When Does Life Begin?

cicerone imposter wrote:

How about the other way around; the child is deformed and/or with poor health prospects of living a meaningful quality of life.

Why is it ok to kill someone if they are ill or have 'poor health prospects'?

Your argument is bogus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You claim that the abortion issue is all about the woman's rights, right? Let's see if that's true.

So , if an unborn child poses NO risk to the woman , and infringes on NONE of her rights, does this unborn child then have a right to life?

Or do you STILL want the option to kill him/her just because?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Suppose the child was the result of rape or incest, or the child was unwanted or born into a family with a history of child abuse.
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the other way around; the child is deformed and/or with poor health prospects of living a meaningful quality of life.
In both cases, I recommend a wait-and-see approach.

Wait, oh let's see, what would be sufficient? . . .

How about 18 years?

Then ask the fetus, if it is still a fetus, whether it would prefer having been aborted.

We don't wait until an abused child reaches 18 and then ask them if we should have removed them from the family when we knew about the abuse. We act on what we know now. One of the problems with abortion is that we don't have a good understanding in our society about death and soul transmigration. What happens to the soul of the child that is aborted? Has the soul even entered the body of a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy? For those of us who believe in reincarnation, it is plausible that the soul of an aborted child will enter go on to another fetus, hopefully in more favorable circumstances. However, can we be sure? I just think that those who see abortion as a simple black and white issue are making too many assumptions. The topic is often connected with some of our most deeply held beliefs. This makes it an emotional hot button.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Suppose the child was the result of rape or incest,

Do you support capital punishment also for the rapist, or just for the child?

IFeelFree wrote:

or born into a family with a history of child abuse.

Do you support capital punishment also for the abuser, or just for the child?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

neologist wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
Suppose the child was the result of rape or incest, or the child was unwanted or born into a family with a history of child abuse.
cicerone imposter wrote:
How about the other way around; the child is deformed and/or with poor health prospects of living a meaningful quality of life.
In both cases, I recommend a wait-and-see approach.

Wait, oh let's see, what would be sufficient? . . .

How about 18 years?

Then ask the fetus, if it is still a fetus, whether it would prefer having been aborted.

We don't wait until an abused child reaches 18 and then ask them if we should have removed them from the family when we knew about the abuse. We act on what we know now. One of the problems with abortion is that we don't have a good understanding in our society about death and soul transmigration. What happens to the soul of the child that is aborted? Has the soul even entered the body of a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy? For those of us who believe in reincarnation, it is plausible that the soul of an aborted child will enter go on to another fetus, hopefully in more favorable circumstances. However, can we be sure? I just think that those who see abortion as a simple black and white issue are making too many assumptions. The topic is often connected with some of our most deeply held beliefs. This makes it an emotional hot button.

Please allow a moment for my gut reaction:

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/puke1.gif

Sorry.

I'll clean that up later.
You equate the removal of a fetus from the womb with the removal of an abused child from a family?
And you say its OK because maybe the child will be reincarnated or maybe the soul has not yet entered the body?
Just for the record, I am not advocating legislation of any kind.
But it would be a greater good for folks to know what they are doing.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Suppose the child was the result of rape or incest,

Do you support capital punishment also for the rapist, or just for the child?

IFeelFree wrote:
or born into a family with a history of child abuse.

Do you support capital punishment also for the abuser, or just for the child?

I support what I believe is most compassionate. A rapist or child abuser should be punished so that they have an opportunity to consider their actions and change their behavior. If they cannot, they need to be kept from society. A young child, on the other hand, doesn't have the ability to understand why they suffer rejection or abuse, or do anything about it. They simply suffer as a result. The abortion procedure may cause suffering to the child (assuming the fetus is even conscious), but that has to be weighed against the alternative. In the case of incest, there is likely to be physical and mental defects which I believe is cruel to allow. In the case of rape, the suffering is more likely to be psychological, as the child will likely suffer rejection and discrimination (and possibly health consequences if the rapist had a venereal disease or HIV). If a mother is certain that she can love the child in spite of the rape, it would fine for her to keep the child. If the mother doesn't want the child but is receptive to putting the child up for adoption, that might be an alternative. However, a mother should not birth and raise a child if she does not want it and is unable or unwilling to care for it properly. In the case of a truly abusive family, they should not be allowed to have children, period.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

real life wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
Suppose the child was the result of rape or incest,

Do you support capital punishment also for the rapist, or just for the child?

IFeelFree wrote:
or born into a family with a history of child abuse.

Do you support capital punishment also for the abuser, or just for the child?

I support what I believe is most compassionate. A rapist or child abuser should be punished so that they have an opportunity to consider their actions and change their behavior. If they cannot, they need to be kept from society. A young child, on the other hand, doesn't have the ability to understand why they suffer rejection or abuse, or do anything about it. They simply suffer as a result. The abortion procedure may cause suffering to the child (assuming the fetus is even conscious), but that has to be weighed against the alternative. In the case of incest, there is likely to be physical and mental defects which I believe is cruel to allow. In the case of rape, the suffering is more likely to be psychological, as the child will likely suffer rejection and discrimination (and possibly health consequences if the rapist had a venereal disease or HIV). If a mother is certain that she can love the child in spite of the rape, it would fine for her to keep the child. If the mother doesn't want the child but is receptive to putting the child up for adoption, that might be an alternative. However, a mother should not birth and raise a child if she does not want it and is unable or unwilling to care for it properly. In the case of a truly abusive family, they should not be allowed to have children, period.

So, abortion (killing the child) is the most compassionate thing you can think of?

You see no other way to assist the child other than killing him/her?

-----------------------------------------------

Also, are you in favor of forced abortions for those you deem to be unworthy to raise children?

How else are you to achieve your goal that they 'should not be allowed to have children'?

Or do you prefer forced sterilizations?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

You equate the removal of a fetus from the womb with the removal of an abused child from a family?

No, I'm pointing out that we have a responsibility to do what we believe to be right even if the child may or may not agree with that decision when it reaches adulthood.

Quote:

And you say its OK because maybe the child will be reincarnated or maybe the soul has not yet entered the body?

I did not say that. I pointed to the difficulty in finding a consensus about the abortion issue because different people have different beliefs. The correctness of abortion, like all other decisions, is conditional. We say that killing is wrong, but there are clearly situations when it may be right (protection of self and family, war, police). Abortion must be considered in light of the consequences to everyone involved. We'd all like to have simple rules to say this is always right or that is always wrong, but it doesn't work that way.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So, abortion (killing the child) is the most compassionate thing you can think of?

Under some circumstances, it may be the best solution for all involved.

Quote:

You see no other way to assist the child other than killing him/her?

Adoption is an alternative in many cases.

Quote:

Also, are you in favor of forced abortions for those you deem to be unworthy to raise children?

How else are you to achieve your goal that they 'should not be allowed to have children'?

Or do you prefer forced sterilizations?

I prefer the solution the Chinese have implemented. They offer economic incentives for families to have fewer children. (We do face the problem that the world can only accommodate a finite number of people.) In the case of women on welfare, or who are so poor they are unable to care for their children properly, there should be incentives to prevent pregnancy -- free condoms, free birth control, or free sterilization if the choose. If a couple is convicted of child abuse, the children are normally removed from the home. If the abuse is severe, and they are young enough to have more children, there needs to be some intervention or disincentive to having children. I would not be averse to forced sterilization in extreme cases. Also, in the case of a severely mentally ill young woman who is not confined, it might also be necessary. (Unfortunately, there are many mentally ill in the U.S. who are not receiving proper care and in the streets.) The alternative is to confine such people, or allow them to continue producing and neglecting children. What do you think is the best solution?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

neologist wrote:
You equate the removal of a fetus from the womb with the removal of an abused child from a family?

No, I'm pointing out that we have a responsibility to do what we believe to be right even if the child may or may not agree with that decision when it reaches adulthood. . .

I dare say that were it possible to question the fetus, he or she would particularly object to dilation and curettage.

0 Replies

If you can question the fetus is a red herring. Come back down to earth and make some serious comments or questions.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If you can question the fetus is a red herring. Come back down to earth and make some serious comments or questions.

Actually an hypothesis contrary to fact. But have you considered what happens to the fetus during that procedure?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I dare say that were it possible to question the fetus, he or she would particularly object to dilation and curettage.

They probably don't like circumcision and vaccinations either. In fact, the entire birthing process is probably traumatic. However, the real point is, we have to weigh abortion at an early stage against a childhood of neglect and perhaps abuse. Of course, it is better if the woman who shouldn't or doesn't want children to not even get pregnant, but that cannot always be prevented. Suppose a poor woman with several children finds out her fetus has Down syndrome or a serious handicap. She may simply not have the resources to cope with it. She could put the child up for adoption, but who would want it? (Yes, there are some who do, but very few.) I think we have to allow the woman to abort, at an early stage, if that is her decision. I understand that reasonable people can disagree on this. However, I will state my opinion when the subject comes up.

How is abortion different than murdering an adult or child? A soul that has been living for years in a human body has a considerable investment in the enterprise. For the soul to be forcibly removed by someone (by murder) is an insult to that soul, and prevents it from completing whatever responsibilities and tasks it has undertaken. In the case of a fetus, the soul has very little invested in the first few months of pregnancy. It is still a setback, but not as great. Abortion should not be taken lightly, but it is not equivalent to the murder of an adult or child in my opinion. I hate to get metaphysical, but I think one of the reason that many Christians are adamantly against abortion is that they believe we are here for one life only. If a child is aborted, he or she missed his/her chance. I believe that the idea of a single life is one of the mistaken teachings of Christianity. Those of us who believe in reincarnation believe that the soul has many opportunities to incarnate on earth and learn from those experiences. If an abortion occurs, the soul will reincarnate in another body. Unfortunately, it is difficult to talk about all of the ramifications of abortion without dealing with this subject of after-life consequences.

0 Replies

If an individual must "live" in order to have a chance at life in the hereafter (or whatever you wish to call it), what about all those infant (natural) deaths? Infant mortality is a fact of "life."

0 Replies

2007
Country..Infant........Life
............mortality...Expectancy

Albania 20.0 77.6
Angola 184.4 37.6
Australia 4.6 80.6
Austria 4.5 79.2
Bangladesh 59.1 62.8
Brazil 27.6 72.2
Canada 4.6 80.3
Chile 8.4 77.0
China 22.1 72.9
Costa Rica 9.5 77.2
Cyprus 6.9 78.0
Czech Republic 3.9 76.4
Denmark 4.5 78.0
Ecuador 22.1 76.6
Egypt 30.1 71.6
Finland 3.5 78.7
France 4.2 79.9
Germany 4.1 79.0
Greece 5.3 79.4
Guatemala 29.8 69.7
Hungary 8.2 72.9
India 34.6 68.6
Iran 38.1 70.6
Ireland 5.2 77.9
Israel 6.8 79.6
Italy 5.7 79.9
Japan 3.2 81.4
Kenya 57.4 55.3
Korea, South 6.1 77.2
Mexico 19.6 75.6
Mozambique 109.9 40.9
New Zealand 5.7 79.0
Nigeria 95.5 47.4
Norway 3.6 79.7
Pakistan 68.5 63.8
Panama 16.0 75.2
Peru 30.0 70.1
Poland 7.1 75.2
Portugal 4.9 77.9
Russia 11.1 65.9
Slovakia 7.1 75.0
South Africa 59.4 42.5
Spain 4.3 79.8
Sri Lanka 19.5 74.8
Sweden 2.8 80.6
Switzerland 4.3 80.6
Syria 27.7 70.6
United Kingdom 5.0 78.7
United States 6.4 78.0
Venezuela 20.9 74.8
Zimbabwe 51.1 39.5

1. Infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
2. Life expectancy at birth, in years, both sexes.

0 Replies

neo, Are you now going to make it your life's work to save all those babies that die at birth?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, Are you now going to make it your life's work to save all those babies that die at birth?

My inability to save those lives notwithstanding, I would do nothing to add to the total.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

neologist wrote:
I dare say that were it possible to question the fetus, he or she would particularly object to dilation and curettage.

They probably don't like circumcision and vaccinations either. In fact, the entire birthing process is probably traumatic. However, the real point is, we have to weigh abortion at an early stage against a childhood of neglect and perhaps abuse. Of course, it is better if the woman who shouldn't or doesn't want children to not even get pregnant, but that cannot always be prevented. Suppose a poor woman with several children finds out her fetus has Down syndrome or a serious handicap. She may simply not have the resources to cope with it. She could put the child up for adoption, but who would want it? (Yes, there are some who do, but very few.) I think we have to allow the woman to abort, at an early stage, if that is her decision. I understand that reasonable people can disagree on this. However, I will state my opinion when the subject comes up.

How is abortion different than murdering an adult or child? A soul that has been living for years in a human body has a considerable investment in the enterprise. For the soul to be forcibly removed by someone (by murder) is an insult to that soul, and prevents it from completing whatever responsibilities and tasks it has undertaken. In the case of a fetus, the soul has very little invested in the first few months of pregnancy. It is still a setback, but not as great. Abortion should not be taken lightly, but it is not equivalent to the murder of an adult or child in my opinion. I hate to get metaphysical, but I think one of the reason that many Christians are adamantly against abortion is that they believe we are here for one life only. If a child is aborted, he or she missed his/her chance. I believe that the idea of a single life is one of the mistaken teachings of Christianity. Those of us who believe in reincarnation believe that the soul has many opportunities to incarnate on earth and learn from those experiences. If an abortion occurs, the soul will reincarnate in another body. Unfortunately, it is difficult to talk about all of the ramifications of abortion without dealing with this subject of after-life consequences.

Let me remind you that I am not an advocate of any legislation.

But to equate in any degree the process of dilation and curettage with either circumcision or vaccination shows a callous disregard of the violence associated with the process.

If there is even the remotest possibility of sentience in the fetus, the act of being dismembered is cruel beyond imagination. Were we to subject animals to such treatment, we would surely face prosecution (in the US) for animal cruelty.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
If you can question the fetus is a red herring. Come back down to earth and make some serious comments or questions.
Actually an hypothesis contrary to fact. But have you considered what happens to the fetus during that procedure?

Have you concidered that there are different types procedures and many of which take place before the unborn is a fetus?

As for RL's trick question, I've done some thought, and I have the answer. If and only if the unborn presented 0% risk to the mother then yes the unborn would in my mind have the custody of their right to life, but only in this circumstance. Remove the theoretical situation and you will find that zero pregnancies have 0% risk. QED, the mother still is custodian of the rights of the unborn. RL, your question is worthless, becuase the situation you describe does not exist.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Precisely! He's trying to create a situation that is impossible to occur; why not ask the sperm? (Same thing.)

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

neologist wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
If you can question the fetus is a red herring. Come back down to earth and make some serious comments or questions.
Actually an hypothesis contrary to fact. But have you considered what happens to the fetus during that procedure?

Have you concidered that there are different types procedures and many of which take place before the unborn is a fetus?
. . .

Yes. But my post was about dilation and curettage in particular.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Precisely! He's trying to create a situation that is impossible to occur; why not ask the sperm? (Same thing.)

Chumly and I have been over the condom conundrum before. I can't understand why any one would put the gamete in the same category as a fertilized cell except in absurdum (or Catholicism).

EDIT:

One way to explain is to ask you to consider the times when the gamete dies naturally, eg. menstruation, nocturnal emission, etc., and compare to times when the fetus dies naturally. Parents often grieve the death of an unborn, even to the point of conducting funerals. But as I told Chumly, folks don't hold funerals for wet dreams.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know