Abortion

[Ora et Labora]

So, when does one think it's ok to have an abortion?
Is it ever ok to have an abortion?

Maybe this will help some people in here who may think it's ok to have an Abortion, when a girl is, for example, raped. Let's see where this goes exactly...

So, when do YOU think it is ok... and WHY???

[dairygirl4u2c]

i don't think it's okay. abortion.

but i think it's reasonable to think it's okay early in the pregnancy. to argue that it's not a human person. of course it's human type and not a pig. but, a redblood cell is also human. also, cells have DNA but are not human persons.

i used to think it was unreasonable to think it's unreasonable to think early pregnancies are okay. but, those who tink that are also reasonable. this is because: unique (no other DNA like this) an separte (its own entity. important cause twins have the same DNA) DNA, and the fact that organisms can be single celled. an ameoba is an organism. so the early cell could be an organism.
i personally don't think it's unreasonable someone thinks it's okay to abort. it's a matter of whther it's properly called an organism. cause, amoebas don't grow into greater beings. so, early cells in pregnancy are unique in that facet.

bottomline. on one side you have human red blood cells, on the other ameoba type organisms. the eariest human cell is similar and different than both. you can't say for sure it's one way or the other, without imputing faith, IMHO, though i don't disagree as unreasonable if someone says it's not faith but reason.

saying it's growing into a person isn't enough, cause potential life isn't necessarily human life. you hvae ot argue all the stuff i'm mentioning.

where is the line it becomes a person. no one knows. that does't mean hte earliest cell though is a person. it only means no one knows. but it is circumstantial evience that it might rightly becalled a person the whole time.

but, with that said, while i think it's not unreasonable, i'd probaby outlaw it all if i could.

Edited November 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus there a lot of complicated stuff i didn't put in there. like what if you shoot someone who is then clinically dead, but their cells are working. is it still a viable organism that you couldn't exteminate?
of course, that is technically and probably substantially different than the early cell. the dying organism is cliically dead even if its cells are living, while hte early cell is living and not clinically dead. (it's not clinically alive iether, but you could at least say it's growing into a person)

and. to those who say given the uncertaity we should defer to life. i think it's reasonable to think reasonably disputed life can be valued less than the freedom to choose. no one knows, so who should decide? should the government? why not the individual? of coruse, the government could decide a point it thinks it's a person cleary, but that's not the same as the early organism/cell. and, this does not mean that i'd think it reasonable to kill someone who's on life support etc, because they are not reasonably disputed.

also, at a certain point, it clearly is a human and it's unreasonable to think otheriwse. at a certain point it's reasonbly not a human, clearly reasonably not. so we have to take the cell v. the baby, and the points of uncertainty in between should be deferred to be baby. if we as a government will choose a point, this is how i'd do it. i guess i'd pick the moment heartbeats forms, with roof for error on the side of person, cause i think that's when the first substaintial thing happens to the embryo. whatever is the first substanital thing, if i'm mistaken.

sorry this might be hard to follow, but i post these points a lot to get the coversation somewhere less unsophicitcted, IMHO, and i can't explain philoosphy so well without spending tons of time doing it. i have to balance my objectives in writing.

Edited November 9, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Ora et Labora]

just a little. but that's ok.
heres something else to throw in: is Abortion just as wrong as Euthanasia??

[Lena]

[quote]is Abortion just as wrong as Euthanasia??[/quote]

Different contexts, so complex. Concerning euthanasia, maybe it's because my parents are in health care (different areas), and I hear so many tragic stories, and my own grandma underwent such an awful time near the end of her life, but that's a hard question for me to personally answer. I don't see things in black and white, if it's one thing my dad has instilled in me. Not that I'm saying euthanasia is correct at all times, and that there are different forms of it.

Active vs passive euthanasia---what's the difference, any examples?

[CatherineM]

It is easy to go down that road of making exceptions for what seem to be valid and compassionate reasons. One of the stories that abortion doctor wrote in her book was about doing an abortion on a rape victim, only to find out after finishing that the baby was much farther along, and wasn't the product of the rape, but was the product of her husband instead. She hadn't known she was pregnant when she was raped. For every exception someone can come up with, there are just that many stories the other way.

We can dissect something into small bits, but bottom line most abortions are done because of inconvenience. The woman doesn't want the baby to interfere with her schooling, or career, or they don't think they can afford it, or they have broken up, etc. I had a family friend who had a child by her brother. That is seriously wrong on so many levels, but she didn't compound all the wrongs by aborting him. He's a great kid, and is now a really good father in his own right . There are some things in life that are black and white, and we should leave the gray out of it.

When Christ wanted to teach us something about how to live or treat each other, he did so with parables. When he wanted to teach something about himself or the kingdom, he simply repeated himself over and over again in plain language, and then said take it or leave it. Abortion is one of those issues. When someone wants to debate, just repeat the same thing over and over again, it is wrong under all circumstances, and eventually they will understand that there isn't anything to debate. They need to take it or leave it.

[Antones]

Killing is killing. Death is death. There are no arguments for killing. So there are no arguments for abortion or Euthanasia. They are equally wrong and are never right.

[Antones]

Killing is killing. Death is death. There are no arguments for killing. So there are no arguments for abortion or Euthanasia. They are equally wrong and are never right.

[Antones]

If cells are growing in number and not diminishing than how can you argue about whether it's alive or not.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1416670' date='Nov 9 2007, 12:58 PM']i think it's reasonable to think it's okay early in the pregnancy. to argue that it's not a human person. of course it's human type and not a pig. but, a redblood cell is also human. also, cells have DNA but are not human persons.[/quote]

you are correct in that human persons at the earliest stages in their development are not pigs. as to how we know what an embryo is - or this "mass of cells" as abortionists like to call it - well, it's simple.

[u]first of all[/u], there is precedent: every single human person that has been allowed to be born, so all of us from babies to old men, began in the same way. we all looked like a mass of cells - or a blob or whatever derogatory "medical" description that someone wants to use - at the earliest stages of our lives. this is simple biology. we grow and develop as humans. i don't look like i did when i was 2 months old today, and in 50 years, i may be bald or fat or disfigured or wrinkled or many other possibilities.

consider the mighty oak tree: it begins as a seed. if given care and freedom, that oak seed will always develop into an oak tree. it's in its DNA. all oak trees begin the same way. none will be pigs or just a pile of leaves.

[u]second[/u], what happens if you leave bloodcells alone? do they produce a human person? or what about a hair follicle? that's alive in a sense, too, but would it eventually result in a baby if left unobstructed? obviously, not. [b]but when a human egg is fertilized, it creates a new, unique living being that, left intact, grows and develops into a fetus, a baby, a child, possibly an annoying teenager, and then an adult.[/b]

[u]thirdly[/u], consider the implications of the "blob of cells" argument. if we are not human persons from conception, then the value of life will [b]always[/b] be up to a popular vote. after all, if our lives do not have value from the moment of their production, then value is something that happens or [i]occurs[/i] along the path of our development. it is not inherently [i]"endowed by Our Creator."[/i]

[u]lastly[/u], following the "cells" argument: where does one look to find the moment of a human life achieving value? the heart beats within a few weeks...maybe then? how about when we can see all the finger and toes? or maybe just at birth? our society promotes genetic testing to make sure there are no deformities or mental disabilities, too. GREAT IDEA! because after all, a blob of cells that would be born without all the right parts or maybe with Down Syndrome or something like that doesn't really have the value that the rest of us have.

the Nazis had many guidelines as to what constitutes a human person, and we can vilify them as much as we like, but how much better are we today? at least the disabled and weak that they murdered had a chance to resist, if even a futile one. and the Romans preferred to leave unwanted babies in the wilderness rather than murder them themselves. that's almost heroic virtue when compared to [i]our[/i] idea of "human value."

in conclusion, it is a very scary proposition to imply there is anything "reasonable" about denying the value of life in the early weeks of pregnancy. as G.K. Chesteron once said:

[size=3][quote]To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.[/quote][/size]

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Antones' post='1416783' date='Nov 9 2007, 07:47 PM']Killing is killing. Death is death. There are no arguments for killing. So there are no arguments for abortion or Euthanasia. They are equally wrong and are never right.[/quote]

I agree! But some ppl give justifications for having abortions or taking elderly off of life support...either they are a vegetable or not human yet.

[cmotherofpirl]

How can a baby or old or disabled person not be human??
How can they not deserve respect and dignity??
[u]Thou shalt not murder[/u] is valid at either end of life. Slicing and dicing your children is murder. Killing an old or disabled person is murder. Injecting salt into a heart is murder. Partially delivering a baby and sucking its brains out is murder. Starvation is murder. Cutting people up before they are dead to use their organs is murder.
Why is this so hard to understand.?????.

[jmjtina]

To argue that it's not a baby means the mother is not pregnant.

And she is.

Otherwise, she wouldn't need an abortion.

Abortion is wrong in all circumstances. (Not only because of the killing of an innocent life, but of the dangers this poses for women and young girls who have abortions) Enthunasia is also wrong because murder can never be justified. Human Life should be protected at all stages, from the very early stages of life to end of life.

Edited November 11, 2007 by jmjtina

[dairygirl4u2c]

to the point that your red blood cell doesn't grow into a person. to clarify opposing arguments to prolife positions.

it's reasonable to think the blob of cells early on is an organism and fully person. but, consider this example, my snowman argument. you have a snowman. if you have a snowball that you're gonna use to get to that snowman before he exists, the snowball obviously isn't a snowman. if you have a cell, like a block, and start building, the cell isn't necessarily a human person either. true, the cell in your arm isn't going to grow into a person, but, the analogy can still exist as it's similar enough to make the point.

there are no other single celled organisms that tranform into greater organisms to make an argument on the side of prolife either. (tho if there was, it'd still not necessarily be the same) you have simply organisms that stay as they are. the bottomline, is that the early cell/organism whatever is distinct from anything else, and any argumetns we make are just analogies that are not fully the same.

also, would you consider smashing to acorn to be the same as having killed an acorn tree? or eating an egg as killing a chicken? it's reasonable if you do, but this usually, and i think rightly so, is a point/argument in favor of prochoice early on. smashing an acorn i don't think is necessarily the same as killing an acorn tree. (aside from the literal fact that you're not killing it in tree form)

Edited November 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, you can have a person who is clinically dead, whose body can be sustained using machines. i think we'd all agree this is no longer a person. it's just organs being sustained by machines. of course, a machine is involved, so it's an important point. but, a machine often sustains a person on life support too. the person on life support is often just getting an aid, but there can come a point where it's unclear. no one can reasonably dispute most people on life support, and so you can't argue that it's the same as abortion arguments for early on. ( true, some day or some people might start thinking they aren't human on life support, but what are you gonna do.... i'm pretty sure that'd just be a soceity that is fooling itself, and i don't thik that fooling itself thing necessarily applies to abortion arguments, as a matter of fact )
you can start subtracting body parts from a person, and start using machines, but where is it no longer a person and a machine?

my only point is that we don't know, many times. many of the other argumetns i didn't address simply were claims asserting clear objective truth. i think this is more a psychological phenomenon that people want to feel secure in their world, to think everything is clear. i think there's objective truth, but, i don't think it's always clear.

same with the machines arguments, and same with the early life forms argument. also, i am aware that there are no machines on the early life forms, but there is a mother, which is like a machine. and, the main point from the machine analogy is that it's not always clear.

Edited November 11, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c