• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion: My personal experience

kerikiwi said:
Bob has given no indication that he is on the 'side' you suggest.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

He outright stated he thinks abortion doctors like Dr Tiller are the same as some psychopath in Philadelphia who stabbed live-born babies to death with scissors.

He also appears to think that humane killing methods of the Death Penalty are for wimpy milksops and that those who murder in cold blood should essentially have the same thing done to them.

Considering his widely stated opinions of abortion doctors, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that he's all for them being killed, although he might shy away from outright vigilante murder.
 
psionl0 said:
This "it ain't human" argument has gotten stale and it was never a good argument for abortion in the first place.
Click to expand...


It is when the argument against abortion is based on the claim that the fetus is human. With that element withdrawn it isn't much different than culling livestock.

Except for the emotional burden to the actual human people going through the experience. That's part of what this thread is about.

The point at which the living being that a woman is carrying becomes considered a living human being is a legal question - not a scientific or moral question. As such, it is probably best left to the consciences of the parents when it comes to dealing with the life the woman is carrying.
Click to expand...


I agree with the second sentence. The first is a bit harder. How would a legal definition be developed without recourse to either science or morality?
 
quadraginta said:
The first is a bit harder. How would a legal definition be developed without recourse to either science or morality?
Click to expand...

Actually, that one's very easy indeed. The law is ultimately pragmatic, and is made to keep things running smoothly regardless of big questions about life, the universe, and everything. The law doesn't care if your fetus has a soul or not, the law cares that for most of society tomorrow will be similar to today. Law exists to create order, not to pursue moral perfection.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Actually, that one's very easy indeed. The law is ultimately pragmatic, and is made to keep things running smoothly regardless of big questions about life, the universe, and everything. The law doesn't care if your fetus has a soul or not, the law cares that for most of society tomorrow will be similar to today. Law exists to create order, not to pursue moral perfection.
Click to expand...
How is a pragmatic answer not one based in empiricism?
 
KingMerv00 said:
I am very pro-choice but your story changed my perspective on something:



As of right now, abortion is a constitutional right but a state can regulate it as long as it does not impose an "undue burden". Before I heard your story, I hadn't considered a 24 hour waiting period an "undue burden". I'm seriously considering changing my view now.

I'm always glad to have my beliefs challenged. Thank you for your story.



This just flat out angers and puzzles me. You have my sympathy.
Click to expand...

To me its the same type of dirty trick a lot of companies use to stop people from doing things like returning goods. The more hassle the less chance someone is going to do it.

Sickening in this type of situation.
 
After two difficult pregnancies involving premature labor (both eventually born full term) my first wife got pregnant while on birth control. I was in the Navy at the time and asked my CPO for half a day to take my wife to the local clinic for an abortion. He said "take the whole day, you'll both need it" He was right. It is an experience I do not wish on anyone. I sometimes still wonder how things would have been different with three children instead of two.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
If aborting a fetus is murder then wouldn't masturbation be mass murder?
Click to expand...
You are forgetting special pleading. You see, it's like this... no, wait, that's something completely different. It's like this, sperm have only a half set of chromosomes and are therefore not people. However, the cells in a wart have a full set so you have one of those removed and you are committing murder.
 
RandFan said:
How is a pragmatic answer not one based in empiricism?
Click to expand...

I can't really parse this. What do you think is testable? Laws are pragmatic because we tend to only keep the ones that demonstrably maintain order. I don't know how you'd go about testing the proposition that any given activity is "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense. I don't think science can help with that, either.
 
The Christian argument against abortion is based on such an ignorant understanding of human biology. For instance, when does ensoulment happen? If you think, "At conception." is a quick and easy answer, it really isn't given what Steve Pinker says in "The Blank Slate:"

A. There is no moment of conception.

"[R]esearch on human reproduction shows that the 'moment of conception' is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes. What and where is the soul during this interval?"

B. What about twins?

"[A]s the embryo's cell being to divide, they can split into several embryos, which develop into identical twins, triplets, and so on. Do identical twins share a soul? . . . . Indeed, every cell in the growing embryo is capable, with the right manipulations, of becoming a new embryo that can grow into a child. Does a multicell embryo consist of one soul per cell, and if so, where do the other souls go when the cells lose that ability?"

C. What about chimeras?

"Occasionally two fertilized eggs, which ordinarily would go on to become fraternal twins, merge into a single embryo that develops into a person who is a genetic chimera; some of her cells have one genome, others have another genome. Does her body house two souls?"
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I am not the one who has deliberately killed another human being. Who made the OP and his wife judges and executioners?
Click to expand...

It was a ball of cells that could have spontaneously aborted in the next 15 weeks.

A significant proportion of first pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

It was not a human being, nor was it murder.

Stop being so hyperbolic.
 
Arcade22 said:
If aborting a fetus is murder then wouldn't masturbation be mass murder?
Click to expand...


The better question is this: if life begins at conception, then what about all those fertilized embryos created at fertility clinics which are routinely thrown away after a pregnancy has been achieved? That surely must be classified as the murder of an unborn human life too. I've never heard anyone from the pro-life/anti-abortion side ever address the matter of what to do with these humans-in-waiting.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I can't really parse this.
Click to expand...
:) You could parse it well enough to ask me a question.

What do you think is testable?
Click to expand...
Viability. Brain function.

Laws are pragmatic because we tend to only keep the ones that demonstrably maintain order.
Click to expand...
No. I don't believe that at all. (I take back, see next post). Cruel and unusual punishment are very effective. They have been used for thousands of years in many parts of the world and are used to this day. Thieves have their hands cut off in some parts of the world like Saudi Arabia and it is very effective.

Anyway, to answer your question.

On average a child can be kept alive after 24 weeks (aprox). We keep the law after that point because it is practical. Empirical. If a woman doesn't want a baby in her uterus and it has brain functions then she has the right to remove the baby. Just remove it alive. Before that it can't survive on it's own and has limited brain function. These are empirical facts and can inform our laws.

I don't know how you'd go about testing the proposition that any given activity is "right" or "wrong" in a moral sense.
Click to expand...
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values


The Science of Good and Evil


I don't think science can help with that, either.
Click to expand...
I don't see any other way to solve the problem but with science and reason.

Let me try this. Is it right to torture people? I don't think so. How do we decide?

If I ask 1,000 people if they want to be tortured and 999 say no, would that be an empirical basis to understand that torture is undesired by a vast majority of people? I don't want to be tortured. You? Is it more or less likely that you and I will be tortured in a society that does not allow torture? Could we use facts and reason to craft a law about torture to mitigate harm to you and I and others?
 
Last edited:
kerikiwi said:
Therein lies the empiricism. Exactly what Randfan said. (I think)
Click to expand...
Actually, yes, I take back what I said before. Empirically the laws in Saudi Arabia work. But we have other scientific basis to think it not wise to use them.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
The better question is this: if life begins at conception, then what about all those fertilized embryos created at fertility clinics which are routinely thrown away after a pregnancy has been achieved? That surely must be classified as the murder of an unborn human life too. I've never heard anyone from the pro-life/anti-abortion side ever address the matter of what to do with these humans-in-waiting.
Click to expand...

This is a good point that I've wondered about myself, especially during the stem cell issues of the past decade. The embryos involved with science research are far more valuable by their reasoning than the ones at the fertility clinic, if only because they're part of "The Science," or "Satan's magic."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom