Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2019 7:50:53 GMT
I want to be clear - I am not against abortion. I think it's really a question of when abortion takes place in a pregnancy. Some believe life begins at conception (a minority, I think), so it's a question of when a distinct new person develops that is the key. This is early in the 2nd trimester. But late term abortion = murder. Why?
First, while some argue that abortion represents a woman's right to do with as she pleases with her own body, they are wrong! A fetus, especially during the 2nd trimester, and certainly in the latter part of the 3rd trimester, is a distinct and unique person, not the mother or a part of the mother. It has its own distinct genome, making it a person different from the mother. So abortion is not the woman's right to do with as she pleases with her own body. A fully formed individual, even if unborn as yet, is not the "mother" in any case. For the mother to take the life of, or allow someone else to take the life of a viable unborn baby is tantamount to murder - i.e. taking the life of another person.
Second, we seem to forget that the baby also has a father, who contributed as much to the baby's conception and, consequently, to its development as a unique person, as did the mother. The baby, even if unborn, is a unique product of 2 people, 2 parents, not just one. Why is the father's preference whether to have the baby delivered alive or not totally disregarded when abortion is considered by the mother? This makes no sense.
In either case, whether through a decision of the mother, of the father, or of both parents to terminate the life of a fully formed and unique individual amounts to murder. Some may argue that a new person forms when its organ systems form, or when its heart is developed and starts to beat, etc. There are many subjective criteria that can be selectively used to determine when a new person actually comes into existence, but there is no question that the unborn baby, fully formed and viable, and certainly in the 3rd trimester, is, indeed, a new and unique person. Murder is the taking of another person's life, and late term abortion can only be regarded as murder, infanticide, if you will.
I agree that abortion should be permitted in the early stages of pregnancy up to or before the 2nd trimester, if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is threatened. I do not believe that the mental or emotional state of the potential mother has been shown to warrant termination of a pregnancy late in the 3rd trimester, if at all. This is a bogus argument. Also, if rape or incest caused the pregnancy, the decision to abort the pregnancy should come early on, certainly by the early or mid 2nd trimester.
The termination of a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester would seem to be indefensible (unless there is a demonstrable and immediate physical threat to the mother's life). To terminate a pregnancy just prior to delivery, or to kill a baby after birth (which is a possibility under several laws now in existence), amounts to pure and simple murder. That such action is even under debate shows the very sorry state of affairs in this country regarding morality and humanity. What kind of message does this send to the younger generation as to how life is regarded, legally and morally? Taken at face value, it can only be interpreted as meaning that life, human life, has little or no value in today's society. Legislators who approve and support late term abortion are, in effect, making murder legal. There is no difference between taking the life of a newborn, a late-term unborn baby, or that of a child or adult. Murder is murder! Everyone in this country should regard this turn of events with great concern - and anxiety. Some say the "wall" is immoral. Do those people now say that murder is moral and can be justified? Heaven help us . . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Feb 1, 2019 8:41:01 GMT
You know how they say we need to subsidize abortion because it's really expensive? It's not. Fetuses are worth a lot of money to pharamaceutical corporations, especially 3rd and 4th trimester ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 1, 2019 11:46:25 GMT
You know how they say we need to subsidize abortion because it's really expensive? It's not. Fetuses are worth a lot of money to pharamaceutical corporations, especially 3rd and 4th trimester ones. And chinese soup companies. |
|
|
|
Post by Lilith on Feb 1, 2019 23:28:53 GMT
"Fetus" not "baby" while it's in the womb.
Agreed, that both the man and woman should, in an ideal situation, discuss this when they decide to have sex. It's part of being responsible for being sexually active. Together they should decide what to do "if".
However, that's not always possible. There are men who bail when they find out a woman is pregnant. There are cases of rape and incest. There are cases of women (and men) using contraception, but she still gets pregnant.
A fetus is not a person, it is a fetus. As long as it's within the woman's body, it quite simply is part of HER body, not part of your body, even if you were there to create it.
If you want her to carry to term and she doesn't want to and you convince her to, then come to an arrangement where you accept full custody from birth and agree to raise that child for 18 years. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
But until men can get pregnant and carry a fetus inside their bodies, giving them, or anyone else, power to legislate what women do with their own bodies is ludicrous.
However, once a fetus is born, it is no longer a fetus, but an infant, and there is no excuse, no reason, no explanations that are credible to terminate that life once it's born into this world. Terminating a fetus while it's within the womb is absolutely not on par with killing an infant that has been fully delivered.
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Feb 2, 2019 1:53:22 GMT
"Fetus" not "baby" while it's in the womb. Agreed, that both the man and woman should, in an ideal situation, discuss this when they decide to have sex. It's part of being responsible for being sexually active. Together they should decide what to do "if". However, that's not always possible. There are men who bail when they find out a woman is pregnant. There are cases of rape and incest. There are cases of women (and men) using contraception, but she still gets pregnant. A fetus is not a person, it is a fetus. As long as it's within the woman's body, it quite simply is part of HER body, not part of your body, even if you were there to create it. If you want her to carry to term and she doesn't want to and you convince her to, then come to an arrangement where you accept full custody from birth and agree to raise that child for 18 years. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. But until men can get pregnant and carry a fetus inside their bodies, giving them, or anyone else, power to legislate what women do with their own bodies is ludicrous. However, once a fetus is born, it is no longer a fetus, but an infant, and there is no excuse, no reason, no explanations that are credible to terminate that life once it's born into this world. Terminating a fetus while it's within the womb is absolutely not on par with killing an infant that has been fully delivered. Let's say you let your friend borrow your expensive graphic novel and he spills soda all over it. Is it okay because it was in his possession so it was his choice? No you take him to small claims court and sue him. What's his problem? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 4:11:59 GMT
I want to be clear - I am not against abortion. I think it's really a question of when abortion takes place in a pregnancy. Some believe life begins at conception (a minority, I think), so it's a question of when a distinct new person develops that is the key. This is early in the 2nd trimester. But late term abortion = murder. Why?
First, while some argue that abortion represents a woman's right to do with as she pleases with her own body, they are wrong! A fetus, especially during the 2nd trimester, and certainly in the latter part of the 3rd trimester, is a distinct and unique person, not the mother or a part of the mother. It has its own distinct genome, making it a person different from the mother. So abortion is not the woman's right to do with as she pleases with her own body. A fully formed individual, even if unborn as yet, is not the "mother" in any case. For the mother to take the life of, or allow someone else to take the life of a viable unborn baby is tantamount to murder - i.e. taking the life of another person.
Second, we seem to forget that the baby also has a father, who contributed as much to the baby's conception and, consequently, to its development as a unique person, as did the mother. The baby, even if unborn, is a unique product of 2 people, 2 parents, not just one. Why is the father's preference whether to have the baby delivered alive or not totally disregarded when abortion is considered by the mother? This makes no sense.
In either case, whether through a decision of the mother, of the father, or of both parents to terminate the life of a fully formed and unique individual amounts to murder. Some may argue that a new person forms when its organ systems form, or when its heart is developed and starts to beat, etc. There are many subjective criteria that can be selectively used to determine when a new person actually comes into existence, but there is no question that the unborn baby, fully formed and viable, and certainly in the 3rd trimester, is, indeed, a new and unique person. Murder is the taking of another person's life, and late term abortion can only be regarded as murder, infanticide, if you will.
I agree that abortion should be permitted in the early stages of pregnancy up to or before the 2nd trimester, if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is threatened. I do not believe that the mental or emotional state of the potential mother has been shown to warrant termination of a pregnancy late in the 3rd trimester, if at all. This is a bogus argument. Also, if rape or incest caused the pregnancy, the decision to abort the pregnancy should come early on, certainly by the early or mid 2nd trimester.
The termination of a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester would seem to be indefensible (unless there is a demonstrable and immediate physical threat to the mother's life). To terminate a pregnancy just prior to delivery, or to kill a baby after birth (which is a possibility under several laws now in existence), amounts to pure and simple murder. That such action is even under debate shows the very sorry state of affairs in this country regarding morality and humanity. What kind of message does this send to the younger generation as to how life is regarded, legally and morally? Taken at face value, it can only be interpreted as meaning that life, human life, has little or no value in today's society. Legislators who approve and support late term abortion are, in effect, making murder legal. There is no difference between taking the life of a newborn, a late-term unborn baby, or that of a child or adult. Murder is murder! Everyone in this country should regard this turn of events with great concern - and anxiety. Some say the "wall" is immoral. Do those people now say that murder is moral and can be justified? Heaven help us . . . .
Outstanding thread! |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 2, 2019 10:43:34 GMT
Some believe life begins at conception (a minority, I think), I would hope that everyone agrees that life begins at conception, for one very simple reason - those cells can multiply of their own accord. If you meant sentient life, agreed, it does not begin at conception. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 6:20:40 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 6:44:04 GMT
<abbr>A fertilized egg or zygote has the POTENTIAL of developing into a new person, but it is, essentially, a single cell. Even later stages of development (e..g. the blastula, gastrula, etc.) are masses of unorganized cells and, later, cell layers, from which organs and organ stems will derive. But it only when the embryonic stages are reached is the potential for a multicellular organism with organs and organ systems begin to be realized, and only after some 6 weeks into gestation, does the embryo develop into a fetus with identifiable human structures and form.Further, only beginning at this stage are the cells organized into organs and organ systems - i.e. a human, identifiable as such, begins to be formed.</abbr><abbr>With the contention that "life begins at conception", I have no argument, although the emphasis must be placed on "begins". Some may believe that this potential is the key determinant as to when a new individual, identifiable as such, comes into existence. But there is a very big difference between a mass of unorganized cells and a fetus with distinct organs and systems that identify it as a human. Just consider - if you get a cut anddamage your skin and bleed in the process, you are losing millions of cells in the process - human cells, your cells. Is that destruction of life? In a way it is, but not of a human entity. A ball of unorganized cells in the early stages of development is almost as far from being a "human being" as are lost blood cells. While the early ball of cells exists in order to undergo further development, ultimately, into a human being, body cells contain that potential in their nuclei - i.e. their DNA. If we estroy some of our DNA are we destroying ourselves? I don't think so. </abbr> |
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 3, 2019 10:04:26 GMT
<abbr>A fertilized egg or zygote has the POTENTIAL of developing into a new person, but it is, essentially, a single cell. Even later stages of development (e..g. the blastula, gastrula, etc.) are masses of unorganized cells and, later, cell layers, from which organs and organ stems will derive. But it only when the embryonic stages are reached is the potential for a multicellular organism with organs and organ systems begin to be realized, and only after some 6 weeks into gestation, does the embryo develop into a fetus with identifiable human structures and form.Further, only beginning at this stage are the cells organized into organs and organ systems - i.e. a human, identifiable as such, begins to be formed.</abbr><abbr>With the contention that "life begins at conception", I have no argument, although the emphasis must be placed on "begins". Some may believe that this potential is the key determinant as to when a new individual, identifiable as such, comes into existence. But there is a very big difference between a mass of unorganized cells and a fetus with distinct organs and systems that identify it as a human. Just consider - if you get a cut anddamage your skin and bleed in the process, you are losing millions of cells in the process - human cells, your cells. Is that destruction of life? In a way it is, but not of a human entity. A ball of unorganized cells in the early stages of development is almost as far from being a "human being" as are lost blood cells. While the early ball of cells exists in order to undergo further development, ultimately, into a human being, body cells contain that potential in their nuclei - i.e. their DNA. If we estroy some of our DNA are we destroying ourselves? I don't think so. </abbr> I didn't say any of that, as it is totally irrelevant to whether something can be considered living. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 3, 2019 20:48:43 GMT
"Third Trimester Abortion. Why?"
Fixed that for you. I turned it into the question you are forbidden to ask in the US.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 2:54:50 GMT
|
|
