3 of 3
3
Abortion, Right and Wrong By Rachel Richardson Smith
Posted: 05 October 2010 04:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6055
Joined  2009-02-26

There are many women who are against “choice”. But I wonder what would happen if those women were presented with the choice between their own survival or the survival of their fetus. This is an exclusive woman’s issue, to be discussed and resolved between women.
Men have no standing in this area. They will never be presented with such a choice, thus cannot speak with authority on this issue.

[ Edited: 05 October 2010 04:59 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2010 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
domokato - 05 October 2010 12:04 PM
Mriana - 01 October 2010 04:38 PM
Kyuuketsuki UK - 01 October 2010 11:25 AM
Mriana - 28 September 2010 06:02 PM

Not this again.  rolleyes  I really get sick of such topics, esp when it is best to leave such things up to the individual woman who is carrying the child.  It is not anyone elses business if she carries the child to term or aborts it, IMO.

I’m not anti-choice but I don’t think it’s that simple ... at the end of the day the foetus is (potentially at least) a human life and deserves (at the very least) some respect.

Keke

Potentially, but it is not yet a human life.  As a dr once told me while I was carrying my first son, it’s a leach.  Technically, it is a bunch of cells in the early stages of pregnancy.  So it is indeed as simple as it being up to the woman if she carries it to term or not.

So, taking that logic one step further, is killing a pregnant woman morally equivalent to killing a non-pregnant woman?

Oh brother.  rolleyes

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2010 09:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
domokato - 05 October 2010 03:20 PM
George - 05 October 2010 12:08 PM
domokato - 05 October 2010 12:02 PM
George - 01 October 2010 11:38 AM

How about killing a newborn? Do you agree with Peter Singer that, “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”? I think I do.

Wait, babies don’t want to go on living?

I guess they “want” to as much as trees don’t “want” to be chopped down.

Just because babies or trees have little defenses available to them or because they don’t have the cognitive ability have preferences like that, doesn’t mean they don’t want to die. Babies do cry when injured, just as trees release sap and other plants release toxins or chemical warning signals to other plants upon injury.

I also agree with Occam’s assessment of the argument.

OK so you are saying, that if a mother is in a condition that if she doesn’t make a choice between her life or the baby’s, she should still carry the baby to term and potentially die from giving birth to the baby?  What if she has at least one living child?  Shouldn’t she try to save her life so that the living child has a mother?  Or is it better the baby’s life is spared, the mother dies, and two children have no mother?  Something to think about.

Secondly, would you really want a rape or incest victim to carry a baby to term and live with the psychological repercussion of what some man did to her?  What if the incest victim is 10 or 11 years old?  Let’s add to the 11 y.o.‘s condition- she become anorexic due to the incest, yet is pregnant with the child of that incident?

Sometimes, a woman or a child (with a doctor and parent/guardian) has to make that difficult decision for the sake of their health, psychological well-being, and life.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

What would you do with an infant born with trisomy 18 and its concurrent cardiac problems? What about a child with a severely hypoplastic left ventricle? I had a niece give birth to the first, and a friend give birth to the second. The first was sent home with her mother with cardiac meds and a feeding tube and they told her to love her until she died (at about 2 months). The second mother elected not to try to have the corrective surgery done on her infant. She’d cared for many of these children and knew the long road ahead, and elected to take her son home and love him until he died a week or so later. These are both cases of electively allowing newborns to die. It was the parent’s choice, and they both make the choice they could live with.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
Mriana - 05 October 2010 09:42 PM
domokato - 05 October 2010 03:20 PM
George - 05 October 2010 12:08 PM
domokato - 05 October 2010 12:02 PM
George - 01 October 2010 11:38 AM

How about killing a newborn? Do you agree with Peter Singer that, “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”? I think I do.

Wait, babies don’t want to go on living?

I guess they “want” to as much as trees don’t “want” to be chopped down.

Just because babies or trees have little defenses available to them or because they don’t have the cognitive ability have preferences like that, doesn’t mean they don’t want to die. Babies do cry when injured, just as trees release sap and other plants release toxins or chemical warning signals to other plants upon injury.

I also agree with Occam’s assessment of the argument.

OK so you are saying, that if a mother is in a condition that if she doesn’t make a choice between her life or the baby’s, she should still carry the baby to term and potentially die from giving birth to the baby?  What if she has at least one living child?  Shouldn’t she try to save her life so that the living child has a mother?  Or is it better the baby’s life is spared, the mother dies, and two children have no mother?  Something to think about.

Secondly, would you really want a rape or incest victim to carry a baby to term and live with the psychological repercussion of what some man did to her?  What if the incest victim is 10 or 11 years old?  Let’s add to the 11 y.o.‘s condition- she become anorexic due to the incest, yet is pregnant with the child of that incident?

Sometimes, a woman or a child (with a doctor and parent/guardian) has to make that difficult decision for the sake of their health, psychological well-being, and life.

No, I’m not saying any of that (; very interesting scenarios, by the way). My point was that babies probably can be considered to “want” to live. As for my other posts, I was attempting to explore the morality of abortion and the rights of the fetus, if any. I actually don’t have a strong stance on the issue; I’m just trying to open up the discussion.

That said, I’m leaning towards the idea that in many cases the morality of the situation is so gray that abortion boils down to a question of practicality, which only the mother can decide since the fetus cannot. So, in other words, I probably agree with you on all counts.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 10:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4301
Joined  2010-08-15
domokato - 05 October 2010 12:04 PM

So, taking that logic one step further, is killing a pregnant woman morally equivalent to killing a non-pregnant woman?

Why do we need to reduce these issues to such trival word games.
What’s that saying: can’t see the forest for the trees.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I posted this before getting all the way to the end of the thread - I can see by your above post that you do glimpse the forest.
Sometimes, I just get short with all the thrashing at twigs and branchs, instead of the trunk and roots.

[ Edited: 06 October 2010 10:57 AM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4301
Joined  2010-08-15
domokato - 06 October 2010 10:37 AM

I was attempting to explore the morality of abortion and the rights of the fetus, if any. I actually don’t have a strong stance on the issue; I’m just trying to open up the discussion.

I’m curious did you spend any time with Rachel Smith’s essay - if so what did you make of it?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

I said I did agree with Singer, but in reality to judge the act of infanticide just on the awareness level of the baby is clearly insufficient. There are still tribes in Africa today, where the woman (never the man) who just gave birth to a child takes him/her away from the territory of the group to inspect the infant. If she sees the baby is healthy and doesn’t show any significant sings of possible abnormalities, she brings him/her back to the village and only then is the newborn considered, well, a newborn. The mother is obviously free to kill the baby prior to introducing him/her to the rest of the tribe. Now, I can see why a baby born in Sub-Saharan Africa with only one hand can be a burden on the rest of the village, and above all the mother, but there is no reason why in our society a person with no hands at all should not be able to live a full life or even contribute to the rest of the society; JoaquĆ­n Rodrigo, the Spanish composer who wrote el “Concierto de Aranjuez” was blind since age three.

It seems to me that we are very far from finding some universal objective way to decide what our (or rather Sam Hariss’s) “shared values” are. Does morality relate to the well-being of the mother in the Sub-Saharan Africa, or the well-being of the tribe, or the well-being of the newborn? I actually believe that the abortion debate will only get more confusing as our scientific knowledge improves.

[ Edited: 06 October 2010 11:41 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4301
Joined  2010-08-15

I don’t think it’s the science making it more complicated.
It’s the political football that it serves that will keep making it become more complicated.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7576
Joined  2007-03-02
domokato - 06 October 2010 10:37 AM

No, I’m not saying any of that (; very interesting scenarios, by the way). My point was that babies probably can be considered to “want” to live.

I question that, because they do not have the cognitive ability to “want” anything.  They thrive, for a while, on instinct.  Even after birth, the brain is still physically developing and is not fully developed until sometime later.  For a few weeks, the baby is only functioning on “the ID” or basic needs, such as food, water, warmth.  The baby isn’t thinking about “wanting” to live.  A frog has more desire to live even though it doesn’t have the same brain structure of a human infant.  Gratification is about all the newborn infant is thinking about- like suckling to relieve what they feel in their stomach, something to rid them of pain- be it from cold, hunger, infection, etc.  It’s the parent that takes care of and worries about the infant’s survival and therefore fulfills the survival requirements of the infant.  This in the long run builds a bond between parent and child.  One of the reasons a doe makes her fawn stand up shortly after birth is for the fawn’s own survival.  The fawn doesn’t care if s/he gets up and walks, but the mother makes him/her in order to survive.  However, humans develop more slowly than some other mammals and thus aren’t able to walk, among other things.  Regardless, the survival of the offspring of any mammal depends on the parent(s).  I doubt the infant has any “want” to live.  I doubt it has any desires beyond food, water, warmth.  Given the study done on reuses monkeys, I don’t think love/parental intimacy is one of their desires either very early in life, BUT it is important for their psychological and social well-being.  To think an infant, esp a newborn, “wants” is thinking to high up on the developmental stages.  Think lower in psychological development of apes and you may have the newborn mentality, which in Freudian terms is the ID and it seems to work quite well in explaining newborn cognition, because the newborn can’t even think in concrete terms, in fact, it takes a few months before a baby knows that just because an object disappears behind something, doesn’t mean it is not still in existence.  It takes time before they realize, “Hey, mom put it behind that.  I’m gonna get it.”

That said, I’m leaning towards the idea that in many cases the morality of the situation is so gray that abortion boils down to a question of practicality, which only the mother can decide since the fetus cannot. So, in other words, I probably agree with you on all counts.

Well, yes.  Only the mother can decide.  The fetus cannot decide anything.  In fact, the fetus hasn’t even begun to reach any developmental stages of thinking.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 November 2010 04:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4301
Joined  2010-08-15

Colorado 2010 State Proposition 62
Amendment 62 - Definition of Person, Constitutional

The officially-approved ballot Title says:

  An amendment to the Colorado Constitution applying the term ‘person’ as used in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.

Constitutional changes

The 2010 version would amend Article II of the Colorado Constitution by the addition of a new section, Section 32, which would say:

  Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.


Ay’s     477,634   (29%)
Nay’s 1,142,075   (71%)

Go Colorado !

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2010 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Wow.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3