Abortion

Illyricum · Post by **Illyricum** » Tue May 11, 2004 5:44 pm

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

Post by **otseng** » Thu May 27, 2004 9:53 am

Piper Plexed wrote: 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.

In a way, it does belong in the courts because the courts says it's illegal to murder someone.

The definition of when it is a person is the problem. I would accept the definition of after the first 3 months that it is a person.

I don't think we can define personhood as when a fetus is able to sustain it's own life. Even when a baby is born, it is unable to sustain it's own life apart from it's mother (or someone else). (And some babies don't even reach self-sustainability until they're 18 years old.

)

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Thu May 27, 2004 12:22 pm

otseng wrote: In a way, it does belong in the courts because the courts says it's illegal to murder someone.

Ahh... but you say someone, is a collection of cells a someone? When does self awareness happen, only God knows. If I were to follow that train of thought it should be equally as wrong to kill a roach or a tree.

otseng wrote: The definition of when it is a person is the problem. I would accept the definition of after the first 3 months that it is a person.

I personally disagree with your three month mark though I preface this statement with personally. My disagreement derives from my morals and faith. Seems quite arbitrary and subjective to my beliefs. Another one of my beliefs is that I do not have the right to project my morals and beliefs on another, nor do I have a right to deny another her free will which influences her path and relationship to God. If I were willing to change the course of anothers life through denial of choice I would then be bound to stand by that person as she suffered any consequences due to my influence. Because I do not know anothers path or relationship to God, do I have the right to judge others and directly alter that path. I place all responsibility of this decision on the person that must reckon her choices with herself and her God.

otseng wrote:I don't think we can define personhood as when a fetus is able to sustain it's own life. Even when a baby is born, it is unable to sustain it's own life apart from it's mother (or someone else). (And some babies don't even reach self-sustainability until they're 18 years old. )

Your a very funny man

OK lets clarify with able to breath and maintain a heart beat.

Post by **otseng** » Thu May 27, 2004 4:49 pm

Piper Plexed wrote: Ahh... but you say someone, is a collection of cells a someone?

Well, aren't we all a collection of cells?

If I were to follow that train of thought it should be equally as wrong to kill a roach or a tree.

No, it's not equally wrong because I don't believe they have a soul.

Another one of my beliefs is that I do not have the right to project my morals and beliefs on another, nor do I have a right to deny another her free will which influences her path and relationship to God.

I share those beliefs. But, what if the fetus is actually a person? What about that baby's rights? Does not an abortion deny a baby it's own rights to life that has been violated upon by the mother?

OK lets clarify with able to breath and maintain a heart beat.

A baby's heartbeat is discernable at 12 weeks. As for breathing, of course it can't use it's lungs inside the womb, but then again, it doesn't need to. The mother is breathing for the baby.

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Thu May 27, 2004 6:14 pm

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".

As per the above post you admitted that there is no way to establish when the soul is present prior to birth. I agree with you. How can we make laws based on the could be's of the world. Since we have established that there is no way to discern the presence of the soul and since a fetus can not exist apart from it's Mother for at least some part of it's gestation, what exactly is the criteria you propose as valid enough for our Government to deny women their liberty?

In the end don't you agree that this is an instance where people that are anti-abortion attempt to dictate their values and beliefs to others?

Also as a Christian, don't you believe that God in it's infinite wisdom knows exactly what is going on here on earth and that God is almighty enough to tend to the needs of it's creation. As a Christian I take personal responsibility as I know what is expected of me and I will be required to address my actions with my creator. Why in these circumstances do we all of a sudden need to "Cover Gods Back", is God unable to handle this.

What I do believe falls within our realm of responsibility is to teach why we feel this is wrong. I will teach my Daughter and Son, my Church will reinforce and teach at greater lenghts why. This is how I was taught and even when I was a practising Agnostic, I would not have aborted a fetus. These lessons are of Family and Faith, not of Government.

Post by **otseng** » Thu May 27, 2004 10:19 pm

Piper Plexed wrote: As per the above post you admitted that there is no way to establish when the soul is present prior to birth. I agree with you. How can we make laws based on the could be's of the world. Since we have established that there is no way to discern the presence of the soul and since a fetus can not exist apart from it's Mother for at least some part of it's gestation, what exactly is the criteria you propose as valid enough for our Government to deny women their liberty?

As to what the government should use to define a "person", I honestly do not know. If anybody could've come up with this definition, this debate probably would've already been settled.

However, like I've stated before, I would accept after the first trimester to define a person. One reason is that it is no longer called an embyro but a fetus. At that time, it has a heartbeat, sleeps and wakes up, practices to breathe, and reacts to it's surrounding. And it also has the physical features of a human.

In the end don't you agree that this is an instance where people that are anti-abortion attempt to dictate their values and beliefs to others?

If the fetus is not a person, then I can agree with your statement. If it is a person, I believe it is the responsibility of the strong to stand up for the rights of the weak.

Why in these circumstances do we all of a sudden need to "Cover Gods Back", is God unable to handle this.

Same reason as helping people in that past that were oppressed because they were not considered human. It's the act of caring for those who are innocent and have no voice. It greatly saddens me to think that these precious lives are being killed.

I believe that the unborn child is a human being. It is a precious gift from God. Even if it is unwanted by the mother. To terminate it's life is a serious intrusion into the baby's right to live.

Illyricum · Post by **Illyricum** » Thu May 27, 2004 11:07 pm

However, like I've stated before, I would accept after the first trimester to define a person

Does it matter whether it's a person or not? The fact of the matter is, if it is not yet person, if not aborted, it will one day be a person. To abort a baby would stop it from developing into one. You would be killing it. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines killing as this 1 a : to deprive of life . Therefor, if killing is depriving of life, regardless of which trimester the baby is in, abortion would be killing. For that reason I see no justification for abortion other than if the mother's life is in danger.

Post by **otseng** » Fri May 28, 2004 8:40 am

Illyricum wrote: Does it matter whether it's a person or not?

From a legal point of view, yes. The only way to make abortions illegal is to say that a fetus is a human being. If it is not a person, then there is little ground to classify it as illegal (it might be unethical, but not illegal). Only when it is a person can it move from "killing" to "murder".

Personally, my ideal would be to ban abortions since conception. But, practically, I don't have a strong case to convince others that a fertilized egg is a "person". By the end of 12 weeks, I have a much stronger case.

However, if someone wants to argue that a fertilized egg is a "person", by all means present your case.

hanafaith · Post by **hanafaith** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:31 pm

i believe God already knew us b4 adam and eve were even created soo it is killing a human soul

mikspe7 · Post by **mikspe7** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:59 am

[quote]{ I see no justification for abortion other than if the mother's life is in danger.}

how can you value the mother's life more than the child's, you're willing to sacrifice a child's life merely because the mother "might" be in danger?

mrmufin · Post by **mrmufin** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:34 am

Illyricum wrote:Does it matter whether it's a person or not?

Yes. Persons are generally regarded as those who eat, breathe and excrete as sentient, independent beings; in other words persons consist of those who are born.

Illyricum wrote:The fact of the matter is, if it is not yet person, if not aborted, it will one day be a person. To abort a baby would stop it from developing into one. You would be killing it.

Babies are not aborted; zygotes, embryos and fetuses are. Prior to birth, the zygote, embryo or fetus is entirely dependent on the female for its sustenance. In its dependence, the zygote, embryo or fetus alters the chemical and biological makeup of its host by using its resources, injecting it with hormones, etc. Abortion returns the female to her normal state.

Illyricum wrote:Therefor, if killing is depriving of life, regardless of which trimester the baby is in, abortion would be killing. For that reason I see no justification for abortion other than if the mother's life is in danger.

While one may effectively argue that late term fetuses enjoy "squatter's rights" in the host female, conception may very well be an unintended and unwanted consequence of sexual intercourse, just as an automobile accident may be an unintended and unwanted consequence of driving. Thus it is unfair to the female to allow the fetus to utilize her resources and alter her bodily integrity, should that usage and alteration be against her will.

Regards,
mrmufin