Abortion and Morality

[palerider]

So what your saying, is that your reasoning for being against abortion, is not logical at all. Indeed, its quite unsound.

Thats pretty much what I was getting at.

No. My reasoning is unassailable, ergo this thread. My motivation for taking up the argument in the first place may be more or less unsound than anyone elses with regard to this topic, but my reasoning is impeccable. Were it not, this thread would not exist.

 

[palerider]

Nicely put.

Of course you would think so. It is all sensless emotionalism and slogans which can not be defended.

 

[palerider]

I'm referring to the decision close family members make when someone is put onto life support with little to no chance of ever regaining consciousness.

In the case of abortion, we are talking about killing a perfectly healthy individual. In the case of end of life decisions, we are talking about letting someone who is so injured or diseased that they will never recover die. There is a fundamental difference there which is undeniable.

Of course, the pro choice argument always comes around to end of life issues as if they were the same as beginning of life issues and there is inevetably an attempt to compare a perfectly healthy unborn to one who is so damaged or diseased that they will never recover.

 

[palerider]

Abortion terminates the embryo or fetus because it could not live outside the womb on its own. What the anti-choice advocates are really advocating is that women become religion based and/or government forced incubators.

Slogans, and nothing more. All rights are secondary to the right to live in the absence of legislation that specifically enumerates from whom the right to live is being denied and for what reason it is to be denied.

 

[palerider]

Well it's a potential human being. It's human as far as DNA and such, but it's hardly personage. While this DNA that has come from conception is completely new DNA from that of either parents (as it is a combination thereof) it is nonetheless not a person.

You keep repeating this from thread to thread as if it were some magical incantation. I have offered proof that unborns are indeed human beings and proof that in the eyes of the law one need only be a human being in order to be a person. Either provide credible evidence to the contrary, or cease repeating this terribly flawed opinion.

 

[palerider]

Any person of either sex who imposes parenthood on another is commiting an immoral act.

Is killing another human being for reasons that amount to no more than convenience an imoral act?

 

[r0beph]

of course pale is still on the zygote is human road, and nothing will change this. It's pointless to argue with him even with logic paving your path.

 

[palerider]

of course pale is still on the zygote is human road, and nothing will change this. It's pointless to argue with him even with logic paving your path.

Until you offer some credible evidence to the contrary, where else would I be. My position is that unborns are human beings from the time they are concieved and that human beings have a right to live. I have provided ample credible science to support my position. To date, you have provided exactly jack squat to support yours. Tell me exactly why I would be inclined to surrender my documented, supported, peer reviewed, and confirmed position in exchange for your unsupported, uncorroborated one?

You have lost this point robeph, why is it that you can't muster up enough integrity to conceed it? Clearly you can't provide any credible information to the contrary. At this point, you are doing nothing but pitting your faith against credible science. If your position was a matter of faith for you, why didn't you just say so in the beginning. I wouldn't have even entered the discussion with you because I am not one to try and change a person's faith. I had thought that your position was based on some rational (although wrong) thinking on your part.

Be a grown up and conceed the point that you have been a human being since you were concieved.

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed. 1993); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49 (1992); MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14 (1984); DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99 (1990)

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

"Not only is it a life, but, by its intrinsic biological nature, it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE,]16–17

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

 

[heyjude]

Are you also going to argue that a woman can be forced to undergo surgery to deliver an unborn baby in order to prevent the baby from suffering brain damage or death? And yes, I am referring to a full term baby. Do you think that someone somewhere should have the right to drug the woman, tie her arms and legs down, and perform a c-section on her if she refuses to have surgery that is only necessary to prevent harm to the baby?

 

[palerider]

Are you also going to argue that a woman can be forced to undergo surgery to deliver an unborn baby in order to prevent the baby from suffering brain damage or death? And yes, I am referring to a full term baby. Do you think that someone somewhere should have the right to drug the woman, tie her arms and legs down, and perform a c-section on her if she refuses to have surgery that is only necessary to prevent harm to the baby?

That already happens in situations other than pregnancy. If a person isn't rational and needs help, then we help them.

Describe an actual situation rather than your fanciful musing. Under what situation would a woman have to have a c-section to avoid brain damage to her child? Statistically speaking, it is safer for mother and child to be born naturally vs c-section.

 

[heyjude]

I am not talking about "not rational and needs help." I am talking about a perfectly rational woman, who's unborn child is in danger of death or permanent brain damage. There is no danger to the woman. She will deliver the baby in hrs. Naturally. But the baby needs to be delivered now.
Do you advocate that she be forced to have surgery to prevent harm to her baby, when she does not need to have surgery for any reason?

This situation arises when the fetal heart monitor shows that the baby is in cardiac stress. Every contraction causes the baby's heart to slow very dangerously. Happens every day in this country.

And every day in this country after surgery, the baby is fine with not one insignificant sign of cardiac stress. And the dangers to the mother from the surgery can be deadly. Sooner or later a mother is going to say "no. I don't believe you, and I won't have the surgery." I want to know if you right-wingers intend to force surgery on her? Because in every European country the rate of c-sections is a fraction of what they are here, and their infant mortality rate is lower, so obviously, American women are being talked into surgery they don't need. Sooner or later, one of them is going to say "no"

 

[palerider]

I am not talking about "not rational and needs help." I am talking about a perfectly rational woman, who's unborn child is in danger of death or permanent brain damage. There is no danger to the woman. She will deliver the baby in hrs. Naturally. But the baby needs to be delivered now. Do you advocate that she be forced to have surgery to prevent harm to her baby, when she does not need to have surgery for any reason?

If she is rational, why would she not?

And every day in this country after surgery, the baby is fine with not one insignificant sign of cardiac stress. And the dangers to the mother from the surgery can be deadly. Sooner or later a mother is going to say "no. I don't believe you, and I won't have the surgery." I want to know if you right-wingers intend to force surgery on her? Because in every European country the rate of c-sections is a fraction of what they are here, and their infant mortality rate is lower, so obviously, American women are being talked into surgery they don't need. Sooner or later, one of them is going to say "no"

You can create senario after senario till your heart's content. The fact is that all rights are secondary to the right to live. If a woman willfully harms her child before it is born, she is just as guilty as if she willfully harms her child after it is born.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I am not talking about "not rational and needs help." I am talking about a perfectly rational woman, who's unborn child is in danger of death or permanent brain damage. There is no danger to the woman. She will deliver the baby in hrs. Naturally. But the baby needs to be delivered now.
Do you advocate that she be forced to have surgery to prevent harm to her baby, when she does not need to have surgery for any reason?

This situation arises when the fetal heart monitor shows that the baby is in cardiac stress. Every contraction causes the baby's heart to slow very dangerously. Happens every day in this country.

Uhhh, let me be sure I've got this straight. You're using a hypothetical situation, describing a woman who has gone through months of growing a new person in her womb, anticipating a natural child birth, but then finding out that the baby is in distress? And you're suggesting that she MIGHT have to be forced to have a c-section to save the baby?

I'm astounded that anyone could sink so low to even contemplate a woman, any woman, having a baby that she wanted would ever hesitate to have a c-section! Your argument is nothing short of ludicrous.

And every day in this country after surgery, the baby is fine with not one insignificant sign of cardiac stress. And the dangers to the mother from the surgery can be deadly. Sooner or later a mother is going to say "no. I don't believe you, and I won't have the surgery." I want to know if you right-wingers intend to force surgery on her? Because in every European country the rate of c-sections is a fraction of what they are here, and their infant mortality rate is lower, so obviously, American women are being talked into surgery they don't need. Sooner or later, one of them is going to say "no"

'Right-wingers', eh? I guess I'd more term it any sensible, decent human being would expect it of a mother. I find it amazing that you can possibly use this scenario as an opportunity to denigrate those who happen to think a human life is begun at conception. A woman can be charged with everything from negligence to manslaughter for what she may allow to happen to that unborn child. A drunk driver can be charged with manslaughter, assault with intent to do bodily harm. A murderer who kills the mother can be charged with a second count for the unborn baby. Yet you question whether it is responsible to expect a woman to have a c-section to save her baby?

Wow. You use the comparison of European birth statistics to ours, and claim that is evidence that women are "talked into surgery they don't need"? You don't think there are other factors involved in those stats? Oh, yeah. I forgot. Women only have c-sections when that evil-spawn in their bellies decides to go into distress, and the poor innocent women are coerced, forced even, to have a totally unnecessary surgery, when they could just let the child die, and HOPE that their bodies safely go into labor and expel the unwanted, implanted thing.

On top of everything, you're mixing two different situations. A baby-in-distress indicated c-section, and the women who simply opt for c-sections. It is too often in the U.S. that women decide early on in their pregnancies that they will have a c-section instead of a natural birth. The reasons are many, some are medically sound, some not.

What I find extremely distressing is the absolute absurdity of some of the scenarios you pro-abortion advocates create. The whole issue regarding abortion has been what is life and when does it begin. You and the anti-life crowd are sinking to unimagined arguments.

All your 'what-if, what-if, what-if' statements. I've just one for you: what if you're wrong?

 

[vyo476]

In the case of abortion, we are talking about killing a perfectly healthy individual. In the case of end of life decisions, we are talking about letting someone who is so injured or diseased that they will never recover die. There is a fundamental difference there which is undeniable.

I deny it. A right to life is a right to life and it does not, nor should not, take into account the quality of said life.

You're violating your own slippery slope: if we decide it is okay to allow the sick or comatose to die (for admittedly humanitarian reasons) it is not a long leap between there and allowing the indiscriminate killing of unborn children (for similarly humanitarian reasons), no matter how undeniable the difference between the situations is. Do not forget, there is an undeniable difference between the quality of life of an unborn child and the quality of life of a born person.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

I deny it. A right to life is a right to life and it does not, nor should not, take into account the quality of said life.

You're violating your own slippery slope: if we decide it is okay to allow the sick or comatose to die (for admittedly humanitarian reasons) it is not a long leap between there and allowing the indiscriminate killing of unborn children (for similarly humanitarian reasons), no matter how undeniable the difference between the situations is. Do not forget, there is an undeniable difference between the quality of life of an unborn child and the quality of life of a born person.

I can't speak for palerider.

But for me, I agree that human life is precious, and indescribably valuable. As much as I disagree with the premise and result, I don't think we have any right to stand in the way of a person choosing about end of life issues. If capable of reason and speaking for themselves, it is their choice.

There is an undeniable difference with abortion. We are talking here about the life of one who is incapable of speaking for itself, who is defenseless against those who feel the need to deny it's right to exist.