Abortion Question

[knapplc]

When it comes down to it - your opinions on this topic only really matter when it impacts you directly. You can believe what you want, take whatever action you want. Nobody should judge another.

But for people who genuinely believe it's murder, how do you say that? You're against a guy robbing a bank and gunning down the bank teller, right? That's murder, and that's wrong.

 

People who believe it's a baby feel the same way. It's just "murder" to them. Doesn't matter if it's a person inside someone else, it's still a person to them, still murder.

 

That's what everyone has to wrap their head around. It's not cut-and-dry.

[NM11046]

Hope you didnt think my response was directed at you Knapp.

 

Dare I ask about thoughts on assisted suicide? My feelings are the same with that and I suppose others feel that too is murder.

 

It comes back to when is it "life" and if I think its life at day 1 or day 100 then I should be able to do what I want before that time. Not murder. So no, not cut and dry but also not anyones decision but the people it impacts directly.

 

And no, shooting the bank teller is not the same (imo) as taking a medicine that prevents an egg from implanting in a uterus. Or having a surgical procedure to remove a cluster of cells. If a fetus could survive on its own outside the womb, then Id say termination is inappropriate, and you could judge. Otherwise no - its apples to oranges.

[knapplc]

I agree with you on a lot of that. Regarding the fetus being viable, what happens 30 years from now when a fertilized egg can be gestated in a device? Is it life at fertilization then? I think at least part of the riddle can be solved then.

 

Assisted suicide, I can't say I'm against it. It's their life, so who am I to force them to live it? I think people should choose life, but I haven't gone through their life. Maybe all lives aren't worth living. And what a horrible thought that is.

[NM11046]

30 years from now there will be no healthcare so we wont have to worry about it. :-)

 

I'm still gonna go with viability. If organs and brain arent developed enough to sustain life its not viable.

 

How about cryogenisis? Are those people living?

[knapplc]

I don't know enough about cryogenesis to say. I will say the definition of life has changed over the years so that's a maybe.

[NM11046]

I cant recall if I posted this yesterday or not - I meant to.

 

This TX rep's bill (recently introduced) was a smart way to try and get some awareness around overstepping personal decisions on healthcare.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/13/satirical-texas-bill-turns-language-of-antiabortion-laws-on-men/ 'Satirical' Texas bill turns language of antiabortion laws on men

[Landlord]

The difference between assisted suicide and abortion occurring at some point when a fetus might be a person is that the fetus is the most vulnerable, helpless human that exists, completely incapable of defending itself, having not been given the chance to live a life.

 

 

Also, no fetus can survive on it's own outside of the wom. Not even non-aborted healthy babies can survive on their own. So if a fetus could survive outside the womb, that would make abortion inappropriate, does that mean that if a baby can't survive outside the womb, it would make infanticide appropriate? Not putting words in your mouth nm just trying to understand the underlying logic at play here.

 

 

Wherever in the process of childbirth that clump of cells gains personhood and becomes a human life (and we have no idea when that is), the moment that happens, opinions on abortion become about way more than your own life, because we're talking about 54 million abortions since 1973. Even if 1% of those were after whatever mysterious moment in time that a person is living inside a woman's womb, that's still 540,000 dead children.

[NM11046]

The difference between assisted suicide and abortion occurring at some point when a fetus might be a person is that the fetus is the most vulnerable, helpless human that exists, completely incapable of defending itself, having not been given the chance to live a life.

 

 

Also, no fetus can survive on it's own outside of the wom. Not even non-aborted healthy babies can survive on their own. So if a fetus could survive outside the womb, that would make abortion inappropriate, does that mean that if a baby can't survive outside the womb, it would make infanticide appropriate? Not putting words in your mouth nm just trying to understand the underlying logic at play here.

 

 

Wherever in the process of childbirth that clump of cells gains personhood and becomes a human life (and we have no idea when that is), the moment that happens, opinions on abortion become about way more than your own life, because we're talking about 54 million abortions since 1973. Even if 1% of those were after whatever mysterious moment in time that a person is living inside a woman's womb, that's still 540,000 dead children.

When one says viability we're talking about the organs and brain being developed enough to function on their own.

[Landlord]

When one says viability we're talking about the organs and brain being developed enough to function on their own.

 

 

But what does that mean? Humans are still unable to function on their own even after being born healthy at term.

 

 

If we're just talking about the first point of a pregnancy where it is possible for a fetus to survive outside of the womb, there's been plenty of fetuses born 22-24 weeks in that have survived. Over half of the states in the country allow abortions after that point in time.

[NM11046]

Lungs being able to inflate deflate. Heart being able to hold a natural rhythm, Basics.

 

I think you're twisting the "function on their own" to mean that they need someone to feed them and etc? I'm talking about natural, basic bodily functions like breathing.

[Landlord]

I think you're twisting the "function on their own" to mean that they need someone to feed them and etc? I'm talking about natural, basic bodily functions like breathing.

 

 

If we're just talking about the first point of a pregnancy where it is possible for a fetus to survive outside of the womb, there's been plenty of fetuses born 22-24 weeks in that have survived. Over half of the states in the country allow abortions after that point in time.

 

 

 

Even then, how many millions of dead babies are we talking about here?

[Ratt Mhule]

Don't Christians believe the aborted baby goes directly to heaven? So doesn't that make them the lucky ones? They get to bypass this world of sin and the possibility of hell and go straight to heaven. At least that is what I believed when I was big into religion.

[NUance]

Don't Christians believe the aborted baby goes directly to heaven? So doesn't that make them the lucky ones? They get to bypass this world of sin and the possibility of hell and go straight to heaven. At least that is what I believed when I was big into religion.

 

Yeah, I've heard that. And I know there are some who believe it. But I'm not sure where this belief came from. If you look at Christianity throughout history with a critical eye, you can come up with all sorts of odd beliefs and superstitions.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

Don't Christians believe the aborted baby goes directly to heaven? So doesn't that make them the lucky ones? They get to bypass this world of sin and the possibility of hell and go straight to heaven. At least that is what I believed when I was big into religion.

 

Yeah, I've heard that. And I know there are some who believe it. But I'm not sure where this belief came from. If you look at Christianity throughout history with a critical eye, you can come up with all sorts of odd beliefs and superstitions.

I like spaghetti!

[84HuskerLaw]

Nearly every abortion kills an unborn child by stopping a beating heart. I imagine a heartbeat can be detected very soon after conception and probably not long after the woman becomes aware she 'may' be pregnant.

 

I believe most states in the U.S. protect the unborn child as a 'person' for purposes of murder in the event that an assault occurs against the woman. Someone punches her in the stomach and she 'aborts' the baby and loses her child can and quite probably would be charged with murder. However, if the Planned Parenthood 'doctor' convinces her to let him suck the 'fetus' (he will call it that instead of unborn baby of course) out of her with a shop vac and some vice grips and a sharp knife, and liberals call that 'healthcare' and a woman's 'right to choose' and perfectly legal and in fact so vital that we need federal tax money to subisidize this a couple million times a year.

 

Abortion by any other name is still the killing of an unborn baby (although the 'partial birth' abortion is actually the killing of a born baby as apparently for the late term 'babies' it is much easier for the abortionist to simply deliver the baby and then kill it on the table rather than have to do all that work in the tight confines of the woman's birth canal and womb. The entire subject is horrible to discuss and needs to be shown weekly on national television around the supper hour so the great bulk of decent, moral and righteous people will honestly know what is going on every day in the name of 'the woman's right to choos'.

 

Morally and ethically and logically, the only truly legal abortion would one where under the fundamental right every person has to self defense, the continued existence of the unborn child in the woman threatens her life. Truly ONLY if the choice is between saving the mother or the baby is there a reasonable argument as to the woman having the 'right to choose' in my view. One can argue also that if it becomes a choice between the value of the mother's life versus the life of the unborn baby, there are plenty of grounds to maintain the baby's life has more social value than the mother. She has already had a good number of years of life and so we must decide whether an innocent child is more worthy of saving that an adult. This gets into some very heavy and difficult 'factual' discussions beyond the scope of this discussion. Self defense of one's own life is really the ONLY justification a woman has for killing her baby, born or not. No different that any other life and death situations. One has the right to defense one-self and the lives of others against the unjustified attack or threat by another person or persons.

 

Protecting one's 'lifestyle' or personal freedom from the responsibility for caring for a child one brought into being is NOT sufficient. The pregnancy that results from rape is tragic and most regrettable to say the least. Whether or not a woman has the right to kill that innocent baby just because the father of the said child is repulsive or reprehensible as a human being is of course another issue. Surely she would not be rendered an outcast from society if she rightfully chose to give the baby up for adoption or otherwise as she ought not be obligated to care for and raise an unwanted child.