Aftermath of Abortion

Sishir Chang - hope you are doing well, we haven't posted each other in a while.

1. parasite- reproduction process ... that's a very bad and very inappropriate analogy. In reproduction you have one life supporting and protecting another life. This is consistent with all nature. Please use a better analogy.

2. "OTOH if the fetus is viable to the point that it can breathe, take in nutrients, and eliminate waste on its own then its care can be transferred to anyone. Yes the now born baby still needs help and will likely die without that its no longer directly biologically drawing off of the mother."- I think this is a very good starting point to think about at what point you have a baby whether inside or outside the womb. Like I said if a premature baby say 3 lbs lives then the viability issues is mute for that case. That isn't my own view of viability but it is a point for discussion when considering solutions.

3. "I raised this in another thread about abortion, think of it this way. If someone were dying of liver failure there have been techniques developed that it is possible to cycle their blood through another persons liver."- Again the analogy does not fit reproduction. All reproduction in nature requires the fertilization and the conception processes. Your analogy works better for adoption if you want to be logical. No one should be forced to adopt any more than you should be forced to offer an organ for a transplant or offer a surrogate liver for the cleansing of another person's blood.

4. "Given that pregnancy is somewhat different situation..."- Exactly, spoken in truth. The fundemental problem with abortion is that it involves pregnancy. If we were debating the merits of organ transplants, soldiers dying in war, or aids prevention we would be in another spectrum of life issues. We are talking about killing unborn children who are not given protection under the law to live.

The abortion debate goes far deeper than defining the rights of an unborn child or the rights of a woman to terminate a pregnancy (remember she is not making a decision about her body- where do you get that?- she is making a decision about the other body insider her) The abortion debate is fundemental to the view of human reproduction and human value and human dignity.

Is it morally right to kill an unborn baby? To take matters of nature into our own hands and kill our own offspring? To take a life and make the justification that it is unseen in the mother's womb and therefore unprotected as a viable human.

It is not really and issue of is the life viable. Any doctor can tell you if the baby is alive or dead. Miscarriages happen all the time and the babies are dead. My wife has had 3 serious miscarriages.

The issue should be is the baby viably human and if it is as humans can we hold that life as precious and dear as our own.

We all made that human journey of conception, and birth. We all have value and we all should provide protection for the life that has been so wonderfully given.

When we can get to the issues of our own human dignity then I will side with those who find each human life a priceless treasure.

 

Not when your definition of the word "kill" extends to something which might or might not qualify as "alive" in the first place.

 

Restriction (or regulation) is far different from an overall ban of a medical procedure.

 

When you use the quote function (by clicking on the quote button right next to the edit button), it puts a quote tag in that looks like this one except it uses square brackets [] rather than the angle brackets <>.

< QUOTE >

Then, at the end of the quote, it ends the tag with < /QUOTE >. Just copy and paste <QUOTE> at the beginning of the passage you usually bold with < b > and then end the section with </QUOTE> at the end of the passage you usually end with < /b >.

Just giving instructions because your quoted replies are hard for me to read sometimes, too.

EDIT: The quote tags should go into square brackets without the spaces I put in (without the spaces, they don't appear in my post).

 

This is really the crux of the argument. Some people hold even a fertilized egg before it begins any growth whatsoever "as precious and dear as our own" and some people simply do not. The people who do think of a fertilized egg this way do not have the right to force this opinion on other people, no matter how strongly they believe that said egg is a "life."

I disagree with you regarding the point brought up about parasites. Once the egg has implanted, it becomes very analagous to a parasite in that it sustains its own "life" by feeding off of the biological processes of the host. As with a fetus, it has separate DNA and is most definitively not part of the hosts body, but the simple fact that it resides in the hosts body gives said host the option of removing it if the means exist to accomplish that task.

Whether the organism we are discussing is a tapeworm or a human fetus is really immaterial if the host (mother) does not want to use her biological processes to continue to feed the parasite (fetus). It is HER choice, not yours.

Again, I think this should be subject to restrictions and I think a good start would be a ban on late term abortions (third trimester), a ban that would be in place right now if the pro-life lobby was not so intransigent in its opposition to language protecting the health of the mother, opposition that caused the USSC to strike down the late term abortion ban recently passed.

 

You are a proponent of a ban on elective abortions. That is a ban, not a "restriction."

 

Andymoon, again I just ask you to think through your logic.

I think you understand the difference between a parasite and human reproduction. (You are not Agent Smith are you?) You have really hit the root of abortion. We have taken human reproduction which is the giving of life and reduced it to a 'parasite to be destroyed'. This is the moral issue. Anytime we say that Jews are parasites or blacks are parasites or anyone is a parasite we have taken the most basic dignitiy of humanity away. The unborn child is human. They are not parasites, chicken eggs or sea turtle eggs. They are human. That may not have any value to you but it does not remove the question- the value of human life. What value do you give your own life?

Preferred pregnancy, preferred races, preferred nationalities or religions... all of these dangerous attempts at comparing human life to a parasite have always resulted in death and suffering. I am not comparing abortion to genocide, I am trying to emphasize that at some point the reproductive process has to be seen as possessing human dignity. It has historically been that at least in the U.S. until abortion on demand was legal and over 4 million babies were killed annually.

Whether we are talking about a tapeworm or a human life is the issue, there is no other issue. I don't deny that there are two views or opinions. And I don't say that you believe a tapeworm has the same value as a fertilized human egg. And I don't say that you are saying that a tapeworm can somehow grow into a baby. That kind of analogy is so out of place in the discussion of human reproduction and the dignity of human life.

I guess if you don't see any difference in value between a tapeworm and a fertilized human egg, and host dependence is the criteria you see as defining- then there is justification for eradicating other groups of peoples who are 'parasites' by that rationalization. Just think about the analogy itself. Take 10 steps back, go to a maturnity ward, talk to the nurses, the mothers, ask them if they are treating this as a 'parasite' or a human life.

 

I have appreciated your defense of unborn babies.

This dissussion should not go away. The babies must have advocates.

Thanks to all who have encouraged this debate.

Let's not forget them.

 

Cmon giddyup.

Put another way, if your objective is to try to convince people, using such analogies is not too effective.

You generally make sound arguments (I don't agree but it is sound). I hope you feel I am returning that favor. We are not using rhetoric, insults or otherwise silly arguments back and forth to support our positions.

But comparing getting an education (a peaceful endevor that something nearly everybody desires for) to having an abortion (something nobody desires) is just plain silly and doesn't prove any premise.

EDIT: BTW, you are being rather dismissive of the desire to uphold freedom of Americans by calling that a "silly principal."

 

You are twisting words.

Peaceful endeavor = getting education

Not peaceful endeavor = abortion

Again more twisting.

Desirable = getting education

Not Desirable = abortion (ie...nobody "desires" it but they do so anyway for for various reasons. Lessor of two evils)

Just saving you effort and ensuring everybody else the bother of trying to convince you prior to engaging in a long protracted debate that will end in a stalemate.

 

I have thought it through extensively and will continue to do so as I continue discussing this issue.

To some people, the fetus IS a "parasite to be destroyed." Some people do not see it as a gift, or a miracle, or a "life." My real point is that you have no right to legislate a ban on a medical procedure that will not solve the problem and will cause a great deal of harm in the process.

I appreciate that you and many others see the fetus as a "life" to be protected, but that opinion has no relevance to those of us who are not as sure as you are that life begins when the sperm fuses with the egg. To us, you are attempting to force your opinion on us by legislating a decision that belongs with the mother, her doctor, and God.

I agree and would fully support what I see as reasonable restrictions on abortion. However, I will not support a ban on elective abortions until there is another alternative that allows a mother to give up her fetus early in the pregnancy and not use her biological processes to bring that fetus to term.

I do see the difference between a human fetus and a tapeworm. I have a 17 month old son and will have another son in late September. To my wife and I, the currently developing fetus was never analagous to a tapeworm. I don't need to talk to nurses in a maternity ward (my wife's sister is a pedi nurse so I don't even have to go to the hospital) for that, I get it.

What you seem to fail to get is that there are many for whom the fetus inside them IS more analagous to a tapeworm. To them, it is a parasite that could have much more drastic consequences on their lives than any tapeworm could. To those people, abortion is the best option and it would be recklessly irresponsible of the government to create legislation that would either force them to bear a child that they do not want or to have an illegal abortion.

 

Let me break it down to is basic differences in opinion. Please let me know if you agree or disagree.

ProLife - Preserving life is the highest priority

ProChoice - Preserving American principals of freedom is the highest priority

My revised argument: Life is important when combined with freedom.
1. Freedom cannot exist with out life.
2. Life is not worth living without freedom.

You cannot have #1 without #2 in America. Ask a slave what they think about the life they live (if you could). Most Americans, in their heart, would say quality of life is more important than life without quality which is why most people ran out and got a Power of Attorney form signed after the Terry Chiavo case.