It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can Abortion be considered the mother's choice, who asks the baby's opinion?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Here's another point to consider.

Nature operates on the principle of reduntant excess when it comes to reproduction. Every multi-celled organism, especially those that reproduce sexually, produces far more gametes than can survive to maturity. A tree, for example, releases many many seeds, which are carried by the wind or animals or whatever away from the tree. Every one of these seeds is alive. Most of them don't sprout -- that is, they die without sprouting. Of those that do sprout, most don't grow to mature trees -- that is, they die as saplings. Only a tiny minority reach the status of full-fledged trees.

Humans use a different reproductive strategy than trees, but the same principle applies. We produce far more sperm and ova than can be allowed to come to maturity. Every one of these cells is human and alive.

The vast majority of them must die before coming to maturity.

They may die before joining together in conception. They may die in the gestation process. Or they may die in childhood. But die they must. That's how nature operates.

If one operates on a value of minimizing suffering, which I think is a good one, then it is clearly best to get the dying done as early in the process as possible. A child clearly suffers if it dies of a childhood disease or an accident or murder. An embryo does not suffer if it is aborted or miscarried, but its parents do. When an ovum is flushed down the toilet once a month, neither the ovum itself nor the mother suffers from that death. That last, then -- the prevention of untenable pregnancies -- is the best. But what happens when the attempt to achieve the best fails? Abortion is better than a death in childhood. Or so it seems to me.




posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
TwoStepsForward, your argument is flawless. Quality post.

Abortion IS the mother's choice. There is no baby whose opinion can be sought, and since when are we delegating important social decisions to infants? Anyone who wishes to force someone to carry an unwanted child is committing a far greater crime than the mother who has to make the difficult choice.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Abortion isn't natural though..it is the intrusive unnatural razing of the forrests of life.

Misscariage is natural, childhood illness and death a reality of natural selection as well.

That is why the "Biblical" view to take that statement about if someone assaults a woman and she miscarries, but she is otherwise fine, then just let him be fined...

that is becuase the attacker is not intentionally laying the woman down to extract the baby within her and kill it...

miscarriage happens-God knows this, the universe knows this and sceintific man knows this-it's a natural occurrance. Sometimes due to trauma and other times because of illness, disease or unknown reasons for which the pregnancy is not viable.

Natures way of helping with that whole population problem

many women even miscarry and don't know it....it's common and natural.

Abortion is simply not. You will not see plants and animals performing abortive measures...though nature regulates them as well...and some even eat their young! (understandable)

So, that being said, I will again state FTR it is a woman's choice.

Regarding asking the child, it is absurd to think anyone willing to come to this existance would relish the idea of someone ripping the opportunity from them, so it is a given if it is a viable pregnancy, that baby obviously has the will to live, voiced by the progression of the pregnancy...if it is not the baby's will to live, nor God's nor the universe, then it will naturally come to an end.

The silent vote of the baby is in it's will to live.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
Regarding asking the child, it is absurd to think anyone willing to come to this existance would relish the idea of someone ripping the opportunity from them.


An embryo at conception doesn't have a will. It doesn't have an opinion. It doesn't relish the idea of dying, it doesn't fear it, it doesn't have any view on it whatsoever. Not only is it impossible to ask the embryo's opinion, but it has no opinion to be asked.

All of these things are emergent properties, dependent on the development of the brain, which hasn't occurred at conception.

Many of the inflammatory phrases used to describe abortion by its oppents -- such as "killing babies" -- are factually inaccurate for that reason. Abortion, unless performed near the end of pregnancy (which is a separate issue), does not kill a "baby," because the embryo is not yet a baby, any more than an acorn is an oak tree.

What we have in this dispute is not a clash of values but one of factual opinions. I think everyone would agree that the value of a woman's right to determine her own reproductive fate, although important, does not outweigh the value of not murdering a child. And if it were agreed -- if it were not demonstrably untrue -- that an embryo in the first trimester was a "child," then everyone would be opposed to abortion and want to see it illegal, just as child-murder is illegal.

But an embryo in the first trimester is NOT a child, and abortion is NOT murdering a child. And value of a woman's right to determine her own reproductive fate DOES outweigh the value of adding another child to the world.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
An embryo at conception doesn't have a will. It doesn't have an opinion. It doesn't relish the idea of dying, it doesn't fear it, it doesn't have any view on it whatsoever. Not only is it impossible to ask the embryo's opinion, but it has no opinion to be asked.


You are basing this on your belief that a spirit does not exist, or cannot think. ok, whatever, I accept your opinion and belief but I disagree.

To get Biblical about God even says "I knew thee before I formed thee in the womb"

So, I and many others believe differently. You can say factually the baby doesn't have a brain to think or have an opinion, but it doesn't negate the beliefs of those who believe in spirits, that they do have opinion and a will. A free will-to choose to come to this world-to take physical form etc.

There is no way to "prove" which one of us is right.

Also, I again state FTR I believe in a woman's right to choose.

but I think she out to be well educated on what she is choosing to do. stopping life, ending life etc...it is life-we agree on that don't we TSF? That those those cells, all that fetal tissue and bundles of cells are alive and reproducing with intent to become a baby, right?

I mean it's not like a D&C of dead tissue, it's the extraction of viable living tissue, correct? Life.

As for the "killing of babies" well it may seem dramatic or extreme to call it that...but that is an example of the difference between the Biblical view of a miscarriage being different than an abortion where the intent was to kill the baby.

Besides that, to get into semantics even weed killer is used to inhibit growth and thus considered to be killing it-weeds-not comparing babies to weeds so don't go there, just talking about how rediculous it is to thinking stopping life AFTER it has begun, could be considered no more "killing a baby" than if the viable pregnancy had been properly prevented through contraceptive measures.

Abortion simply cannot be seen as contraception because it nips life in the bud because it isn't a "baby"..."yet" etc...which is what your stand would seem to want to lead us to nearly believe...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
Natures way of helping with that whole population problem

many women even miscarry and don't know it....it's common and natural.

Abortion is simply not. You will not see plants and animals performing abortive measures...though nature regulates them as well...and some even eat their young! (understandable)


So animals perform 'natural' abortion by killing/rejecting their offspring.

How this is less cruel than 'unnatural' abortion is beyond me.

It all hinges on what you define as natural. You have a definition which seems to inform your opinion on this. This is your entitlement as much as it is the entitlement of the mother to make her choice (which, to your credit, you have stated is the case) without fear of reprisal.

I'm a bit wary of bringing biblical references into this (as other posters have) as those refs tend to be quite ambiguous, although I happen to agree with the 'first breath of life' idea. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable with the bias the Bible tends to give to people who are not in our plane of existence.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut

So animals perform 'natural' abortion by killing/rejecting their offspring.

How this is less cruel than 'unnatural' abortion is beyond me.


I didn't say it wasn't cruel! But it's also not "abortion". To abort something is to stop it from completing it's mission. The bundles of cells at conception have the mission of becoming a baby-to abort it stops that.


It all hinges on what you define as natural.
well I was making reference to the post about trees in the natural world etc and so also spoke of the wild kingdom as that is considered of nature thus "natural"


I'm a bit wary of bringing biblical references into this (as other posters have) as those refs tend to be quite ambiguous, although I happen to agree with the 'first breath of life' idea.


Well I bring up the Bible since other's have, but it is NOT what I base my personal opinion on, though I see many references which back my opinion up in it. Like for instance the idea of "first breath" being the begining of life vs "I knew thee before I formed thee in the womb" to back up my belief we do exist even as spirits prior to obtaining physical form.

SO if you put the two together for the "big picture" folks, even Biblically it is spelled out. That even though the physical form and spirit may not be united until "first breath" making them wholly alive, body, mind and spirit, it doesn't negate the fact both the baby's body is physically alive in the womb, just as the spirit is alive in God's presence, known by God before it takes residence becoming one with it's body-becoming "whole" in life with first breath.

People take a fraction of the truth and adopt it as a whole....you have to see the bigger picture.

and yes, thank you for acknowledging my stand that FTR I believe a woman has and should have the right to choose...free will...NOTHING and NOONE should dictate what a woman does with her body or unborn child.

I also vehemenatly oppose forcing shame on unwed women who choose to have a baby, and likewise oppose forcing them to give up their babies for adoption...EDUCATION AND CHOICE PEOPLE leads to the least regrets.




[edit on 1-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by think2much

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
An embryo at conception doesn't have a will. It doesn't have an opinion. It doesn't relish the idea of dying, it doesn't fear it, it doesn't have any view on it whatsoever. Not only is it impossible to ask the embryo's opinion, but it has no opinion to be asked.


You are basing this on your belief that a spirit does not exist, or cannot think.


I haven't said anything about my spiritual beliefs here. But there are certain objective, demonstrable facts with which beliefs must accord. One of those facts is that the brain is responsible for thinking and feeling. It may not be (and I don't think it is) the source of consciousness (meaning subjective experience), but it certainly is the vehicle by which human consciousness experiences the world, and is the source of personality. We see that in observations of brain trauma, in such phenomena as "split-brain disorder" where the tissue connecting left and right hemispheres is severed, in the loss of personality and identity in advanced Alzheimer's disease.

If there is an individual spirit, it is still dependent on the brain for manifestation in the mortal world. While that brain is nonfunctional (or nonexistent), as with an embryo in the first trimester, the spirit can receive no input from it, cognitive, sensory, or affective, and therefore the connection between the spirit and the body is not what it will become later on.

This is simply another way of saying what I said earlier. The fact of the brain's nonexistence (except as a genetic blueprint) in early gestation has consequences which are objectively verifiable and unavoidable, regardless of what spiritual beliefs one may have. In any case, the spirit (if it exists) is immune to abortion; it is immortal and indestructible, at least by mortal and earthly forces. As such, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion.



To get Biblical about God even says "I knew thee before I formed thee in the womb"


Which obviously refers to something beginning before, not at, conception. God being a timeless entity, of course He would have knowledge prior to our own experience of events in time. This is another statement of the same sort as, "Before Abraham was, I am." In no way does it say anything about the status of that entity forming in the womb, beyond the fact that God knew it before it existed.



There is no way to "prove" which one of us is right.


On the contrary. All objective data show that I am right here, and you are mistaken.



Also, I again state FTR I believe in a woman's right to choose.


I am frankly curious as to why you do, though. If an embryo is a human being, then killing one is murder. Doesn't murder outweigh a woman's right to choose?

I believe in a woman's right to choose because I DON'T believe an embryo is a human being and so DON'T believe killing one is murder. If I believed as you do, I would be anti-abortion.



it is life-we agree on that don't we TSF? That those those cells, all that fetal tissue and bundles of cells are alive and reproducing with intent to become a baby, right?


I'm not sure I would say "intent," but potential, definitely. And there's no question whatever that it's alive.



I mean it's not like a D&C of dead tissue, it's the extraction of viable living tissue, correct? Life.


Yes. But as I said earlier, "life" is not the question. The question is when we call that life a human being.



Abortion simply cannot be seen as contraception because it nips life in the bud because it isn't a "baby"..."yet" etc...which is what your stand would seem to want to lead us to nearly believe...


Abortion is not contraception, true. Both are interruptions of the reproductive process, but abortion interrupts the process at least one step further along than contraception does. And I agree it should be taken more seriously for that reason. But I also believe that there is a huge difference between an abortion performed in the first trimester and one performed later on, especially in the last trimester. A fetus right before birth and a newborn baby are physiologically almost identical. But both are far removed from an embryo in early gestation.

I don't have a problem with restrictions on late-term abortion, provided of course that the mother's health is considered. But the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. And there is no reason to regard these abortions in the same way we would infanticide.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
On the contrary. All objective data show that I am right here, and you are mistaken.


You do crack me up-but in a good way, so it's all good.

I don't have much time right now, so I am just going to TRY to be brief and perhaps come back and discuss this more with you later as I appreciate your tone and form.

What my point is , is that though we can factually know a physical baby-in-the-making can not think or have opinion without a brain, one still cannot cannot prove, only speculate that either the spirit does not exist, or that the spirit cannot think for itself or have cognitive funtions that would bind it to it's will for it's body etc...as if it had no rights or choices.

Free will and choice is an eternal principle and concept to many of us, but this is nothing that can be proven scientifically, or understood without spiritual belief, for which there is not difinitive proof, just belief, which is why I say we cannot know who is right in claiming the baby cannot have an opinion...the cells and brainless body forming can't-yes...but the "baby"- as in it's consciousness which exists before the body ever started to take form...that "being"- could very well have an opinion on the matter indeed.



I am frankly curious as to why you do, though. If an embryo is a human being, then killing one is murder. Doesn't murder outweigh a woman's right to choose?

I believe in a woman's right to choose because I DON'T believe an embryo is a human being and so DON'T believe killing one is murder. If I believed as you do, I would be anti-abortion.


Thank you for clarifying your stand. I think (as in IMHO) quite often it is much easier for people who support choice, to then epmphatically deny conception = a baby, and instead often rationalize that until that baby can think or feel, having a brain, arms and legs and a functional body, it has no rights, no consciousness because it's physical form cannot yet spoort that logical consciousness etc...therefor it doesn't really "count" as a baby and can be dismissed as naught.

I find so many cases of women who once thought it was "just a mass of cells" regretting painfully their choice to abort...why is that? I can only assume perhaps the spiritual reality, and the connection only a mother can have with life within her haunts her, so to speak, because of her choice having rammifications beyond the physical world...

the connection a woman can feel with life, goes beyond a connection with a bundle of cells

seems to me then women often suffer regret as their choice affected the spirit that belonged to that mass of cells-the spirit still somehow linked to it's mother.

To make abortion seem like a viable choice, it is easier to think of the baby -the person....the entity, as nothing yet...just a bundle of cells, and while physically it may be true, and while cells cannot voice choice, I know I have a consciousness which is true and believe it began well before I was formed in the womb.

Anyway, I support choice because it is a woman's body, it is a woman's life, it is a hard decision, a personal one, moral one, etc.

I am not here to judge a woman in this life for her choices...if laws of the land are broken there are consequences, so are there eternal consequences for all of our actions-let her consequences be her own I say-free will-even the right to make mistakes shouldn't be taken from us.

Yes, I do believe abortion is wrong personally, but I do not judge a woman for it-it is not my place to judge another's choice or their exercise of free-will, as it is my opinion that free will is what life is about...acting of our own accord and accepting the consequences...come what may.

Murder is wrong and against the law, and takes the active free will of living from another away-I am against abortion, murder, and I also do not support the death penalty...but I do believe in choice. People have the right to choose to be murders-but there will be consequences.





[edit on 1-3-2006 by think2much]

[edit on 1-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
What my point is , is that though we can factually know a physical baby-in-the-making can not think or have opinion without a brain, one still cannot cannot prove, only speculate that either the spirit does not exist, or that the spirit cannot think for itself or have cognitive funtions that would bind it to it's will for it's body etc...as if it had no rights or choices.


Well, nor can we prove that the evil presence of a hostile extraterrestrial with telepathic powers isn't watching the whole process and designing said person-in-the-making as a fifth column for taking over the earth, and that if said fetus is NOT aborted, the earth will find itself invaded by intelligent preying mantises and humanity reduced to a slave and a food source forever.

We can make up all kinds of things about which there is no proof, in support of any position we want, but in the end we have go by the evidence we have. And all the evidence we have says that, absent a brain with which to do it, an embryo will feel and experience nothing from the process, no pain, no loss, no regrets. This is the evidence in support of my position; so far as I know, there is no evidence at all in support of yours.



Free will and choice is an eternal principle and concept to many of us, but this is nothing that can be proven scientifically


That's because it's not a scientific question; not a question of fact, but rather a question of values. We do not "know" that free will and choice is an important precept; we DECIDE that it shall be. This is not an act of observation or reasoning. It is an act of will.

But values questions, although they cannot be directly answered by science, must be informed by science; they must not fly in the face of science, by assuming an objective reality that is contrary to known fact. For example, if it were impossible for people to decide freely (as some psychologists have asserted -- wrongly, it turns out), then the concept of free will and choice would be meaningless.

Similarly, there is nothing amiss morally with a position that says murder is wrong. We value a woman's right to determine her own life, but we do not excuse her, say, murdering her father in order to get the inheritance she needs to attend the college of her choice. And, if an embryo in the first trimester of pregnancy is a human being, then aborting it is murder, and we should not excuse that, either. But this turns upon questions of fact, facts about the nervous system, the brain, and fetal development. A woman's right to determine her own life does not excuse murder, but it does excuse the decision not to bear children, and that means it excuses abortion in the first trimester, because an early-stage embryo is not a human being.



but the "baby"- as in it's consciousness which exists before the body ever started to take form


There is absolutely no evidence that this is so, in any form meaningful to the discussion, and much evidence that it is not so.

I agree that consciousness cannot be reduced to a biological function. However, memory, thought, emotion, and personality all can be. Consciousness is not any of these things, but it is these things that define an individual human being. And so, while in some trans-personal sense, the point of subjective awareness that will eventually become a baby' consciousness pre-exists its cerebral development, the baby's memories, thoughts, emotions, and personality do not. Any consciousness that exists in early development must therefore be an unclothed and unformed consciousness. Personality, like the body, is something that the soul wears. It is temporal, not eternal, and physical, not spiritual.

Let me put it this way. If you are subjected to an anesthetic drug, can you not undergo serious injury, even to the point of having your abdominal cavity cut open or your breastbone hacked in two, or a limb sawed off, or your skull sawed open, without pain? And when you emerge from the drug's effects, will you not be without memory of what was done to your body while you were under?

If this is what happens w/r/t the brain after birth, why should we believe that it would be any different before birth?



I find so many cases of women who once thought it was "just a mass of cells" regretting painfully their choice to abort...why is that? I can only assume perhaps the spiritual reality, and the connection only a mother can have with life within her haunts her


There are at least two other explanations which require fewer assumptions than that one.

First, she is responding to her biological programming. Whatever the practical realities, we (especially women) are instinctively reproductive animals. Losing a pregnancy causes feelings of regret on a hormonal level, even if it was by choice. That's natural.

Second, the decision to abort shut down a potential timeline in which the baby was born. All of those possible futures are now gone, and there is plenty of potential there for regret, just as with a love affair not pursued, or a career choice not taken.

In any case, it says much about the mental state of the woman, and about human psychology, but nothing about the objective reality of abortion itself.



Anyway, I support choice because it is a woman's body, it is a woman's life, it is a hard decision, a personal one, moral one, etc.

I am not here to judge a woman in this life for her choices


You see, this is where it becomes a little harder to believe. Going back to the example of the woman who murders her father for the inheritance money, I doubt you would have any problem judging her for that choice. If called upon to do so, and if you had knowledge, I'm sure you would be willing to testify to the crime in a court of law, knowing that she would be punished for it. And if there were a question of legally allowing people to murder their parents for the inheritance, I'm sure you would be among the voices against that change in law.

But this is a question without uncertainty. We know that her father is a human being. We know that killing him is murder. We know, then, that this action is seriously wrong, according to the values that we agree upon.

And if you had a similar degree of certainty about the stature of an embryo in the early stages of development, I do not think you would be pro-choice. Since you are pro-choice, I must conclude that you see your belief in the human-beingness of an embryo differently, and far less certainly, than your belief in the human-beingness of a wealthy father.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
We can make up all kinds of things about which there is no proof, in support of any position we want, but in the end we have go by the evidence we have.


well historically, religion and spirituality has been seen as viable by the masses, and alien conspiracies...um... not so much, so in my opinion apples and oranges to make that comparrision there.

Beyond that, I am not "making things up" these are my religious and philosophical positions regardless of the "abortion dabate" which by the way, I am coming here not to debate, but express my opinion. Not trying to change your view, or disprove your logic , I do dispute it's validity to ME, in MHO. it's that simple.


And all the evidence we have says that, absent a brain with which to do it, an embryo will feel and experience nothing from the process, no pain, no loss, no regrets.


What evidence are you citing? You keep speaking about the brain, and about how it would be murder if the fetus were more than a mass of brainless cells etc, but in that, your scientific view fails you or you'll have to be extra subjective and opinionated about when the brain is then fully functional, when it is viable to "feel" pain, regret consciousness etc...and I do NOT think anyone has the science to prove when that is.

I can agree that physical pain may be avoided without a brain to process it but then what are you thinking...what is your knowledge of human development-that suddenly in the 13th week of pregnancy a brain suddenly appears? That until that magical second trimester, the fetus sans brain it is not a baby, a person, an entity with feeling or thought or consciousness?

Well, let me just give you some indisputable biologically correct scientific fact you are so fond of. The embryo’s heart begins to beat by day twenty-one. By the 5th week the brain has developed into 5 areas and cranial nerves are visible. At this time, the spinal cord is growing faster than the rest of the body as well. Brain...spine...movement...by the 5th week.

So, I don't know where you get your idea a tiny baby-a fetus, with a brain and spinal cord can't feel pain, or be "aware" of things.

Just some more FYI, by 8 weeks they are "swimming around" so to speak, wiggling whatever they have-because they can.

They simply are not brainless masses of cells for very long as you've been led to believe, or would like to lead others to believe you see. Do you understand that if you are going to try to use SM and cite the existance of brain=pain and loss then a 5week fetus can reasonably be assumed to know such pain and loss then-because biologically they have the brain matter, spines etc to do so.

Now, as for MPO I will vehemenantly disagree you have ANY proof that sans brain for the body, a spirit can not experience loss anyway. I'd say without a brain that physical pain could be avoided, and though I wouldn't say regret as it isn't the baby's choice to be aborted, I'd still say loss, grief etc can be experienced by consciousness seperate from the brain.


This is the evidence in support of my position; so far as I know, there is no evidence at all in support of yours.


Well, I don't know about your "evidence" but if you want some scientific biological facts on fetal development
click here

As for my other personal opinions, there is plenty "evidence" of support to be found in philosophy, spirituality and religion-proof or scientific evidence- no, but sound reasonable support for my beliefs, absolutely.



But values questions, although they cannot be directly answered by science, must be informed by science; they must not fly in the face of science, by assuming an objective reality that is contrary to known fact.


Well, then, again, I refer you to the link above.



Similarly, there is nothing amiss morally with a position that says murder is wrong. We value a woman's right to determine her own life, but we do not excuse her, say, murdering her father in order to get the inheritance she needs to attend the college of her choice.


It is a matter of legality as for what is "excusable" or allowable in our society. Murder of someone born, say one's father, is not allowed, condoned, nor normally excusable. Murder of someone unborn is allowed, and by many condoned and thus no excuse necessary. It might not live up to your scientific method, nor morality-but it is legally sound, justifiable etc. So then the only way to rationalize it I would guess would to be to say the unborn isn't a person with feelings, thought, or rights...or at least not in the first trimester.

but thats like having your cake and eating it to. Getting to support both abortion choice, and life...just like me.


You do it by saying you do not believe it is a baby in the first trimester, therefor first trimesters are an abortion of unwanted tissue-nothing else. Anything else, like late term abortion, partial birth abortion etc is however wrong, murder etc and if proved that life in the first trimester could feel and think, thus be considered a "being" instead of a "mass of cells" this would change you view on abortion entirely...so you say....however until then, it's "A-Ok"


And, if an embryo in the first trimester of pregnancy is a human being, then aborting it is murder, and we should not excuse that, either.


Yes, but if that is your sole arguement, it will always be subject to opinion anyway. There are facts -science-to prove both sides of the opinions. You decide to excuse it for one reason, I agree to allow it for another. I don't judge, nor excuse the actions.

Likewise, if called to testify on a murder case, I would rule for the law, however I would not seek the dealth penalty. SPeaking of law and life...here's something I accidentally came upon you might appreciate re: is it murder, is it life? Prosecuting someone who intentionally or unintentionallly kills a first trimester fetus when battering or murdering someone these days in California law. 1st trimester murder

Well, anyway, besides my reasons and opinions, the facts are there. The scientific facts, and people CHOOSE what to do with those facts and people on both sides decide what science to go with. Fact is, plenty of scientists and doctors, even previous abortion Dr's and clinic workers trained to mislead those undergoing the proceedure of abortion, including not letting them see the baby, calling it tissue, reasurring there is no pain involved, and not letting them see the fetal movements during sonogram etc, will state it is in fact a human being, moving, feeling and thinking, but is referred as a mass of cells to reasurre all those involved and in attempt to placate those opposed


A woman's right to determine her own life does not excuse murder, but it does excuse the decision not to bear children, and that means it excuses abortion in the first trimester, because an early-stage embryo is not a human being.


Whatever you need to tell yourself




There is absolutely no evidence that this is so, in any form meaningful to the discussion, and much evidence that it is not so.


I don't see much evidence to the contrary at all really. Nothing you've given me-sorry. As for evidence meaningful to this discussion, well I feel my opinions, beliefs, and the fact it mirrors many's in their philosophical, religious, or spiritual beliefs is meaninglfu to this discussion as a whole on this thread, as it is my view on answering a PHILOSPOHICAL question as to an unborn baby's opinion.

Your scientific answer, lacks credibility to me, as my phiolosphical one lacks credibility to you. You think you have more scientific fact to back you up, but I see scientific fact of life in the first trimester as confirming it is indeed a being. So we will have to agree to disagree, all the while supporting the right to choose, how odd, eh?


I agree that consciousness cannot be reduced to a biological function.


Wow, we agreed.



However, memory, thought, emotion, and personality all can be. Consciousness is not any of these things, but it is these things that define an individual human being. And so, while in some trans-personal sense, the point of subjective awareness that will eventually become a baby' consciousness pre-exists its cerebral development, the baby's memories, thoughts, emotions, and personality do not. Any consciousness that exists in early development must therefore be an unclothed and unformed consciousness.


Again, you are asuming something you think you have facts to back up but it is merely your opinion and I disagree. I do believe our personality is unique before we are ever born, and though we may evolve due to our conscious surroundings, and be molded by our environments, and genetics certainly must be considered, still I do not believe as we pre-exist we are without personality.

For one example, though it is religious, there is the war in heaven where 1/3rd of the hosts fell from grace, the devil was cast from heaven by an archangel etc...there was division...conflict, opinions,...this would require conscious thought and varied personalities.


Personality, like the body, is something that the soul wears. It is temporal, not eternal, and physical, not spiritual.
I obviously disagree and believe quite the contrary...we are very eternal. I know for a fact, you have no scientific fact to back up your beliefs-but I will respect your beliefs alone on the merit they are your beliefs.



First, she is responding to her biological programming. Whatever the practical realities, we (especially women) are instinctively reproductive animals. Losing a pregnancy causes feelings of regret on a hormonal level, even if it was by choice. That's natural.


Understandable, but my experience I was citing has been in talking with women years upon years after it would be hormonally related as it often is immediately after the baby's death


Second, the decision to abort shut down a potential timeline in which the baby was born. All of those possible futures are now gone, and there is plenty of potential there for regret, just as with a love affair not pursued, or a career choice not taken.


Again an understandable view, but not the one I was citing personal experience with as I have met and spoke in depth with women who are not hormonal but aborted years ago, and do not wonder "What if" or grieve over possibilities lost...

in contrast, they often state they still think they were not ready, fit, or because of other situations (one woman's husband had died , and she could not handle the thought of then having his child, raising it -their second btw-alone without him etc...for many reasons...) able to be a mother at that time in their life...but grive over the fact they know they took the life of a baby. Feel guilt, feel emotional pain etc.

Actually, often it is due to science. Some of these women aborted in the 60's-and 70's early on in their first trimester pregnancies when they were asurred it was a mass of cells, just tissue etc...and later found it wasn't true..that there is scienfic evidence, pictures, reports everywhere now about how viable and feeling that life is...and was within them-and they do indeed feel as though they murdered a baby when they can see the facts in black and white now.


In any case, it says much about the mental state of the woman, and about human psychology, but nothing about the objective reality of abortion itself.


I disagree-I feel they are related. Also, that I can be objective, but the facts speak for themselves and to me, speak contrary to what you seem to believe.


You see, this is where it becomes a little harder to believe. Going back to the example of the woman who murders her father for the inheritance money, I doubt you would have any problem judging her for that choice.


Only if I had to. Then I would judge her according to the law, and appropriate consequences. I don't care what you believe of me, I try not to make judgements on others, even if I believe they are wrong and acting in vile ways. (well, sometimes I judge people as posuers, trolls or annoying-but otherwise...) I am not the law, judge or jury, but if I had to be, I would hopefully judge morally and just according to the law of the land. I'll leave God to judge us as people and the choices we make and how we behave however.


If called upon to do so, and if you had knowledge, I'm sure you would be willing to testify to the crime in a court of law, knowing that she would be punished for it. And if there were a question of legally allowing people to murder their parents for the inheritance, I'm sure you would be among the voices against that change in law.


...no, but I'd want to make sure I had nothing to leave my children!
Seriously though-see above.


But this is a question without uncertainty. We know that her father is a human being. We know that killing him is murder. We know, then, that this action is seriously wrong, according to the values that we agree upon.


See,. there you hit the nail on the head with "according to the values that we agree upon" we just don't agree on the value of human life in the first trimester-that is what it boils down to for you and I at least.



And if you had a similar degree of certainty about the stature of an embryo in the early stages of development, I do not think you would be pro-choice.


You assume me uncertain? Why is that? How have I failed to emphasize my certainty of what I believe? I am quite certain that I believe physical life begins at conception my friend. I feel no need to split hairs about cells, brains, tissue, or trimesters to qualify my beliefs on when life begins. It begin at the begining-conception.


Since you are pro-choice, I must conclude that you see your belief in the human-beingness of an embryo differently, and far less certainly, than your belief in the human-beingness of a wealthy father.


You error. Life is life. Law is law. There is the law of the land and law of the universe and God etc... I am in a position to have an opinion, a belief, and a voice. I unfortunately believe if abortion were illegal, it would continue, then it would become a more dangerous practice once again. We are brought up to understand murder is wrong, we should be educated that abortion is too-both murder and wrong.

I am pro-life and pro-choice. I do not condone abortion-I allow it.







[edit on 2-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
well historically, religion and spirituality has been seen as viable by the masses, and alien conspiracies...um... not so much, so in my opinion apples and oranges to make that comparrision there.


Whether an idea is seen as relevant by the masses has no bearing on whether or not it is true. That's a logical fallacy called "the bandwagon." I'd recommend perusing this web site for more on what constitutes a valid logical argument.

The objective evidence that suffering is possible without a brain is exactly identical to the objective evidence that a particular embryo is a fifth column for malevolent aliens, zero being equal to zero.



Beyond that, I am not "making things up" these are my religious and philosophical positions


Whether you personally made these things up or not, someone did.



which by the way, I am coming here not to debate, but express my opinion. Not trying to change your view, or disprove your logic , I do dispute it's validity to ME, in MHO. it's that simple.


When you express a controversial opinion, you are inviting debate, whether or not that is your intention. If your position is valid only for you, not for anyone else, why express it?



your scientific view fails you or you'll have to be extra subjective and opinionated about when the brain is then fully functional


The knowledge to pinpoint exactly when in development that line is drawn isn't available yet AFAIK, but no, there's no need to be "subjective and opinionated." We know what would be required for that to be true (a functioning cerebral cortex), and we can make some statements about when it is certainly true (in the last month of pregnancy) and when it certainly isn't true (in the first trimester and probably in the second). Somewhere in between those certainties, the key events occur.



Well, let me just give you some indisputable biologically correct scientific fact you are so fond of. The embryo’s heart begins to beat by day twenty-one. By the 5th week the brain has developed into 5 areas and cranial nerves are visible. At this time, the spinal cord is growing faster than the rest of the body as well. Brain...spine...movement...by the 5th week.


None of these facts has any bearing on the question. The heart is simply a blood pump. The brain functions that develop early are involved with control of autonomic functions, and the spinal cord is necessary to facilitate that control. The cerebral cortex is one of the last, if not the last, area of the brain to develop.



Just some more FYI, by 8 weeks they are "swimming around" so to speak, wiggling whatever they have-because they can.


So does a tadpole. So does a fish. So what?

I can understand how seeing these superficial similarities between a fetus in certain stages of development and an actual baby, can produce feelings similar to the feelings produced by an actual baby, but beware of making judgments of fact based on feelings. Feelings are important in making judgments of value, don't get me wrong. But they are inherently misleading in deciding questions of fact.



Now, as for MPO I will vehemenantly disagree you have ANY proof that sans brain for the body, a spirit can not experience loss anyway.


Let's go back to the example of surgery under total anaesthesia. Can the spirit feel the pain of surgery while the cerebral cortex is deactivated by a drug? Or, if not pain, can it experience unease, anxiety, fear, trust in the doctors, confidence, hope for a successful outcome?

If so, why don't we remember any of these things upon coming around?

Again: we know these things about how the mind functions after birth. What reason do we have to believe they function differently before birth?



As for my other personal opinions, there is plenty "evidence" of support to be found in philosophy, spirituality and religion-proof or scientific evidence- no, but sound reasonable support for my beliefs, absolutely.


People who agree with you, you mean. See above regarding the "bandwagon" fallacy.



It is a matter of legality as for what is "excusable" or allowable in our society.


Don't dodge the question, please. This is supposed to be a democracy. You are allowed to disagree with the judgments of law. You are also allowed to agitate to have the law changed. Nobody is going to put you into a concentration camp for doing so; even under Bush, things haven't yet gone that far.

I realize, of course, that the law in every state condemns murder. In my opinion, it should. In your opinion -- with note taken of your disagreement with the death penalty -- should it?

It is also the law of the land, as decided by the Supreme Court, that abortion is legal except in the third trimester. In your opinion, should it be? You've said that it should; if I understand you correctly, you've even extended that beyond where the Roe decision put the line and would allow abortion in the third trimester, which btw I would not, except to protect the mother's life or health. I mean, if it's an unwanted pregnancy, HELLO -- why didn't she do something about it a heck of a lot sooner? But anyway, what's your opinion, not about what the law IS (we know that), but about what it SHOULD be?





There is absolutely no evidence that this is so, in any form meaningful to the discussion, and much evidence that it is not so.


. . . As for evidence meaningful to this discussion


I'm sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying above. Let me rephrase for clarity.

That consciousness exists, in any form meaningful to this discussion, prior to the cerebral cortex coming on line, is something for which there is no evidence, and against which much evidence exists.

The "meaningful to this discussion" qualifier was applied to the idea of consciousness pre-existing the brain, not to the evidence you might present. I do believe that consciousness in some form pre-exists the brain. The evidence for that, is simply that consciousness, being pure subjectivity, cannot be studied scientifically. It inherently cannot be accounted for in terms of brain function. This is a question that science cannot answer because it is a question science cannot even ask.

However, neuroscience CAN account for all OBSERVABLE AND MEASURABLE mental functions. We can account for memory, sensation, cognition, and emotion in terms of neuronic activity. And so these should not be confused with consciousness. It is memory, cognition, and sensation that are pertinent to this discussion, not consciousness stripped of these brain functions. And so, while consciousness in some form does, I believe, pre-exist the brain, it does not do so in a form pertinent to this discussion.




Personality, like the body, is something that the soul wears. It is temporal, not eternal, and physical, not spiritual.
I obviously disagree and believe quite the contrary...we are very eternal. I know for a fact, you have no scientific fact to back up your beliefs


You are mistaken. See above. I do.



Actually, often it is due to science. Some of these women aborted in the 60's-and 70's early on in their first trimester pregnancies when they were asurred it was a mass of cells, just tissue etc...and later found it wasn't true


Ah. So they were misinformed by information similar to what you have provided above. Now I understand.



See,. there you hit the nail on the head with "according to the values that we agree upon" we just don't agree on the value of human life in the first trimester-that is what it boils down to for you and I at least.



No, that's a disagreement about fact, not about values. Let me see if I can clarify the difference here.

A disagreement about values would accrue if I said that murder was NOT wrong. We would agree that the woman who murdered her father killed a human being, but you would say that was morally wrong and I would not agree.

If however I asserted that her father was not really her father at all, but a cleverly-constructed robot taking the place of her father, who actually died of a heart attack years ago, and that she was merely disassembling a robot, not killing a human being -- then that would be a disagreement of fact. We would agree that murder was morally wrong, but disagree about the factual question of whether murder had taken place.

In the matter of first-trimester abortion, we have a disagreement of the second kind. I say that an embryo at that stage, while human and alive, is not a human being, and that consequently killing it is not murder. I am not saying that, if it were murder, it would not be wrong.



You assume me uncertain? Why is that? How have I failed to emphasize my certainty of what I believe?


Actions speak louder than words. An anti-choice position is a logical consequence of a belief that abortion is murder. If you believe that an early-stage embryo is a human being, then failure to call for outlawing abortion amounts to being an accessory to murder (not legally of course, but morally).

If you really believed, with full confidence, what you have been saying, then I don't think you would also believe in a woman's right to choose abortion. You believe killing an adult to be wrong, even when the adult is a convicted criminal, and so you oppose the death penalty. But -- you believe that killing an embryo is wrong, tantamount to murder even -- yet you think it should be legal? What's wrong with this picture?

Obviously your belief that killing an embryo is murder falls into a different category than your belief that killing a convicted murderer is murder. In the latter case, you call for laws (an end to the death penalty) appropriate to your beliefs. In the former case, you call for laws wholly inappropriate to your stated beliefs.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
::::::::::::stretch::::::::::::::

Good morning TSF


Now before I get any further into my reasons vs your reasons, would you please lighten up...I razz you-or try to-lightly, but you really do seem to take it -or me-too seriously. Maybe you just take yourself to seriously. I am a lover not a fighter....er I mean a writer not a fighter.


You almost seem defensive, and while I do enjoy our discussion I am no debatist so don't expect much of that form from me-orry if that disappoints you-I'm sure you are aching for a good debate....but maybe the fact you want to pull apart my beliefs and opinion will be a good enough substitute until the real thing comes along.

That said, I'll continue with our conversation because I do enjoy your perspective, or rather, understanding my own better through/in contrast with yours....and maybe I can pick up some tips from you in case I ever do want to debate. (unlikely)


so "on my own here we go" ("Brain Stew" by Green Day...get it TSF?!?!...Brain Stew! thought it was perfect for our discussion! You *DO* have a sense of humor don't you? Gah-you debatist can be so uptight)


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Whether an idea is seen as relevant by the masses has no bearing on whether or not it is true. That's a logical fallacy called "the bandwagon."


First, I'll stop you right there. Yes, believing something just because- as in the sole reason being- others believe it, or say it's true, present their facts or reasons... and thus the masses believe it... would iondeed be jumping on the "bandwagon."

However, to believe something through fact or faith, finds strength and credibility through the fact others have come to the same beliefs, through thought, experience, confirmations etc...and the more the merrier.

(hehehe this is funny...that we are both pro choice on a thread about abortion and we just have so little in common. You are not going to get meI realize, as in understand me or how I think, and thats fine-just warning you ahead of time we are just not going to see eye to eye....I wont take it personally, so you try to do the same, k?)

So back to the bandwagons...people beleiving something just because everyone else does...or says it's right true or fact...vs believing fact based with scientific evidence, right?

But even in science you have the facts and the bandwagons...you know, when someone submits the facts of their findings...and it is up for peer review? I am sure you are the type to understand well that process. Now in that process, correct me if I am wrong, some will dupilcate the process proposed to see if they get the same results, some will read the results of the original and/or others and come to their own conclusions...and many will believe it just because they were told it was true from a reliable source, person etc...but if they believe just because of what everyone else does...they are joining the bandwagon indeed.

but for the one who went through the process originally, he is held up and sustatined in his findings by those that duplicated his process with same results, and those that can be critical enough to see the facts as true...so the more who can back him up-the more credible he becomes...right? Be they credible backers or the bandwagon...the bigger the better, the more support, the more viable.

So it is logical to me to to see the same with a process of philosophical and religious beliefs...someone presents their findings-an idea-exercised, and the results...it is pondered and then people exercise the principles presented...whatever it may be, meditation, education, praying to a diety, worshipping, reading the writings of others confirming their similar experiences, whatever it may be and through this process they duplicate the findings of the first and others and receive confirmation it is true...this then adds credibility to the first and to the idea/concept...

Thus they aren't all bandwagon joiners just because there becomes a following. Sure, there will be bandwagons in everything, science religion etc but still, there will be viable sources of confirmation strengthening the theory presented at first in both and the masses who are in agreement of the facts and findings due lend credibility to the cause. You can't see that?

oh buggers! I gotta run!

I will be back in a bit!!

think



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Wow, didn't think I'd be gone all weekend. Anyway...I'm in a foul mood so hopefully it wont show here and I appologize in advance if it does


I'd recommend perusing this web site for more on what constitutes a valid logical argument.


Well, again, not trying to really argue, just giving you information from my perespective. Admittedly I didn't check out the link. Thanks though, maybe I will some day, but honestly I have enough on my plate in life not to need to worry about proper debates or "how to make a logical arguement" etc...but if I ever go for that "fighter" title though-I'll look you up for tips, K?



The objective evidence that suffering is possible without a brain is exactly identical to the objective evidence that a particular embryo is a fifth column for malevolent aliens, zero being equal to zero.


give me a break would you. I believe in God too, going to tell me how the objective evidence for that is zero too...wont matter a whit to me.

I am saying suffering as WE know it, as in having a brain process the information may not be the sole suffering possible for a fetus. I believe the soul can suffer and grieve and have emotional/spiritual pain. We can't prove that either way, but since I believe in a spirit, one which thinks and reasons without a brain, and has free will etc, it is logical according to those beliefs, the baby suffers when it's life is snuffed out and would oppose it.

I'm not disputing your scientific theory that first trimester babies don't feel pain sans cerebral cortex as a valid possibility...but I did want to point out they are not sans brain completely. I am just disagreeing with the idea there is no harm done-nothing the baby as a person minds or feels just because they are without cerebral cortex and believing that babies feel grief, and emotional pain etc. I gave you the brain info because you kept claiming they have no brain!
But that is your reasoning arguement not mine. I don't care when the brain is fully developed-we can speculate on all sorts of things and say what is logically plausable scientifcally physically, and what is logically possible philosophically spiritually. And to me, both points "count" as being valid.

But just as science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God, I am still going to believe in God....even without that nifty "objective sceintific evidence" or the objective evidence being zero...you feel me on that? You understand? I still believe in God, and I still believe in spiritual life, and I do believe a person who loses it's physical life before it has a chance to live it-feels many things and has an opinion which if it could be physically voiced would oppose it's body's abortion at any stage. Thats just it for me concerning the baby's opinion.



Whether you personally made these things up or not, someone did.


Oh, says you. I say coming to wisdom knowledge and/or understanding is coming to truth, not just claiming something someone else made up...unless that someone is God...then yeah I'd agree He made/makes most stuff up!


When you express a controversial opinion, you are inviting debate, whether or not that is your intention. If your position is valid only for you, not for anyone else, why express it?


First, I don't think my opinion is controversial really. Controversial? What is so controversial about believing in our eternal nature? It may be unique to some, or I may be in a minority etc, but hardly controversial unless I am really sheltered and unaware of what the sensitive masses are thinking these days and opposed to.


Next, I am stating my opinion, I wouldn't think it was only valid for me, although I will state I am only speaking for myself. I just may be the only one with the guts to say what I believe maybe. Why express it? hehehe BECAUSE I CAN TSP! Why not? I enjoy the freedom of speech-use it or lose people-and because even if no one else agrees with me or speaks up to say so...maybe one day they will...but not if I never spoke up. So, that is WHY.

I realize you do it just for the debate or something right? Well I'm sure that is fullfilling in it's own right, sorry I can't be a better opponet for you though-just not my thing man! (or WOman)



The knowledge to pinpoint exactly when in development that line is drawn isn't available yet AFAIK,


Yep, as far as I know either. We agree.



We know what would be required for that to be true (a functioning cerebral cortex), and we can make some statements about when it is certainly true (in the last month of pregnancy) and when it certainly isn't true (in the first trimester and probably in the second). Somewhere in between those certainties, the key events occur.


we hope.



So does a tadpole. So does a fish. So what?


See, that's our biggest difference...I see human life, you minimize that life to being seen equal to a tadpole....what a shame. :shk:

and by the way...kill that tadpole or fish and I bet it hurts them too...and their just itty bitty amphibians!



Let's go back to the example of surgery under total anaesthesia. Can the spirit feel the pain of surgery while the cerebral cortex is deactivated by a drug? Or, if not pain, can it experience unease, anxiety, fear, trust in the doctors, confidence, hope for a successful outcome?


Um,...I'd say YES! They have cases where people were "out" but felt pain etc. and do remember it, but just because we can't consciously remember it doesn't mean we didn't feel it anyway! Or that our spirits didn't experience the things you say. And though this next example you may try to attribute to the consciousness of the person, I disagree.

One example, OK, this isn't about under general asthesia, but how about a person laying on the OR table, awake, but with a spinal block so no pain, etc. This is the 3rd time this surgery has taken place, so it's nothing new, no fear etc....patient having usual chit-chat with anesthesiologist and Drs etc....but suddenly mid surgery the person has a terrible foreboding feeling...says it is like they need to leave...get up and go...even leave their body!

They feel as though they must leave-something is agonizing, grieving and fearing and making them feel suddenly like they must go! Their spirit is seeming to be panicking. Now you might say it was conscious psychological reaction, but if they were unconscious, perhaps they just don't remember the physical or spiritual trauma of surgery, and being so conscious, when their spirit panicked-so did they.

Anyway, kind of off topic, but it is a cool phenomenon. This person actually said "I have to move my legs...I have to move my legs!!!" and the Dr said, "well, you are probably just reactiong to being temporarily paralyzed, feeling clauterphobic because you feel restrained, unable to move..."

They said "No, I can move...I CAN MOVE my legs, but I don't want to screw anything up (they were cut open, the Dr's up to their elbows in the abdominal cavity)...thats why I'm trying to tell you- I need to move...I'm afraid I will without warning...and screw something up..and I don't think I can hold off much longer!"

The Dr said "Well, you may think you can move, but I assure you, you can't...if you'd like to try, go ahead...."

So they did. They moved their feet together and back down and again and did it a second time while the drs and staff freaked out! "DO YOU FEEL ANY PAIN?" they were asking quite shocked..."No, just a little better knowing I could get up and bolt out that door if necessary." The Dr said "WELL DON"T!"
and added "But let me know the moment you feel any pain or discomfort!!!

...but the body was numb...and the patient relaxed as usual up until then, so go figure...


If so, why don't we remember any of these things upon coming around?


Some people do. Haven't you read about any of that? Most people don't but many people do-very traumatic!


Don't dodge the question, please.


Um...what was the question? I've dodged nothing. I have no reason to. I spelled out what I think and believe and why. Was it the murder of the man? I said how I would view the murder of a man for his inheritance and how I would feel about the perp and the vic or how I'd feel if it were made legal. (which is really pretty stupid even as an example because in no likeliness would it ever become legal) What more you want? Me to agree with you?
Can't help it if it doesn't satisfy you-I gave my answers and dodged nothing-unless I honestly missed something.


This is supposed to be a democracy. You are allowed to disagree with the judgments of law. You are also allowed to agitate to have the law changed. Nobody is going to put you into a concentration camp for doing so; even under Bush, things haven't yet gone that far.


I know that...but so...just because I don't jump on the bandwagon, perhaps out of legal apathy, you think I don't realize I could? ...and just because you think I would...or should...you wont accept my answer? I mean, sure I might sign a petition.
but otherwise, get off my back!



I realize, of course, that the law in every state condemns murder. In my opinion, it should. In your opinion -- with note taken of your disagreement with the death penalty -- should it?


Sure of course it should as it does....and before you get all crazy on me, I'll continue and answer your baited question that yes, I believe life in the first trimester is murder too, but the law doesn't see that and I am not out to change every freakin law I disagree with. I know...I'm such a political disappointment...damn my political apathy...

But I think it is detrimental to make abortion illegal as it wouldn't save lives any more than murder being illegal does....and may cost more lives because of women dying to get abortions-literally.

For me, because it is a moral issue, education is key-not legalities. We all have free will to chose to kill unborn babies or our father's for inheritance...one has temporal consequences of breaking the law, but BOTH have eternal consequences.


It is also the law of the land, as decided by the Supreme Court, that abortion is legal except in the third trimester. In your opinion, should it be?


Abortion should be legal-but no I do not think late term abortion should be as it becomes more heinous with each passing day where the baby can actually be proven to repsond to stimuli.


You've said that it should; if I understand you correctly, you've even extended that beyond where the Roe decision put the line and would allow abortion in the third trimester, which btw I would not, except to protect the mother's life or health. I mean, if it's an unwanted pregnancy, HELLO -- why didn't she do something about it a heck of a lot sooner? But anyway, what's your opinion, not about what the law IS (we know that), but about what it SHOULD be?


No, you do misunderstand me if you think I've said it SHOULD extend anywhere. I believe in the right to choose an abortion as a legal and moral choice, and though I feel it is murder personally, AT ANY STAGE, but where it is legal, I allow for justice to be averted on Earth. Now, if I could make sure that choice extended only to the first trimester-I would for the sake of the unborn to feel as little as possible-both temporally and spiritually. If I thought legalities would keep it from EVER happening, I too may be aginst it being legal and thus save all the babies, but since we know that is not the case any more than murder being extinguished by legalities...then...well it's a moot point isn't it?

I think the only solace I find in differentiating between the "murder" of an unborn and the murder of a born person, is in that I believe a baby is not complete until body and soul are united inseperable at birth-making the baby not just a human being, but a complete mortal person, until physical death. To deny them that opportunity to be whole is a grievious travisty, to murder their little body in utero...

...but to take the life of someone who has lived and are thius accountable for all their actions up until that point of death, and deny them opportunity for retribution and seperate them body and soul before they lived their life to fruition, and could properly even make up for past infractions, or claim salvation etc...well that is worse to a degree than never being born at all. I think the spirits of those unborn in the flesh are not condemned, but exhalted.


That consciousness exists, in any form meaningful to this discussion, prior to the cerebral cortex coming on line, is something for which there is no evidence, and against which much evidence exists.


What evidence against? I missed that. What evidence is there that consciousness does not exist seperate from the brain/cerebral cortex. It can be assumed scientifcally I suppose...but...well I missed the proof. What proof do you have of consciousness being unique to the state of mental consciousness? Our mental consciousness is not the same as our spiritual consciousness. I do not equate all consciousness with the mind as in brain. One, yes, but not all. If you want to, thats fine. There is proof for that-that a brain=mental consciousness. But of course that doesn't negate the possibility of spiritual consciousness in any way.


The "meaningful to this discussion" qualifier was applied to the idea of consciousness pre-existing the brain, not to the evidence you might present. I do believe that consciousness in some form pre-exists the brain. The evidence for that, is simply that consciousness, being pure subjectivity, cannot be studied scientifically. It inherently cannot be accounted for in terms of brain function. This is a question that science cannot answer because it is a question science cannot even ask.



Ok, then...um...we agree....you may not see it but I do hehehe


But how that is not meaningful to this discussion escapes me as It is the reason I do feel abortion is morally wrong, and that the baby would have an opinion on the subject....which this thread is about....so to me, it's meaningful to the discussion....it's just nothing we can "debate"...sorry 'bout that.

So as for your qualifier, I disregard it, as it is all meaningful to this discussion... my opinion and belief and what I base much of my belief on is that consciousness whereby I think a baby has an opinion, a will to live spiritually, and a hope and will to live physically, and thus and grives over loss of it's phyiscal life.


It is memory, cognition, and sensation that are pertinent to this discussion, not consciousness stripped of these brain functions.


oh I get it...only YOUR points and opinions and things you can logically debate are pertinent, right?


And so, while consciousness in some form does, I believe, pre-exist the brain, it does not do so in a form pertinent to this discussion.


Well, sorry- it's pertinent to me. Even if the baby can't "feel physical pain" or "Know" of it's loss mentally, I think it can consciously suffer in many ways without a fully functional brain. Never fear, I understand your point and belief, you just aren't going to get me to agree or subscribe to it.


Personality, like the body, is something that the soul wears. It is temporal, not eternal, and physical, not spiritual.


Yes, well... I find your statement contradicts itself. If the soul wears both it's personality-and it's body-aren't you differentiating between the two-explaining that the personality is independant of the body? So then if you can agree the soul wears the body...then likewise if it wears the personality independant of the body, can't it then pre-exist the body? I believe also that though the body dies, the spirit lives, and has it's unique personality then aas well. SO while body's are temporal, I belive spirits and their unique personalities are eternal.


Ah. So they were misinformed by information similar to what you have provided above. Now I understand.


No, I'm afraid you don't. They were misinformed as the known facts now show...that babies are more than a lump of tissue or mass of cells in the first trimester. As far as the information about the brain, it does exist-it may not be fully functional but you kept saying it did not exist, and I showed it does.

Anyway, there is nothing misleading about stating what I feel is true existentially about abortion either, and wishing others to seek what they believe...just like women should know how many drs leave abortion behind and the psychological trauma caused by abortion to drs, staff as well as the victims/patients of the abortion in the long run. Facts.


No, that's a disagreement about fact, not about values. Let me see if I can clarify the difference here.

A disagreement about values would accrue if I said that murder was NOT wrong. We would agree that the woman who murdered her father killed a human being, but you would say that was morally wrong and I would not agree.

If however I asserted that her father was not really her father at all, but a cleverly-constructed robot taking the place of her father, who actually died of a heart attack years ago, and that she was merely disassembling a robot, not killing a human being -- then that would be a disagreement of fact. We would agree that murder was morally wrong, but disagree about the factual question of whether murder had taken place.

In the matter of first-trimester abortion, we have a disagreement of the second kind. I say that an embryo at that stage, while human and alive, is not a human being, and that consequently killing it is not murder. I am not saying that, if it were murder, it would not be wrong.


No my point is I VALUE that life at conception as being a human being with the right to live, and you assess it to have no value as a human being, no rights etc. Your little story is great but this was a semantic misunderstanding a contextual one, not about fact vs values, but the fact of what we both value-or not.



Actions speak louder than words. An anti-choice position is a logical consequence of a belief that abortion is murder. If you believe that an early-stage embryo is a human being, then failure to call for outlawing abortion amounts to being an accessory to murder (not legally of course, but morally).

If you really believed, with full confidence, what you have been saying, then I don't think you would also believe in a woman's right to choose abortion. You believe killing an adult to be wrong, even when the adult is a convicted criminal, and so you oppose the death penalty. But -- you believe that killing an embryo is wrong, tantamount to murder even -- yet you think it should be legal? What's wrong with this picture?


Well, I can't help it you are so found of thinking you can judge everyone by your standards. I am honest and I am steadfast in my beliefs. If you can't except that...well that is your opinion and you have the right to it even if it's wrong.

Outlawing abortion wouldn't stop it from happening-it never did. I do not have to appease my conscience by holding a sign or making a law that would only serve to often end a woman's life in her choice of seeking an illegal abortion-as it did many a time. You may think-let her die, if she is having an abortion, comitting murder in your eyes, then she gets what is coming to her, she deserves it-but I value ALL human life. I'm sorry I just can't seem to make that clear to you.

I belive some scared 15 year old girl needen't die because she couldn't tell her parents she was pregnant, or worse yet, she told her parents and they forced a coathanger up her...I could go on, but I wont.

I do not condone abortion. I do not condone murder. I may be politically apathetic about some things, but I don't have to appease my own conscience at the costs of others rights. Everyone has the right to make mistakes in this life-I can't save the world.

Abortion is legal, but should be discouraged. Education of birth control, abstinence, morals and values along with the truth about abortion, the psychological damage proven etc should be disclosed.


Obviously your belief that killing an embryo is murder falls into a different category than your belief that killing a convicted murderer is murder. In the latter case, you call for laws (an end to the death penalty) appropriate to your beliefs. In the former case, you call for laws wholly inappropriate to your stated beliefs.


No, they are not wholly inappropriate to my stated belief. As I said, I value all life and legal abortion saves girls lives.

I do think a living breathing person is different from an unborn baby though, because an unborn baby as I said is exalted. I actually take great solace in believing that to be true. :-)



[edit on 6-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 07:37 PM
link   
No arguing here. Just real life. I was involved with someone years ago , (19 to be exact) and was on the receiving end of a "Happy Fathers Day!!" call on , you guessed it, after I ETS from the Army....my first thought was: WTF!!! really. I drove and help pay for that abortion that year and dry heaved all the way home. My wheel had turned.

God puts his hand on every cell.....and into babies they turn and then, into men and women.

Dispute it all you want. The burden is on those who take God's ways into their own???!



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesw
There has been a lot of discussion in this country lately after the aniversary of Roe VS Wade. I do not understand the concept of murdering a human life in the name of convenience. I was never a great big Ronald Reagan fan, but he was quoted once as saying " It seems to me that everyone that is for abortion has already been born ". A very great statement.

[edit on 9-9-2005 by John bull 1]


The way I see it, I think you're right. However, did it ever occur to you it is not just in the name of the mother's convenience? It is also in the name of the way the child is going to grow, the way the future he/she will be educated, whether the mother will, for example, be reminded of some guy that raped her in a dark alley and *oops, didn't happen to have a condom*? What would she see in the child's eyes in a case like that? And to the ones that said it is not a human life, IT IS! I don't remember who said this, but I recall him/her saying that the term of "abortion" can also be called "masterbation". That you kill billions of babies when you masterbate. "That's worse than Hitler", he claimed (see 1st page). How are you going to compare microscopic and mindless little white dots to a living being that is breathing and feeding with what the mother feeds with, feeling what the mother feels and sharing emotions with her? With all this said, I think the mother is the one that knows what she's doing. She's the one who has to decide whether she is ready or not.

Another thing: The mother also has to be PSYCHOLLOGICALLY and ECONOMICALLY ready for such gigantic step. I have heard of cases, however, where the mother is broke and still, somehow, manages to get her child by. However, I haven't heard such thing in a case where the mother isn't psychologically ready.

I'm not PRO with abortion, but I do think it SHOULD be the mother's choice! If she wants to do it, let her live with the sin. If not, let her be prepared to love, cherish, educate and raise this new-born creature.
QUOTE: (think2much)
Um,...I'd say YES! They have cases where people were "out" but felt pain etc. and do remember it, but just because we can't consciously remember it doesn't mean we didn't feel it anyway! Or that our spirits didn't experience the things you say. And though this next example you may try to attribute to the consciousness of the person, I disagree.
One example, OK, this isn't about under general asthesia, but how about a person laying on the OR table, awake, but with a spinal block so no pain, etc. This is the 3rd time this surgery has taken place, so it's nothing new, no fear etc....patient having usual chit-chat with anesthesiologist and Drs etc....but suddenly mid surgery the person has a terrible foreboding feeling...says it is like they need to leave...get up and go...even leave their body!
They feel as though they must leave-something is agonizing, grieving and fearing and making them feel suddenly like they must go! Their spirit is seeming to be panicking. Now you might say it was conscious psychological reaction, but if they were unconscious, perhaps they just don't remember the physical or spiritual trauma of surgery, and being so conscious, when their spirit panicked-so did they.
Anyway, kind of off topic, but it is a cool phenomenon. This person actually said "I have to move my legs...I have to move my legs!!!" and the Dr said, "well, you are probably just reactiong to being temporarily paralyzed, feeling clauterphobic because you feel restrained, unable to move..."
They said "No, I can move...I CAN MOVE my legs, but I don't want to screw anything up (they were cut open, the Dr's up to their elbows in the abdominal cavity)...thats why I'm trying to tell you- I need to move...I'm afraid I will without warning...and screw something up..and I don't think I can hold off much longer!"
It is all an anasthesia effect... I had the same thing when my throat glands were being operated.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Andy011]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Andy011]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andy011
How are you going to compare microscopic and mindless little white dots to a living being that is breathing and feeding with what the mother feeds with, feeling what the mother feels and sharing emotions with her?


You can't, obviously, but an embryo in the first trimester (when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed) fits the first description a lot more closely than it does the second, especially when you get to the "sharing emotions" part (which is the only one that really matters).



Um,...I'd say YES! They have cases where people were "out" but felt pain etc. and do remember it, but just because we can't consciously remember it doesn't mean we didn't feel it anyway!


Correct, but if we didn't have a cerebral cortex, that would mean we didn't feel it. In fact, it would mean that "we" (in the sense of our personality/identity) did not exist. An anaesthetized cerebral cortex is still a cerebral cortex; I don't THINK it can experience pain in that state, but it's not inconceivable. But one that doesn't exist yet -- no.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by Andy011
How are you going to compare microscopic and mindless little white dots to a living being that is breathing and feeding with what the mother feeds with, feeling what the mother feels and sharing emotions with her?


You can't, obviously, but an embryo in the first trimester (when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed) fits the first description a lot more closely than it does the second, especially when you get to the "sharing emotions" part (which is the only one that really matters).



Um,...I'd say YES! They have cases where people were "out" but felt pain etc. and do remember it, but just because we can't consciously remember it doesn't mean we didn't feel it anyway!


Correct, but if we didn't have a cerebral cortex, that would mean we didn't feel it. In fact, it would mean that "we" (in the sense of our personality/identity) did not exist. An anaesthetized cerebral cortex is still a cerebral cortex; I don't THINK it can experience pain in that state, but it's not inconceivable. But one that doesn't exist yet -- no.


It can feel psychological pain, meaning that it can feel anxiety, sadness, fear, etc. I myself was a victim of that when they were removing my tongsills. But we're getting slightly off-topic here, I believe. The fact is that no other human being, other than the mother herself, should be able to decide (or even have the right to do so) if the mother is doing the abortion or not. Only she is the "judge" of her actions. It is HER conciousness that is important here. It has been proved, throughout the thread (at least scientiffically) that a fetus, at it's first or second trimestre, CANNOT think for itself and we CANNOT ask for it's oppinnion. Does it really feel? Even spiritually? That is a question I have no answer to, but I am positive that no one except the mother knows what's best. Both for her AND the baby (at least in most cases). In the other few cases, however, it IS a crime. Yet, in both cases, both morally and ethically, it is a sin. Morally, you just can't compare being cut yourself shaving to actually killing a fetus (the differences between the brilliant deffinitions between human LIFE and human BEING found in page 9 of this thread). Ethically, the baby's oppinnion SHOULD matter, but as it has been seen throughout this thread, neither of us is sure (at least not 100%) whether such "primitively developed" creature has oppinnions or not.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Andy011]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andy011
[A brain under anaesthesia] can feel psychological pain, meaning that it can feel anxiety, sadness, fear, etc. I myself was a victim of that when they were removing my tongsills. But we're getting slightly off-topic here, I believe.


When you had your tonsils removed, were you under total or local anaesthesia? If you were under local anaesthesia, most of your brain functions were normal; only the nerves from your throat to your brain were deadened. So that would be no mystery. If you were under total anaesthesia, I think some clarification might be in order. If you felt anxiety and fear before the operation, and sadness or depression afterwards, again, no mystery. Are you saying you remember the operation itself, and your feelings during it? If so, then all I can say is that your anaesthesiologist goofed up.

I don't think we're getting off topic. See below.



The fact is that no other human being, other than the mother herself, should be able to decide (or even have the right to do so) if the mother is doing the abortion or not.


Like all statements of value, that one is not a fact. You are not saying what is, you are saying what should be, in your judgment, in accordance with your will. And I do not agree with you. I consider myself pro-choice, but I guess I'm not quite as pro-choice as you are.

What we have in the case of pregnancy and abortion are intersecting and conflicting values. On the one hand, yes, a woman has a right to privacy and to make her own medical decisions. But on the other hand, a newborn baby -- and I would also say, a fetus at some not-entirely-clear stage of development prior to birth -- has a right to live. We do not condone infanticide, so we do recognize this, right?

As long as we can look at the embryo or fetus and say, "This is not yet a human being," it does not (in my judgment) have a right to life that outweighs the mother's right to make her own medical decisions. But once we can look at it and say, "Wait, that's a human being now," then it does. And so, except to protect the life or health of the mother, I am comfortable with outlawing abortion in the third trimester, during which that line is surely crossed (although I'm not so sure about exactly where in the third trimester it is).

If there is a good medical reason for an abortion after that, it should still be obtainable. If it is done for economic reasons, or for convenience -- well, I'm sorry. There was plenty of opportunity to do that earlier in the pregnancy. Or so I see it, anyway. (The state where I live disagrees, incidentally; abortion is legal in California at any time during the pregnancy.)



Morally, you just can't compare being cut yourself shaving to actually killing a fetus


I wasn't saying that abortion is as trivial as cutting yourself shaving, and I'm sorry if that's how it was taken. All I meant to say was that the question is not one of whether the embryo is "human life." There are many occasions when we "kill human life" without calling it murder (or manslaughter or suicide or accidental death or whatever). Cutting oneself shaving is one of them.

Here's a less trivializing comparison. How about surgery? When a surgeon -- and let's say it's a cosmetic surgeon, or a doctor performing some other medically non-mandatory surgery, so we don't confuse the issue that way -- cuts into a human body, living human cells die. Quite a lot of them, usually. Sometimes the surgeon removes a living organ or other living tissues, and so deliberately kills human life. Your tonsils were alive when the surgeon clipped them out of your throat; afterwards, they were dead. Yet we don't charge the doctor with murder, do we?

It's not enough to show that an embryo is human and alive. Of course it is! But the question is whether (and when) that human life constitutes a human being, except in potential. And this gets us into the definition of what a human being is, which would be an awesome philosophical discussion.

We may face that question in other contexts down the road besides abortion. What about artificial intelligence? Or genetically modified humans, or "uplifed" (a la David Brin) chimpanzees or dolphins or parrots? What line would these things have to cross before our conscience would grant them the rights we recognize in human beings?



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesw



You see, you don't get your soul until you take the Breath of Life, according to God, therefor a fetus is not a human. It is Blaspheme to consider it human, the church supported abortion until the late 1800's, because it was Blaspheme to consider a fetus a human


You are sadly mistaken and uninformed on God's word.
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely 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." (Exodus 21:22-23)
I think that this explains it best. A woman with child, and a life for a life.


FOR DEESW:
He was not misinterpreting the bible. Thats what it saids.. These don't really sound like God's words anyways. Gods punishments are fines and letting judges decide how much to pay??? What ever happened to damnation in hell for eternity.. LoL. Anyways, that just saids what the penalties are for hitting a women with a baby. I see nothing there about when a human being's life begins...Do you? If so, can you please highlight the section of GODS "words" that states that...?

( I can't wait till everyone finds out that we are all part of the MATRIX..) =)




top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join