• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

for those against abortion

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
It is pointless. Politically, it's already a finished debate. Repealing Roe v. Wade or making abortion illegal is completely off the table.

Pro-choicers have essentially won, all over the developed world, and I think pro-lifers would be more wise to pick new battles instead of fighting already lost ones.

I completely disagree.

Isn't it disconcerting to think of a world where people didn't assertively stand up for their biggest value? The pro-life stance centers around the belief that abortion is an act that kills a person.

What a pathetic world it would be if those in the minority quieted down and didn't stand up for their beliefs.
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
Wasn't Terrie Shivo a human? How is that a grey area then? Who's job is it to decide what quality of life is good enough? What if the girl killed in an honour killing wasn't really enjoying a great quality of life anyway?
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
Wasn't Terrie Shivo a human? How is that a grey area then? Who's job is it to decide what quality of life is good enough? What if the girl killed in an honour killing wasn't really enjoying a great quality of life anyway?

I completely disagree that Terri Shiavo was a human (subjective, unsubstantiable opinion). Whereas in an honour killing, the girl is definitely human. I think I'm being consistent here? (Genuine question.)
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
^ Do you believe T.S. was not human because of the lack of brain function?
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
How do you figure? She was responsive to her family and she was conscious. What in your books makes a person human? The ability to care for oneself? (That rules out babies). The potential to care for oneself? (Rule out anyone who's had a serious accident, who was born handicapped or who is very elderly). The ability to experience life without pain? (Then talk to all the people suffering from various degenerative diseases and ask if they'd like to die). The ability to express a desire to live? (Does that rule out anyone who cannot speak for themselves? What about those who are temporarily depressed and don't want to live?)

I'm speaking from the perspective of having an aunt with two severely handicapped daughters who cannot walk or speak, one is fed with a tube and has both have lived years beyond when they were supposed to. They both have severe scoliosis in addition to Rhett's Syndrome and CP respectively. However, they do communicate their likes and dislikes, who they miss, what music they would like to hear and so on. My cousin is married to a girl who at 30 has two children and is confined to a wheelchair (she was only expected to live till about 25). She has lost the ability to walk and will lose the ability to speak or care for her own needs. When she gets to that point, is it up to others to decide whether she is any longer human?

In the Terrie Shivo case it is interesting to note that her husband also wanted to legally marry the woman that he was seeing and would also benefit from the life insurance that her death would provide. I don't think it was a completely disinterested case of him believing she was unresponsive.
 

Rajah

Reigning Bologna Princess
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,774
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7
I know what Rajah was talking about; and I'm making the argument that such an analogy doesn't really fit in any case; plus it's unwise to make such an anology not least because of the dark history it has(and I'm not just talking Medieval stuff here).
God, your argument is ridiculous. Usehername nailed it; I don't have much else to say except, God, your argument is ridiculous.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
^ Do you believe T.S. was not human because of the lack of brain function?

That's one of the premises that I work with, the science of it.
Schiavo_catscan.jpg


Incidentally, this belief is more spiritual (note that it's not religious as in Christian but spiritual as in my personal ponderings, and I happen to be Christian so I apply my personal ponderings in that context).

With an embryo, it's developing into a living being that can reflect God's image, that will have the opportunity to work to develop patience, kindness, hope, etc. as mentioned in the Bible, and as such I believe it has a soul. IMO, there's lots of reason to value this kind of life.

OTOH with Terri Shiavo, she realistically has no future on Earth and her entire existence appears to have been standing for the principle of life. I don't believe in that principle of life for life's sake when it only refers to a bodily life, I believe that a human life requires soul. I see little evidence for this in Terri Shiavo's case--IMO, as a Christian her soul had no reason to hang with that horribly trapped body of hers, she did her good work and her time was called, IMO.

There's something to be said for a religious person valuing their time on Earth, but there's also something to be said for someone who believes in eternal life not worrying to such extreme circumstances about their carnal life here on earth.

I do however note that defining life is difficult and murky, and that it's entirely possible I'm wrong in both instances. Hence my beliefs that despite having firm beliefs I would never impose that on others.
 

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
15,906
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
^ This is my thinking, on the authority aspect. I'll put my two cents in here anyways.

Even if someone is against abortion, having abortion available is a necessity, whether it is used or not. Women have a right to privacy, and women have a right to have a safe, sterile environment. I think the availability of abortion is not, and should never be, debatable. Only the belief in using those availabilities.

:yes: This has always been my feeling on it. I wouldn't have an abortion myself unless there were the most dire of circumstances but I could never make that choice for someone else, no mater what I believe.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
How do you figure? She was responsive to her family and she was conscious. What in your books makes a person human? The ability to care for oneself? (That rules out babies). The potential to care for oneself? (Rule out anyone who's had a serious accident, who was born handicapped or who is very elderly). The ability to experience life without pain? (Then talk to all the people suffering from various degenerative diseases and ask if they'd like to die). The ability to express a desire to live? (Does that rule out anyone who cannot speak for themselves? What about those who are temporarily depressed and don't want to live?)

I'm speaking from the perspective of having an aunt with two severely handicapped daughters who cannot walk or speak, one is fed with a tube and has both have lived years beyond when they were supposed to. They both have severe scoliosis in addition to Rhett's Syndrome and CP respectively. However, they do communicate their likes and dislikes, who they miss, what music they would like to hear and so on. My cousin is married to a girl who at 30 has two children and is confined to a wheelchair (she was only expected to live till about 25). She has lost the ability to walk and will lose the ability to speak or care for her own needs. When she gets to that point, is it up to others to decide whether she is any longer human?

In the Terrie Shivo case it is interesting to note that her husband also wanted to legally marry the woman that he was seeing and would also benefit from the life insurance that her death would provide. I don't think it was a completely disinterested case of him believing she was unresponsive.

While I sympathize with the difficulties and challenges in many disabled individuals' lives, and while I certainly believe in disabled individuals right to life, I don't believe that once we get to the spectrum of Terri Shiavo kind of living that we necessarily need to value that kind of lifeform.

(Our timing was off and we both posted before seeing the other; these ideas are where I'm coming from.)
There's something to be said for a religious person valuing their time on Earth, but there's also something to be said for someone who believes in eternal life not worrying to such extreme circumstances about their carnal life here on earth.

I do however note that defining life is difficult and murky, and that it's entirely possible I'm wrong in both instances. Hence my beliefs that despite having firm beliefs I would never impose that on others.
 

Spamtar

Ghost Monkey Soul
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
4,468
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Protecting against STD rubbers are fine. But after you both get a clean bill of health...?

If they had reversable vasectomies or a male "pill" there woudl be a run to the vet…I mean doctor.
 

Fidelia

Iron Maiden
Staff member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,497
MBTI Type
INFJ
To Usehername:

According to your beliefs, did God not create life? According to Christianity, would it not also be up to Him to end life? If the Bible says that He has numbered our days before we were even born, it seems to me that it is not up to us to make that call.

It's not like there was no brain activity and machines were merely keeping TS alive. She was starved to death and survived for days after been taken off any life support machines. (Not a kind sort of death!) At what point do you decide that that spectrum of TS non-valuable life form has begun? What if others close to the person (or perhaps even the person themselves!) value their life, while the next person decides it would be more convenient if those kind of people were not taking up valuable hospital space and resources since they are not living quality life and are going somewhere better anyway?

I guess my argument is that whether someone like TS lives or dies, or a fetus at whatever stage lives or dies, someone is always imposing their belief on the general population.

Unless you believe there is a higher moral authority like God, it really boils down to who is in the position of the most power to impose their belief.

From a Christian perspective, the Bible makes it clear that a person who witnesses a murder and doesn't seek to intervene is as guilty as the murderer.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
To Usehername:

According to your beliefs, did God not create life? According to Christianity, would it not also be up to Him to end life? If the Bible says that He has numbered our days before we were even born, it seems to me that it is not up to us to make that call.

It's not like there was no brain activity and machines were merely keeping TS alive. She was starved to death and survived for days after been taken off any life support machines. (Not a kind sort of death!) At what point do you decide that that spectrum of TS non-valuable life form has begun? What if others close to the person (or perhaps even the person themselves!) value their life, while the next person decides it would be more convenient if those kind of people were not taking up valuable hospital space and resources since they are not living quality life and are going somewhere better anyway?

I guess my argument is that whether someone like TS lives or dies, or a fetus at whatever stage lives or dies, someone is always imposing their belief on the general population.

Unless you believe there is a higher moral authority like God, it really boils down to who is in the position of the most power to impose their belief.

From a Christian perspective, the Bible makes it clear that a person who witnesses a murder and doesn't seek to intervene is as guilty as the murderer.

(FYI: I'm reading up on the case. When it happened I was too young to care about these issues--when I first glanced at the information I thought this happened in the 90s when I was a kid because I have no recollection of giving it any thought.)

Could Shiavo have survived several hundred years ago? What kind of feeding tubes was she requiring to stay alive?

As soon I make my will (geez I guess I'm old enough that I should make one!) I'm instantiating on there that if I'm draining resources and in anything less than a mentally aware and interactive state, I would sure hope to be officially killed. I don't think erring on the side of caution because we might be killing a life that God values is a choice that we need to make across the board.

I don't have a problem with killing humans on principle. There's lots of God-ordained killing in the Bible. Killing humans does not bother me. It's killing humans without just cause that bothers me. We're explicitly taught to operate with the idea of hope, not fear; I think the keeping humans alive in some instances crosses into the refraining from killing out of fear rather than out of hope for eternal life and the value of that. As a believer in eternal life, if I was in an extenuating circumstance, I would be appalled if someone kept me alive just because they were afraid to kill me. There's a huge difference between hateful murder (sinful) and killing by definition (simply an act that can be obeying God's desires or disobeying God's desires).

It does boil down to who has the most power to impose their beliefs. I agree. Should it be any other way?

This defining of what human life is is at the heart of the debate. And I'm the first to admit it gets grey, and this is why though I have beliefs I would never impose them on others until it's out of the grey and into what I can conclusively call human.
 

Bubbles

See Right Through Me
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
1,037
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Can I just say something? I get that sometimes an abortion seems like the best course of action. But WHY is this option better than:

1) birth control
2) adoption
3) condoms

I mean, any of those can produce the same result minus a large probability of psychological issues.

Just saying.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
Birth control (which condoms are) can fail.

Adoption doesn't produce the same result- it still requires pregnancy and labor/birth or major abdominal surgery. It also makes certain the pregnancy will be public- I don't think spending 4-5 months in a home for unwed mothers is a viable option for most women. Not to mention adoptive parents want healthy babies born to healthy mothers, and not every mother who seeks abortion is healthy or carrying a healthy baby.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's not like there was no brain activity and machines were merely keeping TS alive. She was starved to death and survived for days after been taken off any life support machines. (Not a kind sort of death!) At what point do you decide that that spectrum of TS non-valuable life form has begun? What if others close to the person (or perhaps even the person themselves!) value their life, while the next person decides it would be more convenient if those kind of people were not taking up valuable hospital space and resources since they are not living quality life and are going somewhere better anyway?

I guess my argument is that whether someone like TS lives or dies, or a fetus at whatever stage lives or dies, someone is always imposing their belief on the general population. Unless you believe there is a higher moral authority like God, it really boils down to who is in the position of the most power to impose their belief.

TS was an interesting case. You're right, those in power get to impose their beliefs. In Terry's case, it was a matter of either her husband or her parents choosing whether or not she was going to be fed manually and somehow keep her alive.

From a Christian perspective, the Bible makes it clear that a person who witnesses a murder and doesn't seek to intervene is as guilty as the murderer.

I think if you're going in that direction, then we have to ask if aborting the baby is murder.

The answer, according to the Jews in the OT, seems to be no.

There is specifically a law in the OT regarding the punishment of a man who attacks a woman with the intent of causing her to miscarry. If he succeeds in causing her to miscarry, the law for intentional murder is supposed to be death, isn't it, according to the Ten Commandments and other similar passages?

It should be, if the baby is a fully human life = murder. And this action is essentially a planned abortion (against the mother's will).

But no, this man who intentionally murdered this woman's baby out of malice is... fined 50 shekels (or some similar fee).

The price is paid to the baby's father, since I think only he could own property or was officially the owner of the baby.

So it's pretty clear the unborn child was not equitable in Old Testament law to a live baby, because the punishment for "murder" under the law is not imposed in this situation.

It sounds like the Jews had the same issue that we have when trying to determine the value of a human life before birth, and they chose to approach it pragmatically.
 

Spamtar

Ghost Monkey Soul
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
4,468
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
But no, this man who intentionally murdered this woman's baby out of malice is... fined 50 shekels (or some similar fee).

California penal code makes unlawful killing of a fetus murder so the law does seem somewhat inconsistant in some jurisdictions

PC 187

" (a)Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

(b)This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1)The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2)The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon's certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.

(3)The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.

(c)Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law."


So one person could just have a guilty conscious and another person get life in prison (possibly death) for killing the same fetus?:huh:
 

Amargith

Hotel California
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
14,717
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4dw
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
In theory I very much agree with this. I almost with there was a compensation alternative. If dad pays medical expenses, frees mom of all obligations, and then reimburses her for lost wages and a surrogate fee, the baby is his.



In practice there is a very real argument concerning the burden placed upon the woman in this situation. Carrying a baby takes a significant toll on you. It ages you, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The last three months can be very draining and reduce your productivity substantially in the workplace or at school. My sister choose to have an abortion as her first pregnancy had her spend the last two months in bed. Being a single mom, working to support your family with no health insurance, she could not afford to take that risk of being without income.

Also-think about the social judgements. You are giant and pregnant at work for nine months, then come back without a baby. If I was a teen mom, I might get applause for giving the baby up. Making the money I do, the majority of my coworkers would assume I was a selfish non-motherly bitch if I gave up my baby.



No matter how careful you are, babies happen. I took the Morning after pill once-ewww.... not fun. Many years later my toddler was an IUD baby. At 99.9% he was slightly unlikely. (I think he was a determined INTJ sperm). I considered not having the baby as my husband and I were broken up with no plans to reunite. For me-I could not make that choice. Perhaps already having carried a baby swayed my choice.

I did this chicken egg thing once. I dropped an egg that was about 16 days along. I looked it up later. The chickens belly was very bloated from the yolk-they absorb it slowly for nutrition. Its eyes bulged as they were very large in relation to its head. It lay there gasping for breath-it's lungs were not developed enough to breath. It just spasmed. I put it in a trash bag and hit it with a shovel several times.

Babies in the womb develop the capacity to feel pain at about 12-14 weeks. If we choose to allow termination of pregnancy at that stage onwards we should give the baby pain medication at the least-Vets do it when they spay pregnant dogs or cats. Conscious or not it is wrong to inflict pain on another creature if we can find an alternative.

^ This is my thinking, on the authority aspect. I'll put my two cents in here anyways.

Even if someone is against abortion, having abortion available is a necessity, whether it is used or not. Women have a right to privacy, and women have a right to have a safe, sterile environment. I think the availability of abortion is not, and should never be, debatable. Only the belief in using those availabilities.


Birth control (which condoms are) can fail.

Adoption doesn't produce the same result- it still requires pregnancy and labor/birth or major abdominal surgery. It also makes certain the pregnancy will be public- I don't think spending 4-5 months in a home for unwed mothers is a viable option for most women. Not to mention adoptive parents want healthy babies born to healthy mothers, and not every mother who seeks abortion is healthy or carrying a healthy baby.

This.

/thread, imo.
 
Top