or this one.
http://www.refinery29.com/2015/05/87269/paraguay-10-year-old-rape-survivor-denied-abortion
Or this one in Ireland when a suicidal rape victim was denied an abortion just last year.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/18/ireland-woman-forced-caesarean-pregnant-rape-friend
That's why bodily autonomy is precious. Because it deals with a fully autonomous person (even if they still depend on their parents) receiving rights over that of a bunch of cells, which frankly should never supersede the rights of the mother (unless the mother so chooses.)

Once you start chipping away at that, you end up like we were in the 1940s or something. Women dying from unsafe coathanger abortions or a woman going to a shady back alley doctor because she simply cannot afford another child in her already 7 strong Catholic family, despite doing her "wifely duty." And all sorts of other reasons why a woman may choose to abort.



You can't mind your own business? What are you the gossip queen on the street or something?

The Golden Rule is good and all, but life is often a bit more complicated.
Let's say a friend of mine is pregnant at 15 and let's say the father, although wishing to support her, ends up in jail, for whatever reason. Desperate for money, maybe. Fell into a bad crowd. Whatever.
Her parents kicked her out because religious folk seem to be rather callous with "sinners" I have noticed (not all, of course.)
She comes to me in tears, she has been taught that abortion is "sinful" but she's destitute, living on the street, but far too embarrassed to admit this to me. Should I support her decision to abort at 8 weeks? Should I force her to bring the fetus to term? Which would be following the Golden Rule?

Another scenario. A girlfriend of mine is in a bad relationship. It started out normal enough, but eventually turned sour when the man slowly but surely began to control her. This lead to domestic violence and despite all our best efforts to convince her to get to safety, she stays. Because this happens, unfortunately.
She learns that she is pregnant and tells me she fears that if she does not get an abortion one of two things will happen. 1 the baby will become a punching bag, maybe even killed by said husband/boyfriend/significant other.Or 2 he will cause a miscarriage from beating her. Apart from, again, begging her to run for her life, should I support her decision to abort or not? Which is following the Golden Rule?

Another scenario. My baby niece is raped at 10. And of course I want to string up the monster who did that to her by his balls and leave him to rot. Anyway she falls pregnant, the doctors say she should get an abortion so her insides aren't torn to ****ing shreds. Her parents are against the idea, as they are very pious and consider it a sin. So now I have two choices in front of me.
Get the child a medically necessary abortion against the parents wishes but ultimately for her own good or allow the pregnancy to go to term like the parents want and hope that she survives the birthing process without physical or mental scars (which is highly unlikely.)
So which is following the Golden Rule?

Another scenario. A girlfriend of mine and her fiance are overjoyed at her being pregnant. But during pregnancy they discover the fetus has a hole in it's heart. Now they could potentially save it, but it doesn't exactly have a large chance for surviving the birthing process, let alone a post natal surgery. They decide to abort and try again (much) later.
Is that following the Golden Rule?

On last scenario. My sister has cancer. She already has 2 kids, the father is a good hardworking bloke, but is a miner and has to work in another state to support his family.
She falls pregnant but the doctors tell her that she will die unless she aborts. She tells me that she is going through with the pregnancy, regardless. Should I advise her against such an option? Or should I allow her to go through with it, without interjecting my concerns for her well being?
Which is following the Golden Rule?

As for going back in the womb if I am pro choice, what balderdash (hehe I like that word.) The fetus is not a person, it's a potential person. I support choice and in many scenarios abortion is a mercy to said fetus. So why should I get aborted if I am pro choice, exactly?

Would you employ the term, "Let's mind our own business" to the termination of a toddler's life? What about a late term abortion?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Abortion should remain legal. The government should not be enabled to force a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy. As for the unborn in question ... Are acorns oak trees? Are flower seeds flowers? Are Sturgeon eggs Sturgeon? Are tadpoles frogs? If you give this an ounce of thought the logical line of reason and line of questioning becomes apparent. Will acorns become oak trees? Will flower seeds become flowers? Will sturgeon eggs become fish? Will tadpoles become frogs? Will babies become a toddlers? Will toddlers become teens? Will teens become adults? Will adults become seniors? Will human fertilized eggs become human babies? Absolutely! So why are fetus' not referred to as human beings? Fetus' are undeniably human beings. They are simply going through developmental processes. We all are. We're just further along than a fetus. We're further along than babies. We're further along than toddlers. Most of us are further along than teens. We may consider ourselves to be grown adults, but our developmental processes are not nearly complete. We too are in the process of further development.


Why then should abortion be legal? My view is because of the fact that a woman should retain the right to choose and determine what happens to her own body. The fact that a pregnant woman's body is being shared and depended on by another human being is moot. A woman should not be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy by our government or by anyone else. The woman gets to decide. It's that simple! The issue needs a new direction I think. It needs new life breathed into its nostrils! The issue needs to develop and evolve until a feasible solution is reached. 1. Woman need to be truthfully educated to ensure they understand the reality of a human being living in their womb before allowed to undergo an abortion procedure. 2. Responsibility as well as accountability needs to be strongly encouraged by our government and by the parents in this nation for our children's sake. 3. Initiatives to help limit abortions need to be brought to the table and placed under scrutiny. This is no longer in the arena of government control. The choice to abort a pregnancy needs to stand firm. The moral aspects needs to fall directly on those who choose to abort unwanted pregnancies.

You have an interesting point there. Seeds may be destined to be flowers unless they are devoured.

However, I've never sought to comfort expecting moms who miscarry by saying, "Fetuses aren't human beings," indeed, I would agree with them and you that a miscarrying mom has lost a baby, not a "thing".

The rest of your post is intriguing and thought provoking. I'd encourage you to explore your own semantics, however, if I can say so to you respectfully. For example, you used the term "A woman should not be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy" and so on. Again, a mother grieving over a miscarriage is not the person to tell, "At least you don't have to endure your wanted pregnancy any longer." Note that you are valuing the pregnancy in these cases by whether one is wanted or unwanted. How does that change the essential and the potential value of the human life? Would you ever tell a five-year-old child, "You were unwanted, therefore you are of less value now. We didn't really want to have you but we and the world got stuck with you!"

Of course you wouldn't do so.

 

[dust1n]

Abortion violates the golden rule, for each person here should they return to the womb today would not wish to be aborted but to live.

Not really. If my had wanted to have an abortion, why would I care now, and especially why would I have cared then?

 

[dust1n]

How would ending the life of that be the functional equivalent to killing a child?

 

[columbus]

Are you saying the Bible is silent on the issue of killing

On this subject the Bible is not silent. But it is noticeably vague about what killing is condoned and what killings are not.
They were primitive people without our millennium of moral development. Women, children, and especially foreigners just weren't much considered. Moses started his career as a Man of God with a murder. That wasn't considered a moral issue because the dead guy was Egyptian.

or terminating life and potential life?

The Bible is definitely silent on these issues. Nothing about either one, the authors and audience probably wouldn't know what you were talking about if you asked. Their language didn't even have words for the concepts.
Did you read the chapters of Judges I mentioned?
If you do you will plainly see what the ancient Israelites thought about the value of women and children.

You are imposing your modern morality, based mainly on secular humanism, onto the Bible. But it is nowhere to be found there, if you actually read it.
Tom

 

[Cephus]

Are you saying the Bible is silent on the issue of killing or terminating life and potential life?

Actually, the Bible is quite clear that living people are much more important than fetuses.

 

[SomeRandom]

Would you employ the term, "Let's mind our own business" to the termination of a toddler's life? What about a late term abortion?

A toddler is NOT a fetus. It is a viable life that lives outside of the womb and does not necessarily have to rely on the body of the mother to survive. False equivocation is false.

Late Term abortions are the most medically necessary abortions. If by "mind my own business" you mean allow a medical professional to consult and give treatment to his patient, which are in keeping with her best interests, then yes yes I would. Since you're oh so big on "The Golden Rule" you must want other random people to come in and interfere with your medical decisions, right? Do tell me when your next doctor's appointment is, so I may make your decision for you.
Elective late term abortions, I personally do not agree with for a second. But I'm not going to make that decision for other women. Again, on the specific issue of abortion I am pro choice. Not just pro choice only when I agree with that choice.

Let me be perfectly clear for a moment. Whilst I do not like abortion any more than the Pro Life crowd, I do not consider the "rights" of an unborn fetus to trump the rights of the mother at any time.

 

[ZenMonkey]

You have an interesting point there. Seeds may be destined to be flowers unless they are devoured.

However, I've never sought to comfort expecting moms who miscarry by saying, "Fetuses aren't human beings," indeed, I would agree with them and you that a miscarrying mom has lost a baby, not a "thing".

The rest of your post is intriguing and thought provoking. I'd encourage you to explore your own semantics, however, if I can say so to you respectfully. For example, you used the term "A woman should not be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy" and so on. Again, a mother grieving over a miscarriage is not the person to tell, "At least you don't have to endure your wanted pregnancy any longer." Note that you are valuing the pregnancy in these cases by whether one is wanted or unwanted. How does that change the essential and the potential value of the human life? Would you ever tell a five-year-old child, "You were unwanted, therefore you are of less value now. We didn't really want to have you but we and the world got stuck with you!"

Of course you wouldn't do so.

I see your point. Thank you. Instead of saying a woman should not be forced to endure and unwanted pregnancy, it would be better stated this way - A woman should not be forced to give birth to a child against her will. That not only covers pregnancy, but it doesn't devalue children. Good points. Much appreciated.

 

[Sundance]

Nope. You are confused about something, because this objection doesn't speak to bodily autonomy. Of course a woman is free to "allow" the use of her body to anyone, including a fetus, a man, a child, a homeless person, etc.. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, as bodily autonomy is not infringed upon in any way if the woman allows the use of her body. Bodily autonomy only comes into play when the woman is FORCED to give up the use of her body AGAINST HER WILL.

Against HER will? Last I checked, A woman was the one who made the choice. Hm, I guess since people want to discuss the concept of “choice”, that's the problem.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not really. If my had wanted to have an abortion, why would I care now, and especially why would I have cared then?

Is that a "What I don't know someone has done isn't wrong" argument?

Because if I didn't know my friend was a rapist...

 

[BilliardsBall]

How would ending the life of that be the functional equivalent to killing a child?

If it isn't, why does it remain a debate to decide whether killing a pregnant woman is one charge or two? Killing a seed isn't killing a tree, that's why. It's killing a potential tree? And when the baby is the size of the photo you show, most people who miscarry grieve the loss of a baby, not the loss of a thing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

On this subject the Bible is not silent. But it is noticeably vague about what killing is condoned and what killings are not.
They were primitive people without our millennium of moral development. Women, children, and especially foreigners just weren't much considered. Moses started his career as a Man of God with a murder. That wasn't considered a moral issue because the dead guy was Egyptian.


The Bible is definitely silent on these issues. Nothing about either one, the authors and audience probably wouldn't know what you were talking about if you asked. Their language didn't even have words for the concepts.
Did you read the chapters of Judges I mentioned?
If you do you will plainly see what the ancient Israelites thought about the value of women and children.

You are imposing your modern morality, based mainly on secular humanism, onto the Bible. But it is nowhere to be found there, if you actually read it.
Tom

I've read Judges, the entire book, multiple times. Have you read Jesus Christ's comments and actions as recorded in the NT regarding women and children?

The Bible is neither silent on murder nor on other types of killing (like self-defense for health reasons, preserving one's life).

 

[BilliardsBall]

A toddler is NOT a fetus. It is a viable life that lives outside of the womb and does not necessarily have to rely on the body of the mother to survive. False equivocation is false.

Late Term abortions are the most medically necessary abortions. If by "mind my own business" you mean allow a medical professional to consult and give treatment to his patient, which are in keeping with her best interests, then yes yes I would. Since you're oh so big on "The Golden Rule" you must want other random people to come in and interfere with your medical decisions, right? Do tell me when your next doctor's appointment is, so I may make your decision for you.
Elective late term abortions, I personally do not agree with for a second. But I'm not going to make that decision for other women. Again, on the specific issue of abortion I am pro choice. Not just pro choice only when I agree with that choice.

Let me be perfectly clear for a moment. Whilst I do not like abortion any more than the Pro Life crowd, I do not consider the "rights" of an unborn fetus to trump the rights of the mother at any time.

If elective late term abortions are not appropriate for you, how do you know where your line is? Example, your line is "not more than five months pregnant"? Did you come to that line via a gut instinct, prayer, science or a combination?

My line is "elective abortions are not appropriate after conception unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy".

Thanks.

PS. I agree about the fetus not trumping the mother's life. I just disagree with praying on the weak, which smacks of everything I dislike about social Darwinism and nothing I like about the Lord's teachings concerning helping the weak.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Um, is there a fixed opinion in when the "thing" inside the womb is actually alive?

If there is not, then common sense says abortion kills a life.

I'm not saying anything here, I'm thinking loud. Thoughts?

 

[Marisa]

Um, is there a fixed opinion in when the "thing" inside the womb is actually alive?

No. Medical science has nothing to say on the issue. That's why this issue will never be resolved.

If there is not, then common sense says abortion kills a life.

Life. Not "a" life. In almost any other conversation, most people would agree that being "a" life requires sentience and viability. Now that I've said that, cue up the comparison between an embryo, which has neither, and a comatose person which once possessed both (and whose organs cannot be harvested unless previously sanctioned by the patient, or the patient's duly appointed representative).

I'm not saying anything here, I'm thinking loud. Thoughts?

Thinking = good.

 

[dust1n]

If it isn't, why does it remain a debate to decide whether killing a pregnant woman is one charge or two? Killing a seed isn't killing a tree, that's why. It's killing a potential tree?

Possibly because inducing an abortion on someone else against their will is morally wrong? Speaking of potential trees, have you been saving your sperm at the bank? If you've masturbated once and didn't save it, you killed more potentials for life than the entirety of all abortions in American in a given year. Actually, even if you've never masturbated, you allowing millions of potential lives to die by not going to freeze them immediately. Step too it.

And when the baby is the size of the photo you show, most people who miscarry grieve the loss of a baby, not the loss of a thing.

There's no such thing as a baby that size. A baby, be definition is birthed. There's are many, many, physiological differences between a new born infant, and a zygote. Makes sense to me to grieve the loss of a potential life. That doesn't make grieving over a zygote and grieving over someone who just lost their kid to SIDs functional equivalents of one another.