Something That Has Been On My Mind

[Loismustdie 0]

I read an article a week or so ago and it was talking about parents of autistic and downs syndrome children who were basically up in arms about the result of testing pre- birth for these possible genetic defects, and how that by an alarming rate the end result if the test is positive is abortion. Now, I see where they are coming from- they are parents of children with defects and while it is possible that they are just jealous someone else thought of it first, I would hope the majority feel angry about it because they know that a child sans perfect is still a loveable child, with worth and room to grow and reason to be. So, while thinking about it the first thing I thought about is who benefits? Well, life is easier on the parents, insurance companies save a bundle, but the scientific community loses out- one less case to observe, that much farther away from a possible cure. I guess what struck me first is that if we didn't have those tests, what would we do then? Just kill the baby once we realized it wasn't up to snuff? If not, why not? What's the difference? That's pretty much a quick outline of my thought process, and I just can't see any reason why if it is o.k. to pull the trigger pre-birth it wouldn't be o.k. to do so post. I just can't. Logically there is no reason why you couldn't do it in either scenario, if the one is o.k. the other should be as well.

[brvheart 1,752]

I agree, pre or post birth we should be able to kill unwanted children, so as to not be inconvenienced. The real victim is the mother of the unwanted child anyway.ps. Save the whales and the snow owl.

[crowTrobot 2]

hopefully it won't be long before science comes up with a way to determine exactly when active conscious/self awareness begins in a fetus (which WILL happen one day). when it does that will become the standard cutoff point for "moral" abortions.i don't think you'll find too many people of any belief who would consider it moral to kill a child post-birth for ANY reason short of the child being in hopeless constant agony or something. not even worth mentioning that sarcastically.

[Loismustdie 0]

hopefully it won't be long before science comes up with a way to determine exactly when active conscious/self awareness begins in a fetus (which WILL happen one day). when it does that will become the standard cutoff point for "moral" abortions.i don't think you'll find too many people of any belief who would consider it moral to kill a child post-birth for ANY reason short of the child being in hopeless constant agony or something. not even worth mentioning that sarcastically.

The argument in my mind isn't self-awareness, it's life. Life begins immediately at conception. If you could somehow argue that the fetus could end up being a tonka truck instead of a child you may have a leg to stand on, but the only known end result of a fetus is a child. So, whether you take that life at 10 months or 2 days life is still being ended, isn't it?

[crowTrobot 2]

The argument in my mind isn't self-awareness, it's life. Life begins immediately at conception. If you could somehow argue that the fetus could end up being a tonka truck instead of a child you may have a leg to stand on, but the only known end result of a fetus is a child. So, whether you take that life at 10 months or 2 days life is still being ended, isn't it?

i would think the key issue for you would be exactly when you think the soul attaches, not when "life" starts. obviously sperm and egg are already alive at conception. obviously bacteria, fungus, flowers, worms, squid, elephants etc. and other presumably soul-free things are alive. why is life in itself the biggest deal?or do you think the soul attaches at the instant of conception and just sits there waiting for months for the brain to develop so it can have something to do?

[Loismustdie 0]

i would think the key issue for you would be exactly when you think the soul attaches, not when "life" starts. obviously sperm and egg are already alive at conception. obviously bacteria, fungus, flowers, worms, squid, elephants etc. and other presumably soul-free things are alive. why is life in itself the biggest deal?or do you think the soul attaches at the instant of conception and just sits there waiting for months for the brain to develop so it can have something to do?

Why is life in itself a big deal? Really? I don't know, without you and I aren't having this conversation. Life is a gift. Ask any woman that can't produce it herself, and wants nothing more than to do so. The way you describe it, we might as well all be hunks of meat with a battery. Which is the key issue... I believe that human life is worth more than bacteria. We rate, as a product, higher than bacteria. Truth is it doesn't matter on some level, from this point of view- enough people kill off there young and don't reproduce, the less chance they have of passing on that type of belief system. Eventually that way of thinking dies out. If they want to systematically purge there own ranks, let em. So, in a warped way of thinking that child is actually giving his life for a good cause.

[crowTrobot 2]

Which is the key issue... I believe that human life is worth more than bacteria. We rate, as a product, higher than bacteria.

i agree, but i submit that by appealing to hierarchy of life you are making a moral argument based on rationalism that has nothing to do with god or religeon. i though you believed morality doesn't exist without god : )

Truth is it doesn't matter on some level, from this point of view- enough people kill off there young and don't reproduce, the less chance they have of passing on that type of belief system. Eventually that way of thinking dies out. If they want to systematically purge there own ranks, let em. So, in a warped way of thinking that child is actually giving his life for a good cause.

if by "warped" you mean morally self-contradictory and decidedly unchristian, then yes.

[David_Nicoson 1]

hopefully it won't be long before science comes up with a way to determine exactly when active conscious/self awareness begins in a fetus (which WILL happen one day). when it does that will become the standard cutoff point for "moral" abortions.

I don't know that it will make any difference legally. We could make a decent estimate by allowing first trimester abortions but not later. (I think Carl Saigan suggested this.) And we're not doing that really. So I suspect that we'll keep fighting about that even when we can identify precisely "brain birth".

[crowTrobot 2]

I don't know that it will make any difference legally. We could make a decent estimate by allowing first trimester abortions but not later. (I think Carl Saigan suggested this.) And we're not doing that really. So I suspect that we'll keep fighting about that even when we can identify precisely "brain birth".

yes but hopefully by that time we will be fighting for rational moral reasons and not because we're concerned about a 2-day-old fetus having a soul.

[Loismustdie 0]

i agree, but i submit that by appealing to hierarchy of life you are making a moral argument based on rationalism that has nothing to do with god or religeon. i though you believed morality doesn't exist without god : )if by "warped" you mean morally self-contradictory and decidedly unchristian, then yes.

Who said morality doesn't exist without god? Many people who have decent morals won't see heaven. Heaven isn't about morality it's about being christ like, about being perfect. You can have a decent moral base and still in no way be perfect as far as God is concerned. How is it unchristian to be able to identify both sides of an issue, and even point out how it may work out for the best, that even in free will that goes against Gods plan Gods will could still be done?

[Loismustdie 0]

yes but hopefully by that time we will be fighting for rational moral reasons and not because we're concerned about a 2-day-old fetus having a soul.

Yes, because the real issue is being able to pinpoint the exact time when it's all good to terminate life. Seriously, that is what it comes down to... we are basically trying to just pin it down as to when it would be "morally" o.k. to pull the trigger. How sick is that? Wouldn't it just make more sense to stay on this side of murder, instead of testing the limits?

[crowTrobot 2]

Who said morality doesn't exist without god?

you've implied that more than once here in some form or another. sorry if you've changed positions.

How is it unchristian to be able to identify both sides of an issue, and even point out how it may work out for the best, that even in free will that goes against Gods plan Gods will could still be done?

for someone who values life, reasoning that abortions are good because they weed out a certain class of people who teach that abortions are good is morally circular and contradictory. not to mention it seems racist/elitist in a hitleresque vein.

[crowTrobot 2]

Yes, because the real issue is being able to pinpoint the exact time when it's all good to terminate life. Seriously, that is what it comes down to... we are basically trying to just pin it down as to when it would be "morally" o.k. to pull the trigger. How sick is that? Wouldn't it just make more sense to stay on this side of murder, instead of testing the limits?

well abortion is likely always going to be legal, and if it isn't it will go underground. it's not going away. considering that, i think the important issue if/when evidence of "brain birth" is discovered would be public education, allowing informed moral choices to be made - for reasons other than religeous.

[speedz99 145]

Why is life in itself a big deal? Really? I don't know, without you and I aren't having this conversation. Life is a gift. Ask any woman that can't produce it herself, and wants nothing more than to do so. The way you describe it, we might as well all be hunks of meat with a battery. Which is the key issue... I believe that human life is worth more than bacteria. We rate, as a product, higher than bacteria. Truth is it doesn't matter on some level, from this point of view- enough people kill off there young and don't reproduce, the less chance they have of passing on that type of belief system. Eventually that way of thinking dies out. If they want to systematically purge there own ranks, let em. So, in a warped way of thinking that child is actually giving his life for a good cause.

You didn't answer the question. You think a human's life is more important than the life of bacteria, trees, cows, dogs, monkeys, dolphins, etc. I assume you have this view because we have "souls". So do you think that the soul is born the moment sperm meets egg? Or maybe it's during the first phase of development..."Within 24-hours after fertilization, the egg begins dividing rapidly into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days. The fertilized egg (called a zygote) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus where its next job is to attach to the endometrium (a process called implantation). First the zygote becomes a solid ball of cells, then it becomes a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst. Before implantation, the blastocyst breaks out of its protective covering. When the blastocyst establishes contact with the endometrium, an exchange of hormones helps the blastocyst attach."Or is it once we reach a certain stage? I suppose it goes without saying that I agree abortion is no worse than cutting down a tree until the moment the embryo's brain (or what has formed of it so far) turns on, so to speak.

[Lolli 0]

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

[Ouch-8s 4]

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

why not? we let you talk about football and poker...

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

True

[speedz99 145]

why not? we let you talk about football and poker...

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

If a woman wants to abort a 7 month old fetus because she suddenly decides she doesn't want to deal with changing diapers, I think that's something I should be allowed to have an opinion about. So I can at least understand why anti-abortion folks think they should have a say in what you do with your body, even though I think that their line is absolutely ridiculous.

[Lolli 0]

why not? we let you talk about football and poker...

Thats because I know what the hell Im talking about.

I suppose it goes without saying that I agree abortion is no worse than cutting down a tree until the moment the embryo's brain (or what has formed of it so far) turns on, so to speak.

Like I said, men shouldnt discuss abortions.Why the hell am I in the religion forum in the first place? This place creeps me out. I now know why.

[speedz99 145]

Thats because I know what the hell Im talking about.Like I said, men shouldnt discuss abortions.Why the hell am I in the religion forum in the first place? This place creeps me out. I now know why.

Dude, I'm sorry woman are whiny bitches that are overly sensitive about being living incubators.* Is taking the morning after pill slightly upsetting? Probably. Is it "destroying life" any more than when you accidentaly step on an ant? Fuck no.***joke**not a joke

[longshottwelve 0]

I'm not exactly sure if this thread has lost focus of what your trying to pinpoint. I wanna believe that your original problem didn't pertain to the act of abortion, but whether it's moral to abort children we know will have defects. But then your second statement goes on to ask whether there is a difference between "aborting" someone/something, or "killing" a baby.First off, of course there is a difference. Like Crow said that goes beyond religious morality. As for whether it's moral to abort a potentially defected child, I see where your coming from. Even if you get to the point where you agree a woman has a choice as to whether or not to have a child, do we still agree that a woman has a choice as to what kind of child she has? And how far do we go with that? Do we end up in some Kurt Vohnagut/Gattaca kind of world where we can abort children based on something as trivial as the color of their eyes? Twilight of the Golds is another movie that deals with this, but in this case it's homosexuality.Personally, I feel that abortion before a certain time is no different than throwing a used petri dish into the fire. I do have a problem with parents choosing to abort potential children based on what they might define a genetic defect, which really stems from their own genetic defects. The only exception I can see is if the child is a lost cause ei. born without a heart or something.

[jmkiser 0]

We all need to stop and clarify something.First off, humans will ALWAYS have their own opinions life/soul/humanity/etc. Humans will always have their own opinions on abortion. My personal feeling is that a new fetus is nothing more then a blade of grass to me. I don't believe that it is morally obvious that fetuses (is that the right plural form?) should be treated like human beings because (to me) they're not.It also doesn't bother me that we now have the ability to learn certain things about the child before it is even born. Could this affect the future in a dramatic way? With this new technology, wise people have mentioned an evolutionary split in the human race could occur. Those who are more abled and those who are less abled. They say it will create a gap that could split humans due to a more "selective birthing process". Who knows? I don't claim to nor am I sure that would even happen.At the same time, do we look at the term "selective birthing process" with horror or is that just the way of the future? It does have kind of a Hitlerish tone to it, but is it really that bad? Most of the time, it's just women who want the best possible chance for their child (the one that is born) to succeed on this planet. Some can make the argument that women have been utilizing a form of "selective birthing process" since the beginning of time by how they choose their mates.The REAL discussion... right now, is the legal aspect. In this country, where should the law logically stand? Why should the law be the way the law actually is? Do we utilize an imagined moral line in this aspect? Is a "moral" line strong enough? Do we try to find a one-size fits all method? How do we compromise?Oh, and claiming that men shouldn't ever talk about abortion is probably one of the dumbest thing that I've ever heard in my life. Selective birthing processes, abortions, population control, etc, affect the entire future of the human race in one way or another.

[jmkiser 0]

double post blugh

[David_Nicoson 1]

Men should not be discussing abortion, just serious.

I disagree emphatically.

[hblask 1]

The argument in my mind isn't self-awareness, it's life. Life begins immediately at conception. If you could somehow argue that the fetus could end up being a tonka truck instead of a child you may have a leg to stand on, but the only known end result of a fetus is a child. So, whether you take that life at 10 months or 2 days life is still being ended, isn't it?

A few cells scraped from your cheek has the *potential* to become a child. The real question is when does it actually *become* a child. Why conception? What if the conception occurred in a petri dish?