Is abortion really wrong?

real life wrote:

When we're discussing abortion, this is a procedure (D&C abortion) where the unborn is literally sliced apart by a razor sharp scalpel and removed limb by limb from the uterus.

This is, as you can imagine, an excruciating painful way to die.

flushd,

I am still trying to answer your question re choices made by fetuses. Meantime, what do you think about this post by RL? Does this fetus feel pain? Does it feel anything?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

When we're discussing abortion, this is a procedure (D&C abortion) where the unborn is literally sliced apart by a razor sharp scalpel and removed limb by limb from the uterus.

This is, as you can imagine, an excruciating painful way to die.

flushd,

I am still trying to answer your question re choices made by fetuses. Meantime, what do you think about this post by RL? Does this fetus feel pain? Does it feel anything?

Considering the fact that Ultrasound has observed intra utero babies with their thumbs in their mouths, one might expect they do.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

real life wrote:

When we're discussing abortion, this is a procedure (D&C abortion) where the unborn is literally sliced apart by a razor sharp scalpel and removed limb by limb from the uterus.

This is, as you can imagine, an excruciating painful way to die.

flushd,

I am still trying to answer your question re choices made by fetuses. Meantime, what do you think about this post by RL? Does this fetus feel pain? Does it feel anything?

I honestly do not know, Echi.

Some 'believe they feel pain', or 'expect they would feel pain' or 'infer that they would feel pain'. Those are guesses, though.

Here is the opposite approach,but I can not verify the info with my own medical knowledge. I don't know enough to say with 100% confidence, and am open to learning more.

Taken from Pro-Choice Action Network
The brain structures and nerve-cell connections that characterize the thinking and feeling parts of the brain are not completed until between the 7th and 8th months of gestation. Only after 30 weeks do the brain waves show patterns of waking consciousness when pain can be perceived.

..............A legal abortion would be performed in the 1 st trimester of pregnancy, maybe into 20 weeks or for special circumstances further along. You certainly would not see 7 and 8 month old fetus' being aborted with D&C in a Manitoba hospital!

As far as RL's post quote - I'm not sure what to think because I do not know which specific case of abortion he is referring to. First trimester, 2nd, 3rd? In a hospital in Costa Rica, by skilled doctors? In a back-alley in the United States in 1902?

D&C are rare now, considered primative. I have not heard of it being done in my area for a while now. It seems more prevalent where women do not have access to proper abortion care. ..also, where abortion is illegal and 'morally wrong'.

Anyways. I would need to know more specifically of what RL is talking about in order to make a real comment on that.
[/QUOTE]

0 Replies

Why, neo? A newborn doesn't have to be taught how to suck. They do it without having to think about it.

In order to show that a fetus feels pain, I think we have to show that it lacks the ability or opportunity to have preferences.

I guess it does, now that I think about it. It is subject to things that are relatively beneficial and detrimental to its development. If it has developed muscles, would they not tense and relax depending on the stimuli (or expected stimuli)?

(I really don't know. I'm sure one of you has an idea.)

0 Replies

neo, the question remains...(for me, at least) ....would you rather abortion happened earlier, before the thumb sucking stage, in a clean environment that is safe for the mother...?

You don't get to say "I'd rather it didn't happen at all" unless you're willing to imprison all pregnant women and limit their access to sharp objects for 9 months.

Personally, I think I'd consider supporting a ban on abortion from the viable stage, around 23 weeks? in a perfectly healthy foetus. From that point on you can simply remove the child from the mother who doesn't want it, without killing it, and place it in the care of the state if she chooses not to support it further. If all women were aware that they had access to abortion up to that point, then it's fair to expect them to accept that and play by those rules I think. If we're talking compromise, then that would be mine.

I'm sure RL will jump all over the logical cracks in my position on this, but hey, we're talking compromise? That's where I'd see room for a more "foetus welfare" based approach. Some countries do actually have this in law, others have it in practice.

0 Replies

Whether or not abortion should be legal is a political issue. Whether or not it is the deliberate killing of a human being is another matter. Regardless of the label you apply to that mass of tissue within the body of the mother, time will verify its humanity.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Liberals on these forums have refused to admit that things such as terrorism and cannibalism were inherently wrong.

You're kidding me. well if you need some satisfaction, I'll be your first. terrorism and canibalism are inherently wrong.

I wish I were kidding. Go and read it for yourself. To them, right and wrong in those matters (and EVERYTHING else) are only subjective opinions, neither right nor wrong in any objective sense.

Do you agree then that there exist moral absolutes of right and wrong?

(full disclosure warning: Caution. Use of absolutes may be fatal to your position on abortion.)[/color]

"Them" nothing, It's not contrary at all to say cannibalism and terrorism is wrong. In our culture these are not acceptable? To say that there are culture absolute means nothing to moral absolutes. If you say that because you can site something culturally unversal such as the wrongs of terrorism that it implies that the rest of the spectrum of values is also set in absolutes, you're wrong.

Wrong or right: Abandonning your child and putting it up for adoption; putting it in a orphanage?

(full disclosure warning: Caution. The admittance that there times when a choice ccould be either moral or immoral based on context can severely damage your position on abortion.[/color]

Save the BS for the rodeo.

Right and wrong are subjective. They are subjective to culture. Your culture is affected by your community, your church, your income/job. Mine is too. However is it foolish to think that we are always giong to be culturally congruent. You and I for instance both share the idea that cannbalism and terroroism is wrong. It's not because it's an absolute, it's because our two cultures share a commonality. You can take several things we do in our civilized american culture, and they can be looked opan as barbaric or crude.

For instance, in most muslim cultures, women wear a hajib. This shroud from our view point makes the women seem dominated or objectified, were as in their culture looking at our women, they see the lack of a hajib and often think that american (non-muslims) are immodest and show too much skin. Is asking the question on which is right really a fair question? Is there an absolute?

I have no problem telling you terrorism is wrong. I have no problem telling you canbalism is wrong. I represent the part of american culture that puts a greater premium on choice and free will. You represent the sect of our culture which defines life/rights at conceptioin. You want an absolute that doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Liberals on these forums have refused to admit that things such as terrorism and cannibalism were inherently wrong.

You're kidding me. well if you need some satisfaction, I'll be your first. terrorism and canibalism are inherently wrong.

I wish I were kidding. Go and read it for yourself. To them, right and wrong in those matters (and EVERYTHING else) are only subjective opinions, neither right nor wrong in any objective sense.

Do you agree then that there exist moral absolutes of right and wrong?

(full disclosure warning: Caution. Use of absolutes may be fatal to your position on abortion.)[/color]

"Them" nothing, It's not contrary at all to say cannibalism and terrorism is wrong. In our culture these are not acceptable? To say that there are culture absolute means nothing to moral absolutes. If you say that because you can site something culturally unversal such as the wrongs of terrorism that it implies that the rest of the spectrum of values is also set in absolutes, you're wrong.

Wrong or right: Abandonning your child and putting it up for adoption; putting it in a orphanage?

(full disclosure warning: Caution. The admittance that there times when a choice ccould be either moral or immoral based on context can severely damage your position on abortion.[/color]

Save the BS for the rodeo.

Right and wrong are subjective. They are subjective to culture. Your culture is affected by your community, your church, your income/job. Mine is too. However is it foolish to think that we are always giong to be culturally congruent. You and I for instance both share the idea that cannbalism and terroroism is wrong. It's not because it's an absolute, it's because our two cultures share a commonality. You can take several things we do in our civilized american culture, and they can be looked opan as barbaric or crude.

For instance, in most muslim cultures, women wear a hajib. This shroud from our view point makes the women seem dominated or objectified, were as in their culture looking at our women, they see the lack of a hajib and often think that american (non-muslims) are immodest and show too much skin. Is asking the question on which is right really a fair question? Is there an absolute?

I have no problem telling you terrorism is wrong. I have no problem telling you canbalism is wrong. I represent the part of american culture that puts a greater premium on choice and free will. You represent the sect of our culture which defines life/rights at conceptioin. You want an absolute that doesn't exist.

I asked if cannibalism and terrorism were inherently wrong.

You replied they were, but now you deny it.

Doesn't the statement 'there are no absolutes' seem a contradiction to you?

But you continue, telling me 'you're wrong', when you deny the existence of any objective right and wrong!

You're a bit confused, I see. Or simply sharing an opinion.

The idea that terrorism is only culturally wrong and not absolutely wrong is one very good reason why Americans should never trust liberals with their safety or their lives.

The moral confusion of the left has cost millions of children their lives and may threaten the survival of Western civilization if the radical left is ever allowed to force it's wacky views on society.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Whether or not abortion should be legal is a political issue. Whether or not it is the deliberate killing of a human being is another matter. Regardless of the label you apply to that mass of tissue within the body of the mother, time will verify its humanity.

Not if it is aborted... Smile

Sorry, sorry, that was a bad jest. But true.

0 Replies

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Does time verify that an egg is a chicken?

Chicken is a product of egg + time.

Egg without time does not equal chicken....it equals egg.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

D&C are rare now, considered primative. I have not heard of it being done in my area for a while now. It seems more prevalent where women do not have access to proper abortion care. ..also, where abortion is illegal and 'morally wrong'.

On this Planned Parenthood website, D&C abortions are called 'traditional' and are the ONLY surgical option listed as available.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/central-ohio/abortion-services.htm

On this abortionist's website , D&C is called the 'most commonly used' procedure.

http://www.womensmedcenter.com/faqs/default.asp

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Does time verify that an egg is a chicken?

Chicken is a product of egg + time.

Egg without time does not equal chicken....it equals egg.

No.

Egg+time=rotten egg

An egg when fertilized is no longer merely an egg.

This is a basic fact of biology.

No chicken is growing inside the eggshell until fertilization takes place.

You often try to compare the unborn to an egg, but the comparison is completely invalid.

0 Replies

Then there's this:

from http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=24130

Quote:

"Personification of the [fetus] at that age is dangerous. I was worried when I saw those images. To suggest that an early [fetus] in utero has those kind of human qualities of being able to suck its thumb and move, that it meets the biological definition of being really viable outside the uterus, is very difficult indeed."[/i]

emphasis mine

also see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=408219&in_page_id=1774&ito=1490

It is quite revealing that Mehmet tries to confuse personhood with viability.

Whether one is capable of living independently with medical assistance or not, has no bearing on whether one is a person or not.

It reminds me of a few months back, an A2K member, when discussing ultrasounds and abortion , claimed that medical information such as ultrasounds were 'emotional stuff' and abortionists should not be required to disclose the medical status of the unborn that is readily available via ultrasound.

By anybody's definition, an abortion would be considered a medical procedure, and a major one at that.

Why should abortionists not be required to fully disclose all information on the medical status of the unborn, including ultrasounds, movement, heartbeat, etc to the mother prior to her giving consent to the procedure?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

real life wrote:

So if crack was legal, it'd be ok with you?

How 'bout if we change crack to heroin, and make the woman a European, in a locale where heroin use is not criminal?

If the unborn is 'part of the woman's body' (which , medically speaking , it is not, since it has it's own unique DNA) , then doesn't she have the right to do with it anything she wishes?

To be consistent, you'd have to agree that she does.

If not, aren't you denying her choice?

So the fetus has its own DNA - where you draw the conclusion that it is not a part of the mother's body I do not see. Seems like a leap.
It is false.

Every part of your body shares your DNA. It is a basic fact of biology.

flushd wrote:

The woman and the fetus are not two self-sufficent beings. It's a case of one self-sufficent being with a dependent being growing within. The 2 are 1: sharing blood, fluids, calories.

The two do not share blood when the unborn's heart starts beating before the end of the 4th week.

flushd wrote:

Nevermind that for now though. I'll answer your question and move on.

Technically, yes, I would have to say I would be denying her choice if I were to try to impose my will upon her (in order to try and stop her from taking heroin in a place where it is legal).

It would be denying her choice if I tried to do it in a place where it is illegal too...it just so happens that I agree with the particular laws in my country, and so I see no need to advocate for abolishing them.
It is in my own best interest, in my opinion, to live within the laws (heroin use as a criminal offence).

I understand you do not agree with me - regarding a fetus being a part of a woman's body - and that doesn't even matter.

I'd like to hear how you can look at a pregnant woman, though, and not conclude that the fetus she is carrying is indeed a part of her. ..or if you prefer...that the two are not connected intimately.

Certainly they are connected, but they are two separate persons.

The American Academy of Family Physicians treats the unborn as a separate patient.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1890281&highlight=patient#1890281

flushd wrote:

Also, I am curious to know if you think a fetus has a soul? A seperate life-force not shared with the mother?
Having a hard time wrapping around that part bc is not all life intimately one and from the same source according to your beliefs?

I have not based my argument for the protection of the unborn on when he/she has a soul.

My argument is based on medical evidence that believer and non-believer alike will agree on.

Many atheists and agnostics are pro-life.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Many a true word is spoken in jest.

Does time verify that an egg is a chicken?

Chicken is a product of egg + time.

Egg without time does not equal chicken....it equals egg.

No.

Egg+time=rotten egg

An egg when fertilized is no longer merely an egg.

This is a basic fact of biology.

No chicken is growing inside the eggshell until fertilization takes place.

You often try to compare the unborn to an egg, but the comparison is completely invalid.

here's some basic biology;

A fertilized egg will only begin to develop if the hen sits on it and keeps it warm. If no setting occurs, the fertilized eggs are perfectly fine to eat. You cannot tell the difference.

So, sometimes when I eat an egg, I'm eating an egg, and other times I'm eating a chicken...and I just think I'm eating an egg...?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

flushd wrote:

D&C are rare now, considered primative. I have not heard of it being done in my area for a while now. It seems more prevalent where women do not have access to proper abortion care. ..also, where abortion is illegal and 'morally wrong'.

On this Planned Parenthood website, D&C abortions are called 'traditional' and are the ONLY surgical option listed as available.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/central-ohio/abortion-services.htm

On this abortionist's website , D&C is called the 'most commonly used' procedure.

http://www.womensmedcenter.com/faqs/default.asp

RL, Those are American. And I think it is a shame, because D&C...well, it is a shitty way to do it as far as I am concerned.

It illustrates a point, though. In the USA, there is much more force behind keeping abortions illegal and privatized. Look at the results.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I have not based my argument for the protection of the unborn on when he/she has a soul.

My argument is based on medical evidence that believer and non-believer alike will agree on.

Many atheists and agnostics are pro-life.

Okay, I hear you Real Life. I was actually only asking out of curiosity of your views.

.......

I've noticed that this discussion is becoming US-centric in a way. I suggest you check out what is happening in other areas of the world, where different legislation is in practice, and see if you do or do not like the results.

If you're interested in some information about abortion in Canada, this is a good site:
http://www.womenshealthmatters.ca/Centres/sex/abortion/abortion.html

It's important to keep this perspective. It IS individual and the experience will be different based on where a woman lives, what is available to her, her unique circumstances, the level of support she receives, the values of those around her.

In many cases, RL, here in Manitoba an abortion is day surgery. You leave the hospital within a short time of the procedure! You can stay awake during the procedure, or be asleep.

And notice: 90% of the abortions done in Canadian hospitals are done with the first 12 weeks.

If you were to conceed that abortions will be done regardless of anything - and I see that they will, and are - which approach best reaches the ideal of 'no abortions' that you seek?

0 Replies

Just because it's always a good idea to look at things from a 3rd person view. I thought I'd do an interpretation of the dialogue thus far.

flushd wrote:

"I feel... I think..."

real life wrote:

"You feel and thing wrong!"

Eorl wrote:

"I think... and by logic..."

real life wrote:

"46 Chomozones!!!!!1oneunoshiftexclamtion!!!1!onefactorial!"

Random Person who hasn't read a single page of debate wrote:

"Abortion is Murder."

real life wrote:

"See! I told you so!.."

Baddog1 wrote:

"This is Political BS..."

Diest TKO wrote:

"Culture. Fascism. Beware!"

real life wrote:

"Rhetoric!... I'll back it up with 900 biased websites and by spinning your quotes!

Diest TKO wrote:

"I have a question..."

real life wrote:

"I will never anser your questions!.. Now enjoy my insane comparission to maiming children and sensationalist approach to fearmongering!"

real life wrote:

"Double post!"

flushd wrote:

"what about...?"

real life wrote:

"Abortionist! Murder! Absolute!"

Eorl wrote:

"How about some additional logic..."

real life wrote:

"Stop that!"

Diest TKO wrote:

"What about reason, liberty, freedom..."

real life wrote:

"Colored text for emphasis of rhetoric!"

Everyone wrote:

"...sigh"

Sorry so long, but I'm trying to make a point. The dialogue on abortion is not one that will end. There is no absolutes in this world. Cultures do collide and we call this conflict war when we fail to make comprimise. Pro-choice advocates do not impeed on the rights of the pro-life people. It is the culture of anti-choice that impeeds on all other cultures.

Real Life - Someone said earlier that the question of whether or not abortion was leagal versus moral/ethical are two different questions with two different answers. I couldn't have put it better myself. Let your culter believe as it wishes, but do not trespass on my culture. You can call my culture the culture of death, and in the end I will have killed noone, but if you choose to do so, you are a part of the culture of fascism, and you will have tried your best to indoctrinate those different from you. Murder isn't wrong because it's illegal or vise versa, you want abortion to be proven wrong so bad, and you can't. you can't coexist, it just eats you up, so you go the only route you know, legality. You think it will be your end all be all. Democracy will validate your opinions. Well great cultures and countryies are not built on democracy as much as we are taght in grade school, they're built on concensus and. I will NEVER ask that you believe what I do, but don't you EVER think that you can condesend your beliefs upon me. I don't ever need to convince you in what I believe, that's how much I believe it; you seem to need the validation. Don't tread on my liberties, I would not dare impeed on yours.

Voltaire: "I may not believe in what you say, but I'll fight with my last breath to protect your right to say it." (paraphrased)

I think the point is that we don't have to agree. In a time when others actions and words are in strong contrast with your actions and words, it is more important to uphold the rights of both sides. You've crossed that line, I'll ask that you step back.

0 Replies

Hehe, thanks for the lovely interpretation Diest. I needed a laugh.

Good post, too. I agree.

0 Replies

Reading back, damn I can't spell worth a damn in the early hours.

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know