Catholic stance on abortion

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Have you read The selfish gene? It has some interesting to say with regards eggs and sperm.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll try find it and read it.

havana

seanybiker wrote: »

Any woman who murders her child should be forced to have a hysterectomy. Selfish feckers.Im not catholic but I do know that killing a child, born or unborn is murder.

No. You believe or think, in your opinion, it is murder. Other people believe otherwise.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll try find it and read it.

The reason I recommended it is kind of vague to me at the moment but it gives an interesting insight into the need for both the egg and the sperm and how they are equally half of what it takes to start the development of another human which I thought might be relevant. Plus it is a brilliant book for introducing you to evolutionary biology.

CathyMoran

CathyMoran wrote: »

Maybe I am speaking with my hormones here but I find it very hard to imagine how anyone could get rid of a baby unless their own health was at serious risk. I used to be pro choice but since becoming pregnant I have felt nothing but love for my baby

Cathy, congrats first of all, but you've been trying for a while to get pregnant and are looking forward to it very much if I'm not mistaken. Consider how horrible it must be if someone is in very much the opposite of that situation and don't condemn someone based on your own unique position.

havana

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The reason I recommended it is kind of vague to me at the moment but it gives an interesting insight into the need for both the egg and the sperm and how they are equally half of what it takes to start the development of another human which I thought might be relevant. Plus it is a brilliant book for introducing you to evolutionary biology.

You can be pro choice and still very much know it is not an option you would consider. I believe you don't have to 'agree' with abortion to be pro choice but to agree every woman has the right to make her own decisions based on her unique situation. Being pro choice does not make me anti- life.

havana

Oops sorry i quoted the wrong post. Was meant in reply to cathy! Apologies

PDN

havana wrote: »

You can be pro choice and still very much know it is not an option you would consider. I believe you don't have to 'agree' with abortion to be pro choice but to agree every woman has the right to make her own decisions based on her unique situation. Being pro choice does not make me anti- life.

So you can agree that others have the choice to kill babies or not, but claim that you still don't agree with killing babies because it's not something you yourself would do?

Doctor DooM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would think that the relationship was symbiotic rather than parasitic.

Only if there is a desire on the mothers part to have the baby.

Otherwise the child is a pure drain on the adults resources:

. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Physically, as uncomfortable as it might make people, the relationship between mother and unborn child is fairly parasitic to be fair.

... although to be honest, I don't consider the Catholic Church to be be "wrong" on this matter. I don't think there is a wrong or right.

Personally, I have no childer. I have never been in the situation where I have had to make that call. In my mind, I don't believe I have the right to tell anyone what to do with their body. Especially when it comes to sex and reproduction. How dare anyone (and on any other part of that topic I think the Catholic Church is consistently old fashioned, outdated, and self damaging).

I do however completely understand why some people would. Defend the defenseless and all that.

CathyMoran

bluewolf wrote: »

Cathy, congrats first of all, but you've been trying for a while to get pregnant and are looking forward to it very much if I'm not mistaken. Consider how horrible it must be if someone is in very much the opposite of that situation and don't condemn someone based on your own unique position.

Yes, we were trying 4-11 days! The baby was planned (if a suprise) but I still feel that I am carrying a little life within me and would never want to hurt another being. Seeing the heartbeat really makes it real for you that there is another life in there. I do feel sorry for people who have abortions but I cant agree with it unless in very restricted circumstances.

Havana, I just find it hard to agree with hurting another being and do not think that other people should be allowed to do it either.

Ciaran500

PDN wrote: »

So you can agree that others have the choice to kill babies or not, but claim that you still don't agree with killing babies because it's not something you yourself would do?

I brought this up before and was met with similar responses. There was even other people in the thread who said this was there position.

I don't see why people can't understand this position.

havana

PDN wrote: »

So you can agree that others have the choice to kill babies or not, but claim that you still don't agree with killing babies because it's not something you yourself would do?

I never said it wasn't something i wouldn't do. I said i believe someone who who not take that road themselves may still be pro choice. Just because someone doesn't think a particular course of action is right for them doesnt mean they necessarily think no one else has the right to that course of action.

philologos

havana wrote: »

You can be pro choice and still very much know it is not an option you would consider. I believe you don't have to 'agree' with abortion to be pro choice but to agree every woman has the right to make her own decisions based on her unique situation. Being pro choice does not make me anti- life.

I don't see how this works unless you apply a "Whatever goes for you, mightn't go for me, but it's still alright". That might be the case for something like what someones favourite meal is, but it doesn't apply to ethical issues such as these surely.

I don't know how you could see abortion to be wrong, and yet see it okay that they should be allowed to happen.

I hope we can keep abortion from being implemented in Ireland.

havana

I don't believe abortion is wrong. And i never said i did and certainly never meant to apply i did. The point i am trying to make is that a woman may feel she could not have an abortion but can still respect another womans right to have one.

philologos

havana wrote: »

I don't believe abortion is wrong. And i never said i did and certainly never meant to apply i did. The point i am trying to make is that a woman may feel she could not have an abortion but can still respect another womans right to have one.

How is abortion considered a "right" anymore than the unborns right to life? See that's the issue we have we aren't just considering one persons rights, but two. (maybe even three if we consider paternal rights)

havana

Its not a right in ireland (although i believe it should be) but it is a right elsewhere and one many irish woman avail of. This discussion is always going to come down to the rights of the woman vs the rights of the unborn. I don't agree with you but i respect your right to your views. In my opinion all to often people who are pro life don't extend that same respect to people who are pro choice. I'm quite happy to agree to disagree. I will never try to convince someone they have to change their opinions. But opinions are a personal thing and should not be forced on others. (Not implying you are but i believe many pro lifers- and pro choice- do.)

philologos

Yes, but if it is a right in Ireland that would null and void the right to life.

The discussion comes down to a compromise between the rights of the woman and the rights of the child to me, and that's the only entirely fair way of dealing with this without allowing for the weaker to be oppressed by the stronger.

havana

Which bring us to the debate on when life begins. Its a vicious circle and one i can't see us ever resolving. But to me i'm not that interested in that whole debate. Because i believe it is such a personal decision i believe it is up to each individual to make that determination based on their own moral code and judgement. I'm not suggesting later term terminations should be freely available- for me the cut off point should be shortly before viability.

CathyMoran

But the thing is, I believe that the baby is alive at the moment, sure at the age it is it can not survive without me but neither can a baby that is born and I am only in my first trimester.

philologos

Life starts from the zygote surely. It's a stage in development from conception to birth, and then from childhood to adulthood. Life is conception to death, and people have been trying to deny this for years. I just wish people would be honest with themselves, and say that they support killing out of convenience.

havana

And this is why its such a personal thing. Cathy you wanted to get pregnant. You could probably imagine your baby or at least life with your baby before you even conceived. You wanted it and hoped it would happen. It was your baby right from the get go. But not everyone is in that position. Not everyone plans or wants a child at the point they become pregnant. Its rife with emotions. For you they are positive hopeful emotions. For others they are painful desperate emotions. So how can you equate how you feel about your baby or the decisions you make to how someone in the opposite situation feels

philologos

havana, that isn't the point though. She has discussed how she feels that the baby is a living human being even in the first trimester of her pregnancy. So her point is hugely relevant to when we define an foetus as life. It is irrelevant whether or not people want the pregnancy if this is a living human being, it would be a violation of human rights laws to abort this human being.

havana

But not everyone believes it is a human being at conception. I'm no expert on the science of it all but i do not believe it is a human rights issue. I believe the womans rights are paramount in such a situation. I don't ask or expect anyone to agree with my feelings on the issue. All i ask is the right to hold and voice those opinions. If you were a 17 year old who found yourself pregnant you might feel totally different. Or you might feel just the same but everyone has different emotional reactions amd practical needs and i don't believe that taking the high moral ground to guilt someone into a particular choice or laying on the science helps.

philologos

How isn't it a human rights issue? There have been cases in the United States where in botched abortions the baby survived, but had to be killed off. Thankfully President Bush in one of his finer moments, suggested that if the baby survives an abortion killing it off is illegal and this was passed in Senate and House of Representatives. However, this raises questions about where the line between foetus and baby needs to be drawn. The record really just proves how poor humans are at even trying to delegitimise what is life in the first place.

If I was a 17 year old female (considering I am male), and if I found myself in that situation (considering I hold the view of waiting until marriage). Yes I would be in a much different mood, but at the end of the day the decision still has to be made. I pity anyone who is in that position, and I do not wish to put personal blame on the person who seeks an abortion. However, I do believe that Western states which encourage such a barbaric practice which denies basic human rights to be disgraceful.

Why are the rights of the woman paramount? Because she is merely more developed that the human being within the womb?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You're evidently twisting what I wrote now.

I said that it was not a human. (i.e a human being)

I said it was human biological material that was a prerequisite to forming a human being as is the ova.

Theres a clear difference.

There is a HUGE difference, and that ultimately is what it boils down to.

The point I'm making is that one cannot say that the zygote is "human" and therefore imply that it is a person or human being. It is possible to be human (ie biologically a homo sapien) and not be considered a being. Your hair cells are human, they are not beings.

havana

Well yes. I don't see how we can balance the rights. I believe that up to a point a woman has the right to decide whether she wishes to continue the pregnancy. Obviouly the ideal situation is that the unwanted pregnancy does not occur in the first place but i think most would agree we will not eliminate them totally. I doubt any woman wants to face such a decision nor is it taken lightly.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Life starts from the zygote surely.

It all depends on how one defines "life", and this is after all just a human classification for a natural process. You could define biological life a different way and still be "correct"

Personally I certainly wouldn't say that life starts at the zygote stage. That implies that the sperm and egg are not living, or are not you.

Part of the problem I feel is the idea of life "starting" in the first place. Life started 4 billion years ago and never stopped. Your parents each produced a cell. These cells grow together. The produced a cell that continues to multiple. At no point is anything not living

Picking the stage in this process when "they" become "you" is ultimately arbitrary. It is like looking at a long chart of white fading to gray fading to black and being asked to pick a point where the white turns into the black.

Nature simply does not reflect the distinct classifications we would like to apply to life.

Jakkass wrote: »

Life is conception to death, and people have been trying to deny this for years.

Another way of looking at it is life is 4 billion years ago to death. The process that produced you started billions of years ago. You are the current end result of a 4 billion year old self sustaining chemical reaction.

This chemical reaction will stop when you die. But it certainly didn't start at the point of your conception.

Such a view point is ultimately untenable when discussing individuals though, because we have to define how you are different to your parents, or your grand parents. I certainly accept that one needs to do this, my point is though that biology isn't going to provide an easy answer. As far as biology is concerned we are one very long self sustaining chemical reaction. It stops when you die, but it started long before you were born.

Most people would say that is ridiculous because "they" didn't exist 4 billion years ago. But what they actually mean by that is that their brain didn't exist. When we talk about "me" we are referring the consciousness contained in our brains. DNA doesn't matter. The information in your DNA has been around for millions of years and the actual molecules themselves were some where else 8 years ago. Your cells don't matter, again the material that makes them up was some where else 8 years ago and the information behind their structure has existed long before you were born.

So I always find myself coming back to the brain as the crucial aspect of human existence. "You" are your brain, and your brain is "you".

Jakkass wrote: »

I just wish people would be honest with themselves, and say that they support killing out of convenience.

And I wish people would stop using that assertion to avoid having to tackle the underlying ethics and philosophy behind these issues, such as what do we mean by a human person/being and why do we hold it valuable.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

Personally I certainly wouldn't say that life starts at the zygote stage. That implies that the sperm and egg are not living, or are not you.

If we look for a point in which you physically exist as single body (of cells) we can trace it back to that point. Physically that's you, intellectually it isn't.

For me the real question is what defines a human and we recognise its more than been self aware or reaching some intellectual plateau. Otherwise we'd have no compunction about killing of the severely mentally impaired, some of which are clearly not as competent as most mammals.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If we look for a point in which you physically exist as single body (of cells) we can trace it back to that point. Physically that's you, intellectually it isn't.

True, but that implies that existing as a single attached body of cells is some how important.

I'm not sure that it is beyond it making easier for humans to think about a single entity. Given that we can remove organs, say your heart, and still think of it as your heart it would seem to me that physical attachment is not a requirement to consider a individual entity. The sperm/egg pair can be thought of as "you", they can't survive forever separated from each other but then they aren't designed to

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

For me the real question is what defines a human and we recognise its more than been self aware or reaching some intellectual plateau. Otherwise we'd have no compunction about killing of the severely mentally impaired, some of which are clearly not as competent as most mammals.

And equally we need to look at mammals such as apes and ask do they share the characteristics we hold to be valuable, and if they do we need to protect them.

CathyMoran

havana wrote: »

And this is why its such a personal thing. Cathy you wanted to get pregnant. You could probably imagine your baby or at least life with your baby before you even conceived. You wanted it and hoped it would happen. It was your baby right from the get go. But not everyone is in that position. Not everyone plans or wants a child at the point they become pregnant. Its rife with emotions. For you they are positive hopeful emotions. For others they are painful desperate emotions. So how can you equate how you feel about your baby or the decisions you make to how someone in the opposite situation feels

While I admit I am talking from my heart I also think that logically my baby is alive. For me there are gray areas such as before the embro implants, certainly I can understand the morning after pill, the pill etc. However for me life begins at implantation.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but that implies that existing as a single attached body of cells is some how important.

I'm not sure that it is beyond it making easier for humans to think about a single entity. Given that we can remove organs, say your heart, and still think of it as your heart it would seem to me that physical attachment is not a requirement to consider a individual entity. The sperm/egg pair can be thought of as "you", they can't survive forever separated from each other but then they aren't designed to

Absolutely, but if I take your eye out and sit it beside you no one is going to identify your eye as you or now part of you. The completeness is assigned identity, which raises the question if I could split you evenly down the middle which one is you and is the resulting resulting corpse you. Your humanity (the important part) is more than just your body and it would seem more than you intellect (nor am I suggesting its some notion of soul).

Neither camp have answer that fundamental question for me, just what is your humanity ?

Handsome Bob

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Article 2.1

Everyone has the right to life.

Article 3.2

In the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular:
. the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law,

. the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons.

Article 24.2

In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration.

__________________________________________________________________________

This is undoubtedly a difficult topic. I would hate to tell a female what to do with her body, but I cannot agree with the extermination of a life in most cases. However, I do agree that a female has the right to choose on the grounds of sexual assault and a critical threat to the well being of the mother.

Fanny Cradock

SDooM wrote: »

Only if there is a desire on the mothers part to have the baby.

It's a fair point. However, I believe that Mr P was referring to his own time in the tummy and probably every other person as well. Given the negative connotations associated with parasitic relationships, I am actually a little disturbed that somebody would consider a unborn child (at whatever stage of development) a parasite. If ever I was to hear a woman reefer to her child (born or unborn) as a parasite, I'm unsure how deep my shock would be., it would be considerable, though. The label 'parasite' seems like an attempt to redefine a human life as a thing - depersonalise and therefore more easily disposed of. Also, it seems that here the distinction between a symbiotic relationship and a parasitic relationship is a subjective state of mind. Surely this is not the ground to base any decisions about abortion on?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a fair point. However, I believe that Mr P was referring to his own time in the tummy and probably every other person as well. Given the negative connotations associated with parasitic relationships, I am actually a little disturbed that somebody would consider a unborn child (at whatever stage of development) a parasite. If ever I was to hear a woman reefer to her child (born or unborn) as a parasite, I'm unsure how deep my shock would be., it would be considerable, though. The label 'parasite' seems like an attempt to redefine a human life as a thing - depersonalise and therefore more easily disposed of. Also, it seems that here the distinction between a symbiotic relationship and a parasitic relationship is a subjective state of mind. Surely this is not the ground to base any decisions about abortion on?

The parasite term is interesting because as you point out there are negative connotations associated with the term parasite. These negative feelings come from the idea that something should not take from another without the consent of other, or at least providing something back in return. A parasite, be it a ring worm or my old flat mate, is something or someone that takes and takes and takes but provides nothing back, and we instinctively feel this is a bad thing.

The interesting bit is that this is exactly what a baby does. The foetus (and the new born) take and take and take and provide nothing back to the mother.

But the whole thing is flipped on its head when we think of a foetus or a new born doing this. It no longer becomes a negative idea and in fact we instinctively feel that if this process is stopped then the suffering of the parasite in this case (the baby) is the bad thing.

I don't have any particularly overriding point to this, I just think it is funny how our evolved emotional systems have developed.

Rev Hellfire

I thought the term parasite was only applicable when dealing with an interspecies relationship and also harmful to the host species. Which is not what is occuring here.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

The interesting bit is that this is exactly what a baby does. The foetus (and the new born) take and take and take and provide nothing back to the mother.

It's arguable that the woman does gain benefits.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Absolutely, but if I take your eye out and sit it beside you no one is going to identify your eye as you or now part of you.

I'm pretty sure they would. If you were having a heart operation and they removed your heart for some reason and a doctor came along and smashed it up you (assuming some how you survived) would have a case against that doctor for smashed up your heart.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The completeness is assigned identity, which raises the question if I could split you evenly down the middle which one is you and is the resulting resulting corpse you. Your humanity (the important part) is more than just your body and it would seem more than you intellect (nor am I suggesting its some notion of soul).

To me it is the "program" in your brain, your stored consciousness, your neural pattern.

You put me in a Star Trek like teleporting copier and you produce 2 of me there are now 2 persons. If you (again from Star Trek) remove my brain and put it in someone else's body, "I" go with my brain. The rest of my body can rot away and die, I exist in the other persons body.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they would. If you were having a heart operation and they removed your heart for some reason and a doctor came along and smashed it up you (assuming some how you survived) would have a case against that doctor for smashed up your heart.

The would see it as your property, I'm not sure would identify it as 'you' part of your body, but not part of what is the idea of 'Wicknight'.

Wicknight wrote: »

To me it is the "program" in your brain, your stored consciousness, your neural pattern.

You put me in a Star Trek like teleporting copier and you produce 2 of me there are now 2 persons. If you (again from Star Trek) remove my brain and put it in someone else's body, "I" go with my brain. The rest of my body can rot away and die, I exist in the other persons body.

I can identify with what you are saying here, certainly it seems to me your identity is most strongly here.
The only problem I have with this is that when dealing with a person in a vegetative state we still think of them as valuable entity, but clearly if the 'program' is seriously corrupted to that degree have they lost that humanity.

btw. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just stating that for me it seems people will apply conflicting definitions of what makes us 'human' to suit their agenda. I certainly don't have an answer and really am not satisfied by either the argument you reach a development level and become 'human' or that you are 'human' from the moment the sperm/egg join.

MatthewVII

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's arguable that the woman does gain benefits.

True, but it's an argument you'd lose

A mother gains no physiological benefits from pregnancy. The altered hormone levels put her at much higher risk of blood clots, diabetes and blood pressure derangement. Altered liver function and immunological status can be life-threatening. The mechanical stresses alone cause sleep disturbance and functional difficulties that make the first and last trimesters extremely uncomfortable. A woman's bond with her baby and the thought of getting a baby at the end are the only benefits. Not the pregnancy.

Although that's not really the point of the debate. For my 2 cents, around 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, not enough for the woman to even notice. To my mind, this means:

1) The zygote is not a human being
2) Pregnancy is an extremely unstable process
3) Pregnancy is programmed to weed out genetic problems. In the relatively rare cases that genetic problems avoid abortion, if a mother does not have the ability to give that child the best possible quality of life, abortion is a perfectly logical alternative.

To be a truly compassionate society, we can never take away from a woman the right to do with her own body what she thinks is best. Of course it is a personal choice, and of course some will choose to keep their baby no matter what, but it should always be possible to choose your own way

studiorat

The following is an article written by a person who works at a clinic in the US.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

No Title, No Answers

Every day since I saw her, I have been thinking of LaTisha. She is as young a patient as I've ever seen, just twelve. LaTisha came in with her mom and grandmother. I had told them at the time the appointment was made that in our state, we are mandated reporters, meaning that we have to notify Child Protection Services in her county of her pregnancy, which we did. I think the purpose of the law is to be sure that a pregnant twelve year old is not a victim of a sexual predator and that there is no evidence of parental neglect.

In this case, LaTisha's boyfriend is the same age, they had been "playing house" when the pregnancy occurred. She wasn't even sure what had happened or how a woman becomes pregnant but neither had she been forced or tricked. Nor was there evidence of parental neglect. She comes from a very close, very religious family. It was rare that she was ever alone nor was she permitted to be in the company of boys. But unintended pregnancies still occur even in the best of families.

Given her tender age, it took a long time for LaTisha to even figure out she might be pregnant. The other women in the household noticed the changes in her body and ran a pregnancy test. Of course it was positive. As far as they knew, no one in their family had ever had an abortion, but the more they thought about it, the more they realized that LaTisha was still a child, too young to even take care of herself. Her mom and grandmother work full time to support the family and greatgrandma is not well enough to work or to care for an infant. So one of them would have to quit working if the pregnancy were to continue. Then a visit to a gynecologist led them to understand the risks of this little girl carrying a pregnancy to term. The doctor labeled her high risk..

The more the family thought and prayed, the more they felt that God was leading them to abortion. However, by the time they convinced greatgrandma that this was best for their beloved daughter, LaTisha was almost 23 weeks pregnant. They were all in shock when the ultrasound revealed a pregnancy of that gestational age because they had been thinking that she was about 16 weeks. Mom started to cry that she feared something terrible could happen if her daughter had a baby when her little body was not ready for it, but grandma said that she did not think her mom, greatgrandma, would ever agree to an abortion at nearly 6 months. And no one in our part of the state performs abortions that far along.

If an abortion were to be performed, it would have to be out-of-state. A call to a referral reminded us that with LaTisha's age, tiny body and gestational development, her procedure would have to be done over four days! It would be three days of dialators, then the abortion on the fourth day. Little LaTisha started to cry and said, "I just want to play basketball. I don't want a baby." Grandma was crying, saying, "I want my baby (meaning her granddaughter) to have another chance. A baby should not have a baby!"

I spent all morning with them, exploring all options. But they were all in shock, needed to talk to greatgrandma, the family matriarch, before they could decide anything. I gave them all of the contact information and reminded them that they had only one week to complete this abortion, after which time LaTisha would have to continue the pregnancy.

I called their house two days later to see how they all were doing, but got no answer. I may never know what they decided to do. The complexity of the situation was so clear, but answers were not. I could see reasons for her to continue the pregnancy and reasons for her to seek an abortion. But only after returning home and praying together would a decision be made. The mom, grandma and greatgrandma all wanted to do the right thing for their little girl. They want her to be safe, they want her to have a chance to have her childhood, they want a sign from God which direction to take. I have no idea what that might be.

Lu

I think the point is she went to a clinic and they explored the options and decided what they would do. The important thing here is they have the choice and can make the decision whatever that may be.

Another story on the same site related the story of a lady who was taking medication for pain from an accident years earlier. The problem arose after nearly two months when she realised she had become pregnant. The medication she had been on causes serious defects to the foetus during early pregnancy and already taken this medication .

I think each case should be taken on its own circumstances, at the very least the information should be available. It's not too long ago that it wasn't even available, and there were plenty of people around who didn't want it to be either.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The would see it as your property, I'm not sure would identify it as 'you' part of your body, but not part of what is the idea of 'Wicknight'.

Well yes, that is ultimately my point. "You" are not the sum total of the components of your body.

Perhaps I'm confusing the issue some what. I'm not arguing that the sperm/egg cell pairing are "you". I'm simply arguing that the sperm/egg pairing are not any different to the zygote, something I also don't consider to be "you".

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I can identify with what you are saying here, certainly it seems to me your identity is most strongly here.
The only problem I have with this is that when dealing with a person in a vegetative state we still think of them as valuable entity, but clearly if the 'program' is seriously corrupted to that degree have they lost that humanity.

But we don't really consider them a valuable entity because we often "pull the plug" so to speak. At least that is a common position, I'm not implying it is your position automatically.

You can destroy your arm and still be "you". You can destroy your leg and still be "you". You can't destroy your brain and still be "you"

Or, to get all sci-fi, you could actually destroy your brain along with the rest of your body and still be "you" if you manage to save or copy the neurological path ways that form you brain to some where else. "You" go where your neurological pathways go.

This to me undermines the idea that the physical body is "you", and as such I really don't see any reason to consider the zygote (or the sperm/egg pairing) to be valuable because simply because they are a human biological entity.

Fanny Cradock

MatthewVII wrote: »

True, but it's an argument you'd lose

A mother gains no physiological benefits from pregnancy.

Have you ever met a pregnant woman? I don't deny that mood swings are a factor, however, to argue that they receive no psychological benefit is absolute nonsense, and I'm quite sure that you can't back it up. I don't wish to speak for another poster, but the impression I got from Cathy's earlier posts was, that while here pregnancy has been difficult, it is also a source of joy.

As an aside, do you suppose that a woman is subject to no deleterious psychological affects after abortion?

MatthewVII

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Have you ever met a pregnant woman? I don't deny that mood swings are a factor, however, to argue that they receive no psychological benefit is absolute nonsense, and I'm quite sure that you can't back it up. I don't wish to speak for another poster, but the impression I got from Cathy's earlier posts was, that while here pregnancy has been difficult, it is also a source of joy.

As an aside, do you suppose that a woman is subject to no deleterious psychological affects after abortion?

Sorry, you quite misunderstand me. I said no "physiological" benefits.
Psychological benefits are the only benefits imho

Fanny Cradock

MatthewVII wrote: »

Sorry, you quite misunderstand me. I said no "physiological" benefits.
Psychological benefits are the only benefits imho

Apologies!

MatthewVII

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, do you suppose that a woman is subject to no deleterious psychological affects after abortion?

as for this, of course a woman is going to feel guilt and always will wonder how her life would have been had she gone through with it. Women understand that this is a consequence they have to live with, and this of course will influence their decision. Psychological consequences involve depression, mild psychotic symptoms, excessive feelings of guilt etc. However, if a woman is prepared to accept this risk and is convinced that bringing the being into the world is the wrong thing to do, then she should have the ability to make her decision and accept the repercussions

havana

Not every woman experiences psychological difficulties after a termination nor necessarily feels guilty either.

MatthewVII

havana wrote: »

Not every woman experiences psychological difficulties after a termination nor necessarily feels guilty either.

True, nor should they.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

Or, to get all sci-fi, you could actually destroy your brain along with the rest of your body and still be "you" if you manage to save or copy the neurological path ways that form you brain to some where else. "You" go where your neurological pathways go.

This to me undermines the idea that the physical body is "you", and as such I really don't see any reason to consider the zygote (or the sperm/egg pairing) to be valuable because simply because they are a human biological entity.

I'd certainly be on side with the idea of human conciousness is what gives us value, and that there has to be level for it to be valuable.
Its just on that basis I don't see a significant difference between a foetuses, a new born, severely mentally impaired and say a dog when it comes to self awareness. But people seem to use that argument for abortion and then disregard it for terminating the others, I respect their position if they where consistent

40crush41

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it boils down to the fact that, whether we agree with it or not, the RCC hold the belief that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is the killing of a child. This is why the old "...so would it be ok to kill a 1 hour old baby...?" chestnut has been rolled out. As long as a person believes life begins at conception, I doubt you will change there mind on abortion.

TBH, I love a good aul abortion debate, but no good will come of it.

As for my personal opinion. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion or pro-baby murdering. I would be happier if abortions were not required but I strongly believe that the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of the unborn. I object to late term abortions and my cut off time would be shortly before the foetus would be viable outside the womb.

I get round the whole "is it alive or not" arguement quite simply. I don't care. As far as I am concerned, whether it is life or not, no one, not your god, not the pope, no one, has the right to tell a woman that she has to carry a parasite for 9 months of her life. Yes, it makes me sad that a potential person id destroyed, and I really would prefer it did not happen, but I believe women should have the choice.

MrP

I'm not entering this debate.

But, reading your post reminded me a lot of the stance that Judaism has on abortion. Really surprised me when I first learned that. Up until 6 months, if okayed by your rabbi in that you have somewhat of a decent need for it, it is acceptable. The fetus is thought to be a potential human life. Therefore, important and not to be taken lightly, but not to be above the mother. After that though, the child is considered to be viable outside the womb, and is only acceptable in the case that the mother would otherwise die. Only once the crown of the head is seen is it thought "is this human's blood any less red than mine?"
How bout that? I hope I reported that correctly...

Sorry, I know off-topic.

MrPudding

40crush41 wrote: »

I'm not entering this debate.

But, reading your post reminded me a lot of the stance that Judaism has on abortion. Really surprised me when I first learned that. Up until 6 months, if okayed by your rabbi in that you have somewhat of a decent need for it, it is acceptable. The fetus is thought to be a potential human life. Therefore, important and not to be taken lightly, but not to be above the mother. After that though, the child is considered to be viable outside the womb, and is only acceptable in the case that the mother would otherwise die. Only once the crown of the head is seen is it thought "is this human's blood any less red than mine?"
How bout that? I hope I reported that correctly...

Sorry, I know off-topic.

I don't think it was off topic at all. Very interesting, and something I did not know at all.

MrP

Messy Missy

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think it was off topic at all. Very interesting, and something I did not know at all.

MrP

Same here. Thanks for posting that 40Crush41. I had never heard of the Jewish stance regarding abortion.

This description reminded me of something that it might be a bit off-topic but I'd like to post it anyway:

In ancient Rome, a foetus was not considered a human being, but a potential human life, as it was posted by 40Crush41. Personality and rights were acquired once it was born alive; if it was born dead it had no rights and personality.

To be considered a person, it had to cry outloud/breath on its own and be completely separated from the womb, otherwise it would still be considered "molieribus portio" ("part of the woman"). Also the birth had to be "perfect", that is to say it had to take place between 180 and 300 days of gestation.

As it was common back then to believe that the gods and goddesses could breed with humans, the newborn had to show signs of humanity, otherwise it wouldnt be considered a person.