Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Daystar]

Warning...off topic

[Your silly

thanks, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me in the last five minutes

Of course, the "heart" I'm talking about is not that organ that distributes blood around your body, but the essence of who you are.

so why did you say heart? The essence of who I am is "the void". It is the "nothingness" that is the true Self.

[Day] You're not only silly, but a little daffy You're a "void?" You're true self is "nothingness?" Where you at, man?

My heart (and other organs for that matter) are impermanent. The essence of who I am is infinite and indestructible.

[Day] If you are "nothing," how can you have existance?

God will hear the heart-felt prayer over any that come from the lips.

no he won't - he doesn't exist.

[Day] Man, are you in for a big surprise

If he did he would do as he promised in the NT and actually answer prayers.

[Day] God doesn't hear the prayers of sinners (John 9:31). That you don't think you are one, is proof that you are.

He doesn't so he either doesn't care or doesn't exist. My money is on the latter.

[Day] I hope it isn't all you got

Sri Ramana Maharshi once said about prayer: "I see what the problem is - when you pray you always ask for something you want, never for anything you don't want"

[Day] Right, God promises to meet our needs, not our greeds.

Just so you have an idea of where I am coming from on the deity issue, I offer the following for your consideration.

“Seek Him inside yourself, and learn who it is that says: “My God, my spirit, my understanding, my soul and my body. Understand the source of sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though you don’t want to, and sleeping though you don’t want to, and getting angry when you don’t want to, and falling in love though you don’t want to. For if you closely investigate these things, you will find Him inside yourself.” Monoimos, Gnostic, 3rd century CE

[Day] Who was Monoimos' God? You want to know real truth, joy, peace? Repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.

[Esoteric_Illuminati]

Actually I disagree with that slippery slope. The reason is because the child is distinct from the woman. The child is not comparable to one of the woman's organs.

The child may be a person in its own right, but it is using the woman's organs. Even if it is a person, it does not have the right to usurp the ownership of anothers organs. Denying someone the use of your body is not an immoral act, and before the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb, that is all an abortion is: denying the use of one's organs by someone else.

You're trying to logically compare the unborn child to a parasite, which is just absurd. The womb is designed for the specific purpose of providing the environment for the unborn child to grow/develop.

Furthermore, if we follow your logic, are you also suggesting that infants do not have the right to life, considering the fact of breast-feeding, which uses the woman's body?

[Gaunt]

You're trying to logically compare the unborn child to a parasite, which is just absurd.

I do not see that it is absurd. It is a parasitic relationship. Dependence only goes one way in this situation. The mother has no need of the child to further her own survival, whereas the reverse is patently untrue.

Simply because "parasite" has been given a negative connotation does not mean that it is not the case, regardless of the suitability of the location to the parasite. The intestinal tract is ideally suited for a tapeworm, but this does not mean we welcome the tapeworm to use it.

Furthermore, if we follow your logic, are you also suggesting that infants do not have the right to life, considering the fact of breast-feeding, which uses the woman's body?

The difference is that the child is not necessarily dependant on only one thing for its source of nourishment. It may receive nourishment from any woman who is able and willing to give it (such as in the case of a wet nurse). The "unborn child" must feed off of the single source, whether that source is willing or not.

[Jose]

The difference is that the child is not necessarily dependant on only one thing for its source of nourishment. It may receive nourishment from any woman who is able and willing to give it (such as in the case of a wet nurse). The "unborn child" must feed off of the single source, whether that source is willing or not.

We might find it interesting, with regard to this concept, to read Sherri Tepper's The Fresco.

I also point out that the mother has a choice in feeding the infant: there are bottles and formula. She has no choice with the creature that invaded her tissues and forced a placenta upon her. Heck--half of its genes aren't even hers! She's forced to do this in order to further the genetic success of some foreigner--some MALE of all things. Reproductively speaking, males are parasites. Females at least have a possibilty of reproducing on their own, as they do in a surprising number of species of animals. (My favorites are the lizards that have lost the need for males, but not the need for courtship and "sex," such as it is in an all-female world).

[Corvus]

Since you outlined your argument, EI, I will outline mine.

We value life because,

1) Because we ourselves place a value on our own bodies. It is by the means of exercising our will that the value of our life is defined. If one no longer valued themselves, it would actually be a violation of our rights to forcefully prevent our suicide. Though the suicide would be unfortunate, it would not be "murdering oneself". Therefore, the conscious will to live, actively or passively expressed through the necessary component of consciousness, is of great importance in determining whether a life can be ended or not. U.S law seems to agree with this assessment, for, as I have noted elsewhere, euthanasia is permitted with the consent of parents or next of kin if there is no hope of a person's recovery from a completely unconscious state.

The will is also of the greatest importance in actually determining if a crime is being commited. Crimes are wrong because they go against the will of the victim. If the crime is commited with the consent of the victim, then the victim is a victim no longer. If a victim is indifferent to the crime being perpetrated against them, then there is no crime. And if the victim has no will with which to formulate a desire to live, or if consciousness has never arisen then the being has never formulated any desire to live. If a being has never gained sentience, or has lost it, then it is incapable of being a victim, just as vegetables are incapable of being victims. You cannot apply the label of victim to something if its absolutely oblivious as to its own existence.

2) Because other people attach a value to us. This is quite simple. The only people who can legitimately attach any significance to a baby are the parents.

3) Because we are a social species. The fact that we are human is quite simply not enough to give us inherent value. A praying mantis devours its mate after copulation, despite being of the same species. What sets us apart is that we are a social species that are not instinctively killers, though territorial disputes may temporarily alter the fact.


So for the killing of an unborn child to be acceptable it;

i) Must not have developed the proper faculties needed to be termed a sentient being (i.e, higher brain activity must not have developed).

ii) Must no longer be desired by its parents.

With the additional requirement added:

iii)if the child is capable of living outside of the womb, then it would be senseless to end its life, for at this stage, higher brain functions are present, and the mother, although she should be obliged to take care of it, having carried it so long, is not obligated to do so, and can still give it to another.

[Corvus]

Actually I disagree with that slippery slope. The reason is because the child is distinct from the woman. The child is not comparable to one of the woman's organs..

Gaunt has already addressed this. It is conscripting an organ to a task that, although it is designed for it, is being used against the wishes of its owner. Both conscripted donation of organs and your conscripted parenthood are alike in this regard.

And in fact the goverment already does possess such jurisdiction via fetal homicide laws. So you (and John Kerry) don't believe if a man kicks a pregnant woman, causing her to abort that the man ought to be held accountable for murder?

No. A miscarriage, though it would cause a great deal of grief to the parent whose hopes of rearing a child are shattered, should not be murder unless it has reached a certain level of development, as expressed in my previous post . But, until it has reached the aforementioned state, an unwanted miscarriage brought about by an attacker should be defined as some sort of crime purely because of the psychological and emotional suffering such an event would give to a mother.

That's a terrible justification for abortion. The same justifiable logic could lead us to legalize murder, rape, etc. because people are going to go out and do it anyways.

Not at all. Read my previous post (the very large one 2 posts back) on women who tried to bring about an abortion when it was illegal. These things, I believe, probably do still go on, only to a lesser extent. Unlike murder, rape, etc, an abortion law is one that has been proven to be unenforcable. Even if this was not true, then the perpetrators of this crime, who, in despair, have, in previous times, gone so far as to drink poisons and insert scissors into their bodies in an attempt to miscarry, are seen to be crippled by their efforts. Are we to send cripples to life imprisonment for destroying something that may be incapable of feeling? If by supporting a safe option for these "murderers" I am a "moral barbarian", then I welcome the label.

Actually I view it like this:
1.) Criminal law involves moral wrongs deemed harmful to society in addition to the victim. They are public matters.
2.) Civil law involve torts which are moral wrongs deemed harmful to victim alone. They are private matters.
3.) Legal rules/regulations have no immediate moral significance - i.e. traffic regulations, building codes, etc.

I do not place bus tickets in the same catagory as torts. Civil law involves violating a social contract to the same extent criminal law does. Both criminal and civil laws are based on a person's rights, which are derived from morality.

Civil law does not only include torts, but laws of contract, under which traffic regulations and building codes are included. Why traffic regulations and building codes do not have or need any moral significance is quite beyond me, since they are based on the same principle that guides the other laws. All laws are based on observing forms in order to reap the benefits of a society.

So experience is morally significant? That is another arbitrary characteristic defining humanness. Does that make a 5 month old infant less human than a 50 year old? We give the same fundamental human rights to all humans regardless of "experience of the world."

You are making assumptions here. I stated it is a way I, and I alone, value life. It was also leading up to my argument for sentience being an important part of the debate.

Call it what you want, I will continue to call it murder because it OUGHT to be illegal. It's not an emotional appeal, it's a philosophical appeal. The intentional killing of any other human being is considered murder.

As I have stated earlier, you are taking a word that has a fixed and definite meaning, which is "an unlawful killing", and using it as part of your argument. The intentional killing of any other human beings is NOT considered murder. War is the obvious example of where this applies. I believe people would be quite upset if I stated ALL SOLDIERS ARE MURDERS. It is probably more accurate to refer to abortions as "homicides".

It's silly to think that intentionally killing unborn children is not the same.

I always thought I was a fairly rational fellow. I think it is irrational to ignore the fact that the unborn child is an undeveloped being who, up until a certain moment, is incapable of higher brain functions that elevate above the level of vegetable. An unborn child cannot be equated to a born one, since it would be, as you say, "silly" to disregard the fact that this thing goes through stages of being something different. As I stated earlier, I would not treat an egg with the same regard I treat a chicken. They are different things. I would not call a caterpillar an "unmetamorphosed butterfly", etc, etc. They are quite different things.

To pick and choose any random point in the development of an unborn child is purely arbitrary. It is silly to say that for example on day 23 the child is a non-human human and on day 24 it magically becomes a human-human complete with fundamental human rights.

I believe I have put forward an argument that is not at all arbitrary. Higher brain functions are show to appear at a certain time. This is a definite thing. The sentience of life is something recognised in law by that euthanasia law we discussed that you also disagree with.

Day] Excellant post, Illuminati. It's an amazing thing that you can go to jail for destroying a turtle egg, or eagle egg, but not for taking the life of the human "egg."

I think I may have mentioned this earlier, but the turtle egg and eagle egg cannot be destroyed because they are rare species. Another example of a law with no morality guiding it. It is an attempt to preserve those species for posterity, or our own pleasure, which is why other eggs are not similarly protected.

BTW, that's an incredible picture of the aborted baby along side the dime. Anyone who can see that and conclude that the unborn are not fully human just doesn;t get it

Then I just don't get it. It looks like a toad, and is incapable of love, compassion, hatred, fear, or even suffering, except, perhaps, pain as a reflex action.

[Daystar]

Day] Excellant post, Illuminati. It's an amazing thing that you can go to jail for destroying a turtle egg, or eagle egg, but not for taking the life of the human "egg."

I think I may have mentioned this earlier, but the turtle egg and eagle egg cannot be destroyed because they are rare species.

[Day] This does not alter the fact that what's in the egg is the focal point because of what it will become. The same applies to the womb.
If Eagles only laid eggs whose contents are good for the breakfast table, there would be no issue. The endangered species argument is a smoke screen.

Another example of a law with no morality guiding it. It is an attempt to preserve those species for posterity, or our own pleasure, which is why other eggs are not similarly protected.

[Day] Any baby whose mother doesn't want him is in danger of extinction. Why should endangerment only be applied to animals? Is not one human life worth more than all animal life? It only goes to show man's calloused heart about human life.

[Gaunt]

Why should endangerment only be applied to animals?

Animals only receive the title "endangered" when their population reaches dangerously low levels. Similarly, we cull animal populations that rise too high. It works both ways. Are you saying that if there are too many children, we should kill some off? We'd save a fortune on orphanages

It only goes to show man's calloused heart about human life.

I think the fact that we do not practice eugenics only goes to show that we do not view the human life as insignificant.

If Eagles only laid eggs whose contents are good for the breakfast table, there would be no issue.

If Chickens were endangered, we wouldn't be eating their eggs either.

[Daystar]

Why should endangerment only be applied to animals?

Animals only receive the title "endangered" when their population reaches dangerously low levels. Similarly, we cull animal populations that rise too high. It works both ways. Are you saying that if there are too many children, we should kill some off? We'd save a fortune on orphanages

[Day] That's what the pro-aborts say, not me.

It only goes to show man's calloused heart about human life.

I think the fact that we do not practice eugenics only goes to show that we do not view the human life as insignificant.

[Day] Isn't that what Planned Barrenhood's founder, Margaret Sangster, believed?

If Eagles only laid eggs whose contents are good for the breakfast table, there would be no issue.

If Chickens were endangered, we wouldn't be eating their eggs either.

[Day] But they aren't, so let's call what's in the womb a human being created by God and worthy of delivery into the world. Where does man get off thinking they have the right to kill what their Creator made? No fear of God anymore.

[Gaunt]

That's what the pro-aborts say, not me.

You were arguing that since abortion places the child in danger of "extinction", they should count as "endangered." I was just pointing out that if you want to consider human children as an endangered thing, then you must also be in favor of culling them if there turns out to be a surplus of them. It's two sides of the same coin. That's why endangerment only applies to animals.

I think the fact that we do not practice eugenics only goes to show that we do not view the human life as insignificant.

Isn't that what Planned Barrenhood's founder, Margaret Sangster, believed?

I'm not certain what Margarat Sangster believed. It's not really all that important. We as a society do not practice eugenics, therefore we hold that human life is significant in and of itself.

If Chickens were endangered, we wouldn't be eating their eggs either.

But they aren't

I was arguing against your statement that the endangered species argument was a smoke screen. It isn't. The fact that the Bald Eagle, for example, is endangered is the reason why we can't have scrambled Bald Eagle eggs for breakfast regardless of if it would taste super yummy. If chickens had been endangered, the same would true.

so let's call what's in the womb a human being created by God and worthy of delivery into the world.

Even if you consider the developing fetus to have the same claim to personhood as does a fully developed baby, which is not yet established to the satisfaction of the courts, there is still a case for allowing abortion, as I illustrated before. One argument from a view of slavery, and one from a view of self defence were offered, both of which grant that the fetus has this characteristic of personhood at the outset.

Where does man get off thinking they have the right to kill what their Creator made?

The same reason that man believes he has the right to defend himself against unwanted harm.

No fear of God anymore.

I would think that to be a good thing. Respect was ever so much better to inspire than fear.