trini_girl:

You'll find that issues of common sense, right and wrong and law are relative. A mother doesnt make the choice to abort her child out of "common sense", it's usually a very painful decision in most cases, but it the end it seems like the "right" thing to do whether or not the "law" supports the procedure.

trini_girl:
As humans, even though we may think we know right from wrong, our own moral compass usually deceives us into only doing what seems right for ourselves at the present moment in time. Aborting a child may seem to be the right thing to do at that time, under that particular circumstance.

nferyn:

Comparing abortions to murder is absolutely preposterous.

Even though abortions should be avoided as much as possible

because of the negative psychological and physiological effects on the woman

25 weeks cannot possibly be considered a person because it lacks the neurological capacity to feel pain

When considering late term abortions on the other hand, I am compelled to believe these should be illegal, except under very specific circumstances, e.g when the woman's life is in danger or when the foetus is severely handicapped.

TV01:

Hi Nferyn,

Long time, Hope you are well.

TV01:

Comparing abortions to murder is absolutely preposterous.

Why? The wilful destruction of a innocent human being (especially of the most vulnerable and defenseless) is murder.

TV01:

Even though abortions should be avoided as much as possible

Based on your premise above, why? Surely you see it as just a lifestyle choice?

TV01:

because of the negative psychological and physiological effects on the woman

Presumably any negative effects on the child are inconsequential?

TV01:

This is also double speak, because;
1. Would you not say that the whole reason for wanting an abortion in the first place was to avoid negative p&p effects? and
2. You omit to mention the wholly positive effects pregnancy and childbirth.

TV01:

Hmmm, having said that, you then siad this

When considering late term abortions on the other hand, I am compelled to believe these should be illegal, except under very specific circumstances, e.g when the woman's life is in danger or when the foetus is severely handicapped.

Here you are allowing abortion of an individual who can feel pain, but because said individual is handicapped?

TV01:

There are lots of handicapped people who can feel pain. The main difference betwween them and the foetus is location (i.e. outside the womb). Presumably killing them wouldn't count as murder either?

TV01:

Atheism is just a big hole unable to make coherent sense of the moral let alone the spiritual.

TV01:

Likewise science, which has it's place, but will always fall short.

TV01:

Have a good day

TV01:

God bless

Early term abortions are not the killing of a person, but merely the extraction of human cells with the potential of becoming a person.

when the foetus is severely handicapped

Yes and the negative effects should be weighed against the positive effect. It's up to the woman to determine which effects take precedence.

The only effect of killing an already born handicapped person is negative, quite different from the abortion case.

TV01:

Hi Nferyn,

Okay, no problem. You don't hold top a notion of ensoulment, I am happy to put it to one side for the moment.

However, you must realise that you it reads somewhat blurred when you make statements like this;

Early term abortions are not the killing of a person, but merely the extraction of human cells with the potential of becoming a person.

So when does the potential become actual?

TV01:

when the foetus is severely handicapped

How severe a handicap warrants termination and who is to say?

TV01:

If it's about quality of life, living on less than a $1 a day in modern Nigeria, is really handicapping disabled or not, would you suggest their quality of life warrants termination?

TV01:

The only effect of killing an already born handicapped person is negative, quite different from the abortion case.

Please explain how?

nferyn:

So when does the potentia[/b]l become actual?

When sentience kicks in. This is around 29 weeks.

nferyn:

Already living human beings have full sentience, aspirations, hopes and dreams and are in the full capacity themselves to decide whether or not their life is worth living. That's nobody else's choice but theirs, a fetus is not exactly in the same position.

nferyn:


Now, it would be a good thing if those so obsessed with protecting life (e.g. the Schiavo case in the US) would spend only 10% of the resources and efforts they invest in that protection [/i]on bettering the quality of life of those already living. They've got their priorities all mixed up.

nferyn:


You are just trotting out the old "Womans right to choose" line which is not really a question of rights and consequences of all involved.
The ultimate arbiter is the woman, as nobody can force her to compromise the integrity of her body, so yes, I'm towing the [i]old "Woman's right to choose line", but only in a specific set of circumstances for late term abortions. Before sentience kicks in, it's nobody's business but hers.

nferyn:


Do I need to spell this out? What positive consequences could killing an already born handicapped person possibly have? In the case of abortion, the consequences are clear: having a child at a moment or under circumstances that are less than ideal, does have an immediate negative effect on the quality of life, physical integrity and opportunities of the woman

4 Play:

Until 29 weeks,its merely a potential ? The irony is that the biggest obstacle to this "potential" materialising is the abortionist

4 Play:

Already living human beings have full sentience, aspirations, hopes and dreams and are in the full capacity themselves to decide whether or not their life is worth living. That's nobody else's choice but theirs, a fetus is not exactly in the same position.

That is why we must terminate it!We know if we left it alone,there is a 99.9% chance it will acquire all the above(aspirations,hopes,dreams,sentience,e.t.c)so we are fully justified in artificially intervening so as to stop what,if the natural process was not interfered with,would most likely lead to a fully formed human.

4 Play:

Now, it would be a good thing if those so obsessed with protecting life (e.g. the Schiavo case in the US) would spend only 10% of the resources and efforts they invest in that protection on bettering the quality of life of those already living. They've got their priorities all mixed up

One could make the same facile comment about pro-terminators.If they spent 10% of their resources and efforts on the living instead of promoting the necrotisation of foetuses,things would be better.

4 Play:

The ultimate arbiter is the woman, as nobody can force her to compromise the integrity of her body, so yes, I'm towing the old "Woman's right to choose line", but only in a specific set of circumstances for late term abortions. Before sentience kicks in, it's nobody's business but hers.

This is mantric piffle.Since its simply "the integrity of her body",why not terminate at whatever term? The "integrity of her body" does not include,the prescence in the womb,of an entity which but for human intervention,will most likely materialise into human life

4 Play:

Do I need to spell this out? What positive consequences could killing an already born handicapped person possibly have? In the case of abortion, the consequences are clear: having a child at a moment or under circumstances that are less than ideal, does have an immediate negative effect on the quality of life, physical integrity and opportunities of the woman

You could do better.A negative effect on the "quality of life,physical integrity and opportunities of a woman" could hardly be sufficient justification for terminating a domestic pet not to talk of a "potential" human.

4 Play:

Isn't well documented that abortion itself can have the above negative consequences for a woman anyway?

4 Play:

The reality is that since abortion was legalised in the U.K(1964),it has doubled in numbers since the 70s.The argument in the U.K by pro-abortionists was that abortions will be reduced,or at least stabilised, not increased.Vindication!