Abortion Discussion

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If I was in favour of killing viable foetuses but in order to sleep at night I'd managed to wrap up this fact in layers and layers of delusion so it became something different, something somehow positive and then having the reality of this killing put before me it wouldn't be "offense" I would be feeling it would be cognitive dissonance. Though labelling it offense could well be part of the grand delusion.

If abortion is no different to killing live babies why is it that in so many countries one is legal and one is not? Why is it that women who have had abortions aren't locked up in prison, even in Ireland the crime of having an abortion isn't murder. Abortion aside why is the loss of a foetus via miscarriage not considered the same emotionally as the loss of a living child, why are miscarried babies not given death certs or funerals?

The mindset of the majority of society is that its not the same, that there is no comparison at all between living, breathing children and unborn children, you might want to think an embryo is as important as a living, breathing, child but you are in the minority.

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

If abortion is no different to killing live babies why is it that in so many countries one is legal and one is not? Why is it that women who have had abortions aren't locked up in prison, even in Ireland the crime of having an abortion isn't murder. Abortion aside why is the loss of a foetus via miscarriage not considered the same emotionally as the loss of a living child, why are miscarried babies not given death certs or funerals?

The mindset of the majority of society is that its not the same, that there is no comparison at all between living, breathing children and unborn children, you might want to think an embryo is as important as a living, breathing, child but you are in the minority.

I have already been at pains to explain the distinction between morality and legality. Something legal doesn't make it moral. Likewise your majority/minority point.

Think in terms of human slavery of blacks in the Southern states. Legal? Yes. Supported by the majority? Yes. Moral. No.

Sarky

You should have saved the Nazis for last, Brown Bomber. Start with comparing abortion to slavery, work your way up to saying it's just like the Holocaust. You blew your load too soon, nobody's going to be impressed with any further comparisons.

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have already been at pains to explain the distinction between morality and legality. Something legal doesn't make it moral. Likewise your majority/minority point.

Think in terms of human slavery of blacks in the Southern states. Legal? Yes. Supported by the majority? Yes. Moral. No.

So if you consider abortion on a par with the killing of live children does that mean you think women who have abortions are murderers then?

dharma200

I can't understand how this poster can figure that someone who has given birth to three newborns and raised them, might understand the huge difference between aborting a foetus and killing a newborn. Blacks.... Nazis.....ok..... As I said, plenty of charitable organisations out there which enable people to help the new borns who are facing horrific lives in poverty without health care etc etc. any one who is so called pro life should start with those who are alive and work their way back, in my humble opinion.

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

So if you consider abortion on a par with the killing of live children does that mean you think women who have abortions are murderers then?

I'm not sure what the correct legal terminology would be but I would consider a mother who arranged the killing of a viable foetus the same as a mother who hired a neighbour to kill her newborn baby.

Obviously there are extenuating circumstances to be considered beyond the above as well.

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have already been at pains to explain the distinction between morality and legality. Something legal doesn't make it moral. Likewise your majority/minority point.

Think in terms of human slavery of blacks in the Southern states. Legal? Yes. Supported by the majority? Yes. Moral. No.

Even the church with all its "abortion is murder" hand wringing doesn't give the same rights in death to an unborn baby as it does to a live one. Surely a "death" at 5/6 weeks gestation is as worthy of a christian burial as one 5/6 days after birth?

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure what the correct legal terminology would be but I would consider a mother who arranged the killing of a viable foetus the same as a mother who hired a neighbour to kill her newborn baby.

Obviously there are extenuating circumstances to be considered beyond the above as well.

So I assume women who buy in pills and take them themselves are the same as the person who actaully kills the baby then.

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

Even the church with all its "abortion is murder" hand wringing doesn't give the same rights in death to an unborn baby as it does to a live one. Surely a "death" at 5/6 weeks gestation is as worthy of a christian burial as one 5/6 days after birth?

I'm not in a position to comment on what the Church does or doesn't do because I simply don't know but I've known people who have had private services after a miscarriage.

You never commented on my response to your comments. I'd said that morality and legality are distinct from one another. I showed this by way of example, which unfortunately the usual suspects jumped on to twist it into something it was not. Anyway, do you accept this?

dharma200

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure what the correct legal terminology would be but I would consider a mother who arranged the killing of a viable foetus the same as a mother who hired a neighbour to kill her newborn baby.

Obviously there are extenuating circumstances to be considered beyond the above as well.

Well, if one in three women have more than three terminations, I suspect there might be a lot of jails built if you ever had a say......

eviltwin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not in a position to comment on what the Church does or doesn't do because I simply don't know but I've known people who have had private services after a miscarriage.

You never commented on my response to your comments. I'd said that morality and legality are distinct from one another. I showed this by way of example, which unfortunately the usual suspects jumped on to twist it into something it was not. Anyway, do you accept this?

I appreciate you point re slavery, I do think that we have to look at the fact we are in a different time though, lots of things have changed over the years, our attitudes today would be that slavery is never okay along with a lot of other things that used to be acceptable and yet despite all that we still have a majority of people who support abortion rights.

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

So I assume women who buy in pills and take them themselves are the same as the person who actaully kills the baby then.

I'm not sure what you mean but if a woman takes pills with the intention to kill off the life inside of her then technically she is a "killer" (one who kills).

Brown Bomber

eviltwin wrote: »

I appreciate you point re slavery, I do think that we have to look at the fact we are in a different time though, lots of things have changed over the years, our attitudes today would be that slavery is never okay along with a lot of other things that used to be acceptable and yet despite all that we still have a majority of people who support abortion rights.

OK

Okay, but what I tried to illustrate by way of a simple example is that being legal doesn't
mean something is moral. Being moral doesn't mean that something is legal.

brianbeenan

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK

Okay, but what I tried to illustrate by way of a simple example is that being legal doesn't
mean something is moral. Being moral doesn't mean that something is legal.

Correct. Its Legal to hang gay men who have sex in Iran. That does not mean its Morally right to do so.

Modern day example of Legal and Moral.

doctoremma

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If I was in favour of killing viable foetuses.

I am on record, either here or in the parent thread, of expressing my slight bemusement at the use of fetal viability as a guide for abortion law. It seems like one of those intuitive 'things' but I don't recall seeing a particularly hard or good argument for this threshold of viability being imbued with moral significance (most people in this debate assume that everyone else sees the viability limit as similarly significant?).

Why is visibility significant? Can a 24 week old fetus, with little chance of survival without agressive medical intervention, be considered truly 'viable'? And how do you go about assimilating all the different viability thresholds in different countries? Does the fact that viability in (say) Jordan isn't reached until 28 weeks mean that you would accept a later abortion limit there?

Is viability really a good measure by to make moral decisions about a fetus, or to afford said fetus various rights?

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you refuse to share what the difference there is (if any) in your opinion between a newborn and a viable foetus.

I can only deduct that you don't think that there is any. For what other possible reason would you avoid answering a simple question?

What is a "viable foetus" in the context of your above quote?

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

What is a "viable foetus" in the context of your above quote?

On that has reached a stage in it's human development to have a chance of survival independent of it's mother.

Brown Bomber

doctoremma wrote: »

I am on record, either here or in the parent thread, of expressing my slight bemusement at the use of fetal viability as a guide for abortion law. It seems like one of those intuitive 'things' but I don't recall seeing a particularly hard or good argument for this threshold of viability being imbued with moral significance (most people in this debate assume that everyone else sees the viability limit as similarly significant?).

Why is visibility significant? Can a 24 week old fetus, with little chance of survival without agressive medical intervention, be considered truly 'viable'? And how do you go about assimilating all the different viability thresholds in different countries? Does the fact that viability in (say) Jordan isn't reached until 28 weeks mean that you would accept a later abortion limit there?

Is viability really a good measure by to make moral decisions about a fetus, or to afford said fetus various rights?

I believe so, If not, what is a more desirable cut-off point? 9 months? Killing disabled infants? None at all?

And correct me if I am wrong but isn't there tests available which can show whether a foetus is potentially viable or not?

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe so, If not, what is a more desirable cut-off point? 9 months? Killing disabled infants? None at all?

And correct me if I am wrong but isn't there tests available which can show whether a foetus is potentially viable or not?

Why do you always need to go straight to the extreme?

lazygal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On that has reached a stage in it's human development to have a chance of survival independent of it's mother.

What if there's no chance of independent survival?

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why do you always need to go straight to the extreme?

Pro lifers aren't noted for pondering the grey areas. I think if they admit any case of abortion isn't killing de baybeeees they'll have to acknowledge their approach doesn't work.

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why do you always need to go straight to the extreme?

He doesn't have much of a point otherwise.

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why do you always need to go straight to the extreme?

And how is it going to the extreme?

You tell me then when is the next morally significant change from a viable infant to birth...

Brown Bomber

Sarky wrote: »

He doesn't have much of a point otherwise.

Bit rich. Do share what you contributed to the discussion beyond off-topic personal swipes (case in point above)

Brown Bomber

lazygal wrote: »

Pro lifers aren't noted for pondering the grey areas. I think if they admit any case of abortion isn't killing de baybeeees they'll have to acknowledge their approach doesn't work.

FWIW I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life and try to find a balance between the two. Your comments above equally apply to the pro-choice extremists.

What if there's no chance of independent survival?

Then it's a different coversation.

Galvasean

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And how is it going to the extreme?

Read back on your post. If you can't see why that is seen as jumping to extremes then I honestly don't think there's much hope for you in context of this discussion.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

Read back on your post. If you can't see why that is seen as jumping to extremes then I honestly don't think there's much hope for you in context of this discussion.

Then when is the next morally significant stage of development after viability?

gaynorvader

I'm going to summarise what I think BrownBomber is saying without all the sensationalism. Please correct me if I get anything wrong, and apologies if this comes across as arrogant, I'm just trying to get my head around it.

• Abortions are fine so long as the foetus had no chance of surviving outside of its mother's womb.
• If a woman qualifies for an abortion and the foetus has a chance of surviving outside of the womb, she should have a C-section instead and the foetus should be given a fighting chance of survival.
• If a woman has a c-section instead of an abortion she waives all parental rights to that baby and it goes up for adoption/orphanage/foster home/whatever.
• If a c-section would endanger a woman's life, where an abortion would not, but the foetus has a chance for survival, the woman should be forced to have the c-section (I'm least sure on this one tbh).

Please let me know if I've misunderstood your views anywhere here BB.

Galvasean

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then when is the next morally significant stage of development after viability?

To be blunt, I really don't care to discuss it with you based on your recent contributions to this thread.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

To be blunt, I really don't care to discuss it with you based on your recent contributions to this thread.

No discussion required. These are (to the best of my knowledge) the potentially morally significant stages of human development

1. Fertilisation
2. Implantation
3. viability of the foetus
4. ?????
5. Birth
6. Infanthood
7. Realisation of "self.

My point is that if the cut off point for abortion is not 3 then when should it be? I can think of no morally significant transition that takes place between 3 and 5 above.

Most, if not all arguments for abortion from point 3 equally apply to each stage up to and including point 6.

Therefore I have not gone to any "extreme" in suggesting birth as the next cut off point. Though I would listen to anyone who could fill in point 4 for me.