Abortion: What is the Right Choice?

[dennisknapp]

caroljm36:

Are you assuming that if someone knew it was immoral that they would not do it? I tend to think that people are in denial about the humanity of the fetus, but I’m not sure educating them will make a big difference. They’ll just say so it’s a person, so what. I mean we are that hard-hearted now.

And besides, they won’t let us educate them with photos or talk–my state just passed a law that you can’t go within 36 feet of someone entering or leaving an abortion mill e.g.–so obviously they’re afraid of the truth and just want to close their eyes, plug their ears and go on their way. And as someone said, some people will just take sides with Satan upon being apprised of their immoral choices. Look how it’s happening now. There is a whole swathe of people who just love self-identifying as pagan and/or satanic. They think it’s cool. I think there is a reason for that–it lets them off the hook in some psychic way.

What I would be interested in seeing is a study of any correlation between abortion and post-op drinking and partying as a way to ward off guilt.

I agree with you, but if they want to call abortion of moral choice they have to follow moral guidelines, just calling it a choice is not enough.

If they know it is immoral and do it anyway then that is another issue all together.

What I am trying to do is appeal to those who think it is a moral choice based on the right to choose. In order for them to choose properly they must have the knowledge necessary, if not then it is not moral.

Peace

 

[littleitaly]

caroljm36:

Are you assuming that if someone knew it was immoral that they would not do it? I tend to think that people are in denial about the humanity of the fetus, but I’m not sure educating them will make a big difference. They’ll just say so it’s a person, so what. I mean we are that hard-hearted now.

And besides, they won’t let us educate them with photos or talk–my state just passed a law that you can’t go within 36 feet of someone entering or leaving an abortion mill e.g.–so obviously they’re afraid of the truth and just want to close their eyes, plug their ears and go on their way. And as someone said, some people will just take sides with Satan upon being apprised of their immoral choices. Look how it’s happening now. There is a whole swathe of people who just love self-identifying as pagan and/or satanic. They think it’s cool. I think there is a reason for that–it lets them off the hook in some psychic way.

What I would be interested in seeing is a study of any correlation between abortion and post-op drinking and partying as a way to ward off guilt.

If we were all to take up your way of thinking, that is, "I tend to think that people are in denial about the humanity of the fetus, but I’m not sure educating them will make a big difference." Then we would all be in sin by not doing as Christ had asked us to. He did make the statement that we are to be loving, charitable, and caring for each other. Yes, there are many that are hard hearted, but we are not to give up. If God were to give up, do you think we would still be here today, talking to each other. Peace to you smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_32.gif

 

[littleitaly]

I can only come up with one way for those who may think that abortion is a moral choice. Question: Is it a sin in the eyes of the Holy Spirit to kill, be the person born or unborn? Answer: You, the reader should come up with the correct one without my assistance.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_66.gif Keep in mind that what grows within the womb of a woman is real, a life forming at conception. I am not here to judge on how one became pregnant, I simply wish to plea to those of you who read this that may be concidering the idea of abortion, to take a closer look at a cross that simbolizes Christ who gave His life up for all of us in hopes that we will soon someday all live without sin. The child that grows in your womb could very well be the one that someday will save many lives from destruction. smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_26.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_14.gif

 

[SFTor]

your argument falls down because you are assuming that if one accepts “the fetus is a person and we know that” automatically they will feel the appropriate horror at murdering an innocent person and therefore refrain from abortion. If you follow pro-abort rhetoric you will quickly find that many politicians, scientists, feminists and activists do acknowledge the fetus as a human being, as a person and yet do not assign its right to life the same importance or status as the right of the mother to abort.

Well, the fetus is not a person. Personhood begins at birth, demonstrably.

 

[davidv]

Well, the fetus is not a person. Personhood begins at birth, demonstrably.

"Person’ or not, the unborn is a unique, human being.

 

[wcknight]

Well, the fetus is not a person. Personhood begins at birth, demonstrably.

How so ??? It has long been shown that the fetus can survive outside the womb, months before actual birth. It has also been shown that the unborn can experience pain, react to light, sound, motion etc,

How would you define personhood, other than the circular argument that it begins at physical birth ??? heart beat, brain waves ???

 

[SFTor]

How so ??? It has long been shown that the fetus can survive outside the womb, months before actual birth. It has also been shown that the unborn can experience pain, react to light, sound, motion etc,

How would you define personhood, other than the circular argument that it begins at physical birth ??? heart beat, brain waves ???

Personhood is a legal construct. Remember that a corporation is a person too.

I am sure you are right about the fetus being able to experience the things you mention at some point in its development. That’s why I’m no fan of abortion, although I am willing to accept it early in the pregnancy. At that point we are not talking about a sentient being. I think late-term abortions should only be performed if the mother’s life hangs in the balance. It’s heartbreaking choice to have to make even then, but I don’t see how we can choose otherwise.

 

[SFTor]

"Person’ or not, the unborn is a unique, human being.

I agree that abortion is undesirable. I do not agree that personhood happens at conception.

Please remember that we do not live in a Christian country. This is a country that separates Church and State. Abortion and personhood is a matter for an non-religious court system.

I think the best way to reduce the number of abortions are through social remedies. Decent health care, including birth control education, child care, financial support for children and their parents, especially for single parents, and sex education (although it’s not very effective) for all Americans are all tools I would vote for. Reducing poverty is another important measure. But I imagine that any Catholic is completely behind that anyway.

 

[Aquinas74]

I agree that abortion is undesirable. I do not agree that personhood happens at conception.

Please remember that we do not live in a Christian country. This is a country that separates Church and State. Abortion and personhood is a matter for an non-religious court system.

I think the best way to reduce the number of abortions are through social remedies. Decent health care, including birth control education, child care, financial support for children and their parents, especially for single parents, and sex education (although it’s not very effective) for all Americans are all tools I would vote for. Reducing poverty is another important measure. But I imagine that any Catholic is completely behind that anyway.

Hillary Clinton said the same thing, what is it a potential life to you? No we don’t live in a Christian country, we live in a country that has allowed more children to be slaughtered than died in the concentration camps of World War 2. It’s beyond me how people can even rationalize murder, but then again nothing in this nation of ours surprises me these days.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Personhood is a legal construct. Remember that a corporation is a person too.

Personhood is not simply a legal term- there are profound theological considerations at work in understanding the differences between a “being” and a “person” that date back to Aquinas and further back to the trinitarian and christological controversies in the first few centuries of the Church. In short, the church teaches that personhood is fixed-you are a person always and everywhere from the moment you were created-no matter what any government claims. (Incidentally, this understanding is also at the root of why we believe Jesus is completely human and completely divine.)

With that in mind, from a legal standpoint, it is a very risky thing to start limiting conditions of personhood to specific stages of human life- if a government can deny one group’s legal claim to personhood, there is a precedent for them to deny others’.

At that point we are not talking about a sentient being."

you can’t make this claim- nobody can. I think that was the OP’s point.

 

[SFTor]

Personhood is not simply a legal term- there are profound theological considerations at work in understanding the differences between a “being” and a “person” that date back to Aquinas and further back to the trinitarian and christological controversies in the first few centuries of the Church. In short, the church teaches that personhood is fixed-you are a person always and everywhere from the moment you were created-no matter what any government claims. (Incidentally, this understanding is also at the root of why we believe Jesus is completely human and completely divine.)

With that in mind, from a legal standpoint, it is a very risky thing to start limiting conditions of personhood to specific stages of human life- if a government can deny one group’s legal claim to personhood, there is a precedent for them to deny others’.

you can’t make this claim- nobody can. I think that was the OP’s point.

When it comes to abortion and the courts, the legal definition is what counts. I have no doubt that a Christian person sees it differently than the courts, differently than Moslems, differently than Hindus, and differently than Buddhists, and last but not least see it differently than atheists.

That is the entire point. The U.S. government is not allowed to espouse religious views. That’s made abundantly clear in the Constitution. It may be very risky to start limiting personhood for various people. But in the case of a fetus the law is clear: personhood begins at birth, for everybody.

We could of course argue that homosexuals are not given full personhood, as they are not allowed to marry. Well, now they are, in California, and in Massachussetts as well, no?

 

[SFTor]

you can’t make this claim- nobody can [that a an embryo, for instance, is not a sentient being]. I think that was the OP’s point.

I’m afraid you can’t make any points about the sentient nature of the early stages of fetal development either. It seems more reasonable to assume that a ball of 128 or 256 undifferentiated cells, for instance, is not sentient.

I still don’t understand where the Biblical basis for the protection of unborn children can be found. The Bible has little to say about it. In some cases it seems to prescribe abortion (Numbers 5), in others it seems to ascribe non-personhood on the fetus (Exodus 21). In a large number of other verses it shows no regard for life at all, as long as it concerns the mothers and children—born and unborn—of Israel’s enemies.

 

[Oscarthecat]

When it comes to abortion and the courts, the legal definition is what counts. I have no doubt that a Christian person sees it differently than the courts, differently than Moslems, differently than Hindus, and differently than Buddhists, and last but not least see it differently than atheists.

That is the entire point. The U.S. government is not allowed to espouse religious views. That’s made abundantly clear in the Constitution. It may be very risky to start limiting personhood for various people. But in the case of a fetus the law is clear: personhood begins at birth, for everybody.

We could of course argue that homosexuals are not given full personhood, as they are not allowed to marry. Well, now they are, in California, and in Massachussetts as well, no?

 

[SFTor]

Oscarthecat:
???

 

[Oscarthecat]

When it comes to abortion and the courts, the legal definition is what counts…The U.S. government is not allowed to espouse religious views. That’s made abundantly clear in the Constitution. It may be very risky to start limiting personhood for various people. But in the case of a fetus the law is clear: personhood begins at birth, for everybody.

The government doesn’t give rights, it recognizes and (arguably) protects rights. Our rights come from our creator. Not from the state- for more on that, see the declaration of independence.
That being said, you seem a little divided in your comments.
On the one hand you agree that it is problematic to allow the govenment to decide, in a legal sense, for us who is and who is not a human person. You even bring up the topic of personhood and rights in regard to homosexuals (although personhood and the responsibility to acknowlege social contracts are not the same argument-we’re not talking about executing homosexuals).

Yet, despite believing that selective protection of rights proper to personhood is unjust in regard to the pllight of some whose personhood you believe is being denied, you are nonetheless comfortable with the personhood of another group being denied just because the government says it is legal to do so.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I’m afraid you can’t make any points about the sentient nature of the early stages of fetal development either. It seems more reasonable to assume that a ball of 128 or 256 undifferentiated cells, for instance, is not sentient.

Again, I think that this is the OP’s point

It seems more reasonable to assume that a ball of 128 or 256 undifferentiated cells, for instance, is not sentient.

What you find to be “more reasonable” is not necessarily fact.
Since nobody knows, in terms of scientific fact, when human life begins, the prudent thing to do is to not take the risk.

The bottom line is that, regardless of which of us is correct about the actual point life begins, the point would be moot if abortion didn’t exist. Therefore, it makes sense that the only way either of us can absolutely guarantee that noone is killed by abortion is to do all we can to stop abortion.

I am not willing to put the lives of children on the line based on something you find “more reasonable.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again, I think that this is the OP’s point
What you find to be “more reasonable” is not necessarily fact.

Since neither of us know, in terms of scientific fact, when life begins, the prudent thing to do is to not take the risk.

The bottom line is that, regardless of which of us is correct about the actual point life begins, the point would be moot if abortion didn’t exist. Therefore, it makes sense that the only way either of us can absolutely guarantee that noone is killed by abortion is to do all we can to stop abortion.

I am not willing to put the lives of children on the line based on something you find “more reasonable.”

As I pointed out in my post above, you not only put the lives of children on the line when you endorse abortion, you destroy the whole concept of human rights.

Is that where we want to go – to trample all rights?

 

[Oscarthecat]

As I pointed out in my post above, you not only put the lives of children on the line when you endorse abortion, you destroy the whole concept of human rights.

Is that where we want to go – to trample all rights?

Since you quoted me, I’m assuming this is directed toward my comments. It looks like we’re in agreement, but your tone didn’t reflect that. I’m not denying that unborn children are human-I’m pointing out that no one can prove that they are NOT human. Just like it would be wrong to fire a shotgun into a dark room based on someone’s opinion that it is “more reasonable” to believe it is empty, you shouldn’t kill an unborn baby that some people believe it is “more reasonable” to believe it isn’t human.

 

[SFTor]

The government doesn’t give rights, it recognizes and (arguably) protects rights. Our rights come from our creator. Not from the state- for more on that, see the declaration of independence.
That being said, you seem a little divided in your comments.
On the one hand you agree that it is problematic to allow the govenment to decide, in a legal sense, for us who is and who is not a human person. You even bring up the topic of personhood and rights in regard to homosexuals (although personhood and the responsibility to acknowlege social contracts are not the same argument-we’re not talking about executing homosexuals).

Yet, despite believing that selective protection of rights proper to personhood is unjust in regard to the pllight of some whose personhood you believe is being denied, you are nonetheless comfortable with the personhood of another group being denied just because the government says it is legal to do so.

Oscar,

I am not comfortable with abortion. I must however look at the other side of the equation too. It’s problematic.

It is correct that the Declaration Of Independence speaks of a Creator, It was just not a Christian Creator. The Founding Fathers were Deists. Notice for instance how the Great Seal of the United States (and the dollar bill) carries the image of an unfinished pyramid (a Masonic symbol) with an all-seeing astral eye, the eye of Providence, over it. A more Christian government would undoubtedly have found a place for a cross in the design, but they weren’t, and didn’t.

So you are in a sense right that our rights come from a Creator, it’s just that this Creator of the Founding Fathers is particularly amorphous (Providence), and leaves the decision-making in the hands of the American people through their servants, the United States Government.

I would contend that full personhood would give you all rights and protections of U.S. law. My point was simply that they don’t have all the rights and protections heterosexuals have, so it seems to me that they don’t have full personhood.