Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Illyricum]

A parent has the best interest in making decisions for his/her child.

A parent wouldn't be able to legally kill their child outside of the womb just because they "chose to", so why should a woman have the right to legally kill the baby inside the womb?

[otseng]

The problem with banning late-term abortions is that they are very rarely done for the purposed of an unwanted baby, but usually for the reason that the birth could be of considerable danger to the baby, the mother, or both if it went ahead.

I do not believe danger to the unborn child is a valid reason to abort the baby. What greater danger is there to the baby than the abortion itself?

Not murder, but "killing". There is a difference.

I differentiate the two if a higher authority has passed down judgement to terminate the life.

War is not murder. The military authorities in the country have commanded the soldiers to kill the enemy.

Execution is not murder. The judicial system has commanded the executioner to kill the guilty.

In the case of terminating the life inside the womb, there is no higher authority to pass down judgement. Therefore it is murder.

The choice, I personally believe, should be given up to, at the very latest, the middle of the 2nd trimester, but possibly closer to the end of the 1st trimester.

If abortions after the first trimester were banned (except in the case of mother's life at risk), that would be a great step.

To say that murder is ALWAYS wrong is hypocritical of our government, because our government murders - directly and indirectly - all the time.

Murder is always wrong. Killing is not always wrong.

[Corvus]

The problem with banning late-term abortions is that they are very rarely done for the purposed of an unwanted baby, but usually for the reason that the birth could be of considerable danger to the baby, the mother, or both if it went ahead.

I do not believe danger to the unborn child is a valid reason to abort the baby. What greater danger is there to the baby than the abortion itself?

Not murder, but "killing". There is a difference.

I differentiate the two if a higher authority has passed down judgement to terminate the life.

War is not murder. The military authorities in the country have commanded the soldiers to kill the enemy.

Execution is not murder. The judicial system has commanded the executioner to kill the guilty.

In the case of terminating the life inside the womb, there is no higher authority to pass down judgement. Therefore it is murder.

The highest authority would be the law in the land, which gives authority to parents over whether to abort or not. Who has given military authorities the right to kill? No one, but we accept they will behave responsibly with their power.

Let me add that this is by no means a new problem. Abortions have been going on for millenia, and where abortions are banned, mothers rely on potentially dangerous homebrewed remedies, or more physical measures, if they wish to abort.

Consider that if a person is comatose, being supported by machines, and there is a very slim chance of them waking, the next of kin is given the decision on whether to end the person's life. Why? Because any value this person's life once held is gone. If a foetus has no yet reached the value of a person, as should be defined by government, I would not consider it murder to abort it.

To say that murder is ALWAYS wrong is hypocritical of our government, because our government murders - directly and indirectly - all the time.

Murder is always wrong. Killing is not always wrong.

Yes, to us. But to some people, as Jesus seemed to teach, taking a life under any circumstances whatsoever is wrong.

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

The highest authority would be the law in the land, which gives authority to parents over whether to abort or not.

Actually, the highest authority is God. "[A]ll men are created equal...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...[including] life..." Of course one could dismiss this as propaganda and the Bible and other religious writings as inauthoritative. But let us consider the implications of the law of the land being the highest authority of the land. If whatever the government say goes, then what if it said we can kill the elderly, or terminally ill, or disabled, or those who posses a genetic problem, or any race or group of people who are not considered valuable enough in the government's eyes to deserve the right to life? I think we could agree that this would be wrong. So then how can "the government says it ok" be used as an argument to say that an act is definitely not morally wrong?

Let me add that this is by no means a new problem. Abortions have been going on for millenia, and where abortions are banned, mothers rely on potentially dangerous homebrewed remedies, or more physical measures, if they wish to abort.

True. But I believe banning abortions would greatly reduce the number that occur. Futhermore, for any banned action, some will go to drastic measures to circumvent the law, but that does not make the law bad or the action good. And legal abortions are not inherently safe either. As you yourself have said,

The people who do go through with abortions often suffer the most terrible feelings of guilt and shame, not to mention whatever physical pain the procedure entails.

And even with legal abortions performed in America, a risk still exists, however large or small, of permanent physical injury and, in extreame cases, death.

If a foetus has no yet reached the value of a person, as should be defined by government, I would not consider it murder to abort it.

Again I ask, what reason do we have to trust the government to correctly determine the value of a person?

[T]o some people, as Jesus seemed to teach, taking a life under any circumstances whatsoever is wrong.

I don't think he taught that; could you please support that opinion? But to the degree that he did, is that not another argument for the banning of abortion?

[Corvus]

The highest authority would be the law in the land, which gives authority to parents over whether to abort or not.

Actually, the highest authority is God. "[A]ll men are created equal...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...[including] life..." Of course one could dismiss this as propaganda and the Bible and other religious writings as inauthoritative. But let us consider the implications of the law of the land being the highest authority of the land.

Quoting the American Bill of Rights means nothing to me, as an Australian citizen, and I'm as concerned about what God says as I am with what Quetzalcoatl says.

If whatever the government say goes, then what if it said we can kill the elderly, or terminally ill, or disabled, or those who posses a genetic problem, or any race or group of people who are not considered valuable enough in the government's eyes to deserve the right to life?

Of course we could. Except under most republics the government does not have ultimate authority over a person's life, not because they respect the wishes of God, but because they respect the wishes of their founders, their people, and, operating under the belief that such systems are thoroughly more stable than other forms of government, they subsribe to a system of government based upon a social agreement, where the government does not have the right to take the life of any of its citizens (without due process of the law).

If it did start killing indiscriminately, it's unlikely it would be in power for long.

Our governments are not murdering our own people because of morality, but because of self-interest. Instead, they are murdering other people, which is why I think the value of a person who is not a citizen should be defined, with repercussions for every unjustified death.

Let me add that this is by no means a new problem. Abortions have been going on for millenia, and where abortions are banned, mothers rely on potentially dangerous homebrewed remedies, or more physical measures, if they wish to abort.

True. But I believe banning abortions would greatly reduce the number that occur. Futhermore, for any banned action, some will go to drastic measures to circumvent the law, but that does not make the law bad or the action good. And legal abortions are not inherently safe either. As you yourself have said,

The people who do go through with abortions often suffer the most terrible feelings of guilt and shame, not to mention whatever physical pain the procedure entails.

And even with legal abortions performed in America, a risk still exists, however large or small, of permanent physical injury and, in extreame cases, death.

To which the mother should, and often is, informed. Thus we are in agreement that abortions are no easy way out.

If a foetus has no yet reached the value of a person, as should be defined by government, I would not consider it murder to abort it.

Again I ask, what reason do we have to trust the government to correctly determine the value of a person?

I have before mentioned this peculiar trend of viewing the government in an "us" and "them" fashion. However, sicne we currently have no definition or, as shown by the Iraq War, even a value on human life otuside of the value of our citizens, any value placed on simple existence is entirely welcome. It could be a referendum effort or it could be decided by our government.

The line must be drawn somewhere, and I'd rather a line exists and is drawn by logic and reason than continuing with a state where the rights of non-citizens do not exist.

Besides, for what reason are you distrusting the government for determining the value of a person, especially since, unless you regularly protest the judicial system, you have already accepted their determinations on the subject thus far? I have to wonder if you are also a Christian anarchist if you are incapable of trusting the republican system of government whatsoever.

[T]o some people, as Jesus seemed to teach, taking a life under any circumstances whatsoever is wrong.

I don't think he taught that; could you please support that opinion? But to the degree that he did, is that not another argument for the banning of abortion?

I didn't say I believed in pacifism. Simply that some people do. And I never stated that the words of a religious prophet should be the principal behind our law.

Other than the fact that he allowed himself to be nailed to a cross and prevented people from striking against those who persecuted him; http://www.plowcreek.org/bible_pacifism.htm

If the principal behind his message was selfless love, then he taught pacifism.

[otseng]

Let me add that this is by no means a new problem. Abortions have been going on for millenia, and where abortions are banned, mothers rely on potentially dangerous homebrewed remedies, or more physical measures, if they wish to abort.

And the same with murder. Why should it be made safe for anyone to commit a murder?

If a foetus has no yet reached the value of a person, as should be defined by government, I would not consider it murder to abort it.

Yes, if it is not a person, then it's not murder. So, it all goes back to the question, when is it a person?

To me, it's when God has breathed a soul into it. Now, I can't say exactly when that happens. It could be when the sperm enters the egg. It could be at two weeks. My definition, of course, is not something the government would ever give. But, as I've stated before, it's not easy for anyone to give a good definition of when exactly is it a "person".

The government does not have the right to take the life of any of its citizens (without due process of the law).

And I would add that this includes citizens too. So, a citizen also doesn't have the right to take away a life without due process of law. Thus abortions should be outlawed.

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

..."[A]ll men are created equal...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...[including] life..."...

Quoting the American Bill of Rights means nothing to me, as an Australian citizen...

Sorry, I guess I had forgotten that this is an international forum . That quote, however, is actually from the US Declaration of Independence, a document penned mostly be Thomas Jefferson, a deist, and appealing to the "Creator" for the right of the thirteen colonies to be released from the law of the land at that time and to establish a new law of the land.

But I am afraid we are getting off topic, and partly as a result of misunderstandings. So let me try to simplify my expression of my opinions. The original question was, "Should woman...have the right to have [an] abortion?" I believe that every human being has a God-given value of personhood (and that that value is equal for all humans), and, therefore, a right to life (unless they forfeit that right by seriously infringing on the fundamental rights of another, such as through murder). I also believe that an embryo is a distinct, living human being at conception (at the time that it posses a unique homo sapiens DNA). (I might reluctantly humor the argument that human life begins when brain waves are detectable, which, if I remember correctly, is four weeks after conception.) Therefore, no, I do not believe women should be allowed to have an abortion, at least not if the mother's life is not in imminent danger.

[jtls1986]

This doesn't really make sense...

If a person destroys an egg of a Bald Eagle...that person would be given criminal charges, mostly due to the fact that Bald Eagles are an endangered species and that the egg will obviously develop into a Bald Eagle.

Now, for human fetuses inside the mothers womb...since everyone knows that the fetus will eventually develop into a human being, how is it right for people to eradicate the fetus inside the womb that would obviously develop into a human being and be able to legalize it?! If people believe that abortion in itself is okay, then aren't you demeaning the status of a human being to a degree of being lesser than a animal?!

[Corvus]

This doesn't really make sense...

If a person destroys an egg of a Bald Eagle...that person would be given criminal charges, mostly due to the fact that Bald Eagles are an endangered species and that the egg will obviously develop into a Bald Eagle.

But the reason for the fine is not because we care about the life of one bald eagle. In fact, we are indifferent towards it. We care about the entire species. We can kill (humanely) almost any other creature not listed as endangered with impunity, just as we could with bald eagles if the population ever soared above endangered level.

To bring the analogy out further, when the opposite happens, and we have an epidemic of a particular species, they are in fact culled.

Australians are happy to eat their national icon, the kangaroo, even though it tastes awful and there are plenty of alternatives.

[Piper Plexed]

quote= "otseng"

Yes, if it is not a person, then it's not murder. So, it all goes back to the question, when is it a person?

To me, it's when God has breathed a soul into it. Now, I can't say exactly when that happens. It could be when the sperm enters the egg. It could be at two weeks. My definition, of course, is not something the government would ever give. But, as I've stated before, it's not easy for anyone to give a good definition of when exactly is it a "person".

Here lies the crux of my position. Since personhood cannot be established by the state till the fetus is able to sustain it's own life, separate of the Mother, then any laws that dictate the womans actions, becomes an infringement of her liberty. This issue does not belong in our courts.

Where this issue does belong is in our homes and in our places of worship, where ones morality is taught. Just because I personally may not choose to take such an action with my body (because of my Faith) does not give me the right to dictate my beliefs to others, whom may not share my beliefs. In many ways my position is a leap of Faith. I trust in Gods plan and I do not wish for my government to interfere with the path of others.