Democrats & Abortion

[Peikko 1,575]

What this argument chooses to ignore is the pregnancy was never meant to be a guarentee of live birth. Nature aborts fetus all the time, for all kinds of reasons that are not simply due to difficulties with the fetus itself. What pro life seeks to do is force women to be enslaved to their repoductive systems or eshew the sexual act. Men do not face that choice and this dispartity between the sexes actually creates many of the reproductive dilemas that abortion has a place in providing solutions to.

Despite all this, the health care bill is not the place for the abortion discussion. If the US deems it right that federal funding can't be used to fund abortions, so be it as long as women have access to funding in other ways.

The rest of this thread aside, this post is absolutely ridiculous. You're honestly suggesting that because miscarriages occur, abortion is justified? There are many arguments for and against abortion, but this argument flat out justifies murder on the basis that the person would have died anyway (ie. your logic is equivalent to saying that since people die every day, it's okay to kill them). That's preposterous.

If you want to argue that the fetus isn't alive, that's a whole other can of worms. But your argument is simply that if something occurs naturally, it's okay to induce it. Just because fires happen naturally doesn't mean it's okay to start them.

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Mother nature also evolved its life cycle based on the fact that people die. That doesn't mean we can kill them. Don't confuse sentimentality and morality.

You think there is an analogy there? There isn't.

[Peikko 1,575]

Double standards? No, there is a difference between a fetus that can not survive outside of the womb and a baby that can. This difference entirely explains the rationale behind being able to, under certain circumstances, abort a fetus but not slaughter a baby.

The fact that the fetus relies specifically on the mother who cannot, barring complicated medical practices, be replaced, doesn't really change anything. You're making the argument that if someone's life inconveniences yours, you have the right to take action to end theirs. That's preposterous.

As a matter of precedent, parents have a legally enforceable responsibility to care for their children. Often this responsibility takes the form of monetary contributions, but it can take many other forms. If a man decided that he didn't want to pay child support, killing his children would not be a legally acceptable alternative. Why should a woman have that option if she doesn't want to support her unborn child?

Sex doesn't automatically result in pregnancy. Sometimes it does and a mother has the choice whether to support that pregnancy or not, whether you like that or not. It is not possible to legislate for the fetus to survive if the mother does not support the pregnancy it is that simple.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You would agree, though, that the support a baby requires after birth is significantly different than the support it requires during the pregnancy, yes? Most importantly, the support after birth can be provided by individuals other than the mother. As such, MC is correct in making the claim that a fetus is entirely dependent on it's mother to survive. A baby isn't. The concept of new born adoptions would otherwise fall apart entirely.

Again, in order to be fair, the "others" referenced must also have the choice to kill the child or not.

Double standards? No, there is a difference between a fetus that can not survive outside of the womb and a baby that can. This difference entirely explains the rationale behind being able to, under certain circumstances, abort a fetus but not slaughter a baby.

The fact that the fetus relies specifically on the mother who cannot, barring complicated medical practices, be replaced, doesn't really change anything. You're making the argument that if someone's life inconveniences yours, you have the right to take action to end theirs. That's preposterous.

As a matter of precedent, parents have a legally enforceable responsibility to care for their children. Often this responsibility takes the form of monetary contributions, but it can take many other forms. If a man decided that he didn't want to pay child support, killing his children would not be a legally acceptable alternative. Why should a woman have that option if she doesn't want to support her unborn child?

Sex doesn't automatically result in pregnancy. Sometimes it does and a mother has the choice whether to support that pregnancy or not, whether you like that or not. It is not possible to legislate for the fetus to survive if the mother does not support the pregnancy it is that simple.

Its as possible as legislating for the "fetus" to survive after birth.

[Peikko 1,575]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You would agree, though, that the support a baby requires after birth is significantly different than the support it requires during the pregnancy, yes? Most importantly, the support after birth can be provided by individuals other than the mother. As such, MC is correct in making the claim that a fetus is entirely dependent on it's mother to survive. A baby isn't. The concept of new born adoptions would otherwise fall apart entirely.

Again, in order to be fair, the "others" referenced must also have the choice to kill the child or not.

Double standards? No, there is a difference between a fetus that can not survive outside of the womb and a baby that can. This difference entirely explains the rationale behind being able to, under certain circumstances, abort a fetus but not slaughter a baby.

The fact that the fetus relies specifically on the mother who cannot, barring complicated medical practices, be replaced, doesn't really change anything. You're making the argument that if someone's life inconveniences yours, you have the right to take action to end theirs. That's preposterous.

As a matter of precedent, parents have a legally enforceable responsibility to care for their children. Often this responsibility takes the form of monetary contributions, but it can take many other forms. If a man decided that he didn't want to pay child support, killing his children would not be a legally acceptable alternative. Why should a woman have that option if she doesn't want to support her unborn child?

Sex doesn't automatically result in pregnancy. Sometimes it does and a mother has the choice whether to support that pregnancy or not, whether you like that or not. It is not possible to legislate for the fetus to survive if the mother does not support the pregnancy it is that simple.

Its as possible as legislating for the "fetus" to survive after birth.

Simply not true, your inappropriate use of fetus notwithstanding.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You would agree, though, that the support a baby requires after birth is significantly different than the support it requires during the pregnancy, yes? Most importantly, the support after birth can be provided by individuals other than the mother. As such, MC is correct in making the claim that a fetus is entirely dependent on it's mother to survive. A baby isn't. The concept of new born adoptions would otherwise fall apart entirely.

Again, in order to be fair, the "others" referenced must also have the choice to kill the child or not.

Double standards? No, there is a difference between a fetus that can not survive outside of the womb and a baby that can. This difference entirely explains the rationale behind being able to, under certain circumstances, abort a fetus but not slaughter a baby.

The fact that the fetus relies specifically on the mother who cannot, barring complicated medical practices, be replaced, doesn't really change anything. You're making the argument that if someone's life inconveniences yours, you have the right to take action to end theirs. That's preposterous.

As a matter of precedent, parents have a legally enforceable responsibility to care for their children. Often this responsibility takes the form of monetary contributions, but it can take many other forms. If a man decided that he didn't want to pay child support, killing his children would not be a legally acceptable alternative. Why should a woman have that option if she doesn't want to support her unborn child?

Sex doesn't automatically result in pregnancy. Sometimes it does and a mother has the choice whether to support that pregnancy or not, whether you like that or not. It is not possible to legislate for the fetus to survive if the mother does not support the pregnancy it is that simple.

Its as possible as legislating for the "fetus" to survive after birth.

Simply not true, your inappropriate use of fetus notwithstanding.

One second its a fetus, one second its a baby. Its all BS anyway. No magical transformation took place.

[Peikko 1,575]

One second its a fetus, one second its a baby. Its all BS anyway. No magical transformation took place.

It has nothing to do with magic and everything to do with the normal progress of pregnancy. Perhaps you missed out on sex ed?

Edited November 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You would agree, though, that the support a baby requires after birth is significantly different than the support it requires during the pregnancy, yes? Most importantly, the support after birth can be provided by individuals other than the mother. As such, MC is correct in making the claim that a fetus is entirely dependent on it's mother to survive. A baby isn't. The concept of new born adoptions would otherwise fall apart entirely.

Again, in order to be fair, the "others" referenced must also have the choice to kill the child or not.

No, because it's an entirely different situation as I have pointed out. Try to read again what I wrote and do try to grasp the content this time around.

[HAL 9000 96]

One second its a fetus, one second its a baby. Its all BS anyway. No magical transformation took place.

It has nothing to do with magic and everything to do with the normal progress of pregnancy. Perhaps you missed out on sex ed?

Maybe the sciencelover can redefine things some more.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is interesting....Judaism and Abortion.

Within the Jewish there are three main groups - Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform and Reconstructionist. All of these groups could be described as supporting abortion, however, this is not to say that they support abortion on demand or for what may be considered reasons of convenience. In the Jewish tradition as in other religions, the debate surrounds when the embryo or foetus should be considered a human person of value to be protected from harm. The Jewish book, the Talmud gives the foetus more value and importance as he/she develops in the womb, however the foetus is not considered to be a human person until he/she emerges from his/her mother's body. During the first 40 days of pregnancy the embryo is described as "water" and abortion is generally allowed in this stage. From 40 days until the end of the first trimester the embryo/foetus is considered an organ of the mother's body and so abortion law is more restrictive. After the first trimester the foetus is seen as a potential life and therefore abortion is only approved in certain circumstances. ("What Judaism Says About Abortion", Alan Luxenberg, Forward, 11 May 2001)

For example:

"Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases:

• One case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except for its mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case. An abortion of the fetus, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
• An abortion would be permissible if the woman was suicidal because of her pregnancy.
• Jewish authorities differed in a case where a continued pregnancy would leave the mother permanently deaf. She obtained permission for an abortion from the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
• Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.
• Most authorities do not permit abortion in the event that the fetus [has a genetic disability] or will probably pick up a disease from its mother. The rationale is that even though the child will be ... disabled ... it would still be formed in the image of the creator.
• An abortion is sometimes permitted if the woman suffers great emotional pain about the birth of a child who will experience health problems.
• Abortions are not permitted for economic reasons, to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried." ("When does human personhood begin? Belief 4: Jewish Beliefs", www.religioustolerance.org)

http://spucscotland.org/education/students/abortion/religiousviews.html

[Joseph & Ana 0]

One second its a fetus, one second its a baby. Its all BS anyway. No magical transformation took place.

It has nothing to do with magic and everything to do with the normal progress of pregnancy. Perhaps you missed out on sex ed?

Maybe the sciencelover can redefine things some more.

There is no actual distinction that split second before birth, or the split second after birth except what occurrs in the text-book. The textbook is not reality. A baby is a baby. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda. Which you do.

A fetus is very much alive and an abortion kills it. That doesn't change the fact that a fetus is entirely dependent on its mother for its survival and that nature evolved it's reproduction process on the basis that fetus are expendable.

There are of course ethical questions placed before each individual making the choice as to whether or not to support the pregnancy but that has not been mandated into law, understandably. Sentimentality however, should play little part in this process as it is a very fickle mistress.

Bolded part- But this is the same for newborn babies and any baby up to a certain age. They can't feed themselves. They don't have the coordination to feed themselves or ability to know what to eat to survive. So a born baby is still dependant on somebody for quite awhile. Not sure why that when it's inside the womb it's the woman's property but while out of the womb is independent and is against the law to kill, even though it's still fully dependent on others for survival. Double standard to me.

No, it is not. Surely you do not so fundamentally misunderstand the process of pregnancy?

Of course I don't misunderstand it since I have been pregnant, and have learned about every stage of development like most people have. But I am talking about survivability. First it's dependent in the womb to develop, then outside of the womb to continue living. A baby can't do anything on it's own when born(well they can poop and pee) and still needs to develop and grow.

You would agree, though, that the support a baby requires after birth is significantly different than the support it requires during the pregnancy, yes? Most importantly, the support after birth can be provided by individuals other than the mother. As such, MC is correct in making the claim that a fetus is entirely dependent on it's mother to survive. A baby isn't. The concept of new born adoptions would otherwise fall apart entirely.

Again, in order to be fair, the "others" referenced must also have the choice to kill the child or not.

No, because it's an entirely different situation as I have pointed out. Try to read again what I wrote and do try to grasp the content this time around.

Man people are always having to read your posts again. Maybe you should try re-phrasing if you don't mean what they say.

[HAL 9000 96]

There is no actual distinction that split second before birth, or the split second after birth except what occurrs in the text-book.

Ummmm... which is why there are no abortions performed on babies the split second before birth...

The textbook is not reality. A baby is a baby. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda. Which you do.

Pray tell what would be *my* agenda, Dr Joe? Tell us what the liberal medical textbooks refuse to tell us.

Man people are always having to read your posts again. Maybe you should try re-phrasing if you don't mean what they say.

I understood what he wrote. Why can't you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Abortion - Lutheran Church View

The ELCA Social Statement on Abortion, adopted by the 1991 Churchwide Assembly, acknowledges the issue's complexity, noting that it "evokes strong and varied convictions about ... human life and responsibility, freedom and limits." The statement also offers useful guidance: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life."

A last resort

"The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life," the statement says. "Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. Therefore, as a church we seek to reduce the need to turn to abortion.... We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her."

The statement adds: "The church recognizes that there can be sound reasons for ending a pregnancy through induced abortion." These are the threat to a woman's physical life; when pregnancy has resulted from rape, incest or sexual violence; and fetal abnormalities incompatible with life.

Basic faith convictions undergird the ELCA statement. Created in God's image, we see all of life as a mysterious, awesome gift. As a community of forgiven sinners, Christians are free to make just and caring choices. In fact, the statement says, "we have both the freedom and the obligation to engage in serious deliberation on moral matters." A compassionate community, praying and standing with those in struggle, is called neither to judge nor justify but to support people making difficult moral decisions.

http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or...r/Abortion.aspx

[Peikko 1,575]

There is no actual distinction that split second before birth, or the split second after birth except what occurrs in the text-book.

Ummmm... which is why there are no abortions performed on babies the split second before birth...

The textbook is not reality. A baby is a baby. Anyone who says otherwise has an agenda. Which you do.

Pray tell what would be *my* agenda, Dr Joe? Tell us what the liberal medical textbooks refuse to tell us.

Man people are always having to read your posts again. Maybe you should try re-phrasing if you don't mean what they say.

I understood what he wrote. Why can't you?

The gestational sequence is very well understood biology Joe. I really think you need to revisit sex ed.

[Susita 175]

Galt's got some very interesting perspectives there

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Galt's got some very interesting perspectives there

I sort of stumbled onto those interesting facts regarding those two religions. Clearly, from a religious perspective, abortion is not a black and white issue as some would like to think.