Do You Believe Abortion Is Wrong? Should It Be Against The Law?

by minimus 140 Replies latest jw friends

  • botchtowersociety
    botchtowersociety
    Not in those terms, but in cases where there is no medical proxy made out beforehand, usually next of kin makes the decisions medically...including whether or not to pull the plug, stop any type of life support, etc. If they're under heavy anesthesia or in a coma, they still have had life experiences, relationships, etc. It doesn't mean they are less human. I also don't feel an unborn child is less human. However, there are decisions that need to be made in both cases.

    Look at the case of Terry Schaivo... Her husband stopped them from feeding her so that she would die. She was AWAKE, but didn't have her full faculties... Yet he was permitted to refuse her further treatment and allow her to perish, even though her family fought long and hard for her to remain on life-supporting medical assistance (in this case, a feeding tube). In such cases, it is up to the family or next of kin to make decisions, so in that sense, it is similar. Where abortion is concerned, the mother is "next of kin" and makes those decisions.

    Yet even in these cases, the action is passive, rather than active.

  • Sulla
    Sulla

    I believe that government has no business in the bedrooms of its citizens.

    Totally agree: That's where I was choking out the prostitutes.

  • Sulla
    Sulla

    Back to the fetus. Your example, Flat, is equally applicable to a newborn as it is to a fetus prior to birth. Is it not?

    Yes, you can make that argument, and I predicted someone would - there are however several other differences:

    • The child is no longer being carried inside the mother and therefore, the termination of the life is no longer a decison she can make (legally or morally i'd say)

    • The child itself has reached a point whereby it can survive outside of the womb, which is quite a clear distinction from an embryo

    • The child is now capable to begin learning and developing all those features I mentioned before - thoughts, feelings, awareness, relationships. At any point previous this is impossible

    For point 1, you are assuming the very thing we are attempting to determine, are you not? The question, Flat, is how or whether the moral status changes at the moment of birth.

    For point 2, a child arrives at a point of development where it can live outside the womb prior to its birth, suggesting that this is not a coherent point.

    For point 3, are you suggesting that the ability to develop feelings and awareness are determinitive? Interesting. But what makes you think these abilities begin at the moment of birth? Newborns don't have any relationships that a 24 week fetus does not have.

  • mrsjones5
    mrsjones5

    ".If it is considered murder,than why stop at conception?Wht not at ejaculation? Or ovulation?Or a second glance?Nah,when it can and does breathe on its own,than its a baby.Till than,no."

    "Unlike men, who produce new sperm daily throughout most of their lifetime, women are born with all their eggs in one — okay, two baskets (ovaries). To be more precise, a woman is born with about one to two million immature eggs, or follicles, in her ovaries.

    Throughout her life, the vast majority of follicles will die through a process known as atresia. Atresia begins at birth and continues throughout the course of the woman's reproductive life. When a woman reaches puberty and starts to menstruate, only about 400,000 follicles remain. With each menstrual cycle, a thousand follicles are lost and only one lucky little follicle will actually mature into an ovum (egg), which is released into the fallopian tube, kicking off ovulation. That means that of the one to two million follicles, only about 400 will ever mature."

    I say all women should be locked up for murder cuz their bodies are continually killing off precious follicles and ovum that have the right to live! Sperm are expendable.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    I wonder why the practice of abortion is never specifically addressed in any scripture? It existed. It has existed for quite a while, only the means have changed. And yet---not a word. The Mosaic law offers no specific punishment, or even mention, of the practice of abortion.

    Jesus didn't address abortion either. It would seem he left it up to the individual---in other words---pro-choice. Considering how much emphasis some Chriistians put on a procedure not mentioned by Jesus, one wonders why they ignore his repeated and explicit commands to care for the poor, weak, sick and elderly.

    But I don't hold to the bible anyway. Are a few cells life? I don't know. We really can't define that without relying on religion or philosophy. Is it enough that I may think it is life? No, because my definition is no more valid than anyone else's definition. Am I pro-life---absolutely. Am I pro-choice? Yes I am. How do I define life? It doesn't matter. It only matters that my definition is just as valid as another person's definition, and I don't get to decide for them, nor they for me.

    Is it murder? No.

    NC

  • finally awake
    finally awake

    I am anti abortion. I think there are better ways to deal with the consequences of sex. I genuinely believe that it is wrong to purposely interfere with the natural development of a fertilized egg. I don't have a problem avoiding fertilization - take the pill, wear a condom, get your tubes tied - I don't see anything unethical with those methods.

    However, there are situations where I feel it is unethical refuse a woman an abortion. If the continuation of the pregnancy is causing an immediate threat to the mother's life, then I don't think she should be forced to carry on. I am unsure of how to proceed in the case of rape or incest. The mental trauma to both the woman and the child could be massive, and it doesn't seem fair to force a woman to carry a baby who is the product of a crime. It also doesn't seem fair to end the life of a person based on who the father is.

  • Razziel
    Razziel

    First, let me say unbiased education is the key to reducing the number of abortions. Not making them illegal, or making laws that intimidate women into not having them.

    Secondly, and this is off-topic, but I want to point out, there is a price on every human life, regardless of the moral belief that every life is priceless.

    The city/county installs a stop light at a busy intersection once so many are killed there every year (because they can't afford to put them everywhere). They just put a price on human life.

    The military provides standard protective gear that is nowhere near the best available to avoid serious injury and death (because it would be prohibitavely expensive). They just put a price on human life.

    The auto industry could produce vehicles virtually guaranteeing you would never die in a vehicle crash (but they'd be so expensive few could afford them). They just put a price on human life.

    The insurance industry puts a price on human life everyday and will provide you a quote. There are a million examples of how a price is given for the value of a human life every day.

    My point is, beyond morals, every life has value. But it's not priceless, and that value is defined in monetary terms. You can argue that yeah, we have free will, where the unborn don't, but it doesn't matter. Statistics don't lie, and for every dollar spent on safety and education, a certain percentage of human lives are saved. So whether you feel life begins before, or after conception, in the third trimester, or at birth, it's still not priceless. Even if you feel it should be against the law except when the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest, you still just put a price on it.

    Should we really be suprised that prenatal life carries the least value of all? Not really. This isn't a perfect world, and holding to utopian beliefs only makes matters worse. There aren't stoplights (or better yet cops directing traffic) at every intersection because we can't afford it. Our soldiers don't have the latest and greatest because we can't afford it. We don't drive crash-proof cars because we can't afford it. And some people terminate their pregnancy because they can't afford or otherwise provide a good life to the child. I wish adoption was considered more often than it is, but conservatives have historically stigmatized and given the scarlet letter to women giving up their child for adoption almost as badly as abortion.

    At least we don't eat our young like some animals do.

  • mrsjones5
    mrsjones5

    Some animals reabsorb their pregnancies when stressed. It tends to happen early in the pregnancy.

    That little fact that was lodged in the back of my mind for some reason.

  • Razziel
    Razziel

    BTS, the distinction between "passive" and "active" is simply a construct to assuage our conscience and apportion the degree of culpabillity.

  • factfinder
    factfinder

    I believe abortion is murder. The baby has the right to life.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit