Abortion and..

[JiriHrdina]

Here's another spin on this issue.

Someone close to me recently aborted their pregnancy after learning the embryo was developing with severe problems. A friend of hers suggested to her that she should have had the kid anyways - even though it would have been something close to a vegetable.

Is an abortion right or wrong in a case such as this?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Someone close to me recently aborted their pregnancy after learning the embryo was developing with severe problems. A friend of hers suggested to her that she should have had the kid anyways - even though it would have been something close to a vegetable.

Is an abortion right or wrong in a case such as this?

The answer to this question will obviously vary depending upon one's position in the debate. Anyone that I know who identifies him/herself as pro-choice would see the situation akin to a medical procedure. Most pro-life proponents—and I should know, having at one time been firmly entrenched in this camp—would argue that it is no different than maliciously killing a defenseless child. Did't you read the absurdly simple pronouncement made by eazyduzzit? "murder is murder".

[photon]

Which path will result in less suffering?

Absolutes derived from dogma such as "it's a baby one second after conception" don't take that into account.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The Bible describes man as a "living being" (Heb. nephes), however, this same terminology is used to describe any living creature that breathes. It is interesting to note that in the Genesis myth of Creation, in the second chapter we read that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being (Gen 2:7, my translation)." The qualification for life throughout the Hebrew Scriptures at least seems to be limited to whatever has the capacity to breathe.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note how this relationship between breath and life factors into the Mosaic covenant teachings regarding murder and manslaughter. In Exodus 21:22 we read: "And when men struggle and strike a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely (lit. "her children come out"), if none is harmed he shall surely be fined according to what the woman's husband has set against him. And he shall pay what the judges determine. If, however, harm follows, then you shall give a life (nephes) for a life (nephes)." If one were to translate the last clause quite literally and according to the root of the word nephes, it would read "he shall pay what breathes for what breathes." It will be noticed that the prescription cited only makes allowance for children who have been born alive, or breathing.

Now that's an interesting and cool post. (maybe it's the literary scholar in me, but I love this kind of stuff!) I actually have seen another poster cite virtually that same passage to show that the Bible indeed does prohibit abortion. Your explanation of it is far more compelling.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Here's another spin on this issue.

Someone close to me recently aborted their pregnancy after learning the embryo was developing with severe problems. A friend of hers suggested to her that she should have had the kid anyways - even though it would have been something close to a vegetable.

Is an abortion right or wrong in a case such as this?

I've always been torn on the abortion issues. On the one hand it is the woman's body and her choice in what to do with it. But what makes abortion wrong to me is we're talking about the possibility of robbing a sentient being his right to exist without asking him.

On the question above, you can say its going to be a vegitable or severly ######ed, but on the other hand it could be the next Stephen Hawkins (sp?) or Helen Keller, or somebody that can change the human existance. I'm not religeus by any stretch, but the old saying comes back that god has a plan for everybody.

So I don't think its black or white.

I hate the idea of using abortion as a convienient method of birth control, and I almost think that unless the baby is a direct threat to the mothers health it should be carried to full term, and if the mother dosen't want it, there are thousands of good people who can't conceive that would love to have that baby and would give it a good home.

Just my 2 conflicted threats.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Now that's an interesting and cool post. (maybe it's the literary scholar in me, but I love this kind of stuff!) I actually have seen another poster cite virtually that same passage to show that the Bible indeed does prohibit abortion. Your explanation of it is far more compelling.

Thank you.
I'm not at all surprised about this pericope's use to defend the anti-abortion agenda. Afterall, the Bible is extremely limited in it's scope of twentieth century ideological diaologue. Considering that huge numbers of anti-abortionists are staunch biblical literalists, it is quite telling when they must misconstrue the linguistic, historical and cultural context of scripture to support their point.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The same way killing an adult can be deemed legal in 1 instance, and murder in another.

Our legal system opperates on circumstances. "Murder is not murder", as you put it. That statement is FALSE!

To my knowloge, the only time killing someone is considered "legal" is in self defense purposes.

Abortion is definitely not that.

If you want to get into the technicals....

Originally Posted by Nuclearfart

Comments of a fetus being a living entity at the moment of conception by virtue of its ability to become a human being are also false, as any fetus removed from the womb before 20 weeks is incompatible with life. It cannot exist independantly, let alone persist and become a human being. It is as dependant upon the human body as all the other cells in your body that divide and grow everyday.

Where do you get the idea that in order for something to be deemed alive, it has to be able to sustain it's self.

Hell, babys in the 4-5 month range can't sustain themselfs either, but somehow that seems to fall under your "alive" catagory.

Something dosen't need to have a brain and limbs to be considered alive.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

To my knowloge, the only time killing someone is considered "legal" is in self defense purposes.

False again,
How about war or the death penalty?
Point is killing is not black/white as you like to see it, neither is killling babies/fetuses

If you want to get into the technicals....

Of course I want to get into technicals. It's a discussion of technicals.
The question you asked to start this thread needs answers that get into technicals.
That's exactly the part you're missing...

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

Where do you get the idea that in order for something to be deemed alive, it has to be able to sustain it's self.

Hell, babys in the 4-5 month range can't sustain themselfs either, but somehow that seems to fall under your "alive" catagory.

Something dosen't need to have a brain and limbs to be considered alive.

You misread my post. Re-read it and you will see that I never attempted to define what being "alive" constitutes. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your logic found your previous statement:

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

But it is alive, because it's constantly growing, developing and changing. I would never have developed into a human being or be posting this thread if i where not "alive" after my conception.

If you want, I could tell you my own thoughts on what I think being "alive" is, but you are going to immediately dismiss it simply because it doesnt fit with your own subjective beliefs. None the less, I respect that you have your own beliefs. Furthermore, I encourage you to go ahead and live your own life according to your own beliefs. That is what pro choice is all about
________
Personal herbal vaporizer

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

False again,
How about war or the death penalty?
Point is killing is not black/white as you like to see it, neither is killling babies/fetuses

You must think i was born yesterday.

I'm quite aware of those but i was merly refering to an abortion setting. Which is nor war, crime or self defense.

Hence, Murder.

Originally Posted by Nuclearfart

If you want, I could tell you my own thoughts on what I think being "alive" is, but you are going to immediately dismiss it simply because it doesnt fit with your own subjective beliefs. None the less, I respect that you have your own beliefs. Furthermore, I encourage you to go ahead and live your own life according to your own beliefs. That is what pro choice is all about

This is what i've said to Iowa_Flames_Fan on the other page. He has his beliefs and i have mine, neither of us are going to change that stance.

I never wanted this to get into an abortion debate in the first place, more or less the irony of getting charged with murder for killing a unborn baby.

[V]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Here's another spin on this issue.

Someone close to me recently aborted their pregnancy after learning the embryo was developing with severe problems. A friend of hers suggested to her that she should have had the kid anyways - even though it would have been something close to a vegetable.

Is an abortion right or wrong in a case such as this?

I really don't see how this should really cloud the issue.

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one debateable point in the abortion dispute. Is a fetus a living human or not?

Every other question is inconsequential.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

You must think i was born yesterday.

No, I just think you asked a question to start this thread, when you really had no interest in hearing any answers.

I'm quite aware of those but i was merly refering to an abortion setting. Which is nor war, crime or self defense.
Hence, Murder.

Actually, you refered specifically to self defense. Perhaps you should re-read what your own post.

And before that, you refered to murder in general, which includes all of those things. So they're quite important to the debate, and clearly demonstrate how murder is contexual and circumstancial.
Abortion is another one of those circumstancial examples where murder is not murder (to many people)

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Actually, you refered specifically to self defense. Perhaps you should re-read what your own post.

And before that, you refered to murder in general, which includes all of those things. So they're quite important to the debate, and clearly demonstrate how murder is contexual and circumstancial.
Abortion is another one of those circumstancial examples where murder is not murder (to many people)

It was an example. I figured anyone with the slightest bit of commen sense would know perfectly well i'm aware it's legal to put someone to death when it comes to capital punishment.

I thought it would be a none issue to clarify that, but i guess not

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

I really don't see how this should really cloud the issue.

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one debateable point in the abortion dispute. Is a fetus a living human or not?

Every other question is inconsequential.

I agree with that.
If we're talking about the disability status of the fetus, that's a whole nother issue.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

It was an example. I figured anyone with the slightest bit of commen sense would know perfectly well i'm aware it's legal to put someone to death when it comes to capital punishment.

I thought it would be a none issue to clarify that, but i guess not

Common sense should infer you're aware of something, when you clearly state the opposite?
That's like me saying "Iginla wear's the number 20", but you assuming I know he's 12 because of common sense.

The funny thing is, you're the only person in this thread who didn't have the common sense to see that murder is accepted at certain times.
You also don't have the common sense to see how that is being applied to abortions.(whether that's right or wrong)

[V]

Personally, I find it completely ridiculous that someone can be charged for murder when killing an unborn baby, based on the current laws. I assume that since abortion is legal, the popular and political view is that an unborn baby is not a living human.

To suggest that otherwise would just blow my mind. Because if that's a living human, what possible justification can there be for murdering him/her legally? I haven't read all three pages of the thread, so I don't know if this has been addressed. If so, sorry. It's late and I'm just passing through.

I also think that the OP came in here looking for a fight, and that from the few posts I've read, he's terrible at arguing his point.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

I really don't see how this should really cloud the issue.

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one debateable point in the abortion dispute. Is a fetus a living human or not?

Every other question is inconsequential.

Well someone brought up the example of whether or not an abortion is acceptable when a woman is rape. So the issue does have more complex aspects do it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

On the question above, you can say its going to be a vegitable or severly ######ed, but on the other hand it could be the next Stephen Hawkins (sp?) or Helen Keller, or somebody that can change the human existance. I'm not religeus by any stretch, but the old saying comes back that god has a plan for everybody.

So I don't think its black or white.

I hate the idea of using abortion as a convienient method of birth control, and I almost think that unless the baby is a direct threat to the mothers health it should be carried to full term, and if the mother dosen't want it, there are thousands of good people who can't conceive that would love to have that baby and would give it a good home.

Just my 2 conflicted threats.

The argument against abortion from the possible future or robbing someone of a life doesn't really work.. As was pointed out any kind of artifical means to help people have babies usually produces far more than are necessary and develop, those are future lives wasted as well. 30% of all pregnancies are terminated by the body, often without the mother even knowing it, those are lost future lives. Wouldn't every time we have the opportunity to procreate but do not take that opportunity be the same thing? Isn't that was the anti-birth control idea comes from? I don't think that you can argue against abortion with future uknown possibilities.

I very much agree though that I don't like the idea of abortion as a convenient method of birth control beyond a specific point (i.e. morning after pills are ok). What that point is, I don't know.

[V]

No, Jiri, it really doesn't.

If the unborn child is a living human, an innocent living human at that, I cannot perceive a justifiable reason for killing him/her.

If the child is not a living human, no harm, no foul.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Dominicwasalreadytaken

I also think that the OP came in here looking for a fight, and that from the few posts I've read, he's terrible at arguing his point.

On the point that the laws seem to contradict, I don't think many would argue. But so what, I'm sure many other laws contradict each other. That doesn't mean anything, but the OP seems to be saying it does.

I think the OP did post this to create this discussion, here's the way I see the OP's logic in this thread: The law says a fetus is not a person but someone was charged with murder for killing a fetus, therefore the law is not self consistent thus proving that abortion is wrong. Or something along those lines.