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

[piece-itpete]

JI, I heard an interview with a woman conceived in a rape, the guy said rape babies deserved to live too, she broke down bawling and said everyone says I had no right to life....

Pete

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

JI, I heard an interview with a woman conceived in a rape, the guy said rape babies deserved to live too, she broke down bawling and said everyone says I had no right to life....


Pete

That's appalling, she gets a life sentence for someone elses crime.



JJ111

"Life begins when sperm meets egg and cell division begins".

In that it's the beginning of a natural process that if everything works results in another addition or two to the human race, it's true, but the implication of your post is interesting.

If you and your family by free choice live by this belief would you leave it at that? If you could make abortion a criminal offense, no matter what the circumstances, would you do so? Would you take my freedom of choice away because, by your belief, deliberately breaking the chain immediately after cell division is murder?

Words are interesting. The difference between "abortion" and "termination" has the same slant as "smacking" your child or "hitting" your child. Same acts, but the words indicate viewpoint.

My view? I am pro termination whatever the circumstances. No, I do not believe that killing a newborn baby is anything less than murder but aborting a fetus is not. If you believe there should be no interference, no matter what the circumstances in the natural process, logically you must believe that a baby born too early to survive on its own should be left to die. After all, it's the natural process.....

[whell]

Originally Posted by Combwork

If you believe there should be no interference, no matter what the circumstances in the natural process, logically you must believe that a baby born too early to survive on its own should be left to die. After all, it's the natural process.....

Do you know of any sentient being that would agree that the above statement is logical? Do we leave any child, born at whatever term of the pregnancy, left to die because it can't survive on its own? "Sorry, kid. If you can't wiggle your way to your mom's tit on your own, you're SOL. Survival of the fittest, and all that..."

No baby can survive on their own. Is a child outside of the womb is viable because anyone can hold him/her now when the kid is feeding, and we can change their diaper? The kid was still consuming nourishment, growing, developing and defecating right up to the point he/she was born. Some children born with disabilities or certain birth defects are certainly less "viable" than a typical child. Some children born with disabilities/birth defects would certainly perish is there wasn't intensive medical care, and in some cases surgical intervention, shortly after birth. Does this make them any more or less worthy of medical intervention that a child born prematurely? Is a child born prematurely only viable if delivered, a child aborted at the same number of weeks of fetal development is somehow not viable?

The logic behind Roe V Wade continues to escape me.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Do you know of any sentient being that would agree that the above statement is logical? Do we leave any child, born at whatever term of the pregnancy, left to die because it can't survive on its own? "Sorry, kid. If you can't wiggle your way to your mom's tit on your own, you're SOL. Survival of the fittest, and all that..."

No baby can survive on their own. Is a child outside of the womb is viable because anyone can hold him/her now when the kid is feeding, and we can change their diaper? The kid was still consuming nourishment, growing, developing and defecating right up to the point he/she was born. Some children born with disabilities or certain birth defects are certainly less "viable" than a typical child. Some children born with disabilities/birth defects would certainly perish is there wasn't intensive medical care, and in some cases surgical intervention, shortly after birth. Does this make them any more or less worthy of medical intervention that a child born prematurely? Is a child born prematurely only viable if delivered, a child aborted at the same number of weeks of fetal development is somehow not viable?

In truth we do intervene during pregnancy and the amount of that intervention is increasing. Surgery is being performed in the womb with increasing frequency for things such as spina biffida.

Intervening to terminate a pregnancy to save the motherr's life is really not a great difference. Especially where there are already children in the family. The more we play with the wording of laws the more it seems that we hopelessly complicate things.

I do not welcome abortion as birth control, but is the 'morning after pill' really any different than a diaphragm and spermicidal jelly? Yet, is a woman who casually uses abortion as birth control really a fit mother? But God forbid we try and devise a law that would allow us to remove a child from her care. We have done a more than adequate job of screwing up the nation's justice system as it stands.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Combwork

If you and your family by free choice live by this belief would you leave it at that? If you could make abortion a criminal offense, no matter what the circumstances, would you do so? Would you take my freedom of choice away because, by your belief, deliberately breaking the chain immediately after cell division is murder?

That's the problem with the assumption that moral relativism is a good ideal. There are folks who believe that "All men are rapists", marriage is legalized rape, and that heterosexual intercourse is the ultimate expression of derision towards women. I wouldn't want to live in a world governed by their morality or belief system either, though I suspect many of them might be found in the pro-choice camp.

Those who argue that there can be no moral absolutes use much sophistry to support their arguments. But can a society where morality (or a sense or right or wrong) is relative uphold any values, since any sense of "wrong" might be reduced to the sensibilities of the least common denominator of that society?

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by Combwork

That's appalling, she gets a life sentence for someone elses crime.

I think you need to re-read this. To me it seems she was crying because she thought other people thought she had no right to live. Should we just kill her now because she was a "rape baby"?



JJ111

"Life begins when sperm meets egg and cell division begins".

"In that it's the beginning of a natural process that if everything works results in another addition or two to the human race, it's true, but the implication of your post is interesting.

If you and your family by free choice live by this belief would you leave it at that? If you could make abortion a criminal offense, no matter what the circumstances, would you do so? Would you take my freedom of choice away because, by your belief, deliberately breaking the chain immediately after cell division is murder?"

I would not take anybody's freedom of choice away. If today's society deems abortion is legal then I must live by the law of the land... or move.

"Words are interesting. The difference between "abortion" and "termination" has the same slant as "smacking" your child or "hitting" your child. Same acts, but the words indicate viewpoint.

My view? I am pro termination whatever the circumstances. No, I do not believe that killing a newborn baby is anything less than murder but aborting a fetus is not. If you believe there should be no interference, no matter what the circumstances in the natural process, logically you must believe that a baby born too early to survive on its own should be left to die. After all, it's the natural process.....

"

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.

[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).

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

JI, I heard an interview with a woman conceived in a rape, the guy said rape babies deserved to live too, she broke down bawling and said everyone says I had no right to life....

Pete

Someone did a bad job of explaining her existence to her. I hope that no one actually was crass enough to say that to her. I can understand that she might infer this from the statements that a woman who is raped should be allowed to get an abortion. That her mother chose not to abort her, or may have been coerced to bear her is certainy not the young woman's fault. Note that those who believe in choice only want that a rape victim has the "choice".