I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

reply to post by charles1952




I think your post was rather disingenuous toward women ... I personally know of less than a handful
of women who have got to the menopause without ever having had children If that is a true
reflection, a lot of women with children must have had abortions? and if so it is no one else's business!

Your "quote" many women say I will not give up X, Y, Z, for the benefit of my child because I
might get wrinkly nipples or stretch marks."

Well none of the women I know got wrinkly nipples and many look on their stretch marks
as a 'badge of honour' (stretch marks are not that unsightly anyway!) And NO they don't
consider 'motherhood' as slavery ... I have never met a mother who was not prepared to make
sacrifices for the children she has or indeed die for them ... and I know some who have done
without meals to feed their children making the excuse that they had eaten earlier ...

I suppose that boils down to the fact that she will have chosen to have them?

reply to post by charles1952

Actually, I was thinking of another topic for "Impossible Thread, Episode #2." How would you feel about one on Christianity, specifically Catholicism?

That sounds like it might turn into a lively thread!

But if you really insist, we can take another run at abortion, but I'd need a fresh angle. Can you help? Or should I just plug along as planned.

I was actually thinking of do a "Pro-Life Primer" thread. I'd like to get my daughter to help me write it, though. It would go through the Pro-life argument point by point.

reply to post by eletheia

Dear eletheia,

This is a very small point, but I think the concept of slavery was brought to mind from a post by a highly esteemed member:

If a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, too bad. She’s forced to give birth whether she wants to or not. For the pro-life community, it’s a slippery slope from murder to slavery for women who have sex without the desire for children.

Murder or slavery. Pick your poison.

As far as the stretch marks? That's shorthand for any trivial reason, such as sex selection, or "I want to wait a year in case my promotion comes through."

No biggie.

With respect,
Charles1952

A couple thoughts I'd like to share. First one referring to my Catholic education as religious programming. That is a joke. I received my first Holy Communion not believing in the True Presence. I went to both Catholic grade and high school and as a teen, like many, I skipped Mass on Sunday. In fact, I skipped it for many years. Great programming, eh? I always believed in Jesus. I can remember as a very little girl swiping my Mom's matches and going under these beautiful bushes we had where the violets and buttercups grew and pretended the matches were statues of Jesus and Mary and tried to get them to stand up behind the little flowers (no, I don't know Bob Dylan).

My high school Spanish teacher was the one who said: "Life begins at conception." The truth of those words were undeniable to me. It wasn't rock science it was commonsence.

Second, many girls are forced by their parents to have abortions. Having a friend that had her dad drag her to New York against her will at age 16 for an abortion and knowing the sadness she carrys. It is a great loss she and the father of the baby whom she married continues to mourn to this day.

Lots of women are pressured into abortion that didn't want to have them by boyfriends, husbands, life condtions, etc.

I can see very obviously from what I have read here that pro-abortion rights people don't view the child as a human life or if they do, they believe it is okay to destroy this. The latter perspective makes me very sad.

I have hope when 6 million young people travelled from around the country to participate in the Annual March of Life last year in D.C. None of their business? Wait and see.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I really like the idea of a pro-choice thread, go for it.

You might have the same problems I've had here, though. One will be definitions. If you start with "potential human," well, you've seen what happened in this thread. Try not to say "I define what's in the mother as not having a human life, therefore it can be disposed of. Few will accept your definition, then where do you go? As an argument, it's like saying "I choose the definition that makes me right."

You might also avoid relying too heavily on Roe. I think you pointed out that the violence against unborn act, or whatever it is called, is illogical, inconsistent and should be repealed. I can imagine people quoting your words back to you, and then where are we?

I really don't know what approach you can take besides "It's a woman's right." But by the time you're ready to present the thread you'll have the answer for "Whyis bumping off a kid the woman's right? Because of Roe?"

If you can break new ground, I'd be delighted to see it. There's a lot I have to learn. But, at the moment, I'm not too hopeful.

With respect,
Charles1952

Let's assume that my personal belief is that "human life" begins when the embryo develops into a foetus (approximately 8 weeks after conception). This stems from my belief that "human life" is defined by the presence of a developing human brain and human heart.

In my belief system, it is justified for an abortion to take place before 8 weeks because the group of cells present before does not meet my definition of a "human life".

Those who classify themselves as anti-abortion/pro-life, can you please explain what is illogical with the above?

reply to post by Dark Ghost




Its also worth noting that in most cases a foetus of 30 to 35 weeks gestation requires medical

intervention to mature their lungs, without this medical intervention many early deliveries would

not survive...

reply to post by charles1952


Sir,

After 28+ pages I hope you have your answer.

People for it will defend their reasoning till the day they die. People against it...the same. This is a battle with no winners and only losers...no matter what perspective you have. We can only agree to disagree.

But, for those of you who instruct us that it is none of our beeswax...human death, no matter the form, is immoral. Whether that death is a woman with a known birthing defect or a woman that didn't think of the end result.

To kill, just because, is totally jacked. But what do I know? I'm just a pig-man.

I'm pro-life. If that means a woman should 'abort' birth, or she will die, and leave 3 kids and a husband alone...abort it. If another lady got a tad too friendly at the new year party, she should live with her choice. To be able to kill just because is immoral in my backwards book.

My 2 rubles

Dark Ghost
Let's assume that my personal belief is that "human life" begins when the embryo develops into a foetus (approximately 8 weeks after conception). This stems from my belief that "human life" is defined by the presence of a developing human brain and human heart.

In my belief system, it is justified for an abortion to take place before 8 weeks because the group of cells present before does not meet my definition of a "human life".

Those who classify themselves as anti-abortion/pro-life, can you please explain what is illogical with the above?

OK, I'll bite. Your personal belief is based on opinion not proven scientific fact. Congratulations, you are a bioethicist. You are now judge, jury and executioner if others accept your personal belief. Join the ranks who also base their opinions on their personal beliefs and not scientific fact - whether it be viability, when the child takes its first breath, when the mother feels life or whenever the individual wants it to begin to name a few.

The scientific fact proven by medical science is that life begins at conception. If someone or thing is growing, it is alive.

So to answer your question, it is illogical because it is not based on fact.

BTW the third week after conception is when the baby's brain, spinal cord, heart and other organs begin to form. Pregnancy week by week - Mayo Clinic

Thanks for putting it out there.

reply to post by ChuckNasty

Dear ChuckNasty,

You're quite right. Sadly, I do have my answer.

I've heard it said that the world divides into two groups. One, whose motto is "My will be done," and the other flocking to the banner of "Thy will be done." If I was a wiser philosopher or a better logician, I might have constructed a path for people on one side to cross over to the other, but I'm not.

Nor am I suited to being a hellfire and brimstone evangelist. Still, I can't help but think there is a definite moral risk involved in passing final judgment on the unborn. There is still hope for us all, but it requires humility, love and a desire for forgiveness.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

've heard it said that the world divides into two groups. One, whose motto is "My will be done," and the other flocking to the banner of "Thy will be done."

Did God give us free will as a scourge? Was it given to us only for the purpose of being judged by God for not giving it up?

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Dear Dark Ghost,

Thanks for offering an sample definition of the starting point for human life, and your question based on it.

A problem with the eight week definition you suggest is that it is "non-logical," if that is a word. Others will pick birth, spinal column, sensation of pain, any number of things have been suggested.

Remember what the situation is. There is "something" inside the mother that is growing and becoming more complex. All it needs from the mother is that she maintain a somewhat decent diet, and stays away from drugs and lots of alcohol. After a while it comes out as a new child. There is no particular scientific reason to say it's a human life at week 40, but not at 30, or 20, or 10, or in your example, 7.

As you point out "Let's assume that my personal belief is . . ." Do we then have millions of "personal beliefs," with each one deciding the fate of an unborn? And is there the possibility that one's "personal belief" might be wrong? If your belief is correct, nothing happens. If your belief is wrong, you're a murderer. I wouldn't want to take a chance playing that game.

But to answer your question. Eight weeks is "non-logical" because it's little more than throwing a dart at a calendar. Something important happens to the kid at just about every week from one to forty.

(Don't let anybody else know this, but if you were to get a bill introduced saying no abortions after eight weeks, I'd be all for it. After all, it would cut the number of abortions in half.)

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

Hello, and a very good afternoon to you. (At least it is here.)

I see you're anxious to get started on my next "impossible thread," right? Fair enough. Besides, I owe you thanks for reminding me that words are very tricky things, and we have to be careful using them. Things like "free will," etc.

Another problem will be that I may be tempted to assume that the things I face are the same things that everybody faces. You've done a good job showing me that my assumption is wrong.

I admit my frustration, however. You've asked a question that a small book would be required to answer, and I have to squeeze it into a few lines. Ah, well. Everyone knows you're a tough customer.

Free will is a wonderful gift and promise, not a scourge. It is one way in which we were made in His image. We're also the product of love. Creating a planet of robots who can only go about saying "I . . . Love . . . You . . ." doesn't show God's love, or let us show ours, if we choose to. He took a chance with us, giving us the ability to hate or kill, but the alternative was worse.

Remember all the cartoons with an angel on one shoulder of the main character, and a demon on the other? It's familiar enough for it's simply a cartoon reminding us that we all face temptation, and at the same time we know, deep inside that it's wrong. But it's never about either the angel or the demon making the decision, all they can do is argue their case. It's the person whose shoulders they're sitting on that has to make the decision. We pick which spirit we want to listen to.

God doesn't take away our free will, he gives us a speech and an experience. His speech is along the lines of "I love you, that's why you exist. Love is a creative force. Let us, you and I, join together in Love. Love for each other, for the world, for all of My creation. We will live forever in Love." We can accept that or not.

When the demon on our shoulder says "You can get really great revenge on that annoying poster by pointing out his mistake and making him look stupid with a snarky comment." We can say, " Uhhh, no thanks. That's just going to hurt the guy, it would be mean and hateful, I'm not going to play it that way."

God doesn't force us to love, He "attracts" us to love. In a way, He seduces us away from the world and it's demons, into a world of love. If we follow Him into that world, He's told us we can stay with Him forever. If we freely choose not to be with Him in love, then we won't be. I can't imagine a worse fate.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles,

I'm looking forward to your next "Impossible Thread", and I hope I'm not too off topic, or jumping the gun here, but:

God doesn't take away our free will, he gives us a speech and an experience. His speech is along the lines of "I love you, that's why you exist.

Personally, I think that "God" is waiting and wishing for us to begin to use our free will, instead of being trapped in our addictions, bound by our fear and indecisiveness and blindly following laws created by men.

Remember all the cartoons with an angel on one shoulder of the main character, and a demon on the other? It's familiar enough for it's simply a cartoon reminding us that we all face temptation, and at the same time we know, deep inside that it's wrong.

Too bad that we can't see the little Devil or Angel that's whispering in our ear, to know just who is saying what. I wonder which entity was speaking to the Israelittes when they were stoning to death a rebellious neighbor's teen, or a couple of unwed, star crossed lovers, one of whom may have been pregnant.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

Good post. I hope I remember your points. As always, your comments are worth thinking about and discussing.

I may begin that thread tonight, but I may not. You see, Katie had her miscarriage today. All hope that the Doctors just missed the heart beat is gone, and I may be wanted.

With respect,
Charles1952

I don't think anyone would want to be killed while they were just a fetus. The basic question is 'what would you do if it was you?' And if reincarnation is true, it very well may be you!

A couple thoughts for animal lovers:

I remember my neighbor joking about how her dog had an abortion when I was in my teens. I thought it was horrible. Why couldn't they have let the dog had puppies and have a life? Her Mom couldn't be bothered with taking care of them and going through the hassle of finding them a home or giving them to animal shelter.

Someone I know who lived in the country and had a barn had a cat with a litter of four kittens. She knew her husband was going to put a bullet in them, because they had their limit. She didn't want that at all. She thought about drowning them and thought they would suffer too much so she ran them through the sink disposer. She felt awful about and it was painful for her to do. She felt it would be quick. She regrets doing it. Not a pleasant memory for her as you can imagine.

Think about abortion. It isn't much different than what she did, just a slower process.

Charles, I am so sorry about Katie's loss. My prayers are with Katie, her husband and all that are grieving. Feeling bad I missed your posts.

sad_eyed_lady
OK, I'll bite. Your personal belief is based on opinion not proven scientific fact. Congratulations, you are a bioethicist. You are now judge, jury and executioner if others accept your personal belief. Join the ranks who also base their opinions on their personal beliefs and not scientific fact - whether it be viability, when the child takes its first breath, when the mother feels life or whenever the individual wants it to begin to name a few.

"Scientific facts" are merely opinions agreed upon by lots of people in positions of authority at any one time. They are not infallible. And science is not knowledge set in stone; it is knowledge based on the best available information at the time.

See here: Top 10 Science Mistakes

The scientific fact proven by medical science is that life begins at conception. If someone or thing is growing, it is alive.

That's a fairly weak definition of "alive".

See here: Non-Living Things That Grow

ImagineFree
I don't think anyone would want to be killed while they were just a fetus. The basic question is 'what would you do if it was you?' And if reincarnation is true, it very well may be you!

I would not care, because I did not exist yet. No different than being "contracepted", really.