The medical and religious ethics correlate quite well when it comes to human lives. Medically, aborting a viable fetus is synonymous to taking a life. Unless the fetus is not medically viable or not performing the abortion could risk the life of the mother, then I don't think abortion should be legally allowed.
A part of the New York abortion law states that, "A health care practitioner may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”
the part of this law I don't support is the issue of legalizing the abortion occuring before the 24th week of pregnancy (The 3rd trimester) Owing to the fact that the vast majority of abortions take place before the 24th week of pregnancy, the law is virtually covering over 90% of abortions without any segregation as to whether the fetus is be fit for delivery or not.
In my opinion ( also from the religious and medical perspective), Provided the fetus is viable and it's delivery will not risk the life of the mother, the baby reserves the rights to be born. Even if the mother would give him out to a charity home of some sort, LET HIM STILL BE BORN.
Topic: So, let's talk about that new abortion law... - page 3. (Read 760 times)
^^^ In addition, when a man and a woman get together and make a baby, they are doing so in trust. The beneficiary is the baby's soul/spirit. The baby's body is the property in trust. The man is the grantor, and the woman is the trustee.
A woman getting an abortion is a trust breaker. And the trust she breaks is one that gives a body to an innocent soul/spirit.
A woman getting an abortion is a trust breaker. And the trust she breaks is one that gives a body to an innocent soul/spirit.
And full disclosure, I'm for both. Yep, pro choice and pro life. You see, I'm a Christian. The Bible isn't clear enough on this, but in my heart I feel that every consideration to give the child to someone else should be attempted before abortion is an option. I just feel that is what Jesus would do. Our love for human life, and desire for it to be happy and optimal for all, I would logically assume means protecting the defenseless and preserving life.
On the other hand, I support a woman's choice to decide if she wants to carry a baby to term. While I may frown on it, it is not for me to decide as God has given us free will. Many impacted by this law are not Christian; given that there is a clear separation of Church and State, religious and moral considerations based off of Christianity dont really come into play here. This is not a power the State should have, the right to control one's own health outcomes. While I may frown on the act, my frown doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme.
Thoughts?
Sounds like your heart is in the right place but why do you feel the Bible is not clear on the topic? Both the Old Testament "Thou shalt not murder." and the New Testament "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." are very easy to apply to the situation.
Your free will argument is flawed. We do indeed have free will but that right stops when it infringes on the rights of others. Your right to life supersedes my right to kill you because you inconvenience me. The fact that you may be elderly and weak or disabled and disadvantaged or even a newborn and utterly helpless changes nothing in the moral calculus.
Abortion is not a "health outcome" it is the powerful and fully grown exercising power to snuff out the life of the helpless because that life is young, weak and dependent.
It is an act of barbarism that differs from the barbarism of earlier eras when helpless children were left to die because they were not born perfect or sacrificed to pagan idols only in manifestation not essence.
So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age?
Right, because that's exactly what I said. 
Calling them "Nazi ideas' and "thread degenerating into accusations of Nazi..." isn't really historically accurate.
So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age?
Right, because that's exactly what I said. Well you mentioned the fact that Nazism was mentioned quite dismissively when there are some very valid reasons to make the comparison. Do you deny these events are part of the history of the US, and that these new laws are opening the doors to all kinds of abuse?
So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age?
Right, because that's exactly what I said. As a doctor, I had some interesting points I could have made here, particularly in relation to those posted by theymos, but I see it's taken us less than 10 replies for this thread to degenerate in to accusations of eugenics and Nazism...
So you don't have a problem with the concept of children not being humans until a year of age? Or the fact that these new laws will allow the killing of born children, which would then easily degenerate into a Eugenics program from there? These are not wild baseless accusations, America has been here before... Hitler himself even mentioned American Eugenics programs for giving him inspiration for some of his laws.
Ironically, etymologically speaking, fetus (or foetus, in the case of the Irish, Commonwealth and British - since at least 1594 in all probability) from the Latin fētus, means “offspring”, “bringing forth”, “hatching of young” when it is clear that fetus does not sound like, and neither is a baby at all; those tiny, extremely fragile little humans mothers and fathers become very emotional and protective over.
In fact, addressing an embryo (called so from conception to the eighth week of pregnancy) as a "developing baby" is not only a misnomer, but also misleading at the same time.
An embryo is an embryo, just as a fetus (called so after the eighth week of pregnancy until the moment of birth) is a fetus, and neither of these to be considered a baby, which is what happens when a woman brings forth (gives birth to) her and her husband's offspring.
These are the medical facts, nothing more, and nothing less.
As a doctor, I had some interesting points I could have made here, particularly in relation to those posted by theymos, but I see it's taken us less than 10 replies for this thread to degenerate in to accusations of eugenics and Nazism...
Thanks for yet another brilliant gem from MOgliE. I read your words just fine. Children under 1 are not human in your opinion. Got it. Carry on Dr. Mengele.
Children under 1 are not human in my opinion and I'm aware this idea shouldn't be applied in society as I don't see what good it could do.
But I guess it's easier to just get rid of the second part of what I write.
Funny how you're as fast at raising the "nazi" argument than the left you criticize so much ^^
Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.
I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer?
Oh perhaps your general dismissal of the debate, your default to relativism, and perhaps this...
For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^
No slippery slope here, even though we are already well down that slope sliding away...
Which is, clearly, an opinion brought here only to show that there are even more extreme positions than the ones I was criticizing.
I'm explicitely starting my post pointing out that extreme opinions shouldn't be taken into consideration.
I'm sorry it's hard for you to consider that someone can be aware his own opinion shouldn't be applied on a practical basis.
I considerer anything under 1 year old isn't really human. I also know it wouldn't do any good to apply this opinion on a real life society. I said it explicitely.
So shut the fuck up and as usual try to read before answering something completely irrelevant.
Thanks for yet another brilliant gem from MOgliE. I read your words just fine. Children under 1 are not human in your opinion. Got it. Carry on Dr. Mengele.
Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.
I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer?
Oh perhaps your general dismissal of the debate, your default to relativism, and perhaps this...
For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^
No slippery slope here, even though we are already well down that slope sliding away...
Which is, clearly, an opinion brought here only to show that there are even more extreme positions than the ones I was criticizing.
I'm explicitely starting my post pointing out that extreme opinions shouldn't be taken into consideration.
I'm sorry it's hard for you to consider that someone can be aware his own opinion shouldn't be applied on a practical basis.
I considerer anything under 1 year old isn't really human. I also know it wouldn't do any good to apply this opinion on a real life society. I said it explicitely.
So shut the fuck up and as usual try to read before answering something completely irrelevant.
Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.
I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer?
Oh perhaps your general dismissal of the debate, your default to relativism, and perhaps this...
For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^
No slippery slope here, even though we are already well down that slope sliding away...
Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.
I'm litteraly saying abortion must be allowed but considered last resort and first duty of society is to promote prevention methods... How's that even slightly linked to your answer?
I find all this to be a bit of a non debate.
There is no such thing as pro choice or pro life in most cases. Of course you got some crazy guys saying a woman shouldn't be able to have any kind of abortion even when it's a rape child, and some saying abortion should be given automatically on a simple demand whatever the state of pregnancy.
But truth be told I think there is no real answer and anything is defendable as long as you're in the middle of this.
How can be a 5 months limit be better or worse than a 6 months limit?
As Theymos illustrated, abortion is simply a socialy accepted limit between a foetus and a some-kind of human.
For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^
Anyway what's sure:
-Abortions are part of human society, if you get them illegal they'll continue, only putting more danger for the mother.
-You can't force someone to be a parent. That's impossible.
-Accidents DO happen, not only talking about rape but you can be on the pills and wear condom and still be freaking unlucky.
-Abortion IS an important process that MUST be avoided 99,9% of the time. It's not a light medical act and the first priority is to prevent situations in which abortion can become a necessity. Prevention is far better than anything here.
So as long as a society do whatever it can to educate the people in contraception, ease the access to contraception, educate people on sexuality and sexual practices, and allow abortion in some way for anyone, I don't think you can really be right or wrong. There is nothing factual about what is good and what is bad in putting some kind of deadline... It's just a question of personnal perspective.
There is no such thing as pro choice or pro life in most cases. Of course you got some crazy guys saying a woman shouldn't be able to have any kind of abortion even when it's a rape child, and some saying abortion should be given automatically on a simple demand whatever the state of pregnancy.
But truth be told I think there is no real answer and anything is defendable as long as you're in the middle of this.
How can be a 5 months limit be better or worse than a 6 months limit?
As Theymos illustrated, abortion is simply a socialy accepted limit between a foetus and a some-kind of human.
For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^
Anyway what's sure:
-Abortions are part of human society, if you get them illegal they'll continue, only putting more danger for the mother.
-You can't force someone to be a parent. That's impossible.
-Accidents DO happen, not only talking about rape but you can be on the pills and wear condom and still be freaking unlucky.
-Abortion IS an important process that MUST be avoided 99,9% of the time. It's not a light medical act and the first priority is to prevent situations in which abortion can become a necessity. Prevention is far better than anything here.
So as long as a society do whatever it can to educate the people in contraception, ease the access to contraception, educate people on sexuality and sexual practices, and allow abortion in some way for anyone, I don't think you can really be right or wrong. There is nothing factual about what is good and what is bad in putting some kind of deadline... It's just a question of personnal perspective.
Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.
I find all this to be a bit of a non debate.
There is no such thing as pro choice or pro life in most cases. Of course you got some crazy guys saying a woman shouldn't be able to have any kind of abortion even when it's a rape child, and some saying abortion should be given automatically on a simple demand whatever the state of pregnancy.
But truth be told I think there is no real answer and anything is defendable as long as you're in the middle of this.
How can be a 5 months limit be better or worse than a 6 months limit?
As Theymos illustrated, abortion is simply a socialy accepted limit between a foetus and a some-kind of human.
For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^
Anyway what's sure:
-Abortions are part of human society, if you get them illegal they'll continue, only putting more danger for the mother.
-You can't force someone to be a parent. That's impossible.
-Accidents DO happen, not only talking about rape but you can be on the pills and wear condom and still be freaking unlucky.
-Abortion IS an important process that MUST be avoided 99,9% of the time. It's not a light medical act and the first priority is to prevent situations in which abortion can become a necessity. Prevention is far better than anything here.
So as long as a society do whatever it can to educate the people in contraception, ease the access to contraception, educate people on sexuality and sexual practices, and allow abortion in some way for anyone, I don't think you can really be right or wrong. There is nothing factual about what is good and what is bad in putting some kind of deadline... It's just a question of personnal perspective.
There is no such thing as pro choice or pro life in most cases. Of course you got some crazy guys saying a woman shouldn't be able to have any kind of abortion even when it's a rape child, and some saying abortion should be given automatically on a simple demand whatever the state of pregnancy.
But truth be told I think there is no real answer and anything is defendable as long as you're in the middle of this.
How can be a 5 months limit be better or worse than a 6 months limit?
As Theymos illustrated, abortion is simply a socialy accepted limit between a foetus and a some-kind of human.
For me anything below 1 year old isn't really humand because that's more or less the age you get self-consciousness which is the real difference betwee human and animals. But that's not something socially acceptable I guess ^^
Anyway what's sure:
-Abortions are part of human society, if you get them illegal they'll continue, only putting more danger for the mother.
-You can't force someone to be a parent. That's impossible.
-Accidents DO happen, not only talking about rape but you can be on the pills and wear condom and still be freaking unlucky.
-Abortion IS an important process that MUST be avoided 99,9% of the time. It's not a light medical act and the first priority is to prevent situations in which abortion can become a necessity. Prevention is far better than anything here.
So as long as a society do whatever it can to educate the people in contraception, ease the access to contraception, educate people on sexuality and sexual practices, and allow abortion in some way for anyone, I don't think you can really be right or wrong. There is nothing factual about what is good and what is bad in putting some kind of deadline... It's just a question of personnal perspective.
Morning gents 😊 Was curious to the opinions on the board. Personally, I dont see that a whole lot has changed; this is pretty much Roe v Wade. The "termination up to birth" consideration is a rare case; a very low percentage of abortions go on past five months, let alone nine. And typically in the event of medical necessity. It's a no brainer in those cases, hell yes abort the child if it will not be viable. To not do so is medically irresponsible.
The practice is legally contentious in the first place; most doctors wont touch abortions of this type for the legal liability it creates. So as I see it, this essentially decriminalized abortion in these cases; this is the most profound change by far. Potentially life saving procedures should not have the threat of legal force behind them; this ties the hands of caregivers to provide the most informed situational solutions for the health of a patient.
And empirically, we have seen that restricting early term abortion seems to actually increase the rate at which late term abortions occur. Seriously.
Is the poor reaction to this just a product of the politics we live with now, or am I missing something?
And full disclosure, I'm for both. Yep, pro choice and pro life. You see, I'm a Christian. The Bible isn't clear enough on this, but in my heart I feel that every consideration to give the child to someone else should be attempted before abortion is an option. I just feel that is what Jesus would do. Our love for human life, and desire for it to be happy and optimal for all, I would logically assume means protecting the defenseless and preserving life.
On the other hand, I support a woman's choice to decide if she wants to carry a baby to term. While I may frown on it, it is not for me to decide as God has given us free will. Many impacted by this law are not Christian; given that there is a clear separation of Church and State, religious and moral considerations based off of Christianity dont really come into play here. This is not a power the State should have, the right to control one's own health outcomes. While I may frown on the act, my frown doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme.
Thoughts?
The practice is legally contentious in the first place; most doctors wont touch abortions of this type for the legal liability it creates. So as I see it, this essentially decriminalized abortion in these cases; this is the most profound change by far. Potentially life saving procedures should not have the threat of legal force behind them; this ties the hands of caregivers to provide the most informed situational solutions for the health of a patient.
And empirically, we have seen that restricting early term abortion seems to actually increase the rate at which late term abortions occur. Seriously.
Is the poor reaction to this just a product of the politics we live with now, or am I missing something?
And full disclosure, I'm for both. Yep, pro choice and pro life. You see, I'm a Christian. The Bible isn't clear enough on this, but in my heart I feel that every consideration to give the child to someone else should be attempted before abortion is an option. I just feel that is what Jesus would do. Our love for human life, and desire for it to be happy and optimal for all, I would logically assume means protecting the defenseless and preserving life.
On the other hand, I support a woman's choice to decide if she wants to carry a baby to term. While I may frown on it, it is not for me to decide as God has given us free will. Many impacted by this law are not Christian; given that there is a clear separation of Church and State, religious and moral considerations based off of Christianity dont really come into play here. This is not a power the State should have, the right to control one's own health outcomes. While I may frown on the act, my frown doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme.
Thoughts?
There are a number of times I have had conversations on this subject with friends who were fundamentalist Christian, and they felt very deeply about it. Almost to the point of being able to call them single issue voters.
I don't find myself getting emotionally aroused much about this subject. I am willing to ascribe that to basic personality flaws, rather than any grand ethics and morality.
Also, from a utilitarian perspective I totally reject over-population arguments. Humans create usable resources on net through innovation - practically-speaking, resources are not some limited pool which we all fight over in a zero-sum way. The more people, the better.
Right! The more people, the more CO2. The more greenhouse gasses, the warmer the climate. The warmer the climate, the more moisture and heat in the atmosphere. Northern Canada and Siberia (and even Antarctica) will warm up, and there will be more room for habitation. The Sahara will become a fertile jungle (almost) from the CO2. More moisture in the atmosphere will cause more H2O2 to be made naturally, and it will flood the waters and the atmosphere, killing of all kinds of pathogens.
There is a whole lot of room to inhabit the oceans. Ocean farming will have to become stabilized. World controls will be needed to keep people from destroying nature, and thereby destroying other people.
We need more people, and the earth can handle them. The more people, the more geniuses. The sooner we reach the stars... and figure out how to live to 1000-y-o so that we can enjoy the stars.
Abortion only means destruction, and women are being whipped up into a freedom frenzy by the elite, just to keep us all slaves longer through abortion.
My opinion on the evictionism argument was changed by the counter-argument that it's more as if you hit someone with a car far from civilization, and they're going to die if you don't shelter them in your house. By bringing a child into life knowingly or through carelessness, you've created a sort of tort against both them and your partner which obliges you to at least try to keep the child alive until birth.
This is another issue that always seems to get swept under the rug because it makes people uncomfortable. What about a father's reproductive rights? While I don't advocate for women being forced to carry children against their will, as we explained earlier getting pregnant is largely a choice to begin with as we have many options to prevent this even if you are sexually active. Both parents choose to engage in sex.
After that point the man has no further say in what happens, but he is also financially responsible for the upbringing of that child until 18 years of age if the mother so chooses. It seems to me there should be some kind of counterbalance of rights and responsibilities here, or at least some kind of option for the father to be released of these rights and responsibilities if the child is carried to term against his wishes. Without this there is quite a clear double standard of rights. This combined with some kind of clearly defined term limit (with the usual physical health, rape, incest, etc exceptions), and perhaps some informed consent protocols IMO would go a long way toward deflating this conflict of ideologies.
I'm a Christian. The Bible isn't clear enough on this
Oh no?
Thou shalt NOT Kill
Jump to: