An abortion that should have happened

[shereads]

This morning's news in South Florida was that a newborn baby had been thrown from a moving car.

The truth, just now being reported, is that the "good samaritan" who reported the crime and brought the baby to the police, was in fact the mother. A mentally disturbed, emotionally traumatized woman who made up this bizarre story because she was terrified to reveal herself as a mother rejecting a child. How many more women, incapable of thinking rationally - or having passed the 3-day "window" where it's legal here for a woman to leave a newborn at a hospital, fire station or police station with no questions asked - decide to tough it out and raise their unwanted babies themselves.

I'm not suggesting that she should have been forced to have an abortion; I believe in the sanctity of one's own body as the most essential freedom. I do think that we're headed backward instead of forward in solving the problems of unwanted pregnancy by demonizing abortion; by denying funding to planned parenthood clinics that provide information about abortion along with birth control; and by replacing sex education in the schools with "abstinency-only" programs that lie to kids about the benefits of birth control.

Life is, and isn't, the best gift anyone can give.

 

[Guest]

I wouldn't go that far about "she-who-trolls-CV".

I'm not a hater.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

This morning's news in South Florida was that a newborn baby had been thrown from a moving car.

The truth, just now being reported, is that the "good samaritan" who reported the crime and brought the baby to the police, was in fact the mother. A mentally disturbed, emotionally traumatized woman who made up this bizarre story because she was terrified to reveal herself as a mother rejecting a child. How many more women, incapable of thinking rationally - or having passed the 3-day "window" where it's legal here for a woman to leave a newborn at a hospital, fire station or police station with no questions asked - decide to tough it out and raise their unwanted babies themselves.

I'm not suggesting that she should have been forced to have an abortion; I believe in the sanctity of one's own body as the most essential freedom. I do think that we're headed backward instead of forward in solving the problems of unwanted pregnancy by demonizing abortion; by denying funding to planned parenthood clinics that provide information about abortion along with birth control; and by replacing sex education in the schools with "abstinency-only" programs that lie to kids about the benefits of birth control.

Life is, and isn't, the best gift anyone can give.

Okay. But why, exactly, is it that the abortion should have taken place, instead of the child being legally left during the three day period? It's not necessary the best option in the world, but it is an option, a second option, that some may feel is better than aborting the fetus.

I guess all I'm trying to point out is that there are other options that can solve such problems than abortion. Quite often, people imply that simply having the child is a better choice, ignoring many and sometimes all of the hardships and impossibilities that even a stable and capable woman might encounter, nonetheless this woman in the article who clearly isn't capable. As often as that, however, are scenarios like this one, where abortion is noted as a better choice, almost a save all scenario, when real-life situations, neither answer is so simple to come by, or as "right" an answer as it may seem.

Rambled a bit. Hopefully not too far off-track.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

And in an unrelated story....

Or is it???Pregnant woman kills knife weilding attacker...

So one woman is trying to dump her baby because she didn't want her family to know she was pregnant and another woman is willing to kill a woman and steal her her baby so people won't know she wasn't pregnant.

Baffling, huh?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: An abortion that should have happened

Okay. But why, exactly, is it that the abortion should have taken place, instead of the child being legally left during the three day period? It's not necessary the best option in the world, but it is an option, a second option, that some may feel is better than aborting the fetus.

I guess all I'm trying to point out is that there are other options that can solve such problems than abortion. Quite often, people imply that simply having the child is a better choice, ignoring many and sometimes all of the hardships and impossibilities that even a stable and capable woman might encounter, nonetheless this woman in the article who clearly isn't capable. As often as that, however, are scenarios like this one, where abortion is noted as a better choice, almost a save all scenario, when real-life situations, neither answer is so simple to come by, or as "right" an answer as it may seem.

Rambled a bit. Hopefully not too far off-track.

Q_C

I think she meant that the mother SHOULD have been an abortion.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

And in an unrelated story....

Or is it???Pregnant woman kills knife weilding attacker...

So one woman is trying to dump her baby because she didn't want her family to know she was pregnant and another woman is willing to kill a woman and steal her her baby so people won't know she wasn't pregnant.

Baffling, huh?

Related in a way, since both women (or all three, if you count the woman noted at the end fo the article in noting a past case with similarities) are mental.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

I read all the time about abandoned babies. And now more and more I read about stolen babies.


I think someone needs to pool some resources.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: An abortion that should have happened

If the mental illness is passed down to her child, nobody wins. At best, the baby is now in the foster care system where he will remain until the courts decide whether to terminate parental rights. Had he not been born at all, he wouldn't have anything to worry about. As it is, he's off to a lousy start in an overcrowded world.

My point is that abortion is a legal medical procedure, infinitely safer than the illegal kind, arguably safer than pregnancy and childbirth particularly for young girls; and that it is not a sign of moral weakness for a woman to choose not to bring a child into the world. On the contrary, in a world where 30,000 children a day die of malnutrition-related disease, it might be a moral kindness to terminate a pregnancy as soon as the results of a sexual accident are known.

The best solution in this country would have been over-the-counter sales of the day-after pill, labeled "the abortion pill" and attacked as baby-murder by the right to life movement, even though it does what nature itself frequently does with fertilized eggs: prevents attachment to the uterine wall, so that pregnancy, by the medical definition, never takes place. To placate the right to life movement in the year before his reelection, Bush assured that the FDA didn't approve over-the-counter sales of the day-after pill. For woman who lack the means, the courage or the mental stability to visit a doctor or talk to an adoption counselor - women just like the one in the news story, who was incapable of thinking rationally about her pregnancy and its consequences - a trip to the drug store after an "accident" that might have resulted in conception would be a far less intimidating option than acknowledging to strangers what she was afraid to tell her own family.

Human life begins when a human being with feelings and fears comes into existence. Every pregnant woman is such a person. But the social stigma that we increasingly attach to abortion - and now, even to birth control among young people - sends the message that these woman are pariahs if they choose their own "selfish" needs over those of the new cell division taking place in their bodies. Telling women that a child exists from the moment the sperm meets the egg and offers to buy her a drink, is a bizarre lie, with consequences the right-to-lifers will never have to face.

Okay. But why, exactly, is it that the abortion should have taken place, instead of the child being legally left during the three day period? It's not necessary the best option in the world, but it is an option, a second option, that some may feel is better than aborting the fetus.

I guess all I'm trying to point out is that there are other options that can solve such problems than abortion. Quite often, people imply that simply having the child is a better choice, ignoring many and sometimes all of the hardships and impossibilities that even a stable and capable woman might encounter, nonetheless this woman in the article who clearly isn't capable. As often as that, however, are scenarios like this one, where abortion is noted as a better choice, almost a save all scenario, when real-life situations, neither answer is so simple to come by, or as "right" an answer as it may seem.

Rambled a bit. Hopefully not too far off-track.

Q_C

 

[brightlyiburn]

Guess I'm a sinner.
But there are a lot of reasons I would choose not to bring a child into the world. If I wasn't capable emotionally, I would not. If I didn't have the money and couldn't give the child a good life, I would not. If I was raped and got pregnant, I would not.
Could you imagine that? One day your child is going to ask who their daddy is...would you lie? If you lied, they could still find out someday, and then they'd know you lied. If you tell them the truth, they'll always feel like the product of violence, like you never really wanted them but had them because you felt obligated. How could you not feel that way, if you knew you were concieved by rape? I would hate it if I knew my birth had completely ruined someone's life.
People give the whole adoption spiel, but it's crap. Assuming you're capable of giving the child away after the nine months, much of the time you can't be sure where the child is going. One of my exs was adopted. Aside from suffering abuse in his first foster home, he lost his sister to suicide (because she was raped by her foster father), he never felt like he fit in with his family. Which turned him into someone who was emotionally abusive to all the people in his life. I could never give up a child if there was the remotest chance of that happening. I'd rather not have the child at all.
Enough bad shit happens to children in this world already. No need to purposefully risk doing more harm.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Re: Re: Re: An abortion that should have happened

If the mental illness is passed down to her child, nobody wins. At best, the baby is now in the foster care system where he will remain until the courts decide whether to terminate parental rights. Had he not been born at all, he wouldn't have anything to worry about. As it is, he's off to a lousy start in an overcrowded world.

My point is that abortion is a legal medical procedure, infinitely safer than the illegal kind, arguably safer than pregnancy and childbirth particularly for young girls; and that it is not a sign of moral weakness for a woman to choose not to bring a child into the world. On the contrary, in a world where 30,000 children a day die of malnutrition-related disease, it might be a moral kindness to terminate a pregnancy as soon as the results of a sexual accident are known.

This all seems pessimistic to an extreme, but you're allowed that. We all are. The world can be a fucked up place. It can also be a good place at times, and being a part of it gives us the chance to make it better for others, notably our children. Yes, I'm stating an opinion, but so did you. Basically, we have no idea what a particualr child would wind up like, happy or unhappy, healthy or not. There's no real way to know on the whole, and the things we can figure out are not necessarily the best ways to measure things. A child with such disadvantages may benefit if given the opportunity to live with good foster parents and given the proper medical treatment for whatever illness, mental or otherwise. Optimistic, yes, but we can't really point in either direction and say this would or that would happen. We don't know. There are many children in foster care that are perfectly happy, as well as many who aren't.
One last thing before I go on; you said this:
"Had he not been born at all, he wouldn't have anything to worry about."
Had he/she not been born, they'd have nothing to worry about. Neither would I or you if we hadn't been born. It's kind of a circular statement. We'd be rid of all the bad things, but the good things, what we're glad we experienced, goes away with it. More than that, there'd be no us to be better off. It's all tied together.
Life sucks sometimes (most of the time, in fact), but personally I like the idea that I have choices to make and a chance to be happy, even when I'm not.

The best solution in this country would have been over-the-counter sales of the day-after pill, labeled "the abortion pill" and attacked as baby-murder by the right to life movement, even though it does what nature itself frequently does with fertilized eggs: prevents attachment to the uterine wall, so that pregnancy, by the medical definition, never takes place. To placate the right to life movement in the year before his reelection, Bush assured that the FDA didn't approve over-the-counter sales of the day-after pill. For woman who lack the means, the courage or the mental stability to visit a doctor or talk to an adoption counselor - women just like the one in the news story, who was incapable of thinking rationally about her pregnancy and its consequences - a trip to the drug store after an "accident" that might have resulted in conception would be a far less intimidating option than acknowledging to strangers what she was afraid to tell her own family.

Now we're getting closer to agreeance. On the first part anyway. The "day after pill" is basically the same as at least some (not sure how many) of the birth control pills already out there, preventing implantation on the uteran wall. To advocate one is almost automatically to advocate the other (or perhaps I'm oversimplifying). But, not everyone agress that it is "right" to use them.
On the second point, that I disagree with you on. The woman in the article was unstable, but that doesn't mean she would have been stable without the child in the picture. The true problem in her instance still exists. Aborting the child wouldn't have solved her issues, or ensured that she didn't injure anyone else. Especially when you consider the extreme levels of stress abortion can cause. Yes, you remove the child from the equation if she aborts, but there are other ways to remove said child, and as you stated, abortion is legal, and you can't force her. She chose to have the child, in one way or another.

A note more to the point of what I said the first time: Why note specifically abortion when you could have said, "something the 'day after pill' could have avoided?"

Human life begins when a human being with feelings and fears comes into existence. Every pregnant woman is such a person. But the social stigma that we increasingly attach to abortion - and now, even to birth control among young people - sends the message that these woman are pariahs if they choose their own "selfish" needs over those of the new cell division taking place in their bodies. Telling women that a child exists from the moment the sperm meets the egg and offers to buy her a drink, is a bizarre lie, with consequences the right-to-lifers will never have to face.

You've drawn a line here and said that life does not begin at conception. Prove this and you've made a point, but without factual evidence leading to an undeniable conclusion of such, you've simply chosen a viewpoint on an issue that everyone has the right to choose a viewpoint (agreeing or disagreeing with yours or mine or anyone else's) on. And in order to classify others as liars for stating life begins at conception, you not only have to prove the information wrong, but prove they don't believe it. It sounds a little picky, I know, but consider this: If one of us believes in God and the other does not, and we state as such, do we have the right to call one another liars? It's a more harsh accusation than it may seem, and it isn't fair to allow the strength of your belief in a particular viewpoint to rationalize accusations toward others for disagreeing.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing your viewpoints, or your right to them. I respect everyone's right to their own beliefs, especially on topics like this one. But we have to remember that things like this will always happen, and there will never be a perfect world, or a perfect part of an imperfect world.

Rambling yet again (can I officially call it a hobby now?),

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Guess I'm a sinner.
But there are a lot of reasons I would choose not to bring a child into the world. If I wasn't capable emotionally, I would not. If I didn't have the money and couldn't give the child a good life, I would not. If I was raped and got pregnant, I would not.
Could you imagine that? One day your child is going to ask who their daddy is...would you lie? If you lied, they could still find out someday, and then they'd know you lied. If you tell them the truth, they'll always feel like the product of violence, like you never really wanted them but had them because you felt obligated. How could you not feel that way, if you knew you were concieved by rape? I would hate it if I knew my birth had completely ruined someone's life.
People give the whole adoption spiel, but it's crap. Assuming you're capable of giving the child away after the nine months, much of the time you can't be sure where the child is going. One of my exs was adopted. Aside from suffering abuse in his first foster home, he lost his sister to suicide (because she was raped by her foster father), he never felt like he fit in with his family. Which turned him into someone who was emotionally abusive to all the people in his life. I could never give up a child if there was the remotest chance of that happening. I'd rather not have the child at all.
Enough bad shit happens to children in this world already. No need to purposefully risk doing more harm.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I don't mean to imply anyone said I was, I'm just clarifying that point.
Two things. you said you would rather not bring the child into the world. Okay. Could you really honestly say that in the position your ex was in, you'd decide it best not to have been born? In nearly anyone's position, can you really say you wouldn't want the chance? It's easy for us to want the best for our kids, even to the extent that we might choose aborting a pregnancy to keep them from inheriting a bad situation or less of a chance than seems likely they'll overcome. We're adults, and protective of children (in general in my case, and probably all of yours too, but especially in terms of our own children) but if it were you, are you sure you wouldn't want the chance?
And when it comes to risk... Hey, life's a risk, every part of it.

Q_C

 

[rgraham666]

Actions have consequences.

Without proper education and the social structure to help the people who, for what ever reason, have problems learning wisdom, people will take actions with bad consequences.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I read all the time about abandoned babies. And now more and more I read about stolen babies.


I think someone needs to pool some resources.

You know, that's a good point. On the other hand, those who steel babies probably aren't much more fit than those who abandon them.

On the other hand, people who want to love and care for a child should be able to adopt kids without so much hassle and cost. Sure, not all of them would end up in the 'perfect' home, but most would be better than being shuffled around in an unloving system that sometimes creates more problems than it solves.

I also don't think children should be removed from there parents unless the state can promise that they will be cared for better. It's better to have a fucked up family than no family at all. On top of that, I dont' think they should have the right to tell someone they are doing it 'wrong' and then go and do it even 'wronger'

end rant.

 

[Guest]

What is the point of forcing someone to carry a baby to term only to find it a day later in the dumpster?

Or in the hospital 5 mo. later having never been home because it is dying of birth defects?

Or 8, 10, and 12 years later starved to death in a house with no heat?

Or 14 years later locked in the bedroom and sexually abused. Or in a dog kennel in an outbuilding?


Or worse yet, you find them at 40, lost and confused because they were born with severe mental defficiencies and physical deformaties and now their parents have died and they helpless and unable to care of themselves.

Just who are you to sentance those people to life?

Now don't get me wrong, I believe every child deserves a chance. and any life lost is sad. But when the odds are severely stacked against them....

What is worse? The embryo that never knew life? Or the ones that did?

 

[brightlyiburn]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I don't mean to imply anyone said I was, I'm just clarifying that point.
Two things. you said you would rather not bring the child into the world. Okay. Could you really honestly say that in the position your ex was in, you'd decide it best not to have been born? In nearly anyone's position, can you really say you wouldn't want the chance? It's easy for us to want the best for our kids, even to the extent that we might choose aborting a pregnancy to keep them from inheriting a bad situation or less of a chance than seems likely they'll overcome. We're adults, and protective of children (in general in my case, and probably all of yours too, but especially in terms of our own children) but if it were you, are you sure you wouldn't want the chance?
And when it comes to risk... Hey, life's a risk, every part of it.

Q_C

There are plenty of days even now I wish I wasn't born.
But then, imagine my dilemma. There's the chance I could pass my Aspergers down to my child, if I were to have one. Knowing what I've gone through, I couldn't stand to watch my own child go through that.
One of the many reasons that I am seriously considering adoption if I decide I want children someday.
Besides which...if you believe in the soul, shouldn't you believe that the child will be born anyway, just not as yours? I mean, you know...why waste a perfectly good soul, right? So I mean...in effect, you wouldn't be taking away the child's chance to live, just to live as yours. Which might be for the better.
But then, my mind does tend to chase itself in circles like that...

 

[Pure]

Sher said,

The best solution in this country would have been over-the-counter sales of the day-after pill, labeled "the abortion pill" and attacked as baby-murder by the right to life movement, even though it does what nature itself frequently does with fertilized eggs: prevents attachment to the uterine wall, so that pregnancy, by the medical definition, never takes place. To placate the right to life movement in the year before his reelection, Bush assured that the FDA didn't approve over-the-counter sales of the day-after pill.

As 'quiet cool' mentioned, the 'morning after pill' is simply (mostly) an estrogen-form, exactly as used in birth control, except the dosage. So the debate is between those who want a dr to be involved and those who don't want that requirment. A dr. in an emerg room would also do. The stuff has been legally available for decades, although its morning after use was a bit 'off label.'
There is no easy way to make it legally unavailable, since, at worst, a dr. could say, ''go get a pack of these b.c. pills, and take two, and then two according to the following schedule." Incidentally it can be used for about 72 hrs post coitus.

While I don't doubt that this might be called 'abortion pill' by some yahoos, it's important to NOT confuse the above with RU 486 (mefipristone), widely used in Europe and still not much available in the States. This IS an abortion pill (reasonably effective and safe, usable in the first two months of a pregnancy), and the US gov is trying to delay its entry at all. A rather different issue. See info at

http://www.abortionclinic.org/topics/articles/article_73.asp

(The mechanism by which a woman would get it, dr., or pharmacist is a related question, but not the main one on the agenda in the US.)

 

[stonedfox]

I had an abortion when I was 18 and it was probably the smartest thing I ever did. I am fucked up in the head and I would have been a terrible mother. I am glad that in the US we still have means to terminate pregnancies, but they could make it a little easier to accomplish. At sometime in the not-so-distant future, we're just going to flat run out of room on Earth. And let's face it, I think we've all met at least one person who honestly is just a waste of space. If more people could more easily NOT have children by whatever means, then there would be more room for more people with purpose.

I like to ramble too.

 

[Pure]

Quiet said,

You've [Sher has] drawn a line here and said that life does not begin at conception. Prove this and you've made a point, but without factual evidence leading to an undeniable conclusion of such, you've simply chosen a viewpoint on an issue that everyone has the right to choose a viewpoint (agreeing or disagreeing with yours or mine or anyone else's) on. And in order to classify others as liars for stating life begins at conception, you not only have to prove the information wrong, but prove they don't believe it.

Quiet, this is not quite a simple factual question. Nor is it simply 'everyone has a right to choose a viewpoint.' One can look at the question historically, and find, for instance, that the 'human being at conception view' was NOT found much in the Catholic church till maybe a couple hundred years ago. The Church father St. Thomas Acquinas argued that 'quickening' (which he called infusion of soul) was the crucial time at ca. 20 weeks.

If I may use an analogy, is it a scientific question (re humans) "When does adulthood begin?" Is it settlable by facts?
Is it 14, or 18 or 21. Is it simply the onset of the capacity to procreate? If so, when is 'adolescence'? Science can give facts, and people have to make decisions; no one says it's adulthood at 5 or only at 50.

Some lines drawn by science are fairly arbitrary within limits; there are no facts to the *prove* the point. It's more, "Let's just say..." Examples: Is a platypus a mammal? Is Pluto a planet? Is a virus a 'living creature.'?

When you have a 'human life' or--as the debate used to be--a 'person' is going to be decided by society. Most of US society does NOT think a fertilized egg is a person, else those destroying it would be murderers. But the Roe v Wade numbers are not etched in stone, or provable by science, either. We can simply say that MOST people agree that after about 20-26 weeks, you've got a qualitatively different moral situation on hand.

Further, even if a foetus were a person, some abortions would be justifiable--i.e., those involving the life of the mother. Since the law recognizes cases of 'choosing' one life or another. The Catholic church believe they have an argument for choosing the baby's life (hence banning 99.9 % of abortions), but that has to be more theological than scientific.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Re: An abortion that should have happened

I'll take the "extreme levels of stress that abortion causes" over the extreme stress of being forced to give up my body for nine months and endure the health risks associated with child labor - a fact of life that we're just a Supreme Court justice and a few years away from making fact in this country. Of course, the only women who will be forced to give birth will be the ones who can't afford to leave the country for safe, legal abortions. Until the religious right catches on and we end up taking away the passports of pregnant woman to protect their fetuses.

I'm not sayiing the woman "would have been stable without the child." I'm saying that an unstable woman should not have had a child, and that the current political climate is in part to blame for the fact that she did.

Abortions are UP under the Bush administration. Cuts in social spending, "abstinence only" programs that actively discourage kids from considering birth control, the elimination of abortion as an option for women at military hospitals, the withdrawal of funding from Planned Parenthoot clinics, the increasingly vocal and powerful movement to equate a fertilized ovum with a cuddly infant - Imagine being mentally challenged and on your own and pregnant, and now dealing with all of that crap on top of it. Good luck, lady, you're on your own. And good luck to the newest addition to a planet filled to overflowing with underfed, underloved children.

This all seems pessimistic to an extreme, but you're allowed that. We all are. The world can be a fucked up place. It can also be a good place at times, and being a part of it gives us the chance to make it better for others, notably our children. Yes, I'm stating an opinion, but so did you. Basically, we have no idea what a particualr child would wind up like, happy or unhappy, healthy or not. There's no real way to know on the whole, and the things we can figure out are not necessarily the best ways to measure things. A child with such disadvantages may benefit if given the opportunity to live with good foster parents and given the proper medical treatment for whatever illness, mental or otherwise. Optimistic, yes, but we can't really point in either direction and say this would or that would happen. We don't know. There are many children in foster care that are perfectly happy, as well as many who aren't.
One last thing before I go on; you said this:
"Had he not been born at all, he wouldn't have anything to worry about."
Had he/she not been born, they'd have nothing to worry about. Neither would I or you if we hadn't been born. It's kind of a circular statement. We'd be rid of all the bad things, but the good things, what we're glad we experienced, goes away with it. More than that, there'd be no us to be better off. It's all tied together.
Life sucks sometimes (most of the time, in fact), but personally I like the idea that I have choices to make and a chance to be happy, even when I'm not.

[/B]

Now we're getting closer to agreeance. On the first part anyway. The "day after pill" is basically the same as at least some (not sure how many) of the birth control pills already out there, preventing implantation on the uteran wall. To advocate one is almost automatically to advocate the other (or perhaps I'm oversimplifying). But, not everyone agress that it is "right" to use them.
On the second point, that I disagree with you on. The woman in the article was unstable, but that doesn't mean she would have been stable without the child in the picture. The true problem in her instance still exists. Aborting the child wouldn't have solved her issues, or ensured that she didn't injure anyone else. Especially when you consider the extreme levels of stress abortion can cause. Yes, you remove the child from the equation if she aborts, but there are other ways to remove said child, and as you stated, abortion is legal, and you can't force her. She chose to have the child, in one way or another.

A note more to the point of what I said the first time: Why note specifically abortion when you could have said, "something the 'day after pill' could have avoided?"



You've drawn a line here and said that life does not begin at conception. Prove this and you've made a point, but without factual evidence leading to an undeniable conclusion of such, you've simply chosen a viewpoint on an issue that everyone has the right to choose a viewpoint (agreeing or disagreeing with yours or mine or anyone else's) on. And in order to classify others as liars for stating life begins at conception, you not only have to prove the information wrong, but prove they don't believe it. It sounds a little picky, I know, but consider this: If one of us believes in God and the other does not, and we state as such, do we have the right to call one another liars? It's a more harsh accusation than it may seem, and it isn't fair to allow the strength of your belief in a particular viewpoint to rationalize accusations toward others for disagreeing.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing your viewpoints, or your right to them. I respect everyone's right to their own beliefs, especially on topics like this one. But we have to remember that things like this will always happen, and there will never be a perfect world, or a perfect part of an imperfect world.

Rambling yet again (can I officially call it a hobby now?),

Q_C [/B]

 

[shereads]

Quiet said,

You've [Sher has] drawn a line here and said that life does not begin at conception. Prove this and you've made a point, but without factual evidence leading to an undeniable conclusion of such, you've simply chosen a viewpoint on an issue that everyone has the right to choose a viewpoint (agreeing or disagreeing with yours or mine or anyone else's) on. And in order to classify others as liars for stating life begins at conception, you not only have to prove the information wrong, but prove they don't believe it.

Quiet, this is not quite a simple factual question. Nor is it simply 'everyone has a right to choose a viewpoint.' One can look at the question historically, and find, for instance, that the 'human being at conception view' was NOT found much in the Catholic church till maybe a couple hundred years ago. The Church father St. Thomas Acquinas argued that 'quickening' (which he called infusion of soul) was the crucial time at ca. 20 weeks.

If I may use an analogy, is it a scientific question (re humans) "When does adulthood begin?" Is it settlable by facts?
Is it 14, or 18 or 21. Is it simply the onset of the capacity to procreate? If so, when is 'adolescence'? Science can give facts, and people have to make decisions; no one says it's adulthood at 5 or only at 50.

Some lines drawn by science are fairly arbitrary within limits; there are no facts to the *prove* the point. It's more, "Let's just say..." Examples: Is a platypus a mammal? Is Pluto a planet? Is a virus a 'living creature.'?

When you have a 'human life' or--as the debate used to be--a 'person' is going to be decided by society. Most of US society does NOT think a fertilized egg is a person, else those destroying it would be murderers. But the Roe v Wade numbers are not etched in stone, or provable by science, either. We can simply say that MOST people agree that after about 20-26 weeks, you've got a qualitatively different moral situation on hand.

Further, even if a foetus were a person, some abortions would be justifiable--i.e., those involving the life of the mother. Since the law recognizes cases of 'choosing' one life or another. The Catholic church believe they have an argument for choosing the baby's life (hence banning 99.9 % of abortions), but that has to be more theological than scientific.

The late Carl Sagan wrote the most sensible theory of "when human life begins" that I've ever read. He pointed out that when we remove a "brain dead" person from life support, we are determining, as a society that the presence of a living human body doesn't consititute the human being. Until the latter third of fetal development, there is no human pattern of brain waves; there is only a living human body.

To say that a fetus before that stage can be murdered is equivalent to saying that everyone in this forum who has consented to or requested the removal of a loved one from life support has committed murder.

The only difference between the "brain dead" adult and the fetus before it achieves measurable, human brain function is that the fetus has the potential to develop into a fully functioning person, and short of a miracle, the brain-dead adult does not. So society makes choices. Painful ones, sometimes; deeply personal, always. I think it's the height of cruelty to suggest that government has the right to deny any of us that choice; in the case of abortion, it's more heinous because to remove the choice, you must take command of the woman's body and force her to incubate.

If potential for human life is the measure of human life, then every sperm really is sacred because each one has the potential to create a unique life.

Sagan's definition just happens to mesh with what the medical community and pro-choice society have intuitively believed all along: that a third trimester fetus is worth protecting at all costs except the life of the mother. Before that, you have a potential baby, in stages of development that, at the earliest, are indistinguishable from any other cell division. That's not worth risking a woman's freedom for. I maintain that her freedom is as important as her health and her life.

 

[Guest]

bump