Abortion

Momma Angel wrote:

Foxfyre,

Maybe you can help me with something. The other night and I cannot remember where I heard this. I think it was on a TV show but I am not sure.

Someone said something about "life being in the blood" and that blood does not get to the fetus until about the 18th day of life. The Life in the blood was taken from the Bible in the Old Testament but I can't remember where.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? Ever heard it before?

Okay, it comes from Letiticus 17:11 but it is talking about eating blood being forbidden. It says "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourself on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

Do you think this might relate in any way to when life begins in the womb, such as when blood actually enters the fetus?

Naw, I'm not sure how much my conscious religious faith even plays in the whole big picture of my belief in the sanctity of life since I have nonreligious friends who share it. I don't give the Old Testament folks much credit for scientific knowledge; thus I don't believe they had it all figured out how a baby begins or the biological science involved. (They did know it requires a male and female to start one.) We do not know the origin of all Old Testament Law and what we do know is reported to have come via revelation and visions that were likely incompletely understood and incompletely articulated once they were written down.

The progress of the baby's development is pretty accurately explained a this site, however:

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

and it mentions capillaries at day 5-6. The mother's blood of course is carrying nutrients that feeds the cells from the moment of conception or the cells would not develop at all.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

The other night and I cannot remember where I heard this. I think it was on a TV show but I am not sure.

It was on CSI. I saw that too.

0 Replies

That's it! Thanx FreeDuck! I was going nuts trying to remember that! For some reason, that dialogue stuck with me.

0 Replies

All this discussion about drawing the line as to when life begins is little more than idle wheel-spinning. Even if we assume that life begins at the moment of conception, it would still be permissible for a woman to have an abortion. Consider this hypothetical:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it?
We would not require a person to act as an unwilling adjunct to another person for nine months. Why would we require a woman to act as an unwilling adjunct to a fetus for nine months?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

We would not require a person to act as an unwilling adjunct to another person for nine months. Why would we require a woman to act as an unwilling adjunct to a fetus for nine months?

Setting aside the word 'require' which is still under debate, the woman has nothing to do the violinist or his condition and thus has no moral obligation or responsibility to him. She might choose to help him out out of the goodness of her heart, but there would be no moral or ethical basis for requiring her to take responsibility for him.

However, if she invited this person to 'stop by' if he was so inclined, never expecting him to take her up on his invitation, but he nevertheless accepted the invitation, and he becomes ill or injured as a result of that invitation, then the degree of her responsibility to him could be significantly higher. We have a degree of responsibility for the welfare of passengers riding in our car.

In my opinion, when the woman invites a pregnancy, she carries a responsibility for the passenger she invited on board even if she didn't expect him/her to show up. What should be her moral responsibility and what should be her legal responsibility is the substance of this debate. If you think she has no moral responsibility, then of course the passenger becomes disposable. If she has moral responsibility, then there could be room for application of legal responsibility as well.

And finally, there is the issue at which point such a decision would need to be made.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, when the woman invites a pregnancy,

Getting laid has nothing to do with "inviting pregnancy". This Puritan concept that you have to be punished for having sex is just that ... Puritan!! It has nothing to the desire to become pregnant.

Anon

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

All this discussion about drawing the line as to when life begins is little more than idle wheel-spinning. Even if we assume that life begins at the moment of conception, it would still be permissible for a woman to have an abortion. Consider this hypothetical:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it?

We would not require a person to act as an unwilling adjunct to another person for nine months. Why would we require a woman to act as an unwilling adjunct to a fetus for nine months?

This is something I was trying to get at earlier when I said something about it not mattering if the fetus is a human being or not, which got misinterpreted somehow as advocating late term abortions on demand. Anyway, this is a much better illustration.

0 Replies

FreeDuck: As I have stated elsewhere:

...the pro-choice side has nothing gain by arguing at the level of "personhood." For the pro-choice side it is a no-win argument, while for the anti-abortionists it is definitely a no-lose argument. As long as the pro-choice side debates about "personhood," it is, in effect, buying into the anti-abortionist argument. I have little interest in the definition of "person," at least in terms of the abortion debate. Rather, I believe that the pro-choice position can only be effectively defended by arguing that abortion should be an option [i]even if a fertilized egg is a person[/i].

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Setting aside the word 'require' which is still under debate, the woman has nothing to do the violinist or his condition and thus has no moral obligation or responsibility to him. She might choose to help him out out of the goodness of her heart, but there would be no moral or ethical basis for requiring her to take responsibility for him.

What is so debatable about the word "require?"

Foxfyre wrote:

However, if she invited this person to 'stop by' if he was so inclined, never expecting him to take her up on his invitation, but he nevertheless accepted the invitation, and he becomes ill or injured as a result of that invitation, then the degree of her responsibility to him could be significantly higher. We have a degree of responsibility for the welfare of passengers riding in our car.

Your analogy is not apt. As Judith Jarvis Thomson points out in the article I linked before:

If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army.

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, when the woman invites a pregnancy, she carries a responsibility for the passenger she invited on board even if she didn't expect him/her to show up. What should be her moral responsibility and what should be her legal responsibility is the substance of this debate. If you think she has no moral responsibility, then of course the passenger becomes disposable. If she has moral responsibility, then there could be room for application of legal responsibility as well.

If she was forced, if she was careless, if she was willing but later changed her mind, the result is still the same: she is in charge of her own body.

Foxfyre wrote:

And finally, there is the issue at which point such a decision would need to be made.

That is a separate issue from that of a fetus's "personhood."

0 Replies

Anon,

Why wold you equate getting pregnant with being punished for having sex? Shocked

I think it's a pretty well-known fact that if ya "get laid" ya might get pregnant. So, I think there might be some inviting being done. Laughing

If you don't want the "permanent guest" then do something about it before they get there. :wink:

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Anon,

Why wold you equate getting pregnant with being punished for having sex? I think it's a pretty well-known fact that if ya "get laid" ya might get pregnant. So, I think there might be some inviting being done.

If you don't want the "permanent guest" then do something about it before they get there. :wink:

I don't ... but you sicko rightwingers do!! The rightwing mind works that way ... it sick ... it's just like the mysoginist telling Debra to keep her legs crossed! It's your way of pushing abstinence and being a "good girl ... meanwhile your men go out and screw anything with 2-4 legs!!

If I were a lady just looking for fun, I'd make the man provide proof of a vasectomy, or find one that did!!

Anon

P.S. The "passenger"s just a parasite living off the host until it's born!!

0 Replies

I guess some people arent smart enough to realize that abstinence works EVERY TIME its tried.

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Anon,

Why wold you equate getting pregnant with being punished for having sex? I think it's a pretty well-known fact that if ya "get laid" ya might get pregnant. So, I think there might be some inviting being done.

If you don't want the "permanent guest" then do something about it before they get there. :wink:

I don't ... but you sicko rightwingers do!! The rightwing mind works that way ... it sick ... it's just like the mysoginist telling Debra to keep her legs crossed! It's your way of pushing abstinence and being a "good girl ... meanwhile your men go out and screw anything with 2-4 legs!!

If I were a lady just looking for fun, I'd make the man provide proof of a vasectomy, or find one that did!!

Anon

P.S. The "passenger"s just a parasite living off the host until it's born!!

You rightwing sickos?

Well let me let you in on a little secret Anon. When I was raped by my father and ended up pregnant because of it and was going to have the baby I never once thought I was being punished. When I lost the baby in my fifth month, I never once thought I was being punished. So, if you are going to label me a rightwing sicko then at least have the common decency to get your facts straight first, ok?

It might be a parasite to you, but it was a child to me! IT WAS MY CHILD AND NOT SOME PARASITE!

And yes, the caps are me yelling and the bold is to make danged sure you didn't miss a word.

0 Replies

Yes, I have never heard a woman say that she was having a zygote or an embryo and certainly not a parasite. She is always pregnant with a BABY.

And yes, if she has sex it is an unintentional but very real invitation for baby to jump on board whether she wants such baby or not. If she absolutely does not want baby she and/or her partner can make it 100% certain that no unexpected or unwanted passengers come on board. Otherwise, sex can absolutely be postponed until such time as the parents are in a position to accept a passenger, hoped for or unexpected, if s/he happens to make it past the defense systems.

And one does not even need to be a right wing sicko to know that.

And you owe a lot of people a huge apology Anon. That remark was entirely uncalled for.

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, when the woman invites a pregnancy,

Getting laid has nothing to do with "inviting pregnancy". This Puritan concept that you have to be punished for having sex is just that ... Puritan!! It has nothing to the desire to become pregnant.

Anon

What does "getting laid" have to do with? Unless a method of prevention is employed, it is very likely that a pregnancy could occur. Only a fool would think that this is not inviting a pregnancy.

Punishment for sex? Do you think that is what getting pregnant is? Desire is what could cause the pregnancy in the first place.

It is this total lack of responsibility that angers folks that read this garbage.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

What should be her moral responsibility and what should be her legal responsibility is the substance of this debate. If you think she has no moral responsibility, then of course the passenger becomes disposable. If she has moral responsibility, then there could be room for application of legal responsibility as well.

This cuts to the heart of the matter, I think, Foxy.

To pose this as a serious issue, one would have to assume we have a right to morally judge

I think it is inaccurate to create a situation where the choices are: Either say that it is right or wrong to choose abortion.
Either choose whether someone can or can not.

It is absurd!

For myself, it is not a matter of saying "She is morally responsible, or she is not".

Of course she is morally responsible for her own actions, including those she takes with her pregnancy.

But that is her lot and choice, not anyone else's, to judge and choose.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

What should be her moral responsibility and what should be her legal responsibility is the substance of this debate. If you think she has no moral responsibility, then of course the passenger becomes disposable. If she has moral responsibility, then there could be room for application of legal responsibility as well.

This cuts to the heart of the matter, I think, Foxy.

To pose this as a serious issue, one would have to assume we have a right to morally judge

I think it is inaccurate to create a situation where the choices are: Either say that it is right or wrong to choose abortion.
Either choose whether someone can or can not.

It is absurd!

For myself, it is not a matter of saying "She is morally responsible, or she is not".

Of course she is morally responsible for her own actions, including those she takes with her pregnancy.

But that is her lot and choice, not anyone else's, to judge and choose.

If it was only her body, her life, her choice that was involved, I would agree 100% Flushd.

But it is my belief that there is a second body, a second life, an innocent being that is in no position to make a choice that is also involved.

If I can make a moral choice about whether a woman should be able to destroy her infant in the hours following birth, I can also make a moral choice whether a woman should be able to destroy her infant in the hours before birth. And once we agreed on that, then we start moving back in the life cycle to the point in which the choice is no longer laden with moral issues. Where is that point? Can you say with certainty? Can I?

0 Replies

Momma,Fox,
Dont expect anon to apologize at all.
He refuses to believe that anybody that disagrees with him is anything but a "right wing sicko".

I cant help but wonder,why is he arguing so hard for abortion.

To use his line,its the womans body and he has no control.

0 Replies

Thanx Mysterman. I appreciate the sentiment.

0 Replies

Thanks MM. I guess I didn't really expect an apology but it would have been nice. There are so many reasonable and devoutly held beliefs re this whole issue and nothing will be accomplished in shouting insults. But I always believe that if reasonable people reason together, a reasonable conclusion can be accomplished.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know