The problem with the Abortion debate

[PetraG]

The Church’s position is clear enough. But do we really know what God’s position is? Maybe God believes that in certain cases an unwanted baby is better off not being born and that God can take care him better somewhere else? Can we ever claim to know what is in God’s mind? (Meant to reply to TheMortenBay)

I don’t know why someone would be Catholic if they didn’t think the Apostolic Tradition had any particular revelation that comes from the mind of God.
On the other hand, do we think God has reduced us to utter guesswork about the nature of how to act according to the nature we’ve been given? Are we left orphans, with no way of knowing anything about the mind of God?

 

[phil19034]

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

Well, I can say that my wife and I mourned my wife’s miscarriage and we cried. I was strong for her at first while she cried and then later I allowed myself the opportunity to cry for the loss of my child.

And yes, I cried because my baby died.

We never named the baby and personally, I wish we did. But that’s not something my wife wanted to do.

So there are many parents who do mourn a miscarriage. Granted, many (like my wife) start feeling better once the next child is born. Not to mention, it is easier to “get over” the lost of a miscarriage earlier in the pregnancy - some later miscarriages can be truly traumatizing.

Anyway, my point is; many people do morn miscarriages for a while. Some for months, others for years.

God bless

 

[Vanny]

Wow I’d like to get the first book. I read something about how early Pro Life advocates were also in the civil rights movement looks interesting.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So we have some common ground.

Yes and no. We both acknowledge that they’re different types of abortions. But

If I understand you correctly, you see a bioethical difference between early-term and late-term abortions because women may feel more sadness toward the latter, or perhaps because the thought of killing a fetus closer to infancy just feels queasier.

By contrast, I acknowledge the emotional and medical differences but see no bioethical difference; unjust killing is unjust killing, regardless of how small or dependent someone is and regardless of our emotions toward the action.

So which is the more morally unjust: To swat a mosquito or bludgeon a chimp to death. Life is life? Is it not?

Ah, but you are talking about ‘someone’. But I don’t accept that a few cells can be described thus.

Where can we go with this?

 

[goout]

Bradskii:

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

Well, I can say that my wife and I mourned my wife’s miscarriage and we cried. I was strong for her at first while she cried and then later I allowed myself the opportunity to cry for the loss of my child.

And yes, I cried because my baby died.

We never named the baby and personally, I wish we did. But that’s not something my wife wanted to do.

So there are many parents who do mourn a miscarriage. And granted, many (like my wife) start feeling better once the next child is born. Plus, it is easier to “get over” the lost of a miscarriage earlier in the pregnancy - some later miscarriages can be truly traumatizing.

Anyway, my point is; many people do morn miscarriages for a while. Some for months, others for years.

God bless

And by the same logic I would ask Brad: why should I mourn a starving child in India? Can’t see them, don’t know them, helpless poor folks.

Answer: human life has intrinsic worth at any stage, any time, any place, any stage of development.

This is the pit that humanity falls into when objective moral principles are relativized.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

Well, I can say that my wife and I mourned my wife’s miscarriage and we cried. I was strong for her at first while she cried and then later I allowed myself the opportunity to cry for the loss of my child.

And yes, I cried because my baby died.

We never named the baby and personally, I wish we did. But that’s not something my wife wanted to do.

So there are many parents who do mourn a miscarriage. And granted, many (like my wife) start feeling better once the next child is born. Plus, it is easier to “get over” the lost of a miscarriage earlier in the pregnancy - some later miscarriages can be truly traumatizing.

Anyway, my point is; many people do morn miscarriages for a while. Some for months, others for years.

God bless

I’m sorry for your loss, Phill. My wife and I have gone through it as well. It doesn’t change the point of my argument.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Bradskii:

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

Well, I can say that my wife and I mourned my wife’s miscarriage and we cried. I was strong for her at first while she cried and then later I allowed myself the opportunity to cry for the loss of my child.

And yes, I cried because my baby died.

We never named the baby and personally, I wish we did. But that’s not something my wife wanted to do.

So there are many parents who do mourn a miscarriage. And granted, many (like my wife) start feeling better once the next child is born. Plus, it is easier to “get over” the lost of a miscarriage earlier in the pregnancy - some later miscarriages can be truly traumatizing.

Anyway, my point is; many people do morn miscarriages for a while. Some for months, others for years.

God bless

I’m sorry for your loss, Phill. My wife and I have gone through it as well. It doesn’t change the point of my argument.

First, thank you very much. I’m sorry for your loss as well.

Second, I understand that it does not change your mind on the issue. I wish there was something I could say that would change your mind.

Out of curiosity, is there one specific argument that would flip you the Pro-Life side if someone could make a convincing argument?

 

[Bradskii]

phil19034:

Bradskii:

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

Well, I can say that my wife and I mourned my wife’s miscarriage and we cried. I was strong for her at first while she cried and then later I allowed myself the opportunity to cry for the loss of my child.

And yes, I cried because my baby died.

We never named the baby and personally, I wish we did. But that’s not something my wife wanted to do.

So there are many parents who do mourn a miscarriage. And granted, many (like my wife) start feeling better once the next child is born. Plus, it is easier to “get over” the lost of a miscarriage earlier in the pregnancy - some later miscarriages can be truly traumatizing.

Anyway, my point is; many people do morn miscarriages for a while. Some for months, others for years.

God bless

And by the same logic I would ask Brad: why should I mourn a starving child in India? Can’t see them, don’t know them, helpless poor folks.

If you grieved for every starving child, you would go mad. So the answer is, which you already knew, is that you don’t mourn for every child in India without food. You have no connection with them.

If you went to India and had first hand experience of starving children (I have) then your immediate concern at that time is for them. But ask me at that time if I mourned for children in Africa, then my answer would be no. I have only so much compassion to give. It is primarily given to those close to me. As it is for you.

Those close to you are generally your family. But it may be the child in front of you in Delhi who is obviously malnourished.

There are children dying everywhere right at this moment and some simple acts by you could save some of them. Some relatively more complex acts coukd save a lot more. But who are we most concerned with? Ask yourself, goout.

 

[goout]

goout:

phil19034:

Bradskii:

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

Well, I can say that my wife and I mourned my wife’s miscarriage and we cried. I was strong for her at first while she cried and then later I allowed myself the opportunity to cry for the loss of my child.

And yes, I cried because my baby died.

We never named the baby and personally, I wish we did. But that’s not something my wife wanted to do.

So there are many parents who do mourn a miscarriage. And granted, many (like my wife) start feeling better once the next child is born. Plus, it is easier to “get over” the lost of a miscarriage earlier in the pregnancy - some later miscarriages can be truly traumatizing.

Anyway, my point is; many people do morn miscarriages for a while. Some for months, others for years.

God bless

And by the same logic I would ask Brad: why should I mourn a starving child in India? Can’t see them, don’t know them, helpless poor folks.

If you grieved for every starving child, you would go mad. So the answer is, which you already knew, is that you don’t mourn for every child in India without food. You have no connection with them.

If you went to India and had first hand experience of starving children (I have) then your immediate concern at that time is for them. But ask me at that time if I mourned for children in Africa, then my answer would be no. I have only so much compassion to give. It is primarily given to those close to me. As it is for you.

Those close to you are generally your family. But it may be the child in front of you in Delhi who is obviously malnourished.

There are children dying everywhere right at this moment and some simple acts by you could save some of them. Some relatively more complex acts coukd save a lot more. But who are we most concerned with? Ask yourself, goout.

So by your consistent logic, due to the fact that can’t possibly empathize with every starving child we should let the clump-o-cells, errrr child, die without any public policy protection or moral imperatives to feed them.

Right?

 

[goout]

blackforest:

Bradskii:

So we have some common ground.

Yes and no. We both acknowledge that they’re different types of abortions. But

If I understand you correctly, you see a bioethical difference between early-term and late-term abortions because women may feel more sadness toward the latter, or perhaps because the thought of killing a fetus closer to infancy just feels queasier.

By contrast, I acknowledge the emotional and medical differences but see no bioethical difference; unjust killing is unjust killing, regardless of how small or dependent someone is and regardless of our emotions toward the action.

So which is the more morally unjust: To swat a mosquito or bludgeon a chimp to death. Life is life? Is it not?

Ah, but you are talking about ‘someone’. But I don’t accept that a few cells can be described thus.

Where can we go with this?

A good start would be to acknowledge that human life is exceptional compared to mosquitos and chimps.
And so morality ought to acknowledge that fact, in a sane world.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

goout:

phil19034:

Bradskii:

But if we are to treat all fertilised eggs as human, then where is the anguish if a woman realises that her pregnancy ilhas stopped at that initial stage.

Well, I can say that my wife and I mourned my wife’s miscarriage and we cried. I was strong for her at first while she cried and then later I allowed myself the opportunity to cry for the loss of my child.

And yes, I cried because my baby died.

We never named the baby and personally, I wish we did. But that’s not something my wife wanted to do.

So there are many parents who do mourn a miscarriage. And granted, many (like my wife) start feeling better once the next child is born. Plus, it is easier to “get over” the lost of a miscarriage earlier in the pregnancy - some later miscarriages can be truly traumatizing.

Anyway, my point is; many people do morn miscarriages for a while. Some for months, others for years.

God bless

And by the same logic I would ask Brad: why should I mourn a starving child in India? Can’t see them, don’t know them, helpless poor folks.

If you grieved for every starving child, you would go mad. So the answer is, which you already knew, is that you don’t mourn for every child in India without food. You have no connection with them.

If you went to India and had first hand experience of starving children (I have) then your immediate concern at that time is for them. But ask me at that time if I mourned for children in Africa, then my answer would be no. I have only so much compassion to give. It is primarily given to those close to me. As it is for you.

Those close to you are generally your family. But it may be the child in front of you in Delhi who is obviously malnourished.

There are children dying everywhere right at this moment and some simple acts by you could save some of them. Some relatively more complex acts coukd save a lot more. But who are we most concerned with? Ask yourself, goout.

So by your consistent logic, due to the fact that can’t possibly empathize with every starving child we should let the clump-o-cells, errrr child, die without any public policy protection or moral imperatives to feed them.

Right?

Way to go, goout. Misrepresentation par excellance.

Firstly, not grieving and having empathy are totaly different. You can have empathy with someone but care nothing for their well being. It doesn’t mean what the common useage of the term ‘sympathy’ means.

And a clump of cells is not a child. Either emotionally or legally.

And abortion is I believe, which you may be astonished to hear, a procedure that should be controlled in some manner. So public protection and the moral state of the public in question, should be considered.

Don’t make so many assumptions. You’d be better off asking questions first.

 

[Sbee0]

And a clump of cells is not a child. Either emotionally or legally.

An unborn child =/= a clump of cells

 

[goout]

Way to go, goout. Misrepresentation par excellance.

Firstly, not grieving and having empathy are totaly different.

Ah I see. …

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

blackforest:

Bradskii:

So we have some common ground.

Yes and no. We both acknowledge that they’re different types of abortions. But

If I understand you correctly, you see a bioethical difference between early-term and late-term abortions because women may feel more sadness toward the latter, or perhaps because the thought of killing a fetus closer to infancy just feels queasier.

By contrast, I acknowledge the emotional and medical differences but see no bioethical difference; unjust killing is unjust killing, regardless of how small or dependent someone is and regardless of our emotions toward the action.

So which is the more morally unjust: To swat a mosquito or bludgeon a chimp to death. Life is life? Is it not?

Ah, but you are talking about ‘someone’. But I don’t accept that a few cells can be described thus.

Where can we go with this?

A good start would be to acknowledge that human life is exceptional compared to mosquitos and chimps.
And so morality ought to acknowledge that fact, in a sane world.

Slow down and read the whole post, can’t you? Then you wouldn’t have missed me saying 'Ah, but you are talking about ‘someone’.

As opposed to other organisms.

 

[goout]

I’ll simply repost your words.

So which is the more morally unjust: To swat a mosquito or bludgeon a chimp to death. Life is life? Is it not?

Ah, but you are talking about ‘someone’. But I don’t accept that a few cells can be described thus.

Where can we go with this?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And a clump of cells is not a child. Either emotionally or legally.

An unborn child =/= a clump of cells

A clump of cells is what a child will develop from. A zygote and a child are not the same.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Way to go, goout. Misrepresentation par excellance.

Firstly, not grieving and having empathy are totaly different.

Ah I see. …

You see what? That you didn’t understand and you agree with me that you don’t appreciate the difference?

Please clarify at your leisure.

And tell me if you do grieve for all children? And if so, what do you do about it.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Bradskii:

And a clump of cells is not a child. Either emotionally or legally.

An unborn child =/= a clump of cells

A clump of cells is what a child will develop from. A zygote and a child are not the same.

A clump of cells like a tumor is created from the process of mitosis and is not a human life. A growth or tumor can never, ever become a human life. An unborn child is created from conception and is a human life. The difference is like night and day.

Depersonalizing an unborn child as a clump of cells is not scientifically sound and is a common tactic of pro choicers to make their position more “acceptable”.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Sbee0:

Bradskii:

And a clump of cells is not a child. Either emotionally or legally.

An unborn child =/= a clump of cells

A clump of cells is what a child will develop from. A zygote and a child are not the same.

A clump of cells like a tumor is created from the process of mitosis and is not a human life. An unborn child is created from conception and is a human life. The difference is like night and day.

Depersonalizing an unborn child as a clump of cells is not scientifically sound and is a common tactic of pro choicers to make their position more “acceptable”.

That people do NOT class a zygote as a person should be obvious to you. How you deal with that is up to you. Saying it is ‘unscientific’ is not going to keep me awake at nights. Nothwithstanding that no-one, outside religious discussions about abortion, has ever referred to a zygote as ‘someone’.

If you know of anyone, I’d be pleased to hear. Otherwise I will ignore it.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Bradskii:

Sbee0:

Bradskii:

And a clump of cells is not a child. Either emotionally or legally.

An unborn child =/= a clump of cells

A clump of cells is what a child will develop from. A zygote and a child are not the same.

A clump of cells like a tumor is created from the process of mitosis and is not a human life. An unborn child is created from conception and is a human life. The difference is like night and day.

Depersonalizing an unborn child as a clump of cells is not scientifically sound and is a common tactic of pro choicers to make their position more “acceptable”.

That people do NOT class a zygote as a person should be obvious to you. How you deal with that is up to you. Saying it is ‘unscientific’ is not going to keep me awake at nights. Nothwithstanding that no-one, outside religious discussions about abortion, has ever referred to a zygote as ‘someone’.

If you know of anyone, I’d be pleased to hear. Otherwise I will ignore it.

You’re talking about personhood, which is completely different from what I was saying about life. An unborn child IS a unique life. science says so. A clump of cells isn’t and never will become so. The two should never be compared in any serious way.

The “personhood” argument, brought many times into the abortion debate, is of course flawed and thus a non argument when it comes to the right to life of an unborn child. There is nothing scientific about personhood, there is no marker in development which determines when a “person” comes into being, it’s an arbitrary marker created by human beings and not science, and the flaw is that personhood is arbitrary and not on a set standard of what a person is, but by someone’s own standard. History has shown us that there can be undesirable consequences when human beings make this arbitrary determination of who a person is and what rights they have, and who isn’t a person and thus not worthy of these rights.

In other words, therefore, I can say that at the moment of conception a new human person is created and neither you nor anyone else has any grounds to say I’m wrong. Thus, the flaw.