Oh boy, now we get to define "nature"

 

Are you ready for some thomism?

 

btw, I'm still trying to figure out just what the title of this thread is supposed to be.

Edited January 5, 200719 yr by Pop

I think it's supposed to be "When is a baby alive?"

In my culture, the majority view has been that while abortion isn't desirable, it's acceptable up until the foetus is a certain age (in law, 28 weeks) if there's a threat to the mother's health. Generally, the trauma of being forced to carry an unwanted foetus is held to be sufficient threat to her health that we have in effect abortion on demand. Later than that, it's acceptable if there's a danger to the mother's life, but not otherwise. This is probably because the aborted foetus seems too close to a viable baby in the popular imagination, and such late abortions would seem to cheapen the value of the life of a child.

 

This hasn't always been what's considered right. As a moral relativist, I'm comfortable with the idea that values change over time as human experience grows. Recently, there were pictures showing the foetus at younger than 28 weeks looking much more 'human', shall we say, than many people expected. There was some discussion about whether the law needed to be changed, though nothing has happened so far. People are worried about stirring up these issues - we look across the Atlantic at how issues such as gay marriage and abortion seem to distort US politics, and we're wary of opening up a similar can of worms here.

 

Nevertheless, a change may come. Technology is also affecting our views on the morality of abortion, as babies born earlier survive much more succesfully than they used to. It may be that sometime in the future, a foetus can be removed from the mother at any stage following conception, and grown in a machine until it reaches the age of birth and beyond. At that time, I think abortions that kill the foetus will come to be seen as wrong in all circumstances, allowing pro-lifers and pro-choicers to unite behind the same position and finally get past this and onto the next thing.

At that time, I think abortions that kill the foetus will come to be seen as wrong in all circumstances, allowing pro-lifers and pro-choicers to unite behind the same position and finally get past this and onto the next thing.

 

So abortion will be seen as wrong, and we won't have a problem with the increase of orphans? I don't think your scenario is at all likely.

I don't know if it's likely, but it's the holy grail of radical feminism. Even if the inherent cultural roles of women were bucked, the "slavery" of motherhood would still be a yolk. Eradicating motherhood (and instead practicing some weird communal "it takes a village" child-rearing without primary caregiving roles, and with men taken completely out of the picture) was of particular importance to Bouvier.

 

But I would think that removing fetuses from women would make killing said fetuses more acceptable. I mean, how much of the emotional attachment of pregnancy is attributable to the fact that the fetus is attached to the mother? That's not even getting into the neurochemical changes that accompany pregnancy. If women stop carrying children during pregnancy, is it unfathomable that we would see as many deadbeat moms as deadbeat dads?

Edited January 5, 200719 yr by Pop

So a woman who desires an abortion is having an unnatural desire?

I don't know. I think a person naturally would have feelings to care for a baby though, if it was conceived.

If a man wants his partner/woman he slept with at some point to have an abortion, that means he is having unnatural thoughts?

I'm not saying he is or isn't.

If a man and a woman want to **** each others brains out, but neither ever want children, they are behaving in an unnatural way?

Sexual desire seems natural to me. There are consequences to sexual actions though, and one of them is babies. People must take this into account when their passions are screaming.

Is a miscarriage unnatural?

It happens in nature, if that is what you mean. To connect this to the topic, abortion doesn't happen in nature.

Is post-natal depression unnatural?

Depression happens naturally, but I don't think God intended people to get depressed when he made them (people shouldn't want to die when in perfect health. According to experts depression is a chemical imbalance. Imbalance implies there is a balance that takes place in most people who aren't depressed. Although, to treat depression there is more than just putting the balance back with drugs of course). I think post-natal depression is pretty treatable too, though ugly while and when it occurs.

I don't know if it's likely, but it's the holy grail of radical feminism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure radical feminists would support a womans right to have an abortion if that was what she wanted, regardless of the level of technology available to keep the fetus alive. I think the idea that such technology would lead to everyone believing that abortion is wrong is the stuff of fantasy.

 

Jews believe that the soul enters the body at birth, and as such don't have the problem with abortion that those who believe all life is scared and life begins at conception have. So would a newly concieved fetus in some kind of incubator machine count as being born, or would it be seen as a soulless being because it has yet to be "naturally" born?

Are horses people? I submit that they are not. Can a sperm cell alone become a person with simple care and nurture? I submit that it cannot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Care and nurture is simple? Spoken like a true man!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you.

Perhaps I should have said, "With care and nurture that is normally given to a fetus." But I just took a shortcut and said, "Simple care and nurture."

 

So would a newly conceived fetus in some kind of incubator machine count as being born, or would it be seen as a soulless being because it has yet to be "naturally" born?

I consider the machine to be giving care and nurture that is normally given to a fetus. I think from conception whatever it is is a life, a human life. If you want to kill it, I can't stop you.

 

It isn't my job to be moral police in people's lives. I consider it wrong, but I also consider other things wrong, yet people do those too. My thinking it is wrong doesn't affect you in reality. I am not going to condemn you or anything like that.

 

If a woman gets raped and didn't want a baby and it turns out that the baby will have sickle cell anemia, and the mother can't afford the baby let alone herself, since she lives on the streets and barely gets by with enough food, but somebody offers her funding for abortion, I am not blind as to the alluring sound of an abortion in that case. I still think it is wrong, however, morally. It'll still happen though.

 

I can think something is wrong while you think it is right and we can all function very well in life, right? There's no quarrel here at least. But if you want to convince me to change my mind, you will find it very very very difficult, and I might say futile. It's probably the same thing with me for you though, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than show you what I think and what that means.

I consider the machine to be giving care and nurture that is normally given to a fetus. I think from conception whatever it is is a life, a human life. If you want to kill it, I can't stop you.

 

It isn't my job to be moral police in people's lives. I consider it wrong, but I also consider other things wrong, yet people do those too. My thinking it is wrong doesn't affect you in reality. I am not going to condemn you or anything like that.

 

If a woman gets raped and didn't want a baby and it turns out that the baby will have sickle cell anemia, and the mother can't afford the baby let alone herself, since she lives on the streets and barely gets by with enough food, but somebody offers her funding for abortion, I am not blind as to the alluring sound of an abortion in that case. I still think it is wrong, however, morally. It'll still happen though.

 

I can think something is wrong while you think it is right and we can all function very well in life, right? There's no quarrel here at least. But if you want to convince me to change my mind, you will find it very very very difficult, and I might say futile. It's probably the same thing with me for you though, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than show you what I think and what that means.

 

Is that truly possible? By stating something is morally wrong, aren't you (even unintentionally) imposing moral judgement?

I say the action is wrong. I'm not imposing moral judgment on anybody. I morally judge the action. I wasn't aware that it was wrong to morally judge actions. I don't think you are any more of a sinful person than I am.

 

To impose is "to put or set by or as if by authority." I have no authority. I cannot impose anything in reality. And "as if by authority" in this case means I get to choose how I want to think (I guess I have the authority to do so), but everyone imposes their ideas when stating opinions as much as I do when I say something about abortion. Are people not entitled to their opinion? Or is it imposing to do that?

Edited January 5, 200719 yr by Blank

I think a person naturally would have feelings to care for a baby though, if it was conceived.

 

Maybe in happy magical fantasy land, but the real world tells a different story. It's full of men who want nothing to do with the kids they've concieved

 

There are consequences to sexual actions though, and one of them is babies.

 

And if you don't want said babies, you can abort them or give them up for adoption! You may be morally[/i] opposed to abortion, but that won't impact of the decisions of those who don't believe it is a problem.

 

People must take this into account when their passions are screaming.

 

The stuff of fantasy.

 

A world in which people always stop to think about whether they want children before they have sex, and people who automatically care for any and all children they concieve, may be a world you want, but it's not reality, and thus not relevant.

I don't know if it's likely, but it's the holy grail of radical feminism.

It's hard to predict how people in general will react. I wonder if growing the foetus outside wholly outside the mother will ever be seen as desirable by most, even when it becomes possible. That hasn't happened with cloning, after all. But for many with strong religious views, it would still be replacing something abhorrent (the killing of the unborn foetus), with something that was merely undesirable (the raising of more children without their mothers).

But I would think that removing fetuses from women would make killing said fetuses more acceptable.

You're probably right. Imagine if we had this option today - the thousands of unwanted children left for the state to raise, and I don't think the state has a particularly good record of turning out productive and well-adjusted adults from its care systems. The economic cost of not killing these foetuses could be huge. So could the cost to ourselves and our society of killing all these foetuses when we don't have the 'pro-choice' justification of respecting the mother's rights any more.

Edited January 5, 200719 yr by SteveThaiBinh

I think a person naturally would have feelings to care for a baby though, if it was conceived.

 

Maybe in happy magical fantasy land, but the real world tells a different story. It's full of men who want nothing to do with the kids they've concieved

 

There are consequences to sexual actions though, and one of them is babies.

 

And if you don't want said babies, you can abort them or give them up for adoption! You may be morally[/i] opposed to abortion, but that won't impact of the decisions of those who don't believe it is a problem.

 

People must take this into account when their passions are screaming.

 

The stuff of fantasy.

 

A world in which people always stop to think about whether they want children before they have sex, and people who automatically care for any and all children they concieve, may be a world you want, but it's not reality, and thus not relevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. We win!

As the evening draws nigh and the conversation has remained relatively respectful - I feel a quiet time for reflection is a good idea. If interest remains in the morrow to continue this discussion do drop me a PM.

I have received a few requests to reopen this thread to the light of day ... as I have mentioned the expectation for such topics is respectful and constructive contribution. Hopefully that clearly outlines the expectations attached to such a potentially charged topic. Please treat one another with care ...

After the first twelve months subsequent to conception (aborting a little later than that is okay if absolutely necessary).

 

if this was supposed to say "12 weeks" I choose this option.. it's not abortion after the child is born - then it's classified as murder.. and since most babies are born within 9 months "aborting" the child after 12 months is not possible.

In answer to the original question:

 

If one considers a cell to be alive, which I do, then one would choose the first option.

Otherwise, imo it has to do with one's beliefs which should never be discussed anywhere.

 

 

Concerning abortion I'm pro choice. Accidents happen even with all the best protection available and no one should be made to suffer, especially when a baby is involved. But it is ultimately the parents' choice and I don't think abortion should be considered murder, more like killing a mouse that has made its nest in one's home.

Or something like that.

 

Also, I'd like to mention that abortion is not easy. It's painful and emotionally scaring, often traumatizing the woman for the rest of her life.

 

Of course some don't give a frak but they are just evil.

^^I think he meant what he put there. Choices 7-10 are all off the wall.

Edited January 5, 200719 yr by Gfted1

cartman's mother wanted to abort him when he was 8.

 

taks

Abortion should be allowed in the first trimester, but not after that. If it take more than 3 months to decide or figure out that you are pregnant then you are SOL. If the female is a minor the parents and guardians need to be notified. It is a surgical procedure after all. Lastly, it is up to the woman and the woman only to have the abortion or not.

Abortion should be allowed in the first trimester, but not after that.  If it take more than 3 months to decide or figure out that you are pregnant then you are SOL.  If the female is a minor the parents and guardians need to be notified.  It is a surgical procedure after all.  Lastly, it is up to the woman and the woman only to have the abortion or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a limit to the age of the foetus for abortion. I think it's 3 months but that seems early to me. My wife is 3 months pregnant and she barely shows.

But then again, one would be somewhat stupid to ignore the other signs.

Lastly, it is up to the woman and the man to have the abortion or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited January 5, 200719 yr by Dark Moth

cartman's mother wanted to abort him when he was 8.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well that pretty much wins the topic, doesn't it?

Lastly, it is up to the woman and the man to have the abortion or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No Moth, the woman and the woman only has a right to the final decision.

I'm all for a nice long discussion with the father though.

 

If he even cares.

What is it with you people and always assuming that the father won't even care or won't even be around for the child?

 

Is the baby the woman's alone? No. Was she solely responsible for creating it? No. The fact that she has to carry it is not enough to say it's her decision alone. If she consented to sex and the father is still around (and isn't a total deadbeat) then he has a say in it as well.