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

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

If we become an abortion on demand society, then we must assume that life begins at conception.

I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.

If the issue regarding the balancing of interests between a fetus and a mother is one of viability, there should be no issue with the morning after pill. Certainly a medication that acts to end or prevent a pregnancy shortly before or after conception would not interfere with a viable child.

You asked about consequences for unprotected sex between consenting adults and whether there should be personal or societal consequences. Just as you mentioned that advances in science would affect the viability of a fetus surviving, medical advances can also lengthen the time after conception in which the pregnancy can be terminated without an invasive procedure. To the extent that technology can provide a means to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, such technology should be encouraged.

I can understand moral and ethical concerns about balancing the interests of a fetus that has advanced to the point is sustainable life and the interests of the woman carrying the fetus. Reasonable minds can differ over how such balancing should occur. What I do not find reasonable is the mindset that would place undue importance on making sex something that can only occur within approved relationships. It seems like the only "sins" some groups care about are the sins that occur with sexual organs. To me there are plenty of "sins" that deserve greater attention.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It seems like the only "sins" some groups care about are the sins that occur with sexual organs.

That's right. They're so icky.

Didn't you know that our Founding Fathers were virgin?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Assuming that we're talking about unprotected sex between a non-monogamous couple (setting aside condom failure), what consequences, if any, should engaging in sexual activity have? Societal consequences? Familial consequences? If we become an abortion on demand society, then we must assume that life begins at conception. However, medicine is increasing the survival rates of children who are delivered under 30 weeks. Roe V Wade could not have envisioned the advances in medicine, so who now decides the medical standard for fetal viability? Should it be updated as medicine advances, with its potential impact on defining when an abortion should / shouldn't occur?

NO......

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.

Well, I can understand that, since I screwed up the post. That's what I get for trying to think while my 5 year old is buzzing around me. I think what I was attempting to say was that an abortion on demand society challenges the concept of when life begins in an extreme manner. I think most folks are horrified by the concept of near-term abortions. But as science advances, abortion on demand and the determination of when life begins will continue to collide.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I can understand moral and ethical concerns about balancing the interests of a fetus that has advanced to the point is sustainable life and the interests of the woman carrying the fetus. Reasonable minds can differ over how such balancing should occur. What I do not find reasonable is the mindset that would place undue importance on making sex something that can only occur within approved relationships. It seems like the only "sins" some groups care about are the sins that occur with sexual organs. To me there are plenty of "sins" that deserve greater attention.

Regards,

D-Ray

But if were talking about the need for an abortion, or the need for a "morning after pill" we're probably also talking about unprotected sex, and quite possibly unprotected casual sex. I think many folks might agree that such behavior is playing Russian Roulette with one's own body (STD's, etc.). But were also talking about casually creating a life, right?

[JJIII]

I would argue that once the sperm meets the egg and cell division begins, under normal circumstances, with no outside influence, in nine months a baby will be born. Any interference in this process (interruption or termination) is no different than ending the life of a person one, six, twenty, or any age one may choose to end a life. Careless sex, rape, incest, etc. are all the same in the womb. I recognize that carrying a child conceived under the circumstance of rape or incest is a horrific burden on the mother but murder of a child is no cure. You can toss the word "fetus" around if you want. That "fetus" would grow and be delivered as a human being without outside influence.
I have stated before on this forum my feelings about the death penalty. Murder requires pre-determination. Just because a State deems it legal doesn't change the fact that a human life is ended with thought taken beforehand. Countless governments before have decided that this group or that group, or this person or that person needs to not exist. Deliberate taking of another life is wrong. You may say "What about wartime?" I would answer that that is one of the sacrifices that a person in military service makes with the hope that his or her God will understand and forgive.
As far as what happens to the mother and child after an unwanted birth... it seems to me that in today's society there is room to take care of them both, either together or separately. If we can take care of people with mental problems, people with criminal problems, people with drug abuse problems we ought to be able to find a way to help these people also. I am in no way equating mothers and babies with any of the above except in the fact that they have a need and we should be able to meet it.

[BlueStreak]

I understand what your saying, John, and I admire that you care what happens to the child after it is born.

However, I know all too many who seem concerned about bringing these kids into this world, than consider them to be a burden once they're here. I am referring to right to lifers, who will insist that every pregnant woman give birth, then scream bloody murder when they are then asked to help her pay the bills..........................I've heard some very rude things said about that.

Dave

[merrylander]

Therin lies the problem, we should as a wealthy society be able to look after people, but we don't.

[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

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I understand what your saying, John, and I admire that you care what happens to the child after it is born.

However, I know all too many who seem concerned about bringing these kids into this world, than consider them to be a burden once they're here. I am referring to right to lifers, who will insist that every pregnant woman give birth, then scream bloody murder when they are then asked to help her pay the bills..........................I've heard some very rude things said about that.

Dave

Sure there are SOME folks out there who think that way. But there are many other "lifers" who do try to help. The National Right to Life Organization, along with the various state/local chapters, aggressively publishes options and support resources.

There are also more families in this country waiting to adopt children in any given year than there are abortions performed. If the adoption laws in this country weren't so screwed up, I know personally families who've paid tens of thousands of dollars to facilitate the adoption of a child from Russia, Argentina, etc., that would have been all to glad to pay for the medical care and other expenses of childbirth for someone else.

As always, there are many sides to this issue, well beyond the rude and uninformed comments of others.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Therin lies the problem, we should as a wealthy society be able to look after people, but we don't.

See post above. Lots of folks with the money to do so are spending it elsewhere because of our adoption laws.