To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women on abortion?

philologos

It does apply. If you have read the logic I gave. You're ignoring the posts repeatedly!

As for God being the source of right and wrong, yes certainly. As to what should be the law of the land. Humans cannot be trusted to adequately be moral legislators. Therefore we should only legislate laws that protect peoples freedom. Protecting the right to life is important, therefore I oppose abortion, because I support liberty and freedom to live as I live. I have been blessed with the right to live, and I don't believe that all should be born free, but all should be born with opportunities to succeed in life.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

marienbad - If you're not willing to deal with other peoples posts why should they deal with yours. It's a little unfair no?

I have answered every post to the best of my ability, (and without the level of snide comment you and Festus seem to delight in) .

You insist on trying to make this a discussion on when life begins, I have not said what I think one way or the other on that issue, it is an open question, but it is not the issue I have mainly concerned with which is individual concience and the right to choose.

Now will you answer the question ?

Would you prevent women going abroad for abortion if you had the means to do so ? Yes or no

Fanny Cradock

I heard Jackass been called a few names in the past but snide was never one of them. I can't imagine how you get mockery out of his posts.

philologos

marienbad - I really want to talk to you, but you're actually not willing to listen to what people are saying. It's very frustrating

As Fanny Craddock has said, I don't want to mock, I want to have a proper discussion. Not a Q&A session.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

You are quick to demand answers, but slow to give them.

The questions are designed to make you think.

marienbad wrote: »

Would you advocate prevention ? yes or no

Would you advocate the prevention of a woman travelling to another jurisdiction where she will be legally raped and her child legally murdered if she wishes to this done to her of her own free will?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

I have answered every post to the best of my ability, (and without the level of snide comment you and Festus seem to delight in) .

I think you'll find I'm the snide one :rolleyes: and generally only with those who provoke it.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

You insist on trying to make this a discussion on when life begins, I have not said what I think one way or the other on that issue, it is an open question, but it is not the issue I have mainly concerned with which is individual concience and the right to choose.

I think you'll find that would be my point. So the right to choose what? Murder?

That the life of all human beings begins at conception is a scientific fact. The life of a new human being begins at no other point in their life.
The destruction of that life if done wilfully and directly and for no other reason other than to prevent that person being born is murder.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

marienbad - I really want to talk to you, but you're actually not willing to listen to what people are saying. It's very frustrating

I have listened to every single person on this thread ( Have I misunderstood ? Possible , but I dont think so). And I am always willing to listen . It is only being brought up by you, festus, and one of the mods, all in favour of the prolive view and anti pro choice. And all in attempt to elicit answers in a semantic way that will not shed any light on the issues and will certainly not win hearts and minds.

What Questions do you want to ask ? I have no problem answering any questions , but I expect the same in return.

please keep them simple:)

philologos

You've not responded to the questions that you've been asked already, but yet insist that we answer your questions. It's confusing to say the least

I think the thread has gone past it's original question which is what impact does religion have in abortion, rather than is abortion right or wrong. I wish you the best marienbad, but I'm afraid I'm out.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I address your point

No you didn't. My point was that our DNA, while good at helping understand out place in natural history, does not define our humanity. I do not care if a human being has human DNA, or DNA made out of skittles. It is utterly incidental.

an instruction set is a blueprint.

That assembles things? Blueprints cannot assemble things. An embryo, on the other hand, has chemicals which catalyse and react to the DNA to start producing cells. These cells will eventually differentiate into the various kinds of cells needed to grow something with a human mind. This is why I explicitly used the phrase "that assembles a human being". If you don't like the use of the word embryo, I can consider a zygote just as easily.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

You've not responded to the questions that you've been asked already, but yet insist that we answer your questions. It's confusing to say the least

I think the thread has gone past it's original question which is what impact does religion have in abortion, rather than is abortion right or wrong.

Ok jakkass, the thread went adrift after about the first 6 post, as I have said I have answered all questions maybe not to your satisfaction, but answered non the less. And by the way answered a lot more than I asked.

I have also invited you to ask any direct questions you wish and I will answer to the best of my ability and in good faith, provided you and festus etc do the same. What more can I do ?

You seem to be now willing to close down the debate as it gets to is most
interesting aspects.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm the snide one :rolleyes:

We'll see when you've been posting here for 5 years :pac:. My remark wasn't intended as a swipe at you, it just I've never associated snideness with JA.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We'll see when you've been posting here for 5 years :pac:. My remark wasn't intended as a swipe at you, it just I've never associated snideness with JA.

Oh I understand that and no offense taken.
Snide would be a little harsh. Acerbic would be more correct

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

Oh I understand that and no offense taken.
Snide would be a little harsh. Acerbic would be more correct

No Festus, snide is spot on, acerbic usually has some wit involved even if on the sour side:)

Festus

pish

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

No Festus, snide is spot on, acerbic usually has some wit involved even if on the sour side:)

Dictionaries are available on the internet. PM me if you need links.

lmaopml

I think this debate inevitably goes back to when we believe a feotus in utero is 'human' or even 'human enough' and valuable, and whether the potential for human life once set in motion is worthy of protection - the same as a baby outside the uterus is.....or even one that has reached the second/third trimester, which most believe is worthy of protection.

The thing about a zygot is that most people don't even know they are pregnant at that stage...and at weeks 6-8 we have brain activity and a beating heart in a 'human' feotus...



I never understood how people can justify the early termination more than the later termination ( and thank God, I've never travelled in those shoes ) to themselves - the difference in 'value for potential' of a feotus of 12 weeks as not human enough, and one of 20 weeks that is more human just sounds like semantics.....We don't value any other humans more for their longevity or superior functioning power.

It never made sense to me, both have brain activity but neither is conscious as far as I know? Actually, I don't think a newborn baby is fully 'conscious' and aware either...

It's a sad debate all round. I know Ireland 'export' a problem.....that doesn't exactly 'solve' it either.... I'm not sure I fully agree with this, as I feel my soul shake with pity for some of these women......

However, I don't see an easy 'solution'. To have an abortion one must believe I guess that the feotus is not worth the same as a child is..

It seems we're stuck with it though, women will have abortions, always have....even if it's a backstreet hack. I think if there is any 'common' ground between the pro-life and pro-choice campaign worthy of extra effort, it is that both would like to see a way of 'reducing' the amount of women finding themselves in a situation where they feel an abortion is the only way....



Anyway, this topic is fairly upsetting I must say...Just my tuppence..

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I have no problem with the terminology. What I have a problem with is the attempt to declare that science cannot say what is human and what is not once a human being is conceived when it patently can and your displays of ignorance of biology, embryology and human development in an effort to move the discussion towards what makes a human human.

I have not "displayed ignorance" of them. Instead, you have displayed ignorance of demarcation in science. I have already told you that I consider the embryo to be a human embryo. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether a human embryo is a human "being". To answer that, we must understand what a human "being" is, and that is not a scientific question. I, for example, couldn't care less about what DNA people have. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I see them as human beings.

To declare some humans are not human is the fallacious core of the pro-abortion mentalitly. So forgive me, but if you are capable of considering a human being in the uterus to be less than human then allow me the latitude to consider those, like yourself who hold to this, to be equally subhuman.

I have corrected you on this before. It is not being claimed that some humans are not humans. It is being claimed that a human embryo is not necessarily a human being.

JimiTime

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, this topic is fairly upsetting I must say...Just my tuppence..

Indeed:( I've even heard some on these boards refer to the unborn as a parasite. A PARASITE for petes sake! Then they get all technical about the definition of a parasite in order to defend their position. Its lamentable. I couldn't care less about science or studies or scientists etc in this subject. A human is given life at conception. It grows from there. The rest is just a debate about at what stage of a humans development is it ok to extinguish their life. It disgusts me. EDIT: Actually, disgusts is probably not true to how it makes me feel. Saddens, perplexes and baffles would probably be more accurate.

I empathise with rape victims etc, who find themselves in these circumstances. However, we should not devalue life so that they can feel easier about killing their unborn. If they do decide to do such a thing, they should know that they are killing a baby.

Festus

p

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

I empathise with rape victims etc, who find themselves in these circumstances. However, we should not devalue life so that they can feel easier about killing their unborn. If they do decide to do such a thing, they should know that they are killing a baby.

This is often times the saddest part. Not only was the victim raped once, she gets raped again in the clinic - such a sanitary word - and the most innocent of victims who wasn't even there when it happened gets killed.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

And you have been correct on this before.

But I'll let you hang yourself. If a human embryo is not necessarily a human being what is it?

A human embryo. In a similar manner, a human ear is not a human being. It is a human ear.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

A human embryo. In a similar manner, a human ear is not a human being. It is a human ear.

You didn't read the link did you.

JimiTime

Festus wrote: »

This is often times the saddest part. Not only was the victim raped once, she gets raped again in the clinic

I respectfully disagree with the use of such terminology. I don't know how one could use the word 'rape' in this context?

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

You didn't read the link did you.

There was no link.

Festus

When is a human not a human? When it is the subject of an ideology.

A Distinct Human Organism
by ROBERT P. GEORGE

November 22, 2005

The key question in the debate over stem cell research that involves the destruction of human embryos is: When does the life of a human being begin? To answer this question is to decide whether human embryos are, in fact, human beings and, as such, possessors of inherent human dignity.

Where do we go to find the answer? Not, in my opinion, to the Bible, Talmud or other religious writings, even if we regard these texts as sources of moral wisdom and even divine revelation. Nor should we be satisfied to consult our "moral intuitions."


Rather, the answer is to be found in the works of modern human embryology and developmental biology. In these texts, we find little or nothing in the way of scientific uncertainty: "…human development begins at fertilization…" write embryologists Keith Moore and T.V. N. Persaud in The Developing Human (7th edition, 2003), the most widely used textbook on human embryology.


A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of development. Unless severely damaged or deprived of nutrition or a suitable environment, the embryonic human will develop himself or herself by an internally directed process to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage.


The embryonic, fetal, infant, child and adolescent stages are stages of development of a determinate and enduring entity — a human being — who comes into existence as a zygote and develops by a gradual and gapless process into adulthood many years later.

Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it.

The human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, nor is it merely a "potential human being," whatever that might mean. Rather the human embryo is a human being in the embryonic stage.

The adult that is you is the same human being who, at an earlier stage of your life, was an adolescent, and before that a child, an infant, a fetus and an embryo. Even in the embryonic stage, you were a whole, living member of the species Homo sapiens. You were then, as you are now, a distinct and complete — though, of course, immature — human organism.

Unlike the embryo, the sperm and egg whose union brings a human being into existence are not complete organisms. They are both functionally and genetically identifiable as parts of the male or female parents. Each has only half the genetic material needed to guide the development of a new human being toward maturity. They are destined either to combine to generate a new and distinct organism or simply die.

Even when fertilization occurs, the gametes do not survive: Their genetic material enters into the composition of a new organism. (A somatic cell that might be used to produce a human being by cloning is analogous not to a human embryo, but to gametes.) The difference between human gametes and a human being is a difference in kind, not a difference in stage of development. The difference between an embryonic human being (or a human fetus or infant) and an adult is merely a difference in stage of development.

Some today deny the moral premise of my position, namely, that human beings possess inherent dignity and a right to life simply by virtue of their humanity. They claim that some, but not all, human beings have dignity and rights. To have such rights, they say, human beings must possess some quality or set of qualities (sentience, self-consciousness, the immediately exercisable capacity for human mental functions, etc.) that other human beings do not possess or do not yet possess, or no longer possess.

I reject the idea that human beings at certain stages of development (embryos, fetuses, infants) or in certain conditions (the severely handicapped or mentally retarded, those suffering dementia) are not "persons" who possess dignity and a right to life. And no person may legitimately be destroyed in biomedical research or for other reasons.

About the Author
Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. He is also a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

Festus

JimiTime wrote: »

I respectfully disagree with the use of such terminology. I don't know how one could use the word 'rape' in this context?

The cervix is forcibly opened to allow entry of the instruments required to remove the child inside.

The use of drugs to force the expulsion of the child from the uterus is not much different as the cervix must be forced to open prematurely.

I respect your respectful disagreement but the concept works just the same.

Festus

p

Morbert

Looking back, it seems you have inserted a link after I posted. Editing a post after I have responded to it is confusing and unhelpful.

Anyway, I have read the link now. The main point it raises is:

"Whether produced by fertilization or cloning, the human embryo is a complete and distinct human organism possessing all of the genetic material needed to inform and organize its growth, as well as an active disposition to develop itself using that information. The direction of its growth is not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with the genetic information within it."

The article never develops an argument as to why the above is sufficient criteria for something to be considered a human being. A distinct DNA and a self-contained assembly system are irrelevant to me.

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

I've posted the text so we can all see what you deny

Posts like this are vapid and unhelpful. "Deny", when used without qualification, is little more than rhetoric.