Speaking of abortion...............................

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by JJIII

"

You believe that there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. I see this difference as scientific semantics that describe different stages of development of a human being.
There is a huge difference between interference trying to save a life and interference snuffing out a life.

Forgive my lack of skills in breaking your quotes into easier to understand segments. I hope it can be read so it makes sense.

Your post makes perfect sense but Whell's doesn't. If you read what I wrote, I was not advocating leaving an early birth newborn baby to die, I was pointing out that to do so is the logical progression of leaving everything to nature but to come back to the question. I guess from your original post that you have strong beliefs, but would you impose them by force of law on everyone? As to snuffing out a life, if pre-natal (sorry about the spelling) tests showed that the fetus if developing to birth would have severe incurable disabilities for the rest of its life, would you accept the potential mother's decision to terminate?

I an NOT in any way disrespecting anyone who has given their heart to looking after their child, no matter what their 'disabilities' are, but I'm putting the question. Given pre-knowledge of incurable disabilities, the kind that mean the child would spend its life having to be cared for by someone else, although this might not be your choice, would you accept that other people have the right to make their choice?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Combwork

Your post makes perfect sense but Whell's doesn't. If you read what I wrote, I was not advocating leaving an early birth newborn baby to die, I was pointing out that to do so is the logical progression of leaving everything to nature but to come back to the question. I guess from your original post that you have strong beliefs, but would you impose them by force of law on everyone? As to snuffing out a life, if pre-natal (sorry about the spelling) tests showed that the fetus if developing to birth would have severe incurable disabilities for the rest of its life, would you accept the potential mother's decision to terminate?

I an NOT in any way disrespecting anyone who has given their heart to looking after their child, no matter what their 'disabilities' are, but I'm putting the question. Given pre-knowledge of incurable disabilities, the kind that mean the child would spend its life having to be cared for by someone else, although this might not be your choice, would you accept that other people have the right to make their choice?

No. We had such a scenario. We would not then or now in good conscience have made the decision to kill our daughter. It was not even on our radar.

This is an example of the moral relativism I referred to earlier. A scenario such as this is offered in an effort to cloud the application of objective standards of behavior. The other favorite is "Well, what if it was YOUR daughter that was raped and got pregnant....". Some folks, like our politicians, succumb to this, or fear that some others might and taking what might be an " extreme" position might be politically unpopular.

The problem with moral relativism is that is obscures objectivity, and it also attempts to demonize those that might prefer to be guided by objective standards ("who are you to judge me" is a defense mechanism applied by a moral relativist).

A child with a disability has the same right to life as you or I. Such a child is no less valuable to society, in as much as they can return love, bring joy, and teach us a thing or two about our own humanity. To suggest that terminating the pregnancy of a mother whose child may be disabled might be an appropriate choice is simply another avenue to devalue life in such a way that is simply offensive. My daughter, nor anyone else's disabled child, needs to become a tool for the pro-choice crowd to try to create some wiggle room between objective right (the right to life) and objective wrong (pre-meditated murder).

[whell]

By the way: you asked, I answered. Please consider the response as passionate based on life experience and not me getting "uppity" with any member of this board specifically...

...with the possible exception of noone.

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by whell

By the way: you asked, I answered. Please consider the response as passionate based on life experience and not me getting "uppity" with any member of this board specifically...

...with the possible exception of noone.

Hmmmmm. I don't know Noone but I've heard the name before. Does he play nice?

In the U.K., potential Mothers can choose to have a pre-natal examination, and if this shows the fetus is likely to be born with Down's Syndrome, or Spina Bifida or several other conditions that I cannot remember the names of she is offered a choice; termination or progression to birth. Some choose termination, some choose to give birth and look after the child until it dies. It's their choice. I've seen a fair number of adults with Down's Syndrome. Most smile and look happy but had they not been born, would the fetus have suffered? Would it feel anguish at not being allowed to live or would it feel nothing? This is not a facile question; it's long been debated at what stage does a fetus become self aware. As to possible pain caused to the fetus by termination, how does this compare with the possible pain caused to the fetus by natural birth? Think about being forced from a secure environment via a narrow constricting tube into a place that compared to where it came from would be as alien as you can imagin. Would that cause more or less pain than a fetus might feel during termination? It's all relative; but in a scientifically advancing society we're likely to be presented with more and more choices.

The fact that a fetus can go through all the natural functions of a new born baby does not in my eyes indicate sentience; it indicates the potential, just the potential to given time, become a sentient human being.

No I am not advocating abandoning a newborn to die because it's been born too early, I am just pointing out that in nature, that's what would happen. Early birth, late birth is not the point. Without hi-tech medical intervention the potential adult would die. Science is moving fast; already if artificial insemination results in multiple potential babies, scientists pick and choose which one is most likely to be healthy, and discard the rest. Each egg + cell that has been discarded had the potential to live. If possible (and don't say it never will be) should they all be allowed to develop into babies, then children, then adults?

We're maybe drifting off track, but to go back to the woman made pregnant by a rapist, then crying because as the result of a crime, she had to give birth to and look after a child she did not want, I think it is a cruel society that would force her to do this.

[JJIII]

The way I read post #18 is the woman was the baby, she was not the mother. Be that as it may, if a woman gives birth to a baby she doesn't want, there is always adoption.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by JJIII

The way I read post #18 is the woman was the baby, she was not the mother. Be that as it may, if a woman gives birth to a baby she doesn't want, there is always adoption.

That was the way I read the post as well. However with regard to adoption, this country has what may well be the most screwed up adoption laws in the world. Imagine that you adopt a child, nurture it and love it for 12 months, then the natural father comes along and demands the child. Had that sort of thing been allowed in Canada and had it happened I don't know what I would have done. You might as well cut open a person's chest and tear their heart out.

And it has happened here, I don't doubt but what the natural father's intent was extortion.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by merrylander

That was the way I read the post as well. However with regard to adoption, this country has what may well be the most screwed up adoption laws in the world. Imagine that you adopt a child, nurture it and love it for 12 months, then the natural father comes along and demands the child. Had that sort of thing been allowed in Canada and had it happened I don't know what I would have done. You might as well cut open a person's chest and tear their heart out.

And it has happened here, I don't doubt but what the natural father's intent was extortion.

I can't argue with you on those points. How do we address making the necessary changes?

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by merrylander

That was the way I read the post as well. However with regard to adoption, this country has what may well be the most screwed up adoption laws in the world. Imagine that you adopt a child, nurture it and love it for 12 months, then the natural father comes along and demands the child. Had that sort of thing been allowed in Canada and had it happened I don't know what I would have done. You might as well cut open a person's chest and tear their heart out.

And it has happened here, I don't doubt but what the natural father's intent was extortion.

I've read post 18 again; I got that one totally wrong.

Jim.

[finnbow]

I tire of middle age white men debating the morality of what a woman can do with her body. I think that if men could get pregnant, they may have a different view of this issue.

Also, WTF is the party of small government doing arguing that such decisions should be made in Washington?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I tire of middle age white men debating the morality of what a woman can do with her body. I think that if men could get pregnant, they may have a different view of this issue.

Also, WTF is the party of small government doing arguing that such decisions should be made in Washington?

Touche!