Christopher Moore Home Page

The bulletin board is currently closed to new posts. Instead, why not check out Chris' Twitter and Facebook pages?


bbs.chrismoore.com Forum Index -> Politics

Abortion
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
  Author    Thread This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
simba major



Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 626
Abortion  Reply with quote  

Okay, we tippy-toed around it in News and Noise, shall we look at it here?

I don't think there's any easy answer to be had.

I don't buy the uncompromising right to lifer's argument that anything in the womb, no matter how undeveloped, has an absolute right to life. I don't think that a fertillized egg has any consciousness. It will not suffer if aborted. And if it is the product of incest or rape, it should, by any logic, have been there in the first place. So I have absolutely no problem with morning after pills.

I don't buy the position fo the uncompromising pro-choicer, either, that as long as the fetus is within the womb, it is the mother's sole choice whether it lives or dies. Obviously, it's wrong to kill a baby which has been born, so what about aborting a baby the day before it is born. Must be wrong, too.

So where is "the line".

That's an incredibly hrd question to answer. I certainly don't have one.

The closest I can get to an answer is that it's a question of competing rights. The woman has rights, and at some point, the fetus acquires them, too. When? I don't know.

Some people think that abortion is wrong if the fetus is sufficiently developed that it can live outside the womb. I see the logic, but I don't find it satisfying.

How about when the fetus has brainwaves? Do we know exactly when that is? A hearbeat? When?

Like I said, I don't know the answer.

All I do know is that the answer that we come up with defines us.

And we must be as sure as possible about what that answer should be.
_________________
There is nowhere I would be than right here, right now, doing exactly what I'm doing.

Post Wed May 26, 2010 6:17 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Ginjg



Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 6617
Location: Los Angeles
 Reply with quote  

I'm adamantly pro-choice. Yet, I completely object to the barbarous "partial birth abortion". It's unnecessary under any circumstance and should be illegal.

I also believe that there comes a point when termination of a pregnancy and abortion shouldn't be synonymous.

A woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy at any point for any reason - whim or necessity. it's her body, her life.

But fetuses from 20 weeks are at least precariously viable. The doctor's duty shifts then to both woman and baby. All the measures available for preemies should be used for early induced infants. Obviously, such infants would be classifies as "surrendered" for adoption.

It's a more expensive approach, and arguably still barbaric, but exponentially less so. It preserves choice and at least attempts to preserve life.
_________________
To Learn is to Know
To Know is to Love
To Love is our aim

~~~~~~~

Why should we bother with immortality when we are eternal?

Post Wed May 26, 2010 8:42 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
sgt_steve



Joined: 18 Jan 2005
Posts: 5197
Location: Michissippi
 Reply with quote  

I'm mostly with Ginjg. I don't think a 12-week fetus is yet a human being with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, but I'm not absolutely certain. I'm pretty sure a 24-week is a person, but I could be wrong about that, too. In between, there's just no bright line.

In my case, I choose to err on the side of the fetus - I'm highly disinclined to ever support an abortion by me and mine. But I'm not willing to forbid anyone else from having an early-stage abortion.

Late-stage is a different question, especially partial birth abortions. A seven-month fetus, if delivered vaginally, would be considered a baby. But it's not one if aborted? No, I just can't see that.

Post Wed May 26, 2010 8:59 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ginjg



Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 6617
Location: Los Angeles
 Reply with quote  

I'm certain that I recently saw a report of an 18 week preemie that survived, but I can't find a reference. I know that 20 week preemies have. As neonatal science and technology improve, that viability will likely get even earlier.

I personally don't believe that mere financial concerns and personal inconvenience are sufficient reasons for terminating, though they may combine with other more pressing factors to tip the decision.
_________________
To Learn is to Know
To Know is to Love
To Love is our aim

~~~~~~~

Why should we bother with immortality when we are eternal?

Post Wed May 26, 2010 9:29 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
fortune cookie



Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 10534
Location: Easy street
 Reply with quote  

I feel it's up to the person.
Each individual has to make up her mind for herself.
I also feel a doctor should be able to refuse or perform such procedeure as they see fit.
As with everything else you must live with the consequences of your actions.
_________________
We all enter this world in the same way: naked; screaming; soaked in blood.
But if you live your life right, that kind of thing doesn't have to stop there." Dana Gould

Post Wed May 26, 2010 11:31 pm   View user's profile Send private message
zendao42



Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 13570
Location: Somewhere in a galaxy near you
 Reply with quote  

simba major wrote:

Some people think that abortion is wrong if the fetus is sufficiently developed that it can live outside the womb. I see the logic, but I don't find it satisfying.


Well, yeah cuz until then it's actually a parasite
& nobody should force anybody else to keep one or get rid of it-
your body, your universe, you deal with it, just saying...

Post Wed May 26, 2010 11:41 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
simba major



Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 626
 Reply with quote  

zendao42 wrote:
simba major wrote:

Some people think that abortion is wrong if the fetus is sufficiently developed that it can live outside the womb. I see the logic, but I don't find it satisfying.


Well, yeah cuz until then it's actually a parasite
& nobody should force anybody else to keep one or get rid of it-
your body, your universe, you deal with it, just saying...


This is why I find it unsatisfying:

Someone who wants it would call it a life whereas someone who doesn't want it would call it a parasite - very subjective.

What, objectively, is it?
_________________
There is nowhere I would be than right here, right now, doing exactly what I'm doing.

Post Thu May 27, 2010 6:06 am   View user's profile Send private message
mllefifi



Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 8964
Location: Deleoware
 Reply with quote  

As a male, I can't possibly know what it's like to be pregnant, let alone to be pregnant in difficult circumstances (healthwise or otherwise). Even if I were the "biological father," as it were (or other "biological" relative), I wouldn't claim ownership or father's rights or genetic connection or anything like that as a justification to force a birth to take place. Even if my involvement amounts to the 50% of my chromosomes from one of my sperm cells, that's nothing compared to having 100% of one's body providing 24-hour internal room and board for 9 months, with possible deprivation and threats to one's physical or mental health involved as well.

I describe the "pro-life" or anti-abortion position as "pro-forced-birth," because that's the intended result of such a position.

I've heard all the pro-forced-birth talking points, and they fall well short of the mark. (Besides, the public presentation does not work well when the vast majority of the pro-forced-birth spokespersons, politicians, etc., whom I hear or read in the media, are MEN.)

On the religious (specifically Christian) side, these two things stand out:

    (1) A frequent pro-forced-birth claim is that such a position is based on the bible. No matter how sincere this belief may be, however, in this regard it is mistaken at best, and the source of delusion or deception at worst. The bible contains no prohibition on abortion, does not equate abortion with murder, and, above all, maintains no consistent, positive regard for human life, born or unborn. (Indeed, there are graphic sentences in the Old Testament about what should happen to pregnant women and newborn babies who happen to be among god's "enemies," not to mention a passage in the Torah which requires a ritual, conditional abortifacient when a man suspects his pregnant wife of adultery. The fact that "god" is quoted as the source for some of these terrible statements cannot be ignored.)

    (2) Miscarriage, which is mentioned several times in the bible (and usually characterized as a curse), seems to get no attention from the religious pro-forced-birth movement, even though it constitutes abortion (albeit the "natural" or "spontaneous" type, rather than elective or forced). In view of the fact that many miscarriages today can be prevented, the omission or sidelining of miscarriage is quite glaring.
On the physiological side, arguments that bring up the topic of when brain waves begin, or when the heart starts beating, or when sensory nerves can register pain, amount to empty bleeding-heartedness, because they (unintentionally?) put a human fetus on the same level as a born or unborn organism of another species that possesses those same features. In other words, this line of argument makes a born calf as important as a human fetus. If it were so important not to kill something with brain waves, a beating heart, and pain-sensation, we would not be eating veal.

On the financial side, another pro-forced-birth talking-point is to characterize doctors who perform abortions as "profiting" from it. I understand that a routine (early) abortion without complications costs maybe $500, tops (correct me if I'm wrong). But that's nothing compared to how much it would cost to raise a child from birth to the age of majority -- and notice that a "pro-lifer" saves all that money by not adopting an unwanted baby to raise to adulthood. (As a side note, it would seem that the adoption rate by "pro-lifers" must not be significantly different from that of everyone else. If it were, though, you can be sure that "pro-lifers" would be constantly touting their statistical superiority as an adoptive segment of the population.) If it is supposed to be a moral thing to force a pregnant woman to give birth, it should also be a moral thing to force a "pro-lifer" to pay for the pre-natal and birth costs, etc., and to adopt and raise an unwanted baby until the age of 18.

But the most significant reason that the pro-forced-birth ("pro-life") position falls flat is that its rhetorical and practical result renders "life" as valuable and "sacred" only until the point of birth. After birth occurs, your human life apparently is supposed to matter very little, if at all, by comparison -- that is, unless perhaps you're a Terry Schiavo. How convenient that a "pro-lifer" never has to deal with back-talk from a fetus or a person in a persistent vegetative state.
_________________
"If you allow yourself to be offended, then you're a bit of [a] nitwit."
(Christopher Moore)

Post Thu May 27, 2010 7:40 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
simba major



Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 626
 Reply with quote  

Quote:
I describe the "pro-life" or anti-abortion position as "pro-forced-birth," because that's the intended result of such a position.


Semantics are so powerful, yes?

To me the most important question is, "When does the fetus become a person?" To my mind, it happens before birth, although I'm not sure at exactly what point that is.
_________________
There is nowhere I would be than right here, right now, doing exactly what I'm doing.

Post Thu May 27, 2010 8:39 am   View user's profile Send private message
Goudron



Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 2570
Location: near Cleveland OH
 Reply with quote  

mllefifi wrote:

(2) Miscarriage, which is mentioned several times in the bible (and usually characterized as a curse), seems to get no attention from the religious pro-forced-birth movement, even though it constitutes abortion (albeit the "natural" or "spontaneous" type, rather than elective or forced). In view of the fact that many miscarriages today can be prevented, the omission or sidelining of miscarriage is quite glaring.


EXACTLY. Pro-lifers should also be pro fertility. Anything that can be done to make a woman's womb more hospitable to implantation should be the primary objective. I once found data comparing the number of natural vs voluntary abortions. The voluntary number was surprisingly high, but decreasing miscarriages should be a major focus of any pro-life campaign. Since it's "natural" though, it's as God intends, so no attention is paid to it.

I don't try to figure out when personhood is reached (I lean more towards some time after birth than any time in the womb, but what do I know?), for me it's more about potential personhood. Once reaching implantation, chances of coming to term increase dramatically, and because of that significant potential to eventually become a person, we ought not abort said "human life". How you weigh the importance of that potential vs. other factors is something you must decide. I'm certainly not going to tell anyone what they should do with their body, nor would I say they've done anything wrong.

So, if I were pregnant, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't abort, but I don't think I'm going to ever get a chance to make that choice. It's not a choice I can make for anyone else. If I burn in Hell for that stance, I'll see you there.
_________________
White and feathery, yet crude and noisy, the chicken is the backbone of our farming community.

Post Thu May 27, 2010 9:15 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tito



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1203
Location: is everything
 Reply with quote  

buh-bye.

Last edited by Tito on Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

Post Thu May 27, 2010 9:47 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
FattyFattyPorkFace



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 6381
Location: Michigan
 Reply with quote  

Tito wrote:
I can't believe I'm not going to jump in on this one.


Ha! I was just thinking about you on this thread (not in terms of abortion, I'm not horrible) and wondering if I should troll you in or not - I decided not, and then you appeared.

I can't believe I'm not going to jump in either.
_________________
Twitter: jefftunes

Post Thu May 27, 2010 9:50 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tito



Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 1203
Location: is everything
 Reply with quote  

buh-bye.

Last edited by Tito on Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

Post Thu May 27, 2010 10:01 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
simba major



Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 626
 Reply with quote  

[quote="Goudron"]
mllefifi wrote:

(2) Miscarriage, which is mentioned several times in the bible (and usually characterized as a curse), seems to get no attention from the religious pro-forced-birth movement, even though it constitutes abortion (albeit the "natural" or "spontaneous" type, rather than elective or forced). In view of the fact that many miscarriages today can be prevented, the omission or sidelining of miscarriage is quite glaring.


Quote:
EXACTLY.


My feeling is that allowing a spontaeous miscarriage is a different kettle of fish, something like "leaving it in the hands of God." A much different thing than an intentional abortion.
_________________
There is nowhere I would be than right here, right now, doing exactly what I'm doing.

Post Thu May 27, 2010 11:37 am   View user's profile Send private message
FattyFattyPorkFace



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 6381
Location: Michigan
 Reply with quote  

simba major wrote:
Goudron wrote:
mllefifi wrote:

(2) Miscarriage, which is mentioned several times in the bible (and usually characterized as a curse), seems to get no attention from the religious pro-forced-birth movement, even though it constitutes abortion (albeit the "natural" or "spontaneous" type, rather than elective or forced). In view of the fact that many miscarriages today can be prevented, the omission or sidelining of miscarriage is quite glaring.


Quote:
EXACTLY.


My feeling is that allowing a spontaeous miscarriage is a different kettle of fish, something like "leaving it in the hands of God." A much different thing than an intentional abortion.


How ridiculously convenient. Hide behind God's will when it suits us and then claim God gave us free will when it doesn't. Fascinating bullshit once again.

If you have a view on abortion, make it your view - don't hide behind God.
_________________
Twitter: jefftunes

Post Thu May 27, 2010 11:43 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
  Display posts from previous:      
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17  Next

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 
Templates created by Vereor and Ken