XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Again, you have provided no reason why. You are simply asserting the fact without any justification. I have no reason to agree with you, nor do I have any reason to think that your position is any more rational than my position that it is ok to abort at any time during the pregnancy. So what? Did I ever say that you needed to agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Asimov, What about my consideration about advances in premature baby support to 24 weeks against a 24 week abortion and the implications of keeping someone alive by medical intervention across the board? I'd not assert that third trimester abortion should be outlawed completely, since there has to be some safe guards for the health and life of the mother, and potential quality of life for the child. However, since the foetus is clearly viable with medical support through out the third trimester, convenience is a low priority reason... and potentially murderous. Would one turn of the incubator of a 'healthy' 28 week foetus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Asimov, I noticed that you had started another thread on abortion and was curious why you hadn't replied to the last comment made on it. What are your thoughts about this comment: If, as you have said, abortion is the killing of a human being then why wouldn't it also be true that there are circumstances where abortion is moral, amoral, and immoral? Do you still maintain that all abortions are amoral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Thanks gramps for your thoughts. It is comforting to know that you and others do not take this issue lightly. Also, thank you for providing the UK perspective on abortion. It sounds as if this issue is viewed much more logically in your country than in the US. UKGOV takes a pretty pragmatic view, despite Papeists best efforts http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6706743.stm Even UK pro-choice groups want to move the cut off date to before 24 weeks. Really the largest single anti-choice group is the Roman Church, followed by various niche Protestant Groups and well down the list, the Krishna Consciousness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 What about my consideration about advances in premature baby support to 24 weeks against a 24 week abortion and the implications of keeping someone alive by medical intervention across the board? I think if we can medically save a life, we should prefer to do so. Should we come to a hard-and-fast conclusion that we will do everything possible to maintain a life despite the quality of that life? I don't believe so. In many cases we should be humane, not just human. If the person whose life is being considered is capable of telling us their preference, or has already documented a choice such as a living will, we should respect their choice. If they are not capable of indicating their preference, such as a 24 week old baby isn't capable, then we should be as objective as we possibly can. I'd not assert that third trimester abortion should be outlawed completely, since there has to be some safe guards for the health and life of the mother, and potential quality of life for the child. However, since the foetus is clearly viable with medical support through out the third trimester, convenience is a low priority reason... and potentially murderous. Would one turn of the incubator of a 'healthy' 28 week foetus? I still contend that an abortion during the third trimester is murder, regardless of the circumstances. Having said that, I do believe that murder can and should be excused in some cases. Again, we should be humane, not just human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6706743.stm Damn, I hate Catholicism. I even hated it when I was a Protestant Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 In most countries (saving Oregon, Switzerland and The Netherlands) no medical intervention is withdrawal of feeding or simply a DNR order... Living wills get ugly quickly... from very bitter personal experience I know that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Again, you have provided no reason why. You are simply asserting the fact without any justification. I have no reason to agree with you, nor do I have any reason to think that your position is any more rational than my position that it is ok to abort at any time during the pregnancy. So what? Did I ever say that you needed to agree? Generally when you "play gawds advocate" or attempt to provide argumentation, the intent is to convince others of the reasonableness of your position. Asimov, I noticed that you had started another thread on abortion and was curious why you hadn't replied to the last comment made on it. What are your thoughts about this comment: I didn't notice someone replied to that. Even though killing a fetus is killing a human, the act of abortion is the relevant consideration. I don't see any reason to consider abortion an immoral act. I would see reason to consider abortion a moral act or an amoral act, but never an immoral act. Do you still maintain that all abortions are amoral? I maintain that they are amoral, although like I said there are possible areas where it is moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Asimov,What about my consideration about advances in premature baby support to 24 weeks against a 24 week abortion and the implications of keeping someone alive by medical intervention across the board? Then comes the probability of forcing the woman to care for a child she doesn't want. I'd not assert that third trimester abortion should be outlawed completely, since there has to be some safe guards for the health and life of the mother, and potential quality of life for the child. However, since the foetus is clearly viable with medical support through out the third trimester, convenience is a low priority reason... and potentially murderous. Would one turn of the incubator of a 'healthy' 28 week foetus? Why potentially murderous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Asimov,What about my consideration about advances in premature baby support to 24 weeks against a 24 week abortion and the implications of keeping someone alive by medical intervention across the board? Then comes the probability of forcing the woman to care for a child she doesn't want. I'd not assert that third trimester abortion should be outlawed completely, since there has to be some safe guards for the health and life of the mother, and potential quality of life for the child. However, since the foetus is clearly viable with medical support through out the third trimester, convenience is a low priority reason... and potentially murderous. Would one turn of the incubator of a 'healthy' 28 week foetus? Why potentially murderous? Why not? Morals aren't my strong suit, thus potentially. I'd not turn off the incubator on a 28 week foetus... how about 30 week? You seem to have a clear moral view... tell me why it's unequivocally not murderous... I'm certain you have some logic beyond libertarian rhetoric, which is all I've seen so far... Prove me wrong... and when did the Adoption agencies all close? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Generally when you "play gawds advocate" or attempt to provide argumentation, the intent is to convince others of the reasonableness of your position. Fair enough. I do wish to convince others of the reasonableness of my position. My reason for doing so is that I see a considerable amount of closed-mindedness in this area, particularly among other atheists. It seems that some people go along with pro-choice advocates simply because they are fighting for rights that the Religious Right is trying to take away, and not because they have studied the issue and made a conscious decision. I maintain that they are amoral, although like I said there are possible areas where it is moral. Interesting. I can't draw the same conclusion, knowing what I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Asimov... I don't know how I missed that Gramps' question was directed to Asimov. I didn't intend to butt in. Terribly sorry to both of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 BTW amoral is morally neutral, immoral is the agin 'morals'. To me, abortion is amoral not right, not wrong, it just is. I have no moral stance on this since I'm never likely to dropping into stirrups. However, definitions of 'person' need to be in line with technology... is it post partum? If that is the case, can one murder a Caesarian delivery? After all they weren't born... they were removed by medical procedure. I don't see, in a reductio ad absurda sense the difference between a foetus aborted as 35.5 weeks and an emergency C-section at the same time. If 'birth' is the deciding factor, then the C-section is NEVER actually a person, whereas a third trimester abortion will pass along the birth canal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Anyone think it's bad form for me to cast my own vote in the poll, or would that be completely okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Go dude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Abortion is not about morality, it is about reality. Other human acts of the past have been reality, but are today considered immoral. Slavery was a reality for many prior to the US Civil War. Stating that a certain act is a reality is only ignoring the issue; it does not provide a conclusion as to whether or not the act is right. Black and white laws only manage availability and safety of abortion, they do not manage emotions, motives, x-factors, or circumstances. As for "murder," taking human life is not always deemd "murder." "Murder" is a legal and moral term. I often think of "murder" as an intent, and most women when their pregnancy is a crisis or it develops into a crisis are not thinking about "murder," but trying to do what's best for everybody involved. Can you say that abortions are unintentional, accidental acts? If not, then they have to be intentional. Abortion is not something the world will EVER be rid of. It's a fact of life along with life and death, pregnancy, and making judgement calls we DON'T want to make. The world will never be rid of poverty, yet we fight against it. The world will never be rid of disease, but we work to find cures. The world will never be rid of illiteracy, but we try to teach everyone we can. The world will never be rid of pain and suffering, but we look for ways to reduce pain. Sometimes you don't get any good choices, you just get choices. Sometimes your beliefs don't amount to a hill of beans compared to what's actually happening. Needing to have an abortion, especially one late in term because your baby is slowly dying inside of you from horrendous defects, or YOU are slowly dying because you are going into multiple organ failure because of the stress of trying to support the two of you is a REALLY great example of this. Agreed. In this case why not err on the side of always doing what is best by making certain abortions illegal, but then allow it to be done in such circumstances? BTW, there is no such thing as a "Partial Birth Abortion." This is a rediculous propaganda term created by the extrodinarily ignorant. The correct term is Dialation and Extraction or Dialation and Evacuation. Also known as D&X and D&E. They are not surgeries any reputable doctor would perform on a healthy woman with a healthy fetus who just "changes her mind" at 30 weeks of pregnancy or while she's in labor. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/2003s3.html "Partial Birth Abortion" defined by law is: an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant. This practice, to me, is a violent act of murder, and the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is law whether or not we like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 The only thing pointless is your complete lack of even indicating WHY that makes abortion wrong because it has a nervous system. I will restate that I didn't intend for this post to prove anything, only to argue for a cause. I chose to post this topic in "Ex-Christian Life" because it is a social issue, not because it is a religious or scientific issue. If my intent in this post was to prove a case, then I would have chosen a different channel. I think that as ex-Christians we shouldn't automatically side with pro-choice advocates without serious thought, especially if our sole purpose in doing so is to keep the Religious Right in check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Why not? Morals aren't my strong suit, thus potentially. I'd not turn off the incubator on a 28 week foetus... how about 30 week? You seem to have a clear moral view... tell me why it's unequivocally not murderous... I'm certain you have some logic beyond libertarian rhetoric, which is all I've seen so far... Prove me wrong... You claim it's murderous, you prove it's murderous. You're shifting the burden of proof. and when did the Adoption agencies all close? The problem with that is even though some fetus' CAN survive at 24 weeks doesn't mean the risk they will die is low, and I don't see how any couple will want a child that is 24 weeks old and might not live for the next two weeks without great intensive care. Medical costs would be higher. If the Doctors deliver a child at 24 weeks, they will naturally force whoever they are caring for to foot the bill, that or the adoptive parents. Not to mention that they will probably stress that it's safer for the baby if the mother carries the baby to term, which she doesn't want to do in the first place! Thus you are in effect forcing her to give birth when she doesn't want to. The mother obviously wouldn't want to foot the bill for the care of a child she doesn't want, and the adoptive parents may or may not want to foot that bill. It's creating too many contingent problems and financial burdens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Fair enough. I do wish to convince others of the reasonableness of my position. My reason for doing so is that I see a considerable amount of closed-mindedness in this area, particularly among other atheists. It seems that some people go along with pro-choice advocates simply because they are fighting for rights that the Religious Right is trying to take away, and not because they have studied the issue and made a conscious decision. I'm not surprised you see close-mindedness when you outright refuse to support your assertion with any rational justifications. You stated in an above post that you are arguing for a cause, but you're not arguing it. An arguments intent IS to convince others of the reasonableness of your position. Your cause has no foundation if it isn't grounded in a rational justification. Interesting. I can't draw the same conclusion, knowing what I know. Then by all means demonstrate this knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 The only thing pointless is your complete lack of even indicating WHY that makes abortion wrong because it has a nervous system. I will restate that I didn't intend for this post to prove anything, only to argue for a cause. I chose to post this topic in "Ex-Christian Life" because it is a social issue, not because it is a religious or scientific issue. If my intent in this post was to prove a case, then I would have chosen a different channel. I think that as ex-Christians we shouldn't automatically side with pro-choice advocates without serious thought, especially if our sole purpose in doing so is to keep the Religious Right in check. Sorry for the multiple posts, people, but I need to comment on this. Social issue, religious issue, or scientific issue is irrelevant. The idea that you have a valid opinion is based on the assumption that you have some reason for why you have that opinion. Otherwise the old saying "opinions are like assholes, everyones got one". Just like some assholes, I do like some opinions over others. But I like them for specific reasons, not because someone says it and expects me to either let them keep on saying it with nothing to back it up or for me to agree with them. I don't label myself pro-choice nor do I care about the Religious Right being kept in check. If the Religious Right were advocating the death penalty, I would support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 No I said 'potentially' murderous. I'm not shifting any burden of proof... it maybe is, it maybe isn't... prove it isn't. Potentially only admits the possibility. I don't have to prove a potential... I'll leave that stuff to medical boards... One cannot dismiss medical advances... if you live in a third world hell where medical care is less of a human right than gun ownership doesn't mean the rest of us do... Define for me person hood... come on... you've a lot to say... say it... you have the idea that abortion is any time up to term, yet you've not defined person hood... so define it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Asimov... I don't know how I missed that Gramps' question was directed to Asimov. I didn't intend to butt in. Terribly sorry to both of you. One of they new fangled edit things... don't hold with em... in my day... <long pointless story about going to Shelbyville> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XtianChris Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 The idea that you have a valid opinion is based on the assumption that you have some reason for why you have that opinion. Otherwise the old saying "opinions are like assholes, everyones got one". Just like some assholes, I do like some opinions over others. But I like them for specific reasons, not because someone says it and expects me to either let them keep on saying it with nothing to back it up or for me to agree with them. Not really where I was going with "feel free to rip me a new one" , but I will attempt to accommodate you. I may be silent from this thread for a while, as I'll be gathering proof to present to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I have the feeling you're hitting your head agin belief masquerading as 'reason'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 No I said 'potentially' murderous. I'm not shifting any burden of proof... it maybe is, it maybe isn't... prove it isn't. Potentially only admits the possibility. I don't have to prove a potential... I operate on the principle that each person is an individual and has a right to their own body. Thus, if something or someone is inhabiting that individuals body against their will, it is not wrong to get rid of it. No person has the moral responsibility to sacrifice their own life or well-being for the sake of another. I'll leave that stuff to medical boards... One cannot dismiss medical advances... if you live in a third world hell where medical care is less of a human right than gun ownership doesn't mean the rest of us do... I don't believe in government instituted health care anyways. Regardless of whether there is or isn't doesn't mean there isn't a huge financial burden. Define for me person hood... come on... you've a lot to say... say it... you have the idea that abortion is any time up to term, yet you've not defined person hood... so define it. Why would I define personhood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts