197 replies to this topic

[Loismustdie]

I read an article a week or so ago and it was talking about parents of autistic and downs syndrome children who were basically up in arms about the result of testing pre- birth for these possible genetic defects, and how that by an alarming rate the end result if the test is positive is abortion. Now, I see where they are coming from- they are parents of children with defects and while it is possible that they are just jealous someone else thought of it first, I would hope the majority feel angry about it because they know that a child sans perfect is still a loveable child, with worth and room to grow and reason to be. So, while thinking about it the first thing I thought about is who benefits? Well, life is easier on the parents, insurance companies save a bundle, but the scientific community loses out- one less case to observe, that much farther away from a possible cure. I guess what struck me first is that if we didn't have those tests, what would we do then? Just kill the baby once we realized it wasn't up to snuff? If not, why not? What's the difference? That's pretty much a quick outline of my thought process, and I just can't see any reason why if it is o.k. to pull the trigger pre-birth it wouldn't be o.k. to do so post. I just can't. Logically there is no reason why you couldn't do it in either scenario, if the one is o.k. the other should be as well.

[brvheart]

I agree, pre or post birth we should be able to kill unwanted children, so as to not be inconvenienced. The real victim is the mother of the unwanted child anyway.ps. Save the whales and the snow owl.

[crowTrobot]

hopefully it won't be long before science comes up with a way to determine exactly when active conscious/self awareness begins in a fetus (which WILL happen one day). when it does that will become the standard cutoff point for "moral" abortions.i don't think you'll find too many people of any belief who would consider it moral to kill a child post-birth for ANY reason short of the child being in hopeless constant agony or something. not even worth mentioning that sarcastically.

[Loismustdie]

crowTrobot, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 3:14 PM, said:

hopefully it won't be long before science comes up with a way to determine exactly when active conscious/self awareness begins in a fetus (which WILL happen one day). when it does that will become the standard cutoff point for "moral" abortions.i don't think you'll find too many people of any belief who would consider it moral to kill a child post-birth for ANY reason short of the child being in hopeless constant agony or something. not even worth mentioning that sarcastically.

The argument in my mind isn't self-awareness, it's life. Life begins immediately at conception. If you could somehow argue that the fetus could end up being a tonka truck instead of a child you may have a leg to stand on, but the only known end result of a fetus is a child. So, whether you take that life at 10 months or 2 days life is still being ended, isn't it?

[crowTrobot]

Loismustdie, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 2:24 PM, said:

The argument in my mind isn't self-awareness, it's life. Life begins immediately at conception. If you could somehow argue that the fetus could end up being a tonka truck instead of a child you may have a leg to stand on, but the only known end result of a fetus is a child. So, whether you take that life at 10 months or 2 days life is still being ended, isn't it?

i would think the key issue for you would be exactly when you think the soul attaches, not when "life" starts. obviously sperm and egg are already alive at conception. obviously bacteria, fungus, flowers, worms, squid, elephants etc. and other presumably soul-free things are alive. why is life in itself the biggest deal?or do you think the soul attaches at the instant of conception and just sits there waiting for months for the brain to develop so it can have something to do?

[Loismustdie]

crowTrobot, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 3:43 PM, said:

i would think the key issue for you would be exactly when you think the soul attaches, not when "life" starts. obviously sperm and egg are already alive at conception. obviously bacteria, fungus, flowers, worms, squid, elephants etc. and other presumably soul-free things are alive. why is life in itself the biggest deal?or do you think the soul attaches at the instant of conception and just sits there waiting for months for the brain to develop so it can have something to do?

Why is life in itself a big deal? Really? I don't know, without you and I aren't having this conversation. Life is a gift. Ask any woman that can't produce it herself, and wants nothing more than to do so. The way you describe it, we might as well all be hunks of meat with a battery. Which is the key issue... I believe that human life is worth more than bacteria. We rate, as a product, higher than bacteria. Truth is it doesn't matter on some level, from this point of view- enough people kill off there young and don't reproduce, the less chance they have of passing on that type of belief system. Eventually that way of thinking dies out. If they want to systematically purge there own ranks, let em. So, in a warped way of thinking that child is actually giving his life for a good cause.

[crowTrobot]

Loismustdie, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 3:20 PM, said:

Which is the key issue... I believe that human life is worth more than bacteria. We rate, as a product, higher than bacteria.

i agree, but i submit that by appealing to hierarchy of life you are making a moral argument based on rationalism that has nothing to do with god or religeon. i though you believed morality doesn't exist without god : )

Quote

Truth is it doesn't matter on some level, from this point of view- enough people kill off there young and don't reproduce, the less chance they have of passing on that type of belief system. Eventually that way of thinking dies out. If they want to systematically purge there own ranks, let em. So, in a warped way of thinking that child is actually giving his life for a good cause.

if by "warped" you mean morally self-contradictory and decidedly unchristian, then yes.

[David_Nicoson]

crowTrobot, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 5:14 PM, said:

hopefully it won't be long before science comes up with a way to determine exactly when active conscious/self awareness begins in a fetus (which WILL happen one day). when it does that will become the standard cutoff point for "moral" abortions.

I don't know that it will make any difference legally. We could make a decent estimate by allowing first trimester abortions but not later. (I think Carl Saigan suggested this.) And we're not doing that really. So I suspect that we'll keep fighting about that even when we can identify precisely "brain birth".

[crowTrobot]

David_Nicoson, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 4:13 PM, said:

I don't know that it will make any difference legally. We could make a decent estimate by allowing first trimester abortions but not later. (I think Carl Saigan suggested this.) And we're not doing that really. So I suspect that we'll keep fighting about that even when we can identify precisely "brain birth".

yes but hopefully by that time we will be fighting for rational moral reasons and not because we're concerned about a 2-day-old fetus having a soul.

[Loismustdie]

crowTrobot, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 4:34 PM, said:

i agree, but i submit that by appealing to hierarchy of life you are making a moral argument based on rationalism that has nothing to do with god or religeon. i though you believed morality doesn't exist without god : )if by "warped" you mean morally self-contradictory and decidedly unchristian, then yes.

Who said morality doesn't exist without god? Many people who have decent morals won't see heaven. Heaven isn't about morality it's about being christ like, about being perfect. You can have a decent moral base and still in no way be perfect as far as God is concerned. How is it unchristian to be able to identify both sides of an issue, and even point out how it may work out for the best, that even in free will that goes against Gods plan Gods will could still be done?

[Loismustdie]

crowTrobot, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 5:22 PM, said:

yes but hopefully by that time we will be fighting for rational moral reasons and not because we're concerned about a 2-day-old fetus having a soul.

Yes, because the real issue is being able to pinpoint the exact time when it's all good to terminate life. Seriously, that is what it comes down to... we are basically trying to just pin it down as to when it would be "morally" o.k. to pull the trigger. How sick is that? Wouldn't it just make more sense to stay on this side of murder, instead of testing the limits?

[crowTrobot]

Loismustdie, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 7:03 PM, said:

Who said morality doesn't exist without god?

you've implied that more than once here in some form or another. sorry if you've changed positions.

Quote

How is it unchristian to be able to identify both sides of an issue, and even point out how it may work out for the best, that even in free will that goes against Gods plan Gods will could still be done?

for someone who values life, reasoning that abortions are good because they weed out a certain class of people who teach that abortions are good is morally circular and contradictory. not to mention it seems racist/elitist in a hitleresque vein.

[crowTrobot]

Loismustdie, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 7:05 PM, said:

Yes, because the real issue is being able to pinpoint the exact time when it's all good to terminate life. Seriously, that is what it comes down to... we are basically trying to just pin it down as to when it would be "morally" o.k. to pull the trigger. How sick is that? Wouldn't it just make more sense to stay on this side of murder, instead of testing the limits?

well abortion is likely always going to be legal, and if it isn't it will go underground. it's not going away. considering that, i think the important issue if/when evidence of "brain birth" is discovered would be public education, allowing informed moral choices to be made - for reasons other than religeous.

[speedz99]

Loismustdie, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 3:20 PM, said:

Why is life in itself a big deal? Really? I don't know, without you and I aren't having this conversation. Life is a gift. Ask any woman that can't produce it herself, and wants nothing more than to do so. The way you describe it, we might as well all be hunks of meat with a battery. Which is the key issue... I believe that human life is worth more than bacteria. We rate, as a product, higher than bacteria. Truth is it doesn't matter on some level, from this point of view- enough people kill off there young and don't reproduce, the less chance they have of passing on that type of belief system. Eventually that way of thinking dies out. If they want to systematically purge there own ranks, let em. So, in a warped way of thinking that child is actually giving his life for a good cause.

You didn't answer the question. You think a human's life is more important than the life of bacteria, trees, cows, dogs, monkeys, dolphins, etc. I assume you have this view because we have "souls". So do you think that the soul is born the moment sperm meets egg? Or maybe it's during the first phase of development..."Within 24-hours after fertilization, the egg begins dividing rapidly into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days. The fertilized egg (called a zygote) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus where its next job is to attach to the endometrium (a process called implantation). First the zygote becomes a solid ball of cells, then it becomes a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst. Before implantation, the blastocyst breaks out of its protective covering. When the blastocyst establishes contact with the endometrium, an exchange of hormones helps the blastocyst attach."Or is it once we reach a certain stage? I suppose it goes without saying that I agree abortion is no worse than cutting down a tree until the moment the embryo's brain (or what has formed of it so far) turns on, so to speak.

[Lolli]

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

[Ouch-8s]

Lolli, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

why not? we let you talk about football and poker...

[BigDMcGee]

Lolli, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 10:10 PM, said:

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

True

[speedz99]

Ouch-8s, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 10:16 PM, said:

why not? we let you talk about football and poker...

Quote

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

If a woman wants to abort a 7 month old fetus because she suddenly decides she doesn't want to deal with changing diapers, I think that's something I should be allowed to have an opinion about. So I can at least understand why anti-abortion folks think they should have a say in what you do with your body, even though I think that their line is absolutely ridiculous.

[Lolli]

[/quote][quote name='Ouch-8s' post='2281971' date='Wednesday, November 28th, 2007, 12:16 AM']why not? we let you talk about football and poker...[/quote]Thats because I know what the hell Im talking about.[quote name='speedz99' post='2281949' date='Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 11:50 PM']I suppose it goes without saying that I agree abortion is no worse than cutting down a tree until the moment the embryo's brain (or what has formed of it so far) turns on, so to speak.[/quote]Like I said, men shouldnt discuss abortions.Why the hell am I in the religion forum in the first place? This place creeps me out. I now know why.

[speedz99]

Lolli, on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007, 11:00 PM, said:

Thats because I know what the hell Im talking about.Like I said, men shouldnt discuss abortions.Why the hell am I in the religion forum in the first place? This place creeps me out. I now know why.

Dude, I'm sorry woman are whiny bitches that are overly sensitive about being living incubators.* Is taking the morning after pill slightly upsetting? Probably. Is it "destroying life" any more than when you accidentaly step on an ant? Fuck no.***joke**not a joke