do gooders! or good doers?

[Hector]

With regard to the 'potential', that's an arguement I disagree with. You have to pick somewhere to draw the line otherwise you'd end up banning contraception in saying by killing the sperm you are killing a potential foetus and therefore committing murder.

The problem I see is one of definition: You say you're sure 'they have a means of investigating these things' but if there were conclusive definitions of what constitutes 'life'- which includes the biological, mental and metaphysical/spiritual aspects-then we wouldn't have these conflicts. Not everyone agrees on the definition and, getting back to the original question, it's not surprising that a religious 'nutter' is going to take the stance she does, personal agenda notwithstanding,

 

[Useless]

'Actually it still might be wrong if you don't believe in God because not believing doesn't mean God doesn't exist'

Who is God to say what's wrong or right? Billions of 'wrong' things happen in the world every day but I don't see God stepping in to rectify them. So discussions of morality, by this point, should not have to involve God at all because his or her opinion on the subject can't possibly be ascertained. Unless it's done by a priest, bishop bla bla...or curate. Which would indicate that in this case the self-righteous religious nut strikes again, pushing their nose into things which don't concern them, and trying to force their beliefs on other people. It's aaaaaalways the same with religion, especially Catholicism and Christianity

As far as abortion is concerned, I think it should be up to the parents, with the mother having the power of veto. Or something like that. I don't think anyone else even has any vague say in the matter. There are other circumstances sure, but this is the life of a human being we're talking about and that's one hell of a thing to be able to switch on and off. It's tantamount to murder imo if people other than the parents end up forcing the abortion.

 

[Hector]

Who is God to say what's wrong or right? Billions of 'wrong' things happen in the world every day but I don't see God stepping in to rectify them.

Theologically speaking it's down to 'free will' and was our choice in the beginning. Blame fruit.

It's tantamount to murder imo if people other than the parents end up forcing the abortion.

We're not talking about forcing abortions, we're talking about people stopping them.

 

[Useless]

All I'm saying is it should be up to the parents and especially the mother. You might not agree with abortion and I don't go to one side or the other. And if everything is free will then why do religions even exist? Or maybe I dunno what you're talking about.

 

[Hector]

All I'm saying is it should be up to the parents and especially the mother. You might not agree with abortion and I don't go to one side or the other. And if everything is free will then why do religions even exist? Or maybe I dunno what you're talking about.

I completely agree with abortion and the mother's prerogative, I'm trying to explore a more philosophical approach because things just aren't that black and white.

I was saying that the reason God doesn't jump in to save the day according to the christian religion is because a very long time ago a naughty couple nicked an apple and thus sealed our fate and we are evermore condemned to live and die by our own hand. You brought up god, I'm just telling you why he doesn't jump in. I'm not religious btw.

 

[Mughi]

Theologically speaking it's down to 'free will' and was our choice in the beginning. Blame fruit.

Pah, Eve didnt know she was doing something wrong, blame god for not making them with the knowledge of right and wrong, he said "dont do it" they had no idea it was wrong to disobey him till they ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[Hector]

Pah, Eve didnt know she was doing something wrong, blame god for not making them with the knowledge of right and wrong, he said "dont do it" they had no idea it was wrong to disobey him till they ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of right and wrong.

Well Adam picked it so they were both complicit.

Regardless, if they hadn't done it there would have been no history of strife and suffering, no wars and- ultimately- no Unreal Tournament. We owe it to the generations before us to play UT until our fingers bleed

 

[Cutter]

Well Adam picked it so they were both complicit.

Regardless, if they hadn't done it there would have been no history of strife and suffering, no wars and- ultimately- no Unreal Tournament. We owe it to the generations before us to play UT until our fingers bleed

Most "do gooders" simply want to tell other people how to lead their lives. Its about control, not about concern for the wellbeing of another.

A baby which has been born, and had the umbilical cord cut is a free-standing, individual legal person. An unborn child in the womb is not. That's the difference.

The "allowed termination point" with regard to the foetus are, IMHO, more a recognition of when the dangers inherent in the abortion process become an unacceptably high threat to the mother's own life due to the advanced state of the pregnancy than a point at which a foetus is deemed to be a "legal person" or to be able to think/see/feel etc for itself.

Should a mother be forced to carry through a pregnancy which will endanger her own life?

Ultimately, the unpalatable fact is that the mother is a legal person with full legal recognition under the law. She has the right to life, and the right to order the affairs of her own body. Anything else is an offence to basic human rights. Should a mother die so that an unborn child should live? IMHO no. It should certainly not be a legal principle to be slavishly followed. The views and the choice the mother actually makes are something completely different.

The whole issue is simply so emotionally charged due to our biological conditioning which places such a high value on children as the continuation of the species...

The flipside to this of course is the father's rights in the matter. No father should be able to force a mother to carry through a pregnancy against her wishes, and especially if to do so would endanger the mother's own life. The quid pro quo of course should be that any mother who carries a pregnancy to term against the wishes of the father (due to trickery etc) should not be able to expect financial or other support from the father.

Again, the father might himself choose to support the child, but he should not be forced to if he did not want the child...

 

[Hector]

Most "do gooders" simply want to tell other people how to lead their lives. Its about control, not about concern for the wellbeing of another.

Labelling them as 'do-gooders' is denigrating their intentions which may in fact be altruistic no matter how it is manifested. The whole question of disinterest is another kettle of fish altogether. I don't think her motivation necessarily has a bearing on what she is saying or is trying to do (the ends justify the means). Ie, A starving child doesn't care whether it gets fed by a hypocrite or a saint.

A baby which has been born, and had the umbilical cord cut is a free-standing, individual legal person. An unborn child in the womb is not. That's the difference.

You're the expert here, I have no idea on the legalities. But I know laws can be changed and are thus not absolute.

Should a mother be forced to carry through a pregnancy which will endanger her own life?

I think that's the mother's choice but how is this relevant to this particular case? I don't think there was mention of a danger to the mother. Or is this an extension to the thread?

 

[Spirit]

And tbh spirit, its a bollox thing to call it a lumb of living tissue, if you are going to take the moral standpoint that abortions up untill a certain age is morally right, at least have the balls to admit that it is most certainly the termination of life, ie. murder.

I am all for abortion btw, I just can't stand these kind of doublestandards.

It's not double standards at all. How can you kill something that isn't alive? Before it develops a conciousness a foetus is purely just an extention of the mothers body, it cannot survive as an entity in any way by itself and essentially is no different to a piece of steak. It's a bunch of human cells grouped together for a specific purpose that will develop into a person in a couple of months time.

Do you believe if a woman takes the morning after pill that is also murder? The sperm and egg and joined and formed the beginnings of a foetus, however by taking the pill you are removing those cells from the mothers body... I certainly don't believe that. It is not an issue of having 'balls' dog, I say things as I see them and I do not see removing cells from a body as murder, and I do not see a foetus as a living entity in it's own right until it develops at least some characteristics of a human other than shape.

 

[Spirit]

The flipside to this of course is the father's rights in the matter. No father should be able to force a mother to carry through a pregnancy against her wishes, and especially if to do so would endanger the mother's own life. The quid pro quo of course should be that any mother who carries a pregnancy to term against the wishes of the father (due to trickery etc) should not be able to expect financial or other support from the father.

Again, the father might himself choose to support the child, but he should not be forced to if he did not want the child...

The flipside to this of course is the father's rights in the matter. No father should be able to force a mother to carry through a pregnancy against her wishes, and especially if to do so would endanger the mother's own life. The quid pro quo of course should be that any mother who carries a pregnancy to term against the wishes of the father (due to trickery etc) should not be able to expect financial or other support from the father.

Again, the father might himself choose to support the child, but he should not be forced to if he did not want the child...

I agree a father shouldn’t not be able to force the mother to go through with the pregnancy. Although as parents they both essentially have an equal say in the decision the mother is the one who has to go through 9 months of crap and therefore if she does not want this she should not be forced to go through with it.

I also agree that if a mother goes through with a pregnancy when the father has made is specifically clear at an early stage that he wants nothing to do with the child, then she should not expect financial support from him.

 

[dog]

Spirit; You're still clinging to this highly subjective image of a feotus being a nonentity, that is has no personal feelings, no consciousness of its own untill some undefined point and I say: prove it, for all I know, we have yet to even begin to understand what consciousness is, let alone when in our development it starts to take a form that can be agreed upon as "human consciousnes"... so where does this idea of yours spring from, if its not a convinient way to make away with the fact that alot of abortions are ultimately murder. I am not saying that is wrong, I am simply saying playing tricks of words so a not to face this is weak and silly, imo ofcourse... Don't ask me to make distinction between a medicinal abortion and a operational one, cuz I quite frankly do not see it...

And thur, don't you think you went way OT?

 

[Hector]

It's not double standards at all. How can you kill something that isn't alive? Before it develops a conciousness a foetus is purely just an extention of the mothers body, it cannot survive as an entity in any way by itself and essentially is no different to a piece of steak.

A quadriplegic probably wouldn't get very far on their own either but is that a reason to end their lives without their consent? Ever read the Diving Bell and the Butterfly, written by someone who could only move one eyelid?

My point is that if we're not careful how we define life then we can expect to be taken to task by those who have an alternate interpretation. 'Piece of steak' might be commensurate with your opinions about the cut-off point for termination but it's not one that will find you universal sympathy.

 

[Spirit]

lol I'm not "clinging" to anything dog, it's a simple belief. You do like to present other peoples opinions in an unnecesarily negative light when you debate with them

How can something with no brain, or a brain so underdeveloped it has no capability to think or feel be classed as a living entity in its own right? I do understand what you are saying, and my point of view does depends on the abilty to prove something is not functioning in anyway, but I believe that the medical proffesion have the capaibily to prove whether a brain is functioning or not - they can test electrical impulses in a very similar way that EEG tests work. If a brain is not active in any way then how can that object feel or think, or be concious? It's simple, no brain = no living being, just a mass of cells. An adult human who's brain has stopped working is classed as dead, so why would you class a foetus who's brain has not yet begun to work as being alive when they are essentially the same?

@ Hector, my arguement doesnt depend on whether an entity can survive by itself or not, but whether it has any form of conciousness at all. Of course a quadriplegic has human rights too, but he also has infinitely more capabilities than a foetus that has neither a functioning brain or body, but is merely a mass of cells fed by it's hosts body...

I notice no-one has answered my question about the morning after pill yet, I'm still interested to hear your views on that. Is it murder too, killing a foetus that is just one day old and essentially just a sperm and egg joined together?

 

[Cutter]

And thur, don't you think you went way OT?

Given that this thread has turned into a general discussion of abortion and related matters, no.

 

[Useless]

'Most "do gooders" simply want to tell other people how to lead their lives.'

Yeah I wish I was this succinct Everyone should have the right to an opinion at least, but with some people it just doesn't stop there.

 

[Penny]

I'm very tired, not a good time to be making posts but oh well.

For those of you who don't know, I'm a mum to a lil boy who has some special needs/health problems. I didn't know he was going to be born this way when I was pregnant, in fact I didn't know anything was wrong at all til he was about 1. I have sometimes wondered, if I had known his life was going to be this way, would it have made any difference in my choice to keep him. The answer is no. He is here, I love him to bits and I couldn't imagine my life without him.

However, if I was to become pregnant again, and was then informed that this new baby had similar medical problems, or even just ran the risk of them, then I think it would be an incredibly tough decision to make. I hope it's something I never have to even think about. This is why I think the "do gooder" is out of order. Yes, we are all entitled to our views and opinions, of course, but there are times when we could show a little more empathy and try to think before making a judgment upon others. What is right for one person doesn't have to be the way for another. She obviously feels very strongly about her views on abortion, but to direct them towards a family who are already going through so much is just wrong.

As for my abortion stance in general, I am pro-choice. There are some circumstances, such as, when having the child may be so detrimental to the physical/mental health of a mother-to-be, it may become an option.

I do not agree with abortion as a form of contraception. I know a few girls who have had unprotected sex and think nothing of going to take the morning after pill, or a few weeks later pop out for a D&C. It's not necessary. Not only is it irresponsible, but why put your body through it? So to answer Dave, I'm of the view that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. I look at it long term; left to its own devices, whatever stage a foetus is at, it has the potential to grow into someone like you or I. I'm not going to argue about the scientific ins and outs because like Dan said, noone *really* knows where the cells finish and the soul starts.

I am going to go to bed now as I have rabbited a lil bit. I may come back and edit this in the morning too. Think this sums up my views on the subject though. Just to summize, I think abortion is a personal thing. For anyone who has had to make the choice, and it's been a tough decision for them, then I think they will always have to live with it and will probably always wonder if it was the right thing to do.

 

[jwer_NL]

its a bollox thing to call it a lumb of living tissue, if you are going to take the moral standpoint that abortions up untill a certain age is morally right, at least have the balls to admit that it is most certainly the termination of life, ie. murder.

I am all for abortion btw, I just can't stand these kind of doublestandards.

Are they double standards? You could argue that killing animals would be the same as murder then, because they are argueably smarter then a fetus at the age of a few weeks.

Let me swing to the other side for once now, and defend the radical other side. I'd say that any child that is born in a world that isn't wanted by anyone should not be born. We allready have over 6 billion people on this world, so why would we fight for unwanted children to be born? Children without any love and decent upbringing have a chance of growing up without self-esteem and a defect sence of right and wrong (i.e. more likely to display criminal behaviour)

Why would we let children be born when there's so many needy people around, if the church so lovingly likes to stride against abortion, why don't they so lovingly stride to get equel rights for everyone, and food, and water and a roof over people's head. Instead they feel the need to sit their fat well fed asses in well lit courtyards to fight against someone that just saved a child for what was probably to be a hellish life.

I'd say it should be well thought over before a certain time in the pregnantship, but if it complies to that, it should be reasonably doable

 

[jwer_NL]

I was saying that the reason God doesn't jump in to save the day according to the christian religion is because a very long time ago a naughty couple nicked an apple and thus sealed our fate and we are evermore condemned to live and die by our own hand. You brought up god, I'm just telling you why he doesn't jump in. I'm not religious btw.

there's no possible way at all to hold that statement whatsoever...don't try and defend the christian belief because you can't

if you wish to defend it however i'm all up for a new thread and discuss that^

 

[dog]

Spirit, I did answer your question, read:

Don't ask me to make distinction between a medicinal abortion and a operational one, cuz I quite frankly do not see it

And yes, I do see killing animals as murder as well, and I don't have moral qualms about that either, I just preffer to call things as I see them instead of wrapping them in nice words to hide my double standards, because we _all_ suffer from double standards, a few just seem incapable of admitting so..

As to your "no brain" stance, its bollox, as I already stated the central nerve system is among one of the first thing to be developed and that in time grows into the brain, will you spirit please tell me at which point it can be considered a "real" brain?