Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on May 03, 2022, 10:36:01 AM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/02/roe-v-wade-abortion-supreme-court-draft-opinion
-
Very worrying. Both the substance of the leak and the fact that there was a leak.
-
Horrifying....were this true, it won't just affect abortion, but the whole civil rights legislation enacted in the sixties.
-
Of course given if you won't use the word women, it's hard to fight for reproductive rights 'Birthing bodies' FFS!
-
Of course given if you won't use the word women, it's hard to fight for reproductive rights 'Birthing bodies' FFS!
It's a bit of a mouthful as well.
-
It's a bit of a mouthful as well.
So is fellatio, and it's also a good way of not getting preggers in the first place.
-
So is fellatio, and it's also a good way of not getting preggers in the first place.
Given the subject, this is again an illustration of how tone fucking deaf you are about women's rights.
-
Excellent stuff from MArina Hyde on this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/03/abortions-us-supreme-court-leak-women-die-pro-life?
-
I don't recall the author, but I was particularly struck by someone making the point that functionally it won't make abortion illegal in the US, but it will make it expensive - travel, limited provision will increase the charges - and therefore they are effectively making abortion in the US the province of the rich.
O.
-
I don't recall the author, but I was particularly struck by someone making the point that functionally it won't make abortion illegal in the US, but it will make it expensive - travel, limited provision will increase the charges - and therefore they are effectively making abortion in the US the province of the rich.
O.
I understood that some of the so-called "trigger laws" in some states specifically prohibited travel for the purposes of getting an abortion. This was from some time ago, but I can't think that the lunatics in the Republican Party will have changed that to anyone's advantage.
Update: Just found this which gives a more complete picture.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions
Whilst not in place yet, restrictions on travel look very close to the horizon. It is a very messed up place, the US.
-
I understood that some of the so-called "trigger laws" in some states specifically prohibited travel for the purposes of getting an abortion. This was from some time ago, but I can't think that the lunatics in the Republican Party will have changed that to anyone's advantage.
Update: Just found this which gives a more complete picture.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/us-abortions-travel-wave-of-restrictions
Whilst not in place yet, restrictions on travel look very close to the horizon. It is a very messed up place, the US.
I think they'll be able to pass the law that allows them to ban abortions by pill at home, as it's an activity that's happening within their state. I'd like to think that they'd struggle to get a ban on going out of state to pass, but with the current SCOTUS who knows. I can also see them choosing to interpret morning after pills as 'abortifactants' (some of the states already do to avoid paying for them on medical insurances).
O.
-
More on this matter and why potentially has even broader implications:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/03/roe-v-wade-birth-control?
-
Seen elsewhere:
-
How about, whosoever wanteth not children shall he or she not remaine syngele?
-
How about, whosoever wanteth not children shall he or she not remaine syngele?
Face reality.
Yours,
God, the abortionist extraordinaire.
-
How about, whosoever wanteth not children shall he or she not remaine syngele?
How about....there was a time when evangelicals Stateside were not rabid anti-abortionists, just as many Christians, amongst them evangelicals, this side of the pond, whilst uncomfortable with the topic, recognise that it is not as easy as flinging a Bible quote at it?
-
How about....there was a time when evangelicals Stateside were not rabid anti-abortionists, just as many Christians, amongst them evangelicals, this side of the pond, whilst uncomfortable with the topic, recognise that it is not as easy as flinging a Bible quote at it?
As a man I feel I have very little right to pontificate on this but appreciate the high likelihood that women faced with the choice are rarely comfortable.
Republicans who are so called pro life wanted anti covid measures abolished, they don't give a shit about young people subsequent to birth having inhumanity incarcerate children at the border and are blatantly hiding behind this issue as a vehicle to abolish rights and for all we know are building a pretext for the next Cessation.
These people will definitely pull our of Nato and hail our nuclear annihilation by the Putster as "Righteous".
-
Interesting piece by Margaret Atwood on this matter:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/07/enforced-childbirth-is-slavery-margaret-atwood-on-the-right-to-abortion?
-
Are they bringing back witch trials as well?
How backward will they get?
-
Are they bringing back witch trials as well?
How backward will they get?
Greg Locke, a notorious Tubthumping, Trumpist, loud Pastor from Texas announced that there were six witches in his congregation. His worship big top tent was blown down and severely damaged. Had it been your tent or mine it would have been an act of God but no doubt his followers think it was the work of Satan. His methods are controversial even for american theology since he claims a Demon told him about the ''witches''.
-
Greg Locke, a notorious Tubthumping, Trumpist, loud Pastor from Texas announced that there were six witches in his congregation. His worship big top tent was blown down and severely damaged. Had it been your tent or mine it would have been an act of God but no doubt his followers think it was the work of Satan. His methods are controversial even for american theology since he claims a Demon told him about the ''witches''.
Its difficult to lampoon them as they do it to themselves
-
Its difficult to lampoon them as they do it to themselves
Most swivel-eyed, far-right American evangelical pisspoors - I mean pastors - are beyond parody: I sometimes think they are cynically competing with each other to see how bonkers they can be and still have big followings and reap in the moolah.
-
Face reality.
Yours,
God, the abortionist extraordinaire.
No - abortion is deliberate killing by a human. God alone has the right to take a life, or to authorize the deliberate taking of one. Where in the Bible does God authorize abortion?
-
No - abortion is deliberate killing by a human. God alone has the right to take a life, or to authorize the deliberate taking of one. Where in the Bible does God authorize abortion?
There are no verses specific to abortion in Scripture (though we twist a few to try to make them)
Given the very high rate of miscarriage and child mortality, such measures were not really needed - though it would be miraculous indee if folk were not aware of the plants and minerals used in the area to procure miscarriages - which are abortions by any other name.
-
No - abortion is deliberate killing by a human. God alone has the right to take a life, or to authorize the deliberate taking of one. Where in the Bible does God authorize abortion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#Abortion_interpretation
-
No - abortion is deliberate killing by a human. God alone has the right to take a life, or to authorize the deliberate taking of one. Where in the Bible does God authorize abortion?
By your twisted belief, God authorises death every time a woman miscarries.
As an aside, you do not believe in the death penalty then? The reason I ask this is that the anti-abortionists in the US are very often the same people who clamour for the death penalty, I have always found it a confusing approach to two separate but somewhat linked ethical issues.
-
As an aside, you do not believe in the death penalty then? The reason I ask this is that the anti-abortionists in the US are very often the same people who clamour for the death penalty, I have always found it a confusing approach to two separate but somewhat linked ethical issues.
Very few of them are vegetarians or vegans, pacifists, or anti-gun activists either.
-
No - abortion is deliberate killing by a human. God alone has the right to take a life, or to authorize the deliberate taking of one. Where in the Bible does God authorize abortion?
Why does god have any right to kill people?
O.
-
Why does god have any right to kill people?
O.
Beings that, logically, do not exist can do anything you choose.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_bitter_water#Abortion_interpretation
That's interesting, but I don't see any indication that the woman in this passage is pregnant. The other night, a film called "Them that Follow" was on. It is based on Mark 16 and being bitten by a snake; a particular cult used a snake as a kind of lie detector, whereby if someone claimed they were a believer they would not be bitten while handling the snake, and if they had been forgiven of a sin they would not be bitten. If they did get bitten then if they had faith they would recover.
-
By your twisted belief, God authorises death every time a woman miscarries.
As an aside, you do not believe in the death penalty then? The reason I ask this is that the anti-abortionists in the US are very often the same people who clamour for the death penalty, I have always found it a confusing approach to two separate but somewhat linked ethical issues.
I think the death penalty is the only just punishment for murder, but because it isn't always possible to prove someone guilty I think it is better not to allow it. A foetus has not committed murder, note!
-
I think the death penalty is the only just punishment for murder, but because it isn't always possible to prove someone guilty I think it is better not to allow it. A foetus has not committed murder, note!
An ectopic pregnancy kills the mother. Would you say abortion is justified in that case? What about the general case where a pregnancy endangers the mother's life?
-
Beings that, logically, do not exist can do anything you choose.
I'd like to discuss this with you, perhaps on another thread?
-
No - abortion is deliberate killing by a human.
So is pretty much any livestock farm; unfortunately that's an overly simplistic take on the situation. If abortion were that simple there wouldn't be a debate to be had; this is a nuanced topic, sweeping declarations probably aren't going to be much use here.
God alone has the right to take a life, or to authorize the deliberate taking of one.
So you're a vegatarian, then?
O.
-
An ectopic pregnancy kills the mother. Would you say abortion is justified in that case? What about the general case where a pregnancy endangers the mother's life?
I hadn't thought of that - yes I would agree with ending a pregnancy in that kind of circumstance, unless the baby can be delivered by cesarean.
-
So is pretty much any livestock farm; unfortunately that's an overly simplistic take on the situation. If abortion were that simple there wouldn't be a debate to be had; this is a nuanced topic, sweeping declarations probably aren't going to be much use here.
So you're a vegatarian, then?
O.
My latest thought about killing animals is that it's ok (for food) because they aren't made in God's image. Maybe there is more to it, but we've established so far that it's not ok to kill a human unless that human is going to commit manslaughter (eg ectopic pregnancy) or as punishment for murder. As I understand Genesis 6-10, that law was instituted by God to prevent a recurrence of the situation before the flood.
-
but we've established so far that it's not ok to kill a human unless that human is going to commit manslaughter (eg ectopic pregnancy) or as punishment for murder.
"We've" established no such thing, you have asserted it. It strikes me you need first of all to establish at what stage a human becomes a human. As far as I am aware there are vastly different claims about this. Your viewpoint is but only one of those opinions available.
Also, are you saying that abortion because of ectopic pregnancy is manslaughter, because that's how it reads to me?
-
"We've" established no such thing, you have asserted it. It strikes me you need first of all to establish at what stage a human becomes a human. As far as I am aware there are vastly different claims about this. Your viewpoint is but only one of those opinions available.
Also, are you saying that abortion because of ectopic pregnancy is manslaughter, because that's how it reads to me?
How can anyone claim that a human foetus or embryo is not human?
I meant the embryo would be committing manslaughter, so to speak, by killing it's mother. I don't think that is included in what God said was a justification for punishment by death (in Genesis 10). I suppose that at the point where it is removed, the ectopic embryo or foetus is technically killing her. Manslaughter was punishable by death unless the person who had unintentionally killed someone could make it to a city of refuge - the principle of life for life applied, so when the high priest died the person could go free. I guess on that basis the embryo would have to lose its life. Strange concept to be thinking about, but there you go.
-
"We've" established no such thing, you have asserted it. It strikes me you need first of all to establish at what stage a human becomes a human. As far as I am aware there are vastly different claims about this. Your viewpoint is but only one of those opinions available.
From a believer's point of view, it comes down to 'ensoulment', doesn't it? Aquinas thought this occurred at the quickening, Pope John Paul II at the moment of conception (did he have his infallibility hat on?)
I don't suppose Spud is of the Catholic persuasion, so no doubt he has other ideas on the 'soul' (he might like to share them on my thread about the 'soul' in the theism and atheism section)
-
The supreme court has done what was expected of it by the Republican party.
-
The supreme court has done what was expected of it by the Republican party.
Yep, time to remove the question mark.
Ominously, some Republicans are also making noises about attacking other rights like contraception, sex education and equal marriage for all.
-
Ominously, some Republicans are also making noises about attacking other rights like contraception, sex education and equal marriage for all.
Yes. This was only ever the first on their wish list.
-
The supreme court has done what was expected of it by the Republican party.
Hardly surprising after Trump appointed three 'pro-life' judges. Obviously a cynical vote-winning ploy (fortunately that failed), but I doubt he'd have promoted any other measures beloved of the religious right, had they impinged on his sexual freedom in a too restrictive way.
-
Well, I feel for decent, liberal-minded Americans, but as long as it's only over there, I'm not too bothered. It's not as if I'm an out-and-out pro-choicer myself, and it doesn't mean abortion will be banned throughout the SA tomorrow: it just means that states can decide for themselves, and some at least will keep sane laws.
-
The day had to come. Something PM Johnson has said that I agree with:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-slams-us-abortion-ruling-as-a-big-step-backwards-us-supreme-court_uk_62b5a8efe4b0cdccbe6a4137?
-
Horrible cartoon but very close to the truth:
-
Good article
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-right-won-the-war-on-roe
-
Yep, time to remove the question mark.
Ominously, some Republicans are also making noises about attacking other rights like contraception, sex education and equal marriage for all.
It's worse than the Republican politicians saying it, Judge Clarence Thomas sets up the potential for the court to review the right to contraception (Griswold vs Connecticut), to have male-on-male sex (Lawrence) and the right to equal marriage (Obergefell).
This is a Supreme Court judge, in his discourse on the opinion in a case, INVITING challenges to other established cases he doesn't like...
I'm disinclined to agree with the US Liberals calling for an expansion of the Supreme Court to nullify the current 'Republican' majority because it seems like it's a step that confirms the court is now an overtly political tool, but comments like this from Thomas bring into question whether or not that's a horse that's bolted forever.
O.
-
Did my life suddenly come into existence after I was born?
I have no doubt that my life began at the moment of conception.
My life inside the womb was just as much a part of my life's journey as that outside the womb.
If my life was terminated inside the womb it would have the same consequence as a termination outside the womb.
When a woman has problems during pregnancy, she needs help and support which does not involve killing the child in her womb. Abortion should only be used as a last resort to save the life of the mother. Too often abortion is offered as if it is the only feasible solution. The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
-
Did my life suddenly come into existence after I was born?
I have no doubt that my life began at the moment of conception.
My life inside the womb was just as much a part of my life's journey as that outside the womb.
If my life was terminated inside the womb it would have the same consequence as a termination outside the womb.
When a woman has problems during pregnancy, she needs help and support which does not involve killing the child in her womb. Abortion should only be used as a last resort to save the life of the mother. Too often abortion is offered as if it is the only feasible solution. The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
So you think women have the same rights as cattle?
-
The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
If only they took an equal interest in the child after birth in the US. There is a strong correlation (I know it isn't always causation but c'mon this is Republicans we're dealing with here) between the states that want to ban abortion with high rates of child poverty.
As George Carlin points out here, there is no interest in the child from birth to conscription:
https://youtu.be/K98TQJ5ldW0
As he also says "Anti woman, simple as it gets"
-
The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
I'd rather respect the agency of each pregnant women to come to her own view regarding whether or not to continue with her pregnancy in her own specific circumstances.
-
A refreshing alternative )and far more balanced) evangelical Christian writes this....and she's American to boot...
https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-se
e-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah
-
https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-se
e-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah
Does not work
This does:
https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-see-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah
-
https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-se e-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah Does not work This does: https://sojo.net/articles/about-bible-verse-you-see-anti-abortion-signs-jeremiah
Cheers, H.H.
-
Did my life suddenly come into existence after I was born?
Nobody is talking about things happening after children are born.
I have no doubt that my life began at the moment of conception. My life inside the womb was just as much a part of my life's journey as that outside the womb.
Bully for you. That you have no doubts, however, doesn't make it a reality that a person exists from conception. Don't get me wrong, I have a profound sense of disquiet at the idea of an abortion free-for-all - there's a point, somewhere in gestation, where what you're looking at stops being just a collection of cells and becomes a life in its own right: I don't know where that point is, I'm not sure anyone does, but I can't look at a fertilised egg and have any qualms about stopping that developing.
If my life was terminated inside the womb it would have the same consequence as a termination outside the womb.
No, it wouldn't, because birth itself, if nothing else, is a profound moment.
When a woman has problems during pregnancy, she needs help and support which does not involve killing the child in her womb.
Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial problems a pregnant woman might face, I don't think arbitrarily limiting the nature of the help and support that's on offer is necessary the best move.
Abortion should only be used as a last resort to save the life of the mother.
After a certain - and I admit, difficult to define - point, yes. Prior to that... I don't see why not.
Too often abortion is offered as if it is the only feasible solution.
I'm not sure of that, my wife and I were in the position many, many years ago (it my be different now, but I suspect not) and whilst it was an option that we were considering no-one was pushing it on us. I do have a concern that the rather free access and the somewhat detached way in which it's discussed can give the impression that it's an 'easy' option, and sometimes just seen as another form of contraception.
The ruling of the supreme court in the USA should be a wake up call for us all to respect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.
Unfortunately, for those of us who don't seen conception and life as quite so intrinsically linked, and coupled with the attitude of the Christian right and the theocratically minded make-up of the Supreme Court, it appears to be a wake-up call instead for people who have taken the progress of human rights for granted; the right to abortion is under immediate threat, and the recidivists appear to be lining up gay rights and possible even contraception.
O.
-
Nobody is talking about things happening after children are born.
Bully for you. That you have no doubts, however, doesn't make it a reality that a person exists from conception. Don't get me wrong, I have a profound sense of disquiet at the idea of an abortion free-for-all - there's a point, somewhere in gestation, where what you're looking at stops being just a collection of cells and becomes a life in its own right: I don't know where that point is, I'm not sure anyone does, but I can't look at a fertilised egg and have any qualms about stopping that developing.
No, it wouldn't, because birth itself, if nothing else, is a profound moment.
Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial problems a pregnant woman might face, I don't think arbitrarily limiting the nature of the help and support that's on offer is necessary the best move.
After a certain - and I admit, difficult to define - point, yes. Prior to that... I don't see why not.
I'm not sure of that, my wife and I were in the position many, many years ago (it my be different now, but I suspect not) and whilst it was an option that we were considering no-one was pushing it on us. I do have a concern that the rather free access and the somewhat detached way in which it's discussed can give the impression that it's an 'easy' option, and sometimes just seen as another form of contraception.
Unfortunately, for those of us who don't seen conception and life as quite so intrinsically linked, and coupled with the attitude of the Christian right and the theocratically minded make-up of the Supreme Court, it appears to be a wake-up call instead for people who have taken the progress of human rights for granted; the right to abortion is under immediate threat, and the recidivists appear to be lining up gay rights and possible even contraception.
O.
Agree with all of that. 👍
-
Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial problems a pregnant woman might face, I don't think arbitrarily limiting the nature of the help and support that's on offer is necessary the best move.
After a certain - and I admit, difficult to define - point, yes. Prior to that... I don't see why not.
There is nothing arbitrary about saving a human life.
What is arbitrary is an attempt to define a point at which human rights kick in after life begins at conception.
All our lives began at the moment of conception.
We all once comprised of a few cells within our mother's womb.
Had those cells been removed from our mother's womb we would not exist.
Our lives were just as precious then as they are now.
Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?
There are two lives involved - and both lives matter.
-
Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?
Because, presumably, for reasons specific to her, and in spite of the factors you mention, she still doesn't wish to proceed with the pregnancy.
-
Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?
The operative word in that sentence is "could". The problem is that the support you speak of is so often not given to women in difficult situations. It is not my right as a man to force my opinion of what should happen to a woman who is in a position I cannot by my very nature fully comprehend.
If a country like the US, and indeed the UK can get all those factors right you might have a point, even then there are situations where abortion must be allowed. This is something I saw elsewhere and expresses the issues much more clearly than I am doing:
I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE number of fetuses.
I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.
You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted. It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
Overturning Roe does not stop abortions, it stops SAFE abortions!
Abortion is healthcare.
-
There is nothing arbitrary about saving a human life.
But we're not talking about saving a human life, we're talking about whether or not to let a potential human life develop.
What is arbitrary is an attempt to define a point at which human rights kick in after life begins at conception.
How do you figure life begins at conception? And even if you take that definition, in what way is it considered a human at that point?
All our lives began at the moment of conception.
What are you basing that determination on?
We all once comprised of a few cells within our mother's womb. Had those cells been removed from our mother's womb we would not exist. Our lives were just as precious then as they are now.
And before that we were two independent cells in two different people, and both of those cells were 'alive', and if anything had happened to them we would not exist. Neither of those individual cells was a person, though, and that fertilised ovum floating about in a body wanting to implant in a uterine wall isn't a person either.
As I've said, I'm not clear on exactly how we determine when it does become a person, and if the difficulties of that mean that we collectively move back to determine that the last 'safe' point we can define is conception then so be it, but I'm comfortable with a point significantly later than that, and so are the majority of this country, the US which has prompted the most recent bout of the discussion, and the majority of the developed world.
Which does not mean, and I want to stress this, that I think you are in any way motivated by misogyny - I've seen that accusation bandied about. I accept quite easily that, for you and others like you, your motivation is that someone is being killed and you want to stop it. I agree that we shouldn't be killing people, I just don't think that we are talking about people until an ill-defined point some weeks or months after conception has happened.
O.
Given the vast range of medical, social, financial, personal and familial support which could be given to a pregnant woman - why offer to kill her unborn child?
There are two lives involved - and both lives matter.
[/quote]
-
And before that we were two independent cells in two different people, and both of those cells were 'alive', and if anything had happened to them we would not exist. Neither of those individual cells was a person, though, and that fertilised ovum floating about in a body wanting to implant in a uterine wall isn't a person either.
A sperm and an ovum are part of the father and mother respectively.
When they fuse, the resulting zygote is an individual separate from both parents.
-
A sperm and an ovum are part of the father and mother respectively.
When they fuse, the resulting zygote is an individual separate from both parents.
No - it is a single cell which has genomic makeup that is distinct from either the mother or the father. Beyond genomic distinctiveness why is this single cell somehow an 'individual'?
And what do you mean by an 'individual' anyhow - seems to be a rather loaded term.
-
How do you figure life begins at conception? And even if you take that definition, in what way is it considered a human at that point?
Easy to say that life begins at conception - really, really hard to justify it.
Just to start with, conception (or rather fertilisation) is a process - so if you subscribe to the single point notion of when 'life' begins etc you need to recognise it is a process and define which point within that process is key.
And then we can get on to the notion of twins and embryo fusion - watch people who claim a new person or new individual suddenly appears at conception (or fertilisation - see above) tie themselves up in knots trying to explain how identical twins are somehow two people and a person that is the product of embryo fusion is ... err ... one person.
-
Easy to say that life begins at conception - really, really hard to justify it.
Just to start with, conception (or rather fertilisation) is a process - so if you subscribe to the single point notion of when 'life' begins etc you need to recognise it is a process and define which point within that process is key.
And then we can get on to the notion of twins and embryo fusion - watch people who claim a new person or new individual suddenly appears at conception (or fertilisation - see above) tie themselves up in knots trying to explain how identical twins are somehow two people and a person that is the product of embryo fusion is ... err ... one person.
Had the resulting cells been removed from a mother's womb, a human life would have been exterminated. It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life.
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception. Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed.
-
Had the resulting cells been removed from a mother's womb, a human life would have been exterminated. It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life.
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception. Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed.
And yet, by your reasoning God is quite happy to be an abortionist:
https://www.tommys.org/baby-loss-support/pregnancy-loss-statistics?
Why is God exterminating all these poor little babies?
-
Had the resulting cells been removed from a mother's womb, a human life would have been exterminated. It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life.
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception. Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed.
That a new life begins ar conception is undeniable but irrelevant. The important ethical question is when a distinctively human life begins, and it is ridiculous to regard a microscopic or near-microscopic bundle of a few dozen or hundred undifferentiated cells as human in the fulest sense (pre-human, yes). Any creature, human or animal, which is capable of suffering deserves to be protected from unnecessary suffering as much as possible, but an embryo or early foetus clearly isn't. Later in pregnancy, it may be, and late pregnancies should only be allowed (and indeed are ony allowed) under exceptional circumstances (and I would like to see the time limit for all but such rare and exceptional abortions reduced to 20 weeks), but in the early stages, it should be allowed more or less on demand, and the morning-after pill made freely available.
-
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.
I can and I do.
Sure conception was an essential step towards my existence - one that had it not happened I wouldn't exist. But that isn't the same as saying that my life started at that point (and I'll come to that in a separate reply). There are also many other essential steps that were they not to have happened I wouldn't exist. These include (moving forward) the development of a single primitive streak, implantation into the uterine wall and (moving backward) the generation of the precise spermatocyte and oocyte that contain the genetic makeup that ultimately resulted in me.
Any interruption of the process which starts at conception would result in your own life being curtailed.
As would plenty of processes that happened prior to fertilisation (see above) including the generation of those precise gametes, the release of a particular oocyte, indeed the birth and maturity of my own parents. Why is this single point therefore the one and only step in that chain that is somehow key. I don't think it is - fertilisation is a necessary step for my existence, but it isn't sufficient for me to exist.
-
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.
Note my emphasis.
What do you mean by moment, given that conception - better termed fertilisation, is a process involving a whole series of steps. So if you are going to advocate for a single, precise point at which life begins, you need to be more, well precise. Which stage in that process is the key. Is it, for example:
Penetration of the corona radiata
Penetration of the zona pellucida
Fusion of membranes
Fusion of nuclei
People who talk about the moment of conception are either biologically illiterate or being deeply disingenuous as there is no such thing as the moment of conception, unless you are prepared to be precise as to the precise point in the process of fertilisation this refers to.
-
That a new life begins ar conception is undeniable but irrelevant.
I disagree that it is undeniable (see my earlier posts), but agree that it isn't determinative in any moral manner. All you can say is that the zygote is a potential person, it most certainly is not an actual person and surely our moral obligations are to people not entities that may, or may not become people.
The important ethical question is when a distinctively human life begins, and it is ridiculous to regard a microscopic or near-microscopic bundle of a few dozen or hundred undifferentiated cells as human in the fulest sense (pre-human, yes). Any creature, human or animal, which is capable of suffering deserves to be protected from unnecessary suffering as much as possible, but an embryo or early foetus clearly isn't. Later in pregnancy, it may be, and late pregnancies should only be allowed (and indeed are ony allowed) under exceptional circumstances (and I would like to see the time limit for all but such rare and exceptional abortions reduced to 20 weeks), but in the early stages, it should be allowed more or less on demand, and the morning-after pill made freely available.
Agree with this.
I think we can learn a lot about the beginning of life in a moral sense from how we consider the end of life. In most cases death is the result of a rapid cessation of pretty well all life functions, but not in all cases. There are plenty of situations where some life functions cease, but other remain active. And where the life function that has irreversible and completely cease is brain function, we are content to describe that person as having died, regardless of whether other life functions (e.g. circulation, breathing) may remain either naturally or via artificial support. At the end of life we consider higher neurological activity to be key, so perhaps we should consider this too at the start of life. In other words that the earliest point that we might consider that a 'life' has started in the sense of a person would be when distinct neurological identity is established.
-
It matters not whether the cells would produce twins or triplets - it is still an extermination of human life.
You cannot deny that your own life began at the moment of conception.
Let's put those two comments together and look at what non-sense you get to.
So let's start with:
... your own life began at the moment of conception
So presumably you mean that the single cell, the zygote, isn't just something that will become me, but actually is me. That is certainly the absolutist (and extremist) view of the RCC.
So let's call this Bob, shall we - the zygote is Bob, rather than at some point in the future will become Bob.
So let's factor in twinning and let's be clear twins are two separate, distinct people, even identical twins - they are two people not one person.
So this zygote is Bob. But what if later on two primitive streaks form and we get identical twins - let's call them Bob and Jim. So when did Jim's life begin - surely the zygote cannot be both Bob and Jim as that is based on something that may or may not happen in the future - i.e. twinning. Otherwise we'd have to ascribe all the identical twinning/triplet etc possibilities to the zygote. So the zygote would have to be Jim, Bob, Stan, Max, Will etc - but if only one embryo develops which is this (and why) and what happened to all the others.
So if Jim's life didn't start at conception, perhaps Jim's life starts when a second primitive streak forms. But why Jim and not Bob. Did both Bob and Jim's lives start at the point of twinning, in which case who was the zygote - was it Eric, and what happened to Eric - did he die to allow Jim and Bob to arise.
And things don't get easier when we consider the rarer phenomenon of embryo fusion in which a single embryo develops from more than one fertilised egg. In this case we have one person derived from more than one zygote. So now we have two zygotes - call them Sarah and Jill - but they fuse and only one person develops - is this Sara, is this Jill and if the former what happened to Jill (did she die) and vice versa. Perhaps the embryo that forms is neither Sara nor Jill, but Erica - in which case what happed to Sara and Jill.
See how your the zygote is Bob, not just becomes Bob assertion ties you up in knots.
However everything becomes very straightforward when you consider that the zygote is just that, a zygote - it isn't Bob or Jim or Eric nor is it Sara or Jill or Erica. It has the potential to become one, or more of the above or two zygotes have the potential to become one of the above, but the zygote itself isn't any of them yet.
-
Did my life suddenly come into existence after I was born?
I have no doubt that my life began at the moment of conception.
Whether you are alive or not is not the issue. Lots of things are alive that we have no moral problem with killing. The question is whether the foetus is a person with the same rights as human that has successfully been born. I would submit that the line is not at conception but at some point between conception and birth. In my opinion, British law sets the line in about the right place.
There's a further complication though. We are not talking about one life but two. Pregnancy holds very real risks to the mother. You can't just erase them.
-
Whether you are alive or not is not the issue. Lots of things are alive that we have no moral problem with killing. The question is whether the foetus is a person with the same rights as human that has successfully been born. I would submit that the line is not at conception but at some point between conception and birth. In my opinion, British law sets the line in about the right place.
There's a further complication though. We are not talking about one life but two. Pregnancy holds very real risks to the mother. You can't just erase them.
Agree with this, but the last sentence cuts both ways: I am not impressed with the common slogan "my body, my choice", because, as you say, "we are not talking about one life but two".
-
Let's put those two comments together and look at what non-sense you get to.
So let's start with:
... your own life began at the moment of conception
So presumably you mean that the single cell, the zygote, isn't just something that will become me, but actually is me. That is certainly the absolutist (and extremist) view of the RCC.
So let's call this Bob, shall we - the zygote is Bob, rather than at some point in the future will become Bob.
So let's factor in twinning and let's be clear twins are two separate, distinct people, even identical twins - they are two people not one person.
So this zygote is Bob. But what if later on two primitive streaks form and we get identical twins - let's call them Bob and Jim. So when did Jim's life begin - surely the zygote cannot be both Bob and Jim as that is based on something that may or may not happen in the future - i.e. twinning. Otherwise we'd have to ascribe all the identical twinning/triplet etc possibilities to the zygote. So the zygote would have to be Jim, Bob, Stan, Max, Will etc - but if only one embryo develops which is this (and why) and what happened to all the others.
So if Jim's life didn't start at conception, perhaps Jim's life starts when a second primitive streak forms. But why Jim and not Bob. Did both Bob and Jim's lives start at the point of twinning, in which case who was the zygote - was it Eric, and what happened to Eric - did he die to allow Jim and Bob to arise.
And things don't get easier when we consider the rarer phenomenon of embryo fusion in which a single embryo develops from more than one fertilised egg. In this case we have one person derived from more than one zygote. So now we have two zygotes - call them Sarah and Jill - but they fuse and only one person develops - is this Sara, is this Jill and if the former what happened to Jill (did she die) and vice versa. Perhaps the embryo that forms is neither Sara nor Jill, but Erica - in which case what happed to Sara and Jill.
See how your the zygote is Bob, not just becomes Bob assertion ties you up in knots.
However everything becomes very straightforward when you consider that the zygote is just that, a zygote - it isn't Bob or Jim or Eric nor is it Sara or Jill or Erica. It has the potential to become one, or more of the above or two zygotes have the potential to become one of the above, but the zygote itself isn't any of them yet.
I think it's the potential to be a person that pro lifers are arguing should be preserved.
How a medical ethicist thinks this is all ''straightforward'' is a tad frightening.
-
Agree with this, but the last sentence cuts both ways: I am not impressed with the common slogan "my body, my choice", because, as you say, "we are not talking about one life but two".
But it's still my body my choice.
If someone needs a kidney can we hook them up to you to share your kidney function?
-
But it's still my body my choice.
If someone needs a kidney can we hook them up to you to share your kidney function?
Completely irrelevant comment.
-
Completely irrelevant comment.
Why?
-
Why?
What has someone needing a kidney got to do with abortion?
-
However everything becomes very straightforward when you consider that the zygote is just that, a zygote - it isn't Bob or Jim or Eric nor is it Sara or Jill or Erica. It has the potential to become one, or more of the above or two zygotes have the potential to become one of the above, but the zygote itself isn't any of them yet.
zygote, embryo, foetus, baby, infant, teenager ....
These are all just labels assigned to different stages of human life which began at the moment of conception.
Deliberate termination at any one of these stages has the same result - a life that no longer exists.
-
zygote, embryo, foetus, baby, infant, teenager ....
These are all just labels assigned to different stages of human life which began at the moment of conception.
Deliberate termination at any one of these stages has the same result - a life that no longer exists.
Back at your God. Why does he exterminate so many poor children?
-
zygote, embryo, foetus, baby, infant, teenager ....
These are all just labels assigned to different stages of human life which began at the moment of conception.
Deliberate termination at any one of these stages has the same result - a life that no longer exists.
Indeed. So what?
-
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/07/03/abortion-law-roe-v-wade-history-orig-dp-kj.cnn
**************
The Catholic Church once allowed for abortions. Everything changed in 1873
Until the 1880s, abortions were morally acceptable and legal, with even the Catholic Church approving of the procedure before 'quickening.' Historians say the desire to ban the procedure had more to do with business than women's health.
**************
-
What has someone needing a kidney got to do with abortion?
It isn't the need for a kidney that's the equivalence, it's the idea of forcing someone to serve as a dialysis machine for someone else being compared to forcing a woman to be an incubator for a baby that she doesn't want.
I feel it's a little more complicated than that - no analogy is ever perfect - but I also figure it's an awful lot more complicated than the 'life begins at conception' line of thinking gives rise to as well.
O.
-
What has someone needing a kidney got to do with abortion?
I may be wrong, but BeRational may be alluding to the seminal pro-choice essay on the matter by Judith Thomson. This uses the analogy of a famous violinist in need of a kidney.
If you've not read it I suggest you look it out as it is very good - it starts from a presumption that a foetus has a right to life but its conclusion, using the analogy, is that this right cannot over-ride a woman's right to have jurisdiction over her body.
-
zygote, embryo, foetus, baby, infant, teenager ....
These are all just labels assigned to different stages of human life which began at the moment of conception.
Deliberate termination at any one of these stages has the same result - a life that no longer exists.
I note you have completely side-swiped my point about twinning and fusion.
So which is it AB.
1. The zygote is Bob or
2. The zygote is something that may (or may not) become Bob at some later stage.
You don't seem to want to address this key point, presumably because by answering 1 (the RCC official line) you end up in the untenable situation of having to argue when Jim's life starts (for twins) or what happens to Sarah and Jill, if they are two zygotes that fuse and result in a single person.
-
I think it's the potential to be a person that pro lifers are arguing should be preserved.
In some cases but not all. The official RCC line isn't that the zygote has the potential to become a person, it is that the zygote is a person and that all stages of development from the zygote are morally equivalent because all are the same person. AB is parroting that line.
-
Agree with this, but the last sentence cuts both ways: I am not impressed with the common slogan "my body, my choice", because, as you say, "we are not talking about one life but two".
But one is definitely a person with all the rights thereof. I don't think the other one is, at least not for around 24 weeks.
-
I think it's the potential to be a person that pro lifers are arguing should be preserved.
How a medical ethicist thinks this is all ''straightforward'' is a tad frightening.
Every time a woman has her period, a potential person goes down the toilet. Around half off all pregnancies end in miscarriage, often without the mother knowing it. More ends of potential people. Your god is a monster.
-
How a medical ethicist thinks this is all ''straightforward'' is a tad frightening.
It wasn't my intention to suggest the whole argument about the moral status of an embryo or foetus is straightforward. Actually quite the opposite - I was railing against those that come out with the simplistic (and to my mind untenable) argument that "life begins as conception". Coming out with such a glib and simplistic claim ends up with you tying yourself in biological and metaphysical knots as I indicate. The straightforward part is to strip all that away by recognising that an argument that "life begins as conception" is logically untenable. But don't just take my word for it - Mary Warnock spent two years looking into this for her report that lead to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act also took this view. And, this also from Jean Porter:
"until the possibility of twinning is past, we cannot say that this presently existing [embryo] is definitely identical with one specific human being which will exist in the future"
None of this provides an answer as to when life does begin, and I think that is an incredible complicated question that doesn't lend itself to a simple answer and likely we cannot ascribe any single point that defines when life begins, but we can see a gradual development of important features that are critical for personhood and we may therefore consider that the rights of the developing embryo or foetus also develop over time. Actually trying to determine some arbitrary point when life begins seems to be missing the point - the key issues seem to me to be:
1. What is the moral status of the developing embryo and foetus at various stages of development
2. What rights does the developing embryo and foetus at various stages of development
3. How do those rights conflict with the rights of the mother and how do we resolve those conflicts
-
Every time a woman has her period, a potential person goes down the toilet. Around half off all pregnancies end in miscarriage, often without the mother knowing it. More ends of potential people. Your god is a monster.
Indeed - if you end up in a discussion of potential, why should potential only start with the zygote. While it is certainly true that the zygote could become a person if certain things happen (e.g. implantation, development of a primitive streak) and other things don't happen (e.g. spontaneous abortion etc), the same can be said for an oocyte or a spermatocyte - the difference is that one further thing (fusion with spermatocyte or oocyte) needs to happen. An oocyte, a spermatocyte and a zygote all have the potential to become a person.
-
It wasn't my intention to suggest the whole argument about the moral status of an embryo or foetus is straightforward. Actually quite the opposite - I was railing against those that come out with the simplistic (and to my mind untenable) argument that "life begins as conception". Coming out with such a glib and simplistic claim ends up with you tying yourself in biological and metaphysical knots as I indicate. The straightforward part is to strip all that away by recognising that an argument that "life begins as conception" is logically untenable. But don't just take my word for it - Mary Warnock spent two years looking into this for her report that lead to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act also took this view. And, this also from Jean Porter:
"until the possibility of twinning is past, we cannot say that this presently existing [embryo] is definitely identical with one specific human being which will exist in the future"
None of this provides an answer as to when life does begin, and I think that is an incredible complicated question that doesn't lend itself to a simple answer and likely we cannot ascribe any single point that defines when life begins, but we can see a gradual development of important features that are critical for personhood and we may therefore consider that the rights of the developing embryo or foetus also develop over time. Actually trying to determine some arbitrary point when life begins seems to be missing the point - the key issues seem to me to be:
This is ridiculous. Whether it becomes two individuals or one, a Zygote is still life.
-
1. What is the moral status of the developing embryo and foetus at various stages of development
2. What rights does the developing embryo and foetus at various stages of development
3. How do those rights conflict with the rights of the mother and how do we resolve those conflicts
Think of it from this foetus' perspective, for a moment: it is female but its parents want a male. Does she have the right to live? Yes, even if she is an inconvenience to her parents.
So the only moral situation in which a fetus can be terminated is if the mother's life is endangered.
-
Think of it from this foetus' perspective, for a moment:
To have 'perspective' requires sentience and higher consciousness. So if we are talking about a zygote or very early embryo then asking about its perspective is completely meaningless. The zygote or embryo may develop perspective, but it doesn't have it during the early stages of development.
-
This is ridiculous. Whether it becomes two individuals or one, a Zygote is still life.
It isn't ridiculous - it is incredibly important if you subscribe to the view that the zygote is Bob, not just that the zygote has the potential to develop into Bob. The claims of individual continuity of personhood are completely derailed by twinning and fusion - see the Jean Porter quote.
-
... a Zygote is still life.
You need to be more specific as to what you mean by 'life' Spud. Sure a zygote is alive and genetically human, but so are the oocyte and spermatocyte that fused to form it. And for that matter are the cells in a blood sample (even in the case where the donor might have died so they may be the last cells with that genetic make up left). So you need to be far more specific as to why the zygote is life in a manner that the gametes (or blood are not).
Rather than implying that it is somehow self evident that "life begins at conception", as if anyone claiming otherwise is bonkers, why not argue your case. Because I do not agree, so try to persuade me with a cogent argument as to why "life begins at conception" rather than glibly asserting it as if this is some kind of self-evident truth. It isn't.
-
Think of it from this foetus' perspective, for a moment: it is female but its parents want a male. Does she have the right to live? Yes, even if she is an inconvenience to her parents.
So the only moral situation in which a fetus can be terminated is if the mother's life is endangered.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1543409662816665600.html
-
Think of it from this foetus' perspective, for a moment: it is female but its parents want a male. Does she have the right to live? Yes, even if she is an inconvenience to her parents.
So the only moral situation in which a fetus can be terminated is if the mother's life is endangered.
How you get from "no abortion if it's the wrong sex" (with which I agree) to "only if the mother's life is endangered" is a mystery.
-
It isn't the need for a kidney that's the equivalence, it's the idea of forcing someone to serve as a dialysis machine for someone else being compared to forcing a woman to be an incubator for a baby that she doesn't want.
I feel it's a little more complicated than that - no analogy is ever perfect - but I also figure it's an awful lot more complicated than the 'life begins at conception' line of thinking gives rise to as well.
O.
It certainly is more complicated. People have to take some responsibility for their actions - no woman has to get pregnant nowadays, and if they do, they should not regard abortion as just another form of contraception. However, I think the morning-after pill should be available over the counter, since it is ridiculous to think of the 24 hours or less old embryo as a human life: it cant suffer, so doesn't need protecting from suffering.
-
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1543409662816665600.html
That is an extremely silly analogy. Women are biologically designed, by God or evolution, to carry a foetus for nine months. That's just the way thigs are: sexist of evolution or God to design them that way, maybe, but we're stuck with it. We are not designed to have interchangeable kidneys; that's only been possible for a few decades, thanks to modern surgery. The compulsory donation scenario is very similar to ones dreamed up by people desperate to find fault with utilitarian ethics, and is just as ridiculous.
The arguments of the extreme abortion-on-demand brigade and the extreme anti brigade are alike stupid. A position somewhere in between is the only reasonable one.
-
That is an extremely silly analogy. Women are biologically designed, by God or evolution, to carry a foetus for nine months. That's just the way thigs are: sexist of evolution or God to design them that way, maybe, but we're stuck with it. We are not designed to have interchangeable kidneys; that's only been possible for a few decades, thanks to modern surgery. The compulsory donation scenario is very similar to ones dreamed up by people desperate to find fault with utilitarian ethics, and is just as ridiculous.
The arguments of the extreme abortion-on-demand brigade and the extreme anti brigade are alike stupid. A position somewhere in between is the only reasonable one.
It covers the idea of refusing abortion. We are 'designed' to be able to donate organs, once we have developed the technology. Your teleological approach to women is just the same. It's just your discomfort with the consistent logic that is the problem
-
Some interesting questions arising from this issue voiced by Carliss Chatman (Law professor):
If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?
Is that also when you can’t deport the mother because she’s carrying a US citizen?
Can I insure a 6 week fetus and collect if I miscarry?
Just figuring if we’re going here we should go all in.
-
That's a thought: if the yank anti-choice brigade are sincere about life beginning at conception, they should be campaigning for automatic american citizenship to be conferred on people conceived in the US, not merely born there.
-
In some cases but not all. The official RCC line isn't that the zygote has the potential to become a person, it is that the zygote is a person and that all stages of development from the zygote are morally equivalent because all are the same person.”
Granted.
Of the two arguments the potential to become a person is the most difficult to challenge since it comes from a different premise and as far as I can see is watertight as a description.
Have Catholic’s lost the moral argument rather than the biological argument perhaps you could state where in the argument they are defeatedAB is parroting that line.
No evidence, he could have considered and weighed the arguments just like you and I have.
-
Of the two arguments the potential to become a person is the most difficult to challenge since it comes from a different premise and as far as I can see is watertight as a description.
In some respects also the most difficult to justify as it become so nebulous. If the zygote has the potential to become a person, then why not the oocyte and spermatocyte. And given that we shouldn't consider matters in a purely anthropocentric manner, we need to factor in both parthenogenesis (an oocyte has the potential to develop into a new organism) and also cloning (clearly the skin cell that provided the genetic material for Dolly the sheep had the potential to develop into err ... a sheep).
And you also need to be clearer about what you mean by potential - is this the possibility to develop into a person (if all necessary steps happen and all compounding steps don't happen) or probability to develop into a person. The former clearly encompass the oocyte and spermatocyte etc, the latter needs to take account of both developmental steps so far but also intention. So for example an early embryo generated by in vitro fertilisation where there is no intention to transfer into a woman has zero probability of becoming a person. Arguably an early embryo where there is the intention for the mother to have an abortion also has zero probability of becoming a person.
Finally, you need to justify why potential is even relevant as it relies on the valuableness of something that might arise in the future, but doesn't exist now. Would we place reverence on a blank canvass and some paint as they have the potential to become a great work of art?
-
Have Catholic’s lost the moral argument rather than the biological argument perhaps you could state where in the argument they are defeated.
Actually the RCC argument is based on a pretty widely accepted moral premise against killing people. Their argument is about when a person arises and is (in my opinion) based on faulty understanding of biology. This is there actual argument:
"As the life of a fertilised oocyte is neither [genetically] that of the father nor that of the mother it is a new life.
This new life is a human life, for it could not be made human if it were not human already.
This new human life is the life of an individual, for its identity is established from the first instant.
This new human individual, which comes into existence at the moment of conception, must surely be a person."
This argument is, to my mind both biologically illiterate (e.g. there is no moment of conception, as conception is a process), but also bizarre in ascribing genetic individuality as the key to personhood - identical twins are genetically identical, but are two people. Also, via the process of meiosis the oocyte and spermatocyte cells are also not genetically that of the mother or father. Plus, of course, is is completely blown out the water by the issue of twinning and embryo fusion where two (or more) people may arise from a single zygote or one person may arise from more than one zygote.
-
I note you have completely side-swiped my point about twinning and fusion.
So which is it AB.
1. The zygote is Bob or
2. The zygote is something that may (or may not) become Bob at some later stage.
You don't seem to want to address this key point, presumably because by answering 1 (the RCC official line) you end up in the untenable situation of having to argue when Jim's life starts (for twins) or what happens to Sarah and Jill, if they are two zygotes that fuse and result in a single person.
The point I was making concerns the beginning of human life - be it individuals, twins or triplets it is still the beginning of life, and terminating the process will result in extermination of life.
Pregnancy is a naturally occurring process from which all human life originates.
A deliberate act of abortion is an unnatural event which terminates human life.
-
The point I was making concerns the beginning of human life - be it individuals, twins or triplets it is still the beginning of life, and terminating the process will result in extermination of life.
I know - you keep glibly making the same point without actually explaining or justifying it.
So is a human zygote genetically human - sure it is. Is it alive - yup, so it is without doubt human life.
But the oocyte is also genetically human and alive - so is also human life.
If I go and give a blood sample the cells in that sample are genetically human and alive, so they are also human life.
So you need to explain why the zygote is distinct from, as an example the oocyte and spermatocyte that fused to create it - all three cells are undoubtedly human life but for some reason, that you have failed to explain and justify the former somehow must be protected at all costs, while the latter are expendible.
Now for the RCC the explanation is that the zygote is Bob, not just may develop into Bob - I think that claim crumbles to dust when challenged, but at least it is an explanation, albeit a faulty one. What is your explanation AB - and don't just come back with more "human life begins at conception" guff - explain and justify you claim.
And while you are at it please answer my question - is the zygote Bob?
-
A deliberate act of abortion is an unnatural event which terminates human life.
I suspect there are far, far more natural abortions (miscarriage) than there are artificial ones. It is estimated that one in eight pregnancies result in miscarriage and that is likely to be a major underestimate as there will be plenty of women who miscarry before they have recognised they are actually pregnant.
-
I suspect there are far, far more natural abortions (miscarriage) than there are artificial ones. It is estimated that one in eight pregnancies result in miscarriage and that is likely to be a major underestimate as there will be plenty of women who miscarry before they have recognised they are actually pregnant.
This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.
-
This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.
My point was to counter AB's absurd assertion that pregnancy is natural and abortion isn't. Most abortions, i.e. miscarriages, are exactly that - natural.
And if you are that way inclined (which I think both you and AB are) then what is the difference between your god terminating pregnancies via miscarriage (presumably an omnipotent god could prevent that) and a human terminating a pregnancy via abortion.
-
How you get from "no abortion if it's the wrong sex" (with which I agree) to "only if the mother's life is endangered" is a mystery.
The first shows that a woman's right to an abortion is not absolute, as I think Roe v Wade acknowledged.
The second follows because any abortion that isn't done to protect the mother falls into the category of 'inconvenient pregnancy' - to some extent.
To back this up, Exodus 20 says we shall not kill. Exodus 21:22-25 confirms that an unborn child has the same right to justice as anyone else.
-
My point was to counter AB's absurd assertion that pregnancy is natural and abortion isn't. Most abortions, i.e. miscarriages, are exactly that - natural.
And if you are that way inclined (which I think both you and AB are) then what is the difference between your god terminating pregnancies via miscarriage (presumably an omnipotent god could prevent that) and a human terminating a pregnancy via abortion.
The same as the difference between a person dying naturally and being killed.
-
The same as the difference between a person dying naturally and being killed.
A better analogy is killing or letting die.
If your god is able to intervene to prevent the miscarriage but choses not to that god is just as complicit if he/she/it had actively intervened. But moreover, I thought these sorts of things are often passed off as 'god's will' which implies rather more than a passive failure to act, but an active imposition of god's will.
-
Exodus 21:22-25 confirms that an unborn child has the same right to justice as anyone else.
Exodus was written about 2,500 years ago when people hadn't the faintest idea how human embryological development occurred. In the absence of any understanding of the process itself anything written in Exodus is completely irrelevant.
By the way Spud - perhaps you can answer my question, which both you and AB seem to keep wanting to side-swipe:
Is the zygote Bob?
Given your unshakable assertions on this matter, surely this should be a really easy question for you. I await your response.
-
A better analogy is killing or letting die.
If your god is able to intervene to prevent the miscarriage but choses not to that god is just as complicit if he/she/it had actively intervened. But moreover, I thought these sorts of things are often passed off as 'god's will' which implies rather more than a passive failure to act, but an active imposition of god's will.
There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will. He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.
-
There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will. He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.
If I could stop a rape I would, your god in your perverted little world chooses not to. Your god is guilty of rape and murder. And you worship that happening.
-
There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will. He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.
AB - there isn't abundant evidence of anything of the sort - for the simple reason that there is no credible evidence that god even exists.
But of course if you do believe (unevidenced) that god exists and believe that god has the ability to intervene then you cannot so easily side-swipe the question as to why god allows millions of the unborn to die due to miscarriage when he/she/it could intervene to prevent those deaths.
Also - still waiting for an answer - is the zygote Bob?
-
Also - still waiting for an answer - is the zygote Bob?
It is the first stage of human life.
You and I were once labelled as zygote.
-
It is the first stage of human life.
You and I were once labelled as zygote.
You still don't seem to be answering my question.
Is the zygote Bob?
Was the zygote that developed into you, actually you at that single cell stage?
Was the zygote that developed into me, actually me at that single cell stage?
Surely given your unshakable certainty that "life begins at conception" this should be a really simple question.
-
There is abundant evidence that God allows natural events to occur, just as He allows human beings to implement acts of will which are not God's will. He does not deliberately kill the unborn - which is what occurs with abortions.
With reference to NS's and the Prof's apposite answers, it is significant that in Christianity there are two types of sins - the sins of commission, and the sins of omission. Jesus epitomizes these in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. He also seems to suggest that the sins of omission are the WORST.
In the present context it is ironic that he did not seem to realise that his God (and yours) is perennially guilty of the latter.
-
With reference to NS's and the Prof's apposite answers, it is significant that in Christianity there are two types of sins - the sins of commission, and the sins of omission. Jesus epitomizes these in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. He also seems to suggest that the sins of omission are the WORST.
In the present context it is ironic that he did not seem to realise that his God (and yours) is perennially guilty of the latter.
Please demonstrate your last point by example. What perfect moral authority is God sinning against? And having established that authority, please state where it is lodged........Thank you.
-
Please demonstrate your last point by example. What perfect moral authority is God sinning against? And having established that authority, please state where it is lodged........Thank you.
You believe in him - you tell us.
-
With reference to NS's and the Prof's apposite answers, it is significant that in Christianity there are two types of sins - the sins of commission, and the sins of omission. Jesus epitomizes these in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. He also seems to suggest that the sins of omission are the WORST.
In the present context it is ironic that he did not seem to realise that his God (and yours) is perennially guilty of the latter.
It is relatively easy for us to use our God given freedom to think up ways of how God could do things better (if He exists), and to use this as evidence that God does not exist.
My own thoughts on this are that we are not yet in heaven. We live in a world where there is good and bad, suffering and joy, war and peace .... A world full of opposites which allows us to recognise that there could be a better place where all the negative aspects of our existence are taken away. Without these negatives we may not recognise or appreciate the good things. It is often said that mankind invented the utopia of heaven as wishful thinking, but I believe our ability to imagine a life after death with no suffering is no accident of nature - it is a God given glimpse of the destiny we can achieve using our unique gift of free will.
-
This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.
No, but it does suggest that God places less value on the foetus or embryo than his noisiest supporters do.
-
... and to use this as evidence that God does not exist.
I don't think atheists use this argument as evidence that god doesn't exist - I certainly don't. The point is that to indicate that if god does exist he/she/it doesn't seem very benevolent. It sets out the lie at the heart of the claim that god is both all powerful (and can therefore make things happen or prevent things from happening) and also all loving. An all loving god wouldn't allow a parent desperately wanting a child to suffer a heart breaking miscarriage if he/she/it could prevent it. So this god (if he/she/it exists) is either unable to act and therefore not all powerful, or is able to act and choses not to do so, in which case this god as pretty callous.
-
This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.
So why did your god design humans that way? Christians would have us believe that their god is responsible for almost all abortions.
Your god is a monster.
-
So why did your god design humans that way? Christians would have us believe that their god is responsible for almost all abortions.
Your god is a monster.
Or perhaps their god is impotent and actually unable, rather than unwilling, to intervene.
Occam would, of course, suggest an alternative explanation again ;)
-
Or perhaps their god is impotent and actually unable, rather than unwilling, to intervene.
That is the case IMO since gods that don't exist are impotent by definition, but the Christians don't believe that, so I'd like to hear their excuseexplanation.
Occam would, of course, suggest an alternative explanation again ;)
All these difficult questions are so much easier to answer if you believe that humans are a product of evolution by naturals selection rather than the creation of the all loving god.
-
Hmmmmm....... This might open a can of legal worms.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/pregnant-woman-carpool-fine-unborn-child-passenger/?fbclid=IwAR0DtxqAXmSzg4G2BAFd3bZbTAAapcDi13gKd8zmoeBOqKMAvVd43vPlV3Y
-
That is the case IMO since gods that don't exist are impotent by definition, but the Christians don't believe that, so I'd like to hear their excuseexplanation.
All these difficult questions are so much easier to answer if you believe that humans are a product of evolution by naturals selection rather than the creation of the all loving god.
And the Spuds and ABs of this world can't even answer what should be a really simple question for them if they think human life begins at conception - namely whether the zygote is Bob.
-
And the Spuds and ABs of this world can't even answer what should be a really simple question for them if they think human life begins at conception - namely whether the zygote is Bob.
You were once a zygote
-
You were once a zygote
So what?
-
My issue with Christians who oppose all abortions is simple;
In doing so, they ignore the command to love in every situation.
It's all very well fling Scripture and 'tradition' which isn't Scripture at the situation and washing thier hands....but Christ died for the mother who carries the product of rape, or incest, or afoetus which when brought to term will have no quality of life or a life measured in minutes, leaving years of anguish.
Would the One who cares for the sparrow not care that many of these women, forced to deliver to term, may decide suicide is a better alternative, as was the case before the Abortion Act (introduced, incidentally, by a committed Christian in 1966.)
-
You were once a zygote
Sounds like you do think that the zygote is Bob? Why are you still so unwilling to address the question directly. I'll ask again:
Is the zygote Bob?
-
You were once a zygote
Only in the sense that I was once a spermatocyte and an oocyte and was once some specific pre-germinal tissue/cell in the ovary/testis of my mother/father etc etc.
I dispute the (unevidenced) assertion that the zygote was me - I've provided a clear rebuttal to that naive assertion. Just as I dispute the notion that the spermatocyte or oocyte etc was me. In none of those cases can you make a cogent argument that those cells are the same individual person that may exist in the future.
-
So what?
Actually, not true, but even if true, so what?
-
Only in the sense that I was once a spermatocyte and an oocyte and was once some specific pre-germinal tissue/cell in the ovary/testis of my mother/father etc etc.
I dispute the (unevidenced) assertion that the zygote was me - I've provided a clear rebuttal to that naive assertion. Just as I dispute the notion that the spermatocyte or oocyte etc was me. In none of those cases can you make a cogent argument that those cells are the same individual person that may exist in the future.
The body was once a zygote. Then the Consciousness (soul) gets linked at some stage. The mind and awareness then get build slowly after birth and the personality gets developed.
-
The body was once a zygote. Then the Consciousness (soul) gets linked at some stage. The mind and awareness then get build slowly after birth and the personality gets developed.
Not sure I would describe embryological development in such terms, but let's probe this a little more:
The body was once a zygote - not sure I agree with this - certain the body develops from the zygote, just as it does from the oocyte and spermatocyte, but that is subtly different from claiming that the body was once a zygote. Also you should note that most of what develops from the zygote during the early stages of development is not the body at all. More of the cells that develop from the zygote in the early stages produce the extra-embryonic structures, such as umbilical cord, placenta, membranes etc. So it isn't the case that the zygote turns into the body - it also develops into a whole bunch of other stuff.
[/i]Then the Consciousness (soul) gets linked at some stage. The mind and awareness then get build slowly after birth and the personality gets developed.[/i] - So at what point does the person first appear - when the zygote develops of when the soul gets linked (as you describe it). So is the zygote Bob, or does Bob only begin to exist when Bob's soul is linked?
Now I wouldn't use the terminology you do, and your terminology has no place in embryology, but there is an element of reality here. Effectively we ascribe a person and personhood to aspects of our neurological development - hence people being considered dead when they are brain stem dead, regardless of other bodily processes continuing. So surely the earliest point we might consider that the person appears would be when that unique neural identity begins to appear, or has developed to a certain stage. And of course this is way, way later than the zygote stage, which has no neuronal development at all.
-
We can keep arguing about the zygote and the body.....but that is not the point. My point was that the zygote leads to the formation of the body only. Consciousness (which is what the person is) gets attached at some point during the development such that when a baby is born...it has consciousness. It has no mind, no self awareness....but it has consciousness. This forms the core of the person.
Around this consciousness gets built the mind, ego and personality. This personality which includes his identity and memories...is what becomes Bob.
Bob is a set of memories, genetic traits, appearance, upbringing, social identity and so on. This personality will keep developing and changing and will finally get eliminated. Finally, the body will disintegrate, the mind will dissipate...but the consciousness that forms the core of his being will continue existing after death.
Bob will be no more but the consciousness that formed the core of Bob will continue.
-
We can keep arguing about the zygote and the body.....but that is not the point. My point was that the zygote leads to the formation of the body only. Consciousness (which is what the person is) gets attached at some point during the development such that when a baby is born...it has consciousness. It has no mind, no self awareness....but it has consciousness. This forms the core of the person.
Around this consciousness gets built the mind, ego and personality. This personality which includes his identity and memories...is what becomes Bob.
Bob is a set of memories, genetic traits, appearance, upbringing, social identity and so on. This personality will keep developing and changing and will finally get eliminated. Finally, the body will disintegrate, the mind will dissipate...but the consciousness that forms the core of his being will continue existing after death.
Bob will be no more but the consciousness that formed the core of Bob will continue.
Which reads to me that you don't believe that the zygote is Bob - and although we may disagree on the reasons, and specifically on the manner in which we describe the development of Bob, on this point we agree. The zygote is not Bob, although we may also both agree that without the zygote existing then Bob also wouldn't, at some point in the future also exist.
So on these points you and I are in disagreement with AB, who appears to agree with the RCC official line (although he seems rather reticent to state that the zygote is Bob) - the RCC line being that the zygote is Bob, is the self same person and that to destroy the zygote is to kill Bob, rather than to do something which would prevent Bob coming into existence at some point in the future.
-
I would agree that abortion at early stages would not amount to killing a person...though it does prevent the formation and subsequent birth of a person. As people have argued above, every sperm and egg is a potential person. Lots of it gets wasted in the natural course. Billions of potential persons go down the drain every day.
At what stage consciousness gets linked is a crucial matter.
-
I would agree that abortion at early stages would not amount to killing a person...though it does prevent the formation and subsequent birth of a person. As people have argued above, every sperm and egg is a potential person. Lots of it gets wasted in the natural course. Billions of potential persons go down the drain every day.
I don't think we have a moral obligations towards potential people, only towards actually people.
At what stage consciousness gets linked is a crucial matter.
Or phrased differently at what point a person actually starts to exist. And I'm not sure it is that simple in moral terms. It is possible to argue (many do, including me) that the real issue is the moral status of the embryo as it develops and that there isn't a single point at which full moral status and rights arises, but that the moral status increases gradually over time, as therefore does our moral obligations towards the developing embryo/fetus. But you also have to factor in the potentially competing rights of the mother - there are plenty of situations where we balance rights, including the right to life where protecting the right to life of one person significantly infringes other rights held by other people. Self defence and just war arguments being the most obvious.
-
I read this morning an idea that many embryos have chromosomal abnormalities (The Fall?). Apparently it is better that they are aborted as this saves the mother from having to nurture them to full term which would use a lot of energy and result in a baby that won't thrive. It means she saves her energy for any healthy embryos that come along, which will help them survive.
-
I read this morning an idea that many embryos have chromosomal abnormalities (The Fall?). Apparently it is better that they are aborted as this saves the mother from having to nurture them to full term which would use a lot of energy and result in a baby that won't thrive. It means she saves her energy for any healthy embryos that come along, which will help them survive.
What on earth do you mean by The Fall? I thought they were a band!!
But on the general point - if there are abnormalities, whether chromosomal or not, in an embryo which means it won't survive to term or will die shortly thereafter then surely the correct thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and to do so as early as possible. This will result in minimising the trauma for the mother as well as limiting any potential suffering for the embryo/foetus.
Challenges arise when abnormalities are detected late - which makes the case for comprehensive ante-natal screening, or when there isn't clarity whether the baby will die, but the issues are around whether the baby will have any meaningful quality of life if it is born.
-
Removal of abortion rights from gender statement classed as ‘minor’ change by Government
https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2022/07/28/alarming-removal-of-abortion-rights-from-gender-equality-statement-filed-as-minor-change-by-uk-government/content.html
Time after time, the tories are following the US like a baby chimpanzee, hoping that holding hands with a bigger bipedal gorilla will keep them safe.
-
What on earth do you mean by The Fall? I thought they were a band!!
But on the general point - if there are abnormalities, whether chromosomal or not, in an embryo which means it won't survive to term or will die shortly thereafter then surely the correct thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and to do so as early as possible. This will result in minimising the trauma for the mother as well as limiting any potential suffering for the embryo/foetus.
Challenges arise when abnormalities are detected late - which makes the case for comprehensive ante-natal screening, or when there isn't clarity whether the baby will die, but the issues are around whether the baby will have any meaningful quality of life if it is born.
I don't agree with killing the embryo if it has abnormalities, unless the mother is at risk. There's a difference between dying of natural causes and being killed deliberately by a person.
-
I don't agree with killing the embryo if it has abnormalities, unless the mother is at risk. There's a difference between dying of natural causes and being killed deliberately by a person.
I think that distinction is complicated by the fact that the embryo has no ability to survive on its own. We accept the removal of life sustaining interventions for babies after they have been born if that baby will die and sustaining life/medical intervention is considered to be futile and/or painful/distressing to the baby and therefore not in its best interests.
Indeed we do it for people at any age - see the recent tragic Archie Battersbee case.
-
I am of the opinion that all women should have the absolute right to have an abortion, for whatever reason, until the baby is viable.
I think getting Roe vs Wade overturned is a huge mistake and will lead to women going to back street abortionists. :o
-
I am of the opinion that all women should have the absolute right to have an abortion, for whatever reason, until the baby is viable.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Should they have the right to a social abortion on the NHS, at others' expense? I'm just asking the question you understand, but it is a valid question to ask.
I think getting Roe vs Wade overturned is a huge mistake and will lead to women going to back street abortionists. :o
I agree with that.
-
It's a bit more complicated than that. Should they have the right to a social abortion on the NHS, at others' expense? I'm just asking the question you understand, but it is a valid question to ask.I agree with that.
Is that any worse than smokers getting treatment for lung conditions on the NHS?
-
Is that any worse than smokers getting treatment for lung conditions on the NHS?
A lung condition is an illness, whatever caused it. An abortion because the parents don't want a baby at the moment isn't.
-
A lung condition is an illness, whatever caused it. An abortion because the parents don't want a baby at the moment isn't.
Smoking causes lung cancer as well as other conditions, people are advised to give up smoking and if they don't they are putting their health in danger.
-
Smoking causes lung cancer as well as other conditions, people are advised to give up smoking and if they don't they are putting their health in danger.
Obviously, but that has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. If you want to argue for smokers having to pay for their treatment, do so on a new thread.
-
Welcome news from Kansas:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62402625
-
Welcome news from Kansas:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62402625
I agree. :)
-
I think that distinction is complicated by the fact that the embryo has no ability to survive on its own.
A new born baby has no ability to survive on its own.
-
A new born baby has no ability to survive on its own.
Long-term, no, but it's a viable situation (normally). Premature babies, equally can survive with the normal support of parents, and with medical developments we can now improve that support and make earlier births viable in the long-term, but there is a limit. There is a point at which no support we have will turn a birth into a viable long-term prognosis.
O.
-
A new born baby has no ability to survive on its own.
Perhaps I should have been clearer - while a new born baby cannot survive on its own any number of people can provide the baby with the conditions it needs to survive, not necessarily the mother. That isn't the case for an embryo - which can only survive with the support of a single person, the mother. No other person can substitute for the mother and therefore the views and choices of the mother are paramount in a manner that wouldn't be the case after the baby is born.
-
There is a point at which no support we have will turn a birth into a viable long-term prognosis.
That is true - and it doesn't just apply to babies - as we are seeing with Archie Battersby, the settled medical opinion is that due to the loss of brain stem function that there is no viable long-term prognosis and therefore the legal opinion is that it is in Archie's best interests for life sustaining support to be withdrawn.
-
Perhaps I should have been clearer - while a new born baby cannot survive on its own any number of people can provide the baby with the conditions it needs to survive, not necessarily the mother. That isn't the case for an embryo - which can only survive with the support of a single person, the mother. No other person can substitute for the mother and therefore the views and choices of the mother are paramount in a manner that wouldn't be the case after the baby is born.
For the first nine months of a baby's life the support needed is automated. The mother does not need to anything apart from endure the physical and mental discomfort of pregnancy. And as you correctly point out, once the baby is born any number of people can provide the baby with the conditions it needs to survive,
-
For the first nine months of a baby's life the support needed is automated. The mother does not need to anything apart from endure the physical and mental discomfort of pregnancy. And as you correctly point out, once the baby is born any number of people can provide the baby with the conditions it needs to survive,
YE GODS AB, you might feel rather differently if you were capable of getting pregnant and had no wish to have a child, especially if it was the result of being raped! :o
-
For the first nine months of a baby's life the support needed is automated. The mother does not need to anything apart from endure the physical and mental discomfort of pregnancy. And as you correctly point out, once the baby is born any number of people can provide the baby with the conditions it needs to survive,
'The mother does not need to anything apart from endure the physical and mental discomfort of pregnancy. ' Apart from is doing a fuck of a lot of heavy lifting there. Feels like deep misogyny.
-
You were once a zygote
Correct me if I misunderstand but in AB's reality....
"You" are a "soul" which "resides" not in this physical universe and only "visits" here when you are conscious in oder to basically make decisions based on an interaction with physical brain inputs?
I have questions once/if that can be agreed as your position.
-
I'm not up to date with this. Is Roe v Wade being overturned? I'm aware people have wanted it overturned but I can't see it happening. I hope not!
-
For the first nine months of a baby's life the support needed is automated. The mother does not need to anything apart from endure the physical and mental discomfort of pregnancy. And as you correctly point out, once the baby is born any number of people can provide the baby with the conditions it needs to survive,
That's easy for you to say, given you will never experience pregnancy or childbirth. The closest you will ever come to feeling any of the pain or challenges of pregnancy and childbirth is seeing someone you care about suffering or possibly dying. Women on the other hand actually have to go through the experience - they don't just get to walk away or watch from the sidelines like you.
I can see how in the past people could be dismissive about the risks and hardships of pregnancy - society was dismissive about lots of hardships that people faced and indifferent to the risk of death if they thought it served the needs of others. We routinely had conscription for men to serve as canon-fodder but values have changed in the last 50 years in many places, whereby conscription ended and the rights and freedoms of individuals to not be forced to risk their well-being became more important in many different aspects of life. Though many of our governments still enact policies that kill/ harm people in other countries if it serves certain social, economic or political interests. But you being so dismissive of the burden of pregnancy on women does not make for a persuasive argument against abortion.
The inequality of the burden faced by mothers will make many women see abortion as the best available option for them despite the sad death of the foetus. You have suggested no solutions for this unequal burden on women compared to men. Your prioritisation of the life of the foetus over the well-being of the pregnant mother is arbitrary. Not sure if it's actually down to your religion as currently many Catholics in this survey seem to be persuaded that that it is more moral to support the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion rather than being forced to continue with their pregnancy and the associated risks to their well-being. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/20/8-key-findings-about-catholics-and-abortion/
Given the unequal burden, it's not surprising that a lot of people came to the conclusion that it is unethical and unjustifiable that a woman can be forced to pay the price for decisions made by a man and a woman, or in the case of rape the decisions made solely by a man.
During the 9 months a mother has to do pretty much everything a man has to do, while also enduring all the physical pain and health complications brought on by pregnancy and childbirth - she has to travel to work and perform her job in order to pay her mortgage or rent, bills and other expenses, undertake the usual physically tiring activities of daily life while trying to cope with nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath as the lungs can't expand fully as the baby grows, painful loosening of pelvic ligaments that make it painful to walk or get up, sit down, turn over, possible separation of abdominal muscles. Giving birth can leave many women with severely weakened pelvic floor muscles and a degree of incontinence. She runs the risk of post-natal depression and back pain.
Pregnancy may result in a woman having to drop out of school or university or getting fired or sidelined from her job. Her productivity or learning of new job skills and responsibilities may reduce due to health issues caused by pregnancy or because she has to take maternity leave. This may have long-term implications for her future salary and pension and she may become vulnerable to exploitation. If she is single she may be more harshly judged by society for an unplanned pregnancy compared to the baby's father or may find it difficult to find a new relationship while pregnant, unlike the father. Or she may be stuck in a bad relationship and become more financially dependent on her partner or vulnerable to emotional or physical abuse due to her restricted options, or the hormones and physical changes caused by the pregnancy.
A bigger issue that you have not provided solutions for is the potentially fatal health complications that can come with pregnancy such as gestational diabetes or high blood pressure that can affect the mother’s kidneys, liver, and brain, cause seizures, coma or be fatal. Pregnant women under 20 face significantly higher risk of serious medical complications. Surely you are not unaware of the many reports of how unsafe childbirth is for the mother and the baby due to the potential for unknown complications during childbirth and inadequate health care - see statistics on maternal deaths in the USA https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/30/health/maternal-mortality-statistics-cdc-study/index.html
-
A powerful testimony from Jonathan Roumie (March for life 2023)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYY2-wf-cl0
-
A powerful testimony from Jonathan Roumie (March for life 2023)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYY2-wf-cl0
Yea. Just ignore the valid points made by VG in the previous post and put up a youtube video.
-
A powerful testimony from Jonathan Roumie (March for life 2023)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYY2-wf-cl0
If removing foetuses is so bad, why do you worship a god who in your structure is responsible for the most abortions?
-
Just came across a powerful testimony from an ex abortionist which highlights the harsh reality of what "pro choice" entails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A16gzm9eaa8
-
Just came across a powerful testimony from an ex abortionist which highlights the harsh reality of what "pro choice" entails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A16gzm9eaa8
He's talking about late abortions (22 weeks), which are thankfully rare. This is a typical deceitful trick of the anti-choice lobby: describing how a late abortion is performed, and pretending that that's how all abortions are performed. If you want to make late abortions as rare as possible, make early ones easier to get, and stop forbidding contraception, as your church irresponsibly does. Also, stop telling us that every speech or article you agree with is "powerful" or "brave": we'll be the judges of that!
-
He's talking about late abortions (22 weeks), which are thankfully rare. This is a typical deceitful trick of the anti-choice lobby: describing how a late abortion is performed, and pretending that that's how all abortions are performed. If you want to make late abortions as rare as possible, make early ones easier to get, and stop forbidding contraception, as your church irresponsibly does. Also, stop telling us that every speech or article you agree with is "powerful" or "brave": we'll be the judges of that!
Agree up to the last part. If Alan thinks something is 'stunning and brave' then it seems fair enough to me for him to express that opinion, and for others to disagree.
-
Yea. Just ignore the valid points made by VG in the previous post and put up a youtube video.
All the points made by VG were considering the mother, and they were valid points - but no consideration given to the life of the child in her womb. There are two lives involved and both lives matter.