Aftermath of Abortion

So would you also suggest we shouldn't give vaccinations because nature put the virus in the body.

Science has solved many of natures obsticals. Now that science has a rebuttal to nature...the government is now trying to step in and say you are not allowed to do that to your own body. Again, look up the definition of Liberty.

The federal government shouldn't be in the business of telling people what to do. They should be in the business of protecting Life, Liberty and Justice (all 3 simultaneously). Not one to the exlusion of another.

 

krosfyah- I really don't debate to win.

I only post because issues are debated that are important to me, and I enjoy doing it. The reason I am expressing my opinions is primarily for those viewing not posting.

What I said was there are amendments that damaged state rights. The state rights issue is very connected to abortion laws but I won't discuss that here. I don't think it is necessary nor is there interest.

There are several posts you have made I would like to address. I am short on time.

Also my posts are rarely if ever well thought out. I wish I could think well at all. Posting is my way of taking a break at work or home and I get few. I type fast and post fast. That should be obvious.

So, soon I would like to respond to you, especially concerning why you are confused when we treat abortion as murder.

Thanks for all the time you have taken to express your views.

 

But nature puts all sorts of burdens upon women, and men, and we would never think of legislating those.

I believe your argument is that tissue transplantation or biological support of the kind where someone would be attached to someone else to benefit from their liver is artificial and a product of technology whereas birth is natural.

Is that correct? I don't want to mistate your point.

I can buy that except that there are several areas where we would wish to work against nature and that's most visible in regard to the end of life issue. To bring up another controversial case Terry Schiavo was kept "alive" far longer than she naturally would've been without artificial support. It was inherently natural that she would expire but for the intervention of technology.

So from the pro-life standpoint nature and technology aren't absolutes. I understand that the pro-life POV is the overall context of preserving life but the nature vs. technology argument is one that cuts both ways.

 

I would agree with that those cases of abortion are not the norm and I'm not trying to say they are just interested in seeing how far the pro-life point of view extends and if there are situations where you think abortions should be allowed.

 

I appreciate your attitude.

A pro-life view for me is not narrow to a baby, it is equally pro-life for the mother. That is why I want to think it over.

Allow me to digress and give you an illustration of how life can be valued by different people.

There were two miners digging in an old hand dug mine in California. I believe the story is set about 1895 (don't remember for sure). The two had worked together on the small mine for about 18 months. They found some gold dust, but little else to show, just enough to keep them at it. The older miner was named Tom and the younger Josh.

Tom was usually cursing and complaining, he drank heavy and gambled often. He was anti-religious and most people characterized him as hard and no good.

Josh was a Christian young man who was married with 2 small children. Josh never went with Tom to drink or gamble. But he often would have Tom over to his house for dinner after a hard day in the gold mine. Tom respected Josh and though he didn't show it much he enjoyed being around a family for dinner.

One late evening they were less than 100 yards into the mine working when one of the support timbers right above them collapsed and a large cave-in started. Both miners grabbed the support beam long enough to delay the collapse. Tom looked at Josh and told him to run for it he would try to hold up the beam. Both men knew if they both dropped the beam they would die in the large cave in. They couldn't get out together.

The only chance for survival was for one to try and hold on and the other to run for it. Time was slipping away.

Again Tom shouted at Josh and said "Run boy, you got a good wife and family and you are a good man, you gotta go right now, I'm just an old drunken miner who ain't got nobody in the world, you have everything to live for, no one will miss me, now get outta here!"

With that and the timber crumbling Josh looked right into Tom's eyes and shouted," Tom you have to go, I cannot, I will hold the timber, now go, Tom I know exactly where I am going if I die, but I am sure you are not ready. My family knows where I will be, they will find peace, I can't say that for you."

And with that Josh kicked Tom in the stomach sending him falling towards the entrance to the mine. Tom saw the timber cave in on top of Josh and in panic he ran to the outside.

Once outside Tom fell to his knees and for the first time he could ever remember he mumbled a prayer. He asked for God's help to somehow explain this to Josh's wife and little children.

Sishir Chang- My daughter told me this story, she heard it when she was 12 yrs old. She also told me that Tom did follow through and went to Josh's family to try and help them deal with their loss. Before Josh's wife and children moved away Tom became a Christian.

I only shared this to let you know that as a Christian I often wrestle with very difficult circumstances and most times I am asking God to help me understand these circumstances.

Decisions about the gift of life are the most important ones made.

 

I have the highest respect for your relationship with God and feel you have the best intentions.

I can tell another story but mine won't be so verbose.

In 1941 our country was attacked by Japan. As such, we sacrificed thousands upon thousands of lives to ensure our boarders were safe. Since then, we have not lost a single life on American soil from foreign attack until 9/11. Had Germany gained enough strength, how many people would have died accross the globe under Nazi rule?

How many blacks died up to and prior to the civil rights movement?

As a black man in America, I cherish personal freedoms AS MUCH AS life itself. I don't feel it is acceptible to compromise Liberty of one to save the Life of another...at least I don't feel such decisions should be made into law.

 

Thanks,

I wish we could meet, sit down have a bite to eat and talk.

As a half white, half Mexican, mostly old and bald man in America I would love to talk and get to know you.

I believe strongly in those freedoms and I am so encouraged that you do also.

 

Scott Peterson was convicted of second degree murder for killing his unborn son. Since your entire argument rests on the unborn not being considered alive and due the same protections as the born, this kind of brings it all crashing down around you.

 

Not exactly the fact that abortion is still legal and that citizenship rights are dependent on where one is born as opposed to conceived shows that a fetus isn't quite considered a person.

There is a legal conflict in determining when life begins and one of the biggest problems I have with Roe is that it skirts that issue.

 

Actually my entire argument rests on that we can't sacrifice the mother's contsitutionally protected liberties for the liberties of an unborn child. Life, Liberty and Justice must ALL be present in any ruling. One isn't more important than the other...particularly since the child MIGHT not be alive.

 

sishir -- scihiavo is interesting...because it comes down to what she wanted. that was the whole issue. discerning what she wanted to happen to the most fundamental thing she "possessed"..her own life. there are burdens that must be met for people to speak on behalf of another for something so huge as their life.

 

Sishir Chang- Again I think you continue to bring up the fundemental issues in this debate.

I would like to suggest something for you to think about.

I don't think there is any conflict as to when life begins.

Life is defined as living.

Doctors know very well if a fetus is alive or dead. This is very important to understand or you cannot understand the real debate.

No one I know of in the pro-choice movement is fighting over abortion rights for dead fetus.

If a fetus is dead do to complications it is termed a miscarriage- I don't know of anyone who differs on this.

If the fetus is killed or put to death it is termed an abortion- I don't know of anyone who differs on this also.

So the fact that the fetus is alive isn't a part of the debate.

You are correct in stating a fetus isn't quite considered a person.

The reason birth certificates are not given at conception is because no birth has taken place. (stay with me) It is not because there is no life.

If every conception could be guaranteed to result in births there might be a reason to move the timing of the certificate earlier. There never has been that guarantee, in fact there have always been pregnancy mortality rates depending on the mother's health, complications, health care etc.

Birth is a natural process in nature that occurs precisely for the reproduction of the species. In human reproduction the first step is fertilization followed by conception, development, birth, then growth.

The heart issue of abortion is that a mother must have fertilization, conception and development to give birth. Up until birth the baby is dependent totally on the mother. After birth the care of the baby could be transferred to another.

The debate over abortion is not whether the fetus is alive or not. Nor is it a debate over whether it is natural for the fetus to be totally dependent on the mother until birth. That is the course of nature and unless we can grow babies without mothers the course we must live with. Let me emphasize that it is the natural and accepted process of our species (and all others).

The abortion debate centers around whether the mother should be allowed to have the fetus killed or aborted (same thing) for convenience (non-medical reasons). If the birth of the fetus will cause hardship or is just unwanted is there justification to terminate the life of the fetus?

That is the central question. Not is it alive or is it a human.

Also a factor in the debate is whether there is a social evil inherent in unwanted babies. In other words if some in society believe poor people create greater hardship when babies are born (this would be a case for population control where others want to limit reproduction among certain groups to limit perceived social ills) or if a person does not want the baby to be born because of a perceived hardship, (this is a case of 'I had sex, but I do not want a baby') then by those definitions babies being born become a social tragedy.

So to summarize this here are the two hinge issues.
1. If a mother gets pregnant and doesn't want a baby or changes her mind is killing the baby before birth right? (for now society sees killing the baby after birth as murder) And if this power is given to the mother is there a point in time that the unborn fetus should be protected? In other words is it right to kill an unborn fetus and if so is there any line to define that makes it wrong prior to birth?

2. Does inconvenience or hardship or assumed evils to society or eugenics, give justification to this practice? Again we are asking the question is their justification for abortion. That is why we are debating.

So the real debate over abortion rests not with the power a woman has over her own body, but the power she wants over her unborn baby.

The primary debate is should the unborn child receive protection?

That is the issue.

If the right thing to do is not give any protection till birth, then all abortions are right and should be legal.

If there is another line that should be drawn as far as protecting the life of the unborn child then that is what many are fighting over.

To say we are debating if it is alive or a person or a citizen is wrong.

That would be like making the arguement that babies that don't have birth certificates can be legally killed whether a mother is for it or against it. Birth certificates or citizenship are not proofs that protection is necessary. Life is the proof.

The fundemental question is who has the power to take life.

Once you see that you can better understand why this is such a very big issue.

Today mothers have that power and the justification can just be I changed my mind.

I am not even judging if that is right or wrong. I am just trying to clarify the real debate.

So we are debating and in conflict over whether or not the living reproduction process should be protected prior to birth. Correct?

And thus the real arguement is HOW VALUABLE is the unborn child?

THAT is the fundemental issue. Nothing would clarify abortion issues sooner than knowing for certain the VALUE that should be placed upon an unborn child.

There are many laws for animal species that are nearing extinction or are in some other danger against the killing of their unborn- bald eagles for example. Their unborn are considered very highly valuable by many environmental conservationist groups.

We humans have not been able to assess our value so clearly.

 

Interesting post rhester.

i think there might be some disagreement between 'alive' and 'person'.

And whether women cease to have control over what they do with their bodies in early term. Should they be required to be carriers of babies from day one? Or is there a period where the fetus, although alive, is not yet human?

 

I agree.

I would only say to you that the question is not what they do with their bodies but what they do to the fetus. There is a medical difference.

1. Whether the living fetus is a person is something to ponder- there is certainly debate over this.
2. Should mothers be required to carry a baby to birth? Another good question. I contend that depends upon the value you place upon the unborn child.
3. Is there a period where the fetus is not human? It is a human fetus. That is not debatebable. You have a human heart. You might get a pig liver transplant but you will never get pregnant with a pig.

To say it is not yet a person is debatable, to say it is not human is just not thinking clearly.

Is a fetus a person?---- If you watched a fetus grow every day on an ultra sound, you felt it kick, you saw it suck its thumb in the womb- you might possibly consider it a baby, just possibly.

At that point you could call it a baby person.

Now at what point would you feel that way watching it by ultra sound? I can't answer that.

For me it is easy enough when my wife gets pregnant to tell her I am grateful we have another baby.

 

I mistyped 'human' rather than 'person'

rats!

Perhaps I should have said "a human", but now we're discussing words rather than concepts. Is an acorn a tree?

Should a woman have a say as to what happens to her body? (please recognize i'm not saying the fetus is her body, but rather that she shouldn't necessarily be required to be an incubator of babies if that is not her desire -- unless we're VERY comfortable the fetus has crossed that all important line to being its own person).

Are we sure enough of that line to legislate it? To take away her freedom to choose? Or is 'personhood' a theological and philosophical issue. An extremely important one, no doubt, but one which pastors, like yourself, should offer guidance on, rather than legislators creating criminal code language to forbid.

 

I can understand that and to tie it back to the abortion debate that also goes straight to the point of Roe whether someone can discern what they want to happen to their own body.

Here is where I think Roe is problematic is because the presumption is that a fetus is part of the woman's body and not a person so its the woman's right to do with as she will. Again that skirts whether a fetus is a person. Yet the point I've been making in regard to hooking someone up to someone else's liver. Even if there is recognized personhood to both parties a person still has rights to how their body is used even if that means the death of another.

 

Rhester another interesting and thought provoking post and I had written an involved reply to it but my computer developed a glitch and I lost it.

You raise a few issues that I think are very problematic to the pro-life side by saying that life or personhood isn't the issue. I'll try to get back to it when I can.

 

Good Post IMHO

I would phrase it this way-
Is an acorn an oak, is a tree an oak? What makes an oak an oak and a fish a fish and a human a human? Is it stage of development or something more fundemental?

Because of the unique value I assign humans, it is easy for me to use human to differentiate us as a species.

2. Whether a woman is required to be an incubator of her baby is probably a good way of asking the fundemental question- What is the mother's responsiblity in the reproductive process? Is there a responsibility to protect the fetus or does it depend upon the preference of the mother? Does a mother have the responsibility to determine if a baby lives or dies? Or is there a basic human responsibility to accept the responsibility to deliver a healthy baby if possible. Would a pregnant mother be irresponsible to shoot up crack cocaine while pregnant knowing of the risk to the unborn? Why are pregnant mothers urged to quit smoking or avoid other behaviors that might terminate the pregnancy.

If it is the mother's choice- shouldn't the rest of us shut up and let them be as negligent and uncaring as they want? If it is a matter of just preference and risks to the baby are not considered then abortion should be as it is- available to all on demand.

The only reason I could see for requiring a woman to protect an unborn child is if that child has great value, is a life worth protecting and has no means to protect itself.

Do you think children born into poverty are worth protecting or are they expendable because we need to control the population of poor people?

Do you think children born with handicapps are worth protecting or are they expendable because they have no value?

Do you think chidren born to minorities are worth protecting or are they expendable because they are different from others?

Unless you can place a value on the life of an unborn child how can you possibly know if abortion is right or wrong?

And how can you possibly answer the question of whether a mother should protect the unborn even if it is a hardship for her?

bnb- I really like the questions you raise because they bi pass all the politicalization of this issue and they get us to think about the value of human life at conception.

When I think of abortion I always ask myself what is the purpose of human reproduction. Is it one of equality to all or is it just for the white and wealthy, those with high IQ's. The value we assign to human reproduction will ultimately be reflected in our view of abortion on demand.

It is much more than an issue of the mother's rights.
It is an issue of human dignity.

 

If it helps shorten your responses- I emphasize I know of no one who believes we are debating over dead fetus.

living=life

And it is human-ness that is not an issue.

Abortion is a major controversy for this very reason.

No one would care if the fetus were not human.

I can understand the argument it is not an adult human or even a fully developed human, but I don't know what other species it could possibly be.

You are not going to tell me that evolution is actually being experienced during the growth of the embryo.

I have heard there were long ago scientists who believed the embryo became a frog then a bird then a mammal then a human. Please don't bring that up.