Abortion and the whole 'breathing' thing

[His Name Is John]

I remember several members saying that until the child breaths, they are not 'alive', and thus can be aborted.

I just wondered what they made of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142512.htm

I could mean potentially that people could go through life without ever taking a breath. They could live to be 70. Come up with several important philosophical ideas. They could get married and have kids.

To those people who say you are only alive if they breath, would the potential person I described be alive?

If so, then why not a foetus?

If not, then would it be morally ok to kill such a person?

[Hubert Humphrey]

This is another reason I can't stand outspoken religious zealots; they're making pro-life atheists look bad! I wish we could just make sound, ethical choices and define some very strict limits on abortion because it's the right thing to do, not because the Bible says it!

I agree that it would probably un-muddy the waters of debate a bit if we stuck to the ethics of the issue rather than throwing religion into it as well. This is especially true when the religious argument is itself unclear or just plain wrong.

I don't see how that's relevant. The baby will still never be allowed to grow up and have a chance at a successful, fulfilling existence. It doesn't matter if there was malice behind the abortion or not.

It is relevant as a legal issue. Calling abortion "murder" means that it can be prosecuted as a crime; therefore, the legal definition comes into play.

[charles brough]

I'm an advocate for very, very strict limitations and regulations of abortion. I think some factors that come into play when deciding whether or not to abort a baby is whether or not the woman was raped, what her financial situation is, her reasons for aborting the baby, how healthy the baby will be, etc. I really don't see how whether or not the baby is "breathing" matters.

Well, I would say it matters quite a lot. If the newborn has not yet breathed, it is shocked into it, but if even that cannot get it to breathe, it has to be quicly examined to see if the passageway is blocked and if so, quickly cleaned out. If necessary it can be put on life support. If there is a defect in the baby, an operation might be the option. A traciotomy might be required, but by that time, the brain might be dead. It might have to be on life support until it is taken off. If not, it would die. If it somehow survives and leaves the hospital, it could be carrying a gene that would lead to its descendents commonly having the same problem.

We all have to die at one time or another. None of us will escape that. If we are a burden on the rest, the welfare of each of us should be determined by what is practical. Defective ones should be aborted or allowed to die.

[Jake]

You've all made logical and legal arguments. If I were arguing logically and legally, I would completely agree with you. I see abortion as both legally and logically justifiable. I don't dispute this. In fact, if I were simply a completely logical, emotionless being, I would also argue we should kill stupid people, sick people, and anyone who isn't furthering society.

But I'm making an ethical argument. I'm arguing out of compassion and empathy. Abortion is ethically wrong. You're depriving a human of a potential life. It isn't wrong because of the Bible. It's wrong because it's robbing something of life. Just like killing anyone who isn't furthering society is wrong.

[charles brough]

You've all made logical and legal arguments. If I were arguing logically and legally, I would completely agree with you. I see abortion as both legally and logically justifiable. I don't dispute this. In fact, if I were simply a completely logical, emotionless being, I would also argue we should kill stupid people, sick people, and anyone who isn't furthering society.

But I'm making an ethical argument. I'm arguing out of compassion and empathy. Abortion is ethically wrong. You're depriving a human of a potential life. It isn't wrong because of the Bible. It's wrong because it's robbing something of life. Just like killing anyone who isn't furthering society is wrong.

That's a good point well made . . . It all depends upon what is important to you. I have long had a concern and interest in the long-term survival of the human race. That is my goal; the goals of the old religions are instead blatently obsolete. As it is with you, most people are really not very interested in the long term. They just give it lip service. They need a new, science ideology that would focus on realistic long term goals---such as the colonizing of space and controlling population growth.

[Jake]

I'm very interested in the long term. How would you know what my thoughts on the future are? I'm studying to become a programmer and hopefully I'll be able to participate in space exploration. I just don't think we need abortion to further the human race. Instead of weeding out "defective" humans, we need to further our education programs and teach people how to be healthier and fitter. Why sacrifice our humanity to advance it?

[charles brough]

I'm very interested in the long term. How would you know what my thoughts on the future are? I'm studying to become a programmer and hopefully I'll be able to participate in space exploration. I just don't think we need abortion to further the human race. Instead of weeding out "defective" humans, we need to further our education programs and teach people how to be healthier and fitter. Why sacrifice our humanity to advance it?

You make a good point. To me, it is a matter of what it means to be "human." You well know it has changed through the ages. There have been many cycles of barbarism and "humanism." Where is the nor; what is "best" for us? In the great Hindu civilization that spread across the Middle East and all the way to Indochina, it got to where "humanity" consisted of people walking with brushes to sweep the ground least they step on some helpless insect. In Ancient Egypt, it came to the point where they worshipped animals, even embalmed them. Civilizations tend to over-burden themselves as they seek to become ever more tolerant and "humane." They seek it because their ideological systems grow divided as they age and it becomes helpful to adopt ever more tolerance in order to minimize dissension. In the past, it was always apart of the decline and eventual end of the civilization.

How is it working now? As we spend increasingly less on space exploration in order to heap ever more help on the poor, on animal welfare, on "rights," and medical help for the aged, we take it from what needs to be spend on our future. We are now pressing hard upon the Earth's limited resources and need to be devoting more and more to the ability to not just explore but to actually colonize space. We have become too devoted to luxuries and, as you agree, not enough to man's future. I've worked decades on this subject and written three books on it; it is important to me as it is to you.

brough,
http://civilization-overview.com

[Hubert Humphrey]

But I'm making an ethical argument. I'm arguing out of compassion and empathy. Abortion is ethically wrong. You're depriving a human of a potential life. It isn't wrong because of the Bible. It's wrong because it's robbing something of life. Just like killing anyone who isn't furthering society is wrong.

Do you equate abortion with murder?

[bluethread]

How is it working now? As we spend increasingly less on space exploration in order to heap ever more help on the poor, on animal welfare, on "rights," and medical help for the aged, we take it from what needs to be spend on our future. We are now pressing hard upon the Earth's limited resources and need to be devoting more and more to the ability to not just explore but to actually colonize space. We have become too devoted to luxuries and, as you agree, not enough to man's future. I've worked decades on this subject and written three books on it; it is important to me as it is to you.

brough,
http://civilization-overview.com

I'm sorry to have to bring this up, but this sounds a lot like the eugenics of the early 20th century. There have been harsh predictions regarding overpopulation and limited resouces since even before that time. I do agree that expecting a governmental solution to socioeconomic problems short of securing property rights and civil peace are wasteful. However, forced investment in new technologies is just as wasteful. It appears to me that the aquisitive nature of man tends to provide sufficient technological advancement for the needs of the future at the appropriate time. That said, I am not sure what this has to do with the use of the term "breath" being used as an idiom for life.

[Jake]

You know what, guys? I think you've changed my mind. I would never perform an abortion as a doctor, but I don't think I can ignore the reality that abortion may be somewhat of a benefit to society. I also don't think we should be able to violate the bodies of women by forcing them to carry a child. Why should we force two people to create life? It should be the mother's decision.

I find it hilarious that people walked around sweeping bugs out of harm's way. Is that true?

[charles brough]

I find it hilarious that people walked around sweeping bugs out of harm's way. Is that true?

Yes, it is true; see: http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Jainism/index.aspx
Jainism is one of the main sects of Hinduism. In India, cows are especially regarded as sacred and wander through the streets eating produce offered by merchants for sale. Cars go around them. In one sect, rats are worshipped.
In my web page (see below) Jainism can also be found on pages 83 and 84---and can be accessed through the website. Such practices are both hilarious and ominous. In Florida, now, a movement is on to ban the euthanasia of spare and unclaimed dogs and cats. How far can such a trend go?

brough,
http://civilization-overview.com