Uyi Iredia:

It is actually. If the mother dies before a certain stage in the baby's growth, mental impairment or death could happen to the baby. The mother BTW has to keep herself safe and healthy for the baby's sake. Now if (assuming I'm married) I find out that the child is a grave risk to my wife's life, and this can only be remedied thu abortion, I'll take it. If you want to make the sacrifice of your spouse feel free - I won't unless she insists otherwise.

I understand the decision call the mother would have to make but I believe you are overstretching the ish of abortion here, unless I misunderstand your meaning.

Now, for me, abortion in any way is wrong and should be avoided at ALL cost. Do note that abortion is basically the deliberate killing of the child...in our world we would call this murder if it is done to any human outside the womb.

If a pregnancy poses a health hazard for the mother...and by health hazard I mean some real threat which most likely will lead to death if the mother decides to see the pregnancy to term.

In this case the mother has every right to try and save her life...but in doing so she should try as much as she can to save the baby's life too.

If in the process of doing this the child dies, I am of the opinion that the lady is blameless in the matter and she has not committed abortion because the death of the child is NOT DELIBERATE.

However, there are mothers who are willing to give up their lives for their children no matter what...I have experienced this first hand. A friend's wife was advised by her doc to terminate her pregnancy because of a potential threat...

She refused because she can't see herself doing such to her own child...she saw the pregnancy to term and thankfully both mother and child saw the light of day...this lady was ready to make that sacrifice.

I can't ask every woman to do this but one thing is basic...to deliberately kill one's child is WRONG!!!

Uyi Iredia:

Seems your BS tolerance is pretty low today. I liked that response.

Guy I don't have power to start the 'you said it...no, I did not say it...' kinda argument here. The discourse would struggle to find relevance in the process...

striktlymi:
I understand the decision call the mother would have to make but I believe you are overstretching the ish of abortion here, unless I misunderstand your meaning.

I don't think I'm over-stretching it.

striktlymi: Now, for me, abortion in any way is wrong and should be avoided at ALL cost. Do note that abortion is basically the deliberate killing of the child...in our world we would call this murder if it is done to any human outside the womb.

Agreed.

striktlymi: If a pregnancy poses a health hazard for the mother...and by health hazard I mean some real threat which most likely will lead to death if the mother decides to see the pregnancy to term.

Okay.

striktlymi:
In this case the mother has every right to try and save her life...but in doing so she should try as much as she can to save the baby's life too.

The grey area is here. Striking a balance between saving the child or your wife. I'll choose the latter.

striktlymi:
If in the process of doing this the child dies, I am of the opinion that the lady is blameless in the matter and she has not committed abortion because the death of the child is NOT DELIBERATE.

Okay. I'm just considering that it could not be all hard-and-fast.

striktlymi:
However, there are mothers who are willing to give up their lives for their children no matter what...I have experienced this first hand. A friend's wife was advised by her doc to terminate her pregnancy because of a potential threat...

Okay.

striktlymi:
She refused because she can't see herself doing such to her own child...she saw the pregnancy to term and thankfully both mother and child saw the light of day...this lady was ready to make that sacrifice.

Okay.

striktlymi:
I can't ask every woman to do this but one thing is basic...to deliberately kill one's child is WRONG!!!

Agreed. I also agree that there are circunstances (as the said) in which abortion is justified - despite the obvious murder. I'll hold you to your final statement though.

Uyi Iredia:

The grey area is here. Striking a balance between saving the child or your wife. I'll choose the latter.

In order not to misunderstand you...give me a real life scenario and let's walk through it.

Mr anony:
This is why we draw the line between immoral and illegal. Do you think the actions of a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to let their kids receive lifesaving blood transfusions have done something morally right?

No sane person thinks that denying yourself or your child a lifesaving treatment because of some religious delusions is a good thing. The only reason why society allows it is because the alternative of taking away people's autonomy over their bodies is far worse.

Imagine if the government or some other third party could force you to have a surgery you didn't want. Imagine if they could allocate one of your kidneys to someone else who needed it without your consent. Imagine if someone could graft a foetus into your body and force you to suffer the nausea, the back and joint pain, having to urinate every 30 minutes, constant tiredness, hypertension, the risk of liver, kidney, and brain damage; not to talk of the bloody, painful and dangerous climax at the end all against your will, would you be happy?

Your body is your property, and yout should have the final say over what happens to it. If you're not capable of making decisions due todullness, insanity or immaturity, then your parent or spouse should decide for you (hence the poor Jehovah Witness children). This is the most basic of human rights. Potential human Not coming to be is a sad consequence, but it's better than turning half of humanity into biological slaves.


Unlike you, I recognise that the decision whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy or have an abortion is not an easy one. But the only person with the right to decide is the woman herself, not the government, and certainly not some religious fanatics determined to tell others how to live their lives. The woman is the one who will make all the sacrifices to bring the child to term and she should get to decide if she wants to.

I'm not going to demonize the women who are unfortunate enough to end up in that situation. People like you who do so usually have no clue what it means to have that kind of reresponsibility on your neck.

striktlymi:


Never mind!!!

Too hot to handle eh?

Evil Brain:

No sane person thinks that denying yourself or your child a lifesaving treatment because of some religious delusions is a good thing. The only reason why society allows it is because the alternative of taking away people's autonomy over their bodies is far worse.

Imagine if the government or some other third party could force you to have a surgery you didn't want. Imagine if they could allocate one of your kidneys to someone else who needed it without your consent. Imagine if someone could graft a foetus into your body and force you to suffer the nausea, the back and joint pain, having to urinate every 30 minutes, constant tiredness, hypertension, the risk of liver, kidney, and brain damage; not to talk of the bloody, painful and dangerous climax at the end all against your will, would you be happy?

Your body is your property, and yout should have the final say over what happens to it. If you're not capable of making decisions due todullness, insanity or immaturity, then your parent or spouse should decide for you (hence the poor Jehovah Witness children). This is the most basic of human rights. Potential human Not coming to be is a sad consequence, but it's better than turning half of humanity into biological slaves.


Unlike you, I recognise that the decision whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy or have an abortion is not an easy one. But the only person with the right to decide is the woman herself, not the government, and certainly not some religious fanatics determined to tell others how to live their lives. The woman is the one who will make all the sacrifices to bring the child to term and she should get to decide if she wants to.

I'm not going to demonize the women who are unfortunate enough to end up in that situation. People like you who do so usually have no clue what it means to have that kind of reresponsibility on your neck.

Good, it appears that we now both agree that abortion is evil. The point of argument it seems to me now is that the Government should not have the right to prevent people from doing evil. i.e people have the right to choose their actions and the Government ought to respect that including when these actions (or inactions) lead to the death of other people.

Is this a fair representation of what you are saying?

Mr anony:
This is simply not true.

How is it not true?

Mr anony:
Since you disagree with how I define humans, how then do you define humans? You can't just disagree in a vacuum

Human being: A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

You still don't see what is right before you. Being human isn't a magical shield that protects a person from having their life ended besides since you like definitions so much, I've not seen you actually define human. Why don't you go ahead and do that.

Mr anony:
Lol, since you have shied away from telling us what you think a human being is or when you think the life of a human being starts, you have successfully excused yourself from making any objections as to how I define humans because you have provided no concept of human beings upon which your objections can be based.

You've not actually defined human beings and you're still ignoring what I've said which is that my argument doesn't hinge on how you wish to define humans. You do realize that there are other ways of making an argument for abortion without resorting to some funny gymnastics.

Mr anony:
As I said earlier, until you can tell us how you define a human being and when the life of a human being begins, you cannot make the argument as to whether or not a day old zygote is actually different as a human being from a fifty year old adult.

This is just wrong. I don't need to have my own definition in order to show you that you're committing a logical fallacy. Anyone with eyes and some knowledge of biology can see that a zygote is very different as a human being from a fifty year old adult.

Mr anony:
To make that argument will be to assume an initial point which you haven't justified.

Again, my own argument doesn't need that but yours does so you should try to justify your position without recourse to logical fallacies.

thehomer: How is it not true?

That's just it. The slippery slope fallacy does not apply every time one says there is no difference between two states that are different. There has to be a blurred range of values (a slope) between the two states for it to apply.
Consider this statement for instance: "there is no difference between alive and dead" can you show the slippery slope fallacy?

Human being: A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

You still don't see what is right before you. Being human isn't a magical shield that protects a person from having their life ended besides since you like definitions so much, I've not seen you actually define human. Why don't you go ahead and do that.

Good, a human being is the kind of being that is or has the natural potential to be sapient, bipedal hairless primate that stands upright and has a relatively complex language. A human being however, is not necessarily define by what it's body looks like rather he/she is defined by it's essence i.e. an unconscious human being incapable of exhibiting sapience at the moment would still be human, same applies to one that doesn't stand upright or has two of it's legs chopped off. Human beings are not necessarily defined by what stage of development they exist as. They are the same person regardless of what their bodies look like and how it changes. The life of an individual human being starts at it's conception and continues until whenever it dies.
Furthermore, all people are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights starting with the right to life. To murder a human being is simply evil.

You've not actually defined human beings and you're still ignoring what I've said which is that my argument doesn't hinge on how you wish to define humans. You do realize that there are other ways of making an argument for abortion without resorting to some funny gymnastics.

This is just wrong. I don't need to have my own definition in order to show you that you're committing a logical fallacy. Anyone with eyes and some knowledge of biology can see that a zygote is very different as a human being from a fifty year old adult.

Again, my own argument doesn't need that but yours does so you should try to justify your position without recourse to logical fallacies.

You haven't made any argument, you haven't told us when you think the life of a human being starts. Without making this clear, you cannot talk about when it ought not to be ended.
...Or perhaps I've missed what your argument is and you might want to tell us exactly what it is.

striktlymi:

In order not to misunderstand you...give me a real life scenario and let's walk through it.

Let's say a pregnant woman with child finds out a misfunction in the foetus is causing her to lose blood, putting her in mortal danger.

Mr anony:
Good, it appears that we now both agree that abortion is evil. The point of argument it seems to me now is that the Government should not have the right to prevent people from doing evil. i.e people have the right to choose their actions and the Government ought to respect that including when these actions (or inactions) lead to the death of other people.

Is this a fair representation of what you are saying?

*sniffs* do i smell a strawman here?

Mr anony:
Is this a fair representation of what you are saying?

No.

If you want a fair representation of what I'm saying then read my post again.

Mr anony:
That's just it. The slippery slope fallacy does not apply every time one says there is no difference between two states that are different. There has to be a blurred range of values (a slope) between the two states for it to apply.
Consider this statement for instance: "there is no difference between alive and dead" can you show the slippery slope fallacy?

Notice that you've just made a statement not an argument. In fact, one can create a slope between alive and dead using the same sort of reasoning you've been using.

Mr anony:
Good, a human being is the kind of being that is or has the natural potential to be sapient, bipedal hairless primate that stands upright and has a relatively complex language. A human being however, is not necessarily define by what it's body looks like rather he/she is defined by it's essence i.e. an unconscious human being incapable of exhibiting sapience at the moment would still be human, same applies to one that doesn't stand upright or has two of it's legs chopped off. Human beings are not necessarily defined by what stage of development they exist as. They are the same person regardless of what their bodies look like and how it changes. The life of an individual human being starts at it's conception and continues until whenever it dies.

You do realize that this insertion of "natural potential" makes your entire enterprise suspect. It would make your skin cells human or deny that test tube babies aren't human and everything else between.
Then you also smuggle in the word "essence". What exactly is it supposed to refer to? Some spirit?
To show you the absurdity of this position, would you prefer to save 1000 cryopreserved zygotes to one 30 year old person in an emergency? Would you prefer to save 1000 thirty year olds to one thirty year old person in another emergency?

Mr anony:
Furthermore, all people are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights starting with the right to life. To murder a human being is simply evil.

I'm sure this creator and the rest of us humans would agree that killing a human being isn't simply evil.

Mr anony:
You haven't made any argument, you haven't told us when you think the life of a human being starts. Without making this clear, you cannot talk about when it ought not to be ended.
...Or perhaps I've missed what your argument is and you might want to tell us exactly what it is.

My argument is simply that a woman has complete rights to her body. Since she has this right, then she is perfectly permitted to deny its use to anyone else.

As you can see, it doesn't appeal to whatever you think about when the life of a human being starts.

Uyi Iredia:

Let's say a pregnant woman with child finds out a misfunction in the foetus is causing her to lose blood, putting her in mortal danger.

Hello Uyi,

What kind of ailment are we talking about here?

striktlymi:


Hello Uyi,

What kind of ailment are we talking about here?

Ectopic pregnancy. Google it. It is a pregnacy in which the foetus is lodged in the fallopian tube instead of the womb. It involves the grey area I'm considering.

thehomer:

I'm sure this creator and the rest of us humans would agree that killing a human being isn't simply evil.

Good. Then assasinations, serial killings, lynchings etc. aren't simply evil. They're good.

thehomer:
My argument is simply that a woman has complete rights to her body. Since she has this right, then she is perfectly permitted to deny its use to anyone else.

This woman wasn't denied use, as a foetus and baby, by her mum, ergo, empathy must be considered when considering denying it's use by a baby. Of course, I find it irksome that during pregnancy the woman's right is emphasized over the male's despite the FACT that without the male sperm pregnancy is impossible.

Uyi Iredia:

Ectopic pregnancy. Google it. It is a pregnacy in which the foetus is lodged in the fallopian tube instead of the womb. It involves the grey area I'm considering.

Evening Uyi,

I had a hunch that you were talking about Ectopic pregnancies...in this case too, abortion is WRONG!!! Look at it this way, NOTHING can justify murder. Killing out of self defence is different from murdering someone...self defence is excusable but not murder.

Like I said before, you are over stretching the ish of abortion. When a mother tries to save her life because of a complication in her pregnancy without deliberately trying to kill her child, this is not abortion because she has no intent to kill the child deliberately.

Now consider the following explanation:

In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother-- the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.

The second method is the administration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion-- it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option as the purpose is to kill the baby-- a direct action that is always wrong.

and this from a lady who had an experience with Ectopic pregnancy:

I just had an ectopic pregnancy that thankfully resolved itself without my needing surgery. These are the options my supposedly pro-life doctor gave me (keep in mind that I was not in immediate danger of bleeding out, unlike many women who present with ectopic pregnancy) :

1) Wait it out-- since I wasn't in immediate danger, I had the option of resting and waiting to see if the miscarriage would progress naturally on its own, and my body would then heal itself. I had strict instructions to come to the ER immediately, should I have any symptoms of dangerous levels of internal bleeding.

2) Go ahead and do surgery to remove the tube (or part of it), to avoid putting your life in possible danger, sort of like a preemptive strike

3) Take the methotrexate

Of these three, in my case, the only moral choice was waiting it out. The second choice would only be morally acceptable if I was in immediate and certain danger of bleeding out without surgery (I wasn't, praised be to Jesus). The third choice is never acceptable, for reasons already stated by other posters.

I had regular blood tests to make sure my blood count never dipped, and to test my pregnancy hormone levels to make sure I was really having a miscarriage (the doc wanted to be certain the baby hadn't implanted on an organ outside my uterus and continued to grow, for instance).

So, contrary to what a lot of people may think, it is possible to avoid an abortion even the case of ectopic pregnancy. Intentional abortion is NEVER acceptable, a direct attack on the baby is NEVER acceptable. Also, I think I am correct in stating that by the time the surgery becomes necessary to save the mother, the tube itself has already ruptured (therefore causing the excessive bleeding), and this most always itself causes the death of the baby. If someone knows better, please correct me!

italo: @davidylan, how do you claim that abortion is wrong uet support the existence of the biggest abortion provider in America (Planned Parenthood)?

Could it be that you're being just as hypocritical as you accuse the Republicans of being?

1. PP started out and is largely a provider of reproductive health to minority women and women who otherwise have no other recourse to the kind of healthcare the rest of us "privileged few" take for granted. Unfortunately abortion advice to women who are either under-aged, victims of sexual abuse is also a part of PPs functions. Where else do you expect these poor women to get help since republicans have been too busy cutting funding to everything?
Abortion is a clear evil... however the actions of those who scream loud against abortion has perpetuated this evil and allowed it to fester. Provide affordable healthcare to the poor and abortion will be a thing of the past. We can cry all we want but 99% of PPs functions is NOT related to abortion and is a necessary service that the poor and minority women will not likely get elsewhere.

The hypocrisy is with those who cry against PP yet provide no alternative to those who would have no other place to go if it didnt exist.

Mr anony:

These comments are a classic example of what the ad hominem fallacy is.

You have both ignored the point of the argument which is that; Abortion is morally wrong. Instead you have proceeded to attack the person of Huckabee and other members of the Republican party. I'm afraid both of you have really made no point as regards the issue itself.

I believe i addressed the point in my subsequent post on page 0. Abortion is morally wrong... what is also morally wrong is that those who cry loudest against abortion are the same ones who would just as soon pull the financial rug from under the feet of the newborn child and mother.

striktlymi:

Evening Uyi,

I had a hunch that you were talking about Ectopic pregnancies...in this case too, abortion is WRONG!!! Look at it this way, NOTHING can justify murder. Killing out of self defence is different from murdering someone...self defence is excusable but not murder.

Like I said before, you are over stretching the ish of abortion. When a mother tries to save her life because of a complication in her pregnancy without deliberately trying to kill her child, this is not abortion because she has no intent to kill the child deliberately.

Now consider the following explanation:



and this from a lady who had an experience with Ectopic pregnancy:

The situation you presented is a fairly uncommon instance where ectopic pregnacy is lost by itself. As I've implied there are instances where the mother's life is in immediate danger (instance 2 in your example) and in such cases I would allow abortion. It would be acceptable in such cases.

Uyi Iredia:

The situation you presented is a fairly uncommon instance where ectopic pregnacy is lost by itself. As I've implied there are instances where the mother's life is in immediate danger and in such cases I would allow abortion.

Most people are very absolute on the issue of abortion primarily because they have never had to encounter examples such as the above. It is easy to pontificate when you are not directly affected by such issues.
those who have had to make the horrible choice of picking between keeping their mom alive or potentially losing both mother and foetus would better appreciate this issue better than the "no abortion at any cost" crowd.

I wonder what many would say if their own daughters ended up pregnant as a result of rape.

Uyi Iredia:

The situation you presented is a fairly uncommon instance where ectopic pregnacy is lost by itself. As I've implied there are instances where the mother's life is in immediate danger (instance 2 in your example) and in such cases I would allow abortion. It would be acceptable in such cases.

Morning Uyi,

Nah, abortion is NEVER an option!

striktlymi:

Morning Uyi,

Nah, abortion is NEVER an option!

Okay. Let's assume that your wife's life is in grave danger and the only way involves abortion, will you take it or not ? Let us assume there's no possible way out - no miracles too.

striktlymi:

Morning Uyi,

Nah, abortion is NEVER an option!

And your stubborn and unreasonable opinion is binding on who?

A religious nutjob of a man like youthining you can tell women that they have no rights over their body.

If a woman doesnt want to have the baby, then it is her right. End of story.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay. Let's assume that your wife's life is in grave danger and the only way involves abortion, will you take it or not ? Let us assume there's no possible way out - no miracles too.

The viable option, like I mentioned before, would be to try and save the lady's life without necessarily causing harm to the child.

If in the process of saving the lady's life, the child is lost then this would be an unfortunate incident that CANNOT be categorized as abortion.

The goal of abortion is to kill the child but the procedure I talk about aims at saving the mother with hope of saving the child too if there is any chance.

Ultimately the lady decides whether to choose to fight for her life or the life of the child...this decision is tough but she would need to make it based on a number of factors...

If in the event that the child has no chance of survival whether the lady decides to fight for its life or not then the lady might have no choice but try and save her life.

Note that in the above case, there is still NO deliberate killing of the child...

Uyi Iredia:

Okay. Let's assume that your wife's life is in grave danger and the only way involves abortion, will you take it or not ? Let us assume there's no possible way out - no miracles too.

My mother was in this same situation once. I'm glad she lived to see me grow up... as usual the "abortion is NEVER an option" bandwagon most likely have no personal connection to the issue.

Just like others have asked... i wonder what these same folks would have to say if they had to choose between a foetus and the life of their mothers or wives? Would they be as vocal if their daughters were impregnated by forcible rape?

Abortion is murder... so is war. I suppose all soldiers are going to hell now no? The funny thing is that, especially in america, those who are vocal anti-abortionists are VOCAL supporters of the death penalty! Cognitive dissonance at its best.

striktlymi:
If in the event that the child has no chance of survival whether the lady decides to fight for its life or not then the lady might have no choice but try and save her life.

Wait... the lady has to wait until she is sure the child wont survive BEFORE she makes the decision to TRY and save her life to raise the other children she has already?

First of all, if you had ever been in a delivery room you know that most women at that stage DO NOT have the option of making such a decision.

davidylan:

Wait... the lady has to wait until she is sure the child wont survive BEFORE she makes the decision to TRY and save her life to raise the other children she has already?

First of all, if you had ever been in a delivery room you know that most women at that stage DO NOT have the option of making such a decision.

Morning David,

If that is the only thing you saw in that post then it implied you did not read it properly.

striktlymi:

Morning David,

If that is the only thing you saw in that post then it implied you did not read it properly.

I quietly followed this thread from beginning and have re-read it from the first page today. The tenor of posts here has swung from one extreme to the other...

pro-life activists - thou shalt not terminate a child deliberately under no circumstances... completely ignoring situations where actually carrying a healthy thriving baby may be dangerous to the life of the mother.

pro-choice activists - thou shalt terminate a child whenever you want since it is not human anyway. Completely ignoring the moral implications of senseless murder.

Your post falls in line with the former.

One interesting thing that occurred to me when reading this was how dogmatic most of us truly are. Has anyone ever wondered if soldiers are all candidates of hell for fighting in wars where the ultimate goal is the DELIBERATE murder of fully grown men? Are pro-life activists also fighting to outlaw death penalties?

davidylan:

I quietly followed this thread from beginning and have re-read it from the first page today. The tenor of posts here has swung from one extreme to the other...

pro-life activists - thou shalt not terminate a child deliberately under no circumstances... completely ignoring situations where actually carrying a healthy thriving baby may be dangerous to the life of the mother.

If you state that I ignored certain situations then your claim to have read posts in this thread more than one time is FALSE!

davidylan:

I quietly followed this thread from beginning and have re-read it from the first page today. The tenor of posts here has swung from one extreme to the other...

pro-life activists - thou shalt not terminate a child deliberately under no circumstances... completely ignoring situations where actually carrying a healthy thriving baby may be dangerous to the life of the mother.

pro-choice activists - thou shalt terminate a child whenever you want since it is not human anyway. Completely ignoring the moral implications of senseless murder.

Your post falls in line with the former.

One interesting thing that occurred to me when reading this was how dogmatic most of us truly are. Has anyone ever wondered if soldiers are all candidates of hell for fighting in wars where the ultimate goal is the DELIBERATE murder of fully grown men? Are pro-life activists also fighting to outlaw death penalties?

So, you are actually saying that there is no correct decision concerning abortion?

Well, you highligted the dogmatic foolishness of Striklymi and his pro-lief extremism and hypocrisy.


You do know that God/nature is the most frequent aborter? Spontaneous abortions happen. Natural ones

striktlymi:

If you state that I ignored certain situations then your claim to have read posts in this thread more than one time is FALSE!

Calm down and read your own posts. In the last one you expressly state - "Note that in the above case, there is still NO deliberate killing of the child..."

Some necessary abortions require the deliberate killing of the child. Sorry.