Abortion II

[inked]

SACA,
I don't think that was the argument made at all.

Every human life has innate dignity (because made in the image of God).
Careless killing for whatever reason diminishes the killer, defacing the image.
Persons who so do impair the dignity of human life or deny it.
The persons so killed and their killers are deprived of dignity inherent in them.
All humanity suffers.

You seem to be treating it as a quantitative argument of some sort.

Of course, if there is not inherent human dignity, "there is only power and those afraid to use it."

Have a preference?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Why would 'innate dignity" be related to "made in the image of God"? You're cherry picking again.

God would be described as having several innate characteristics. Humans would be described as having several innate characteristics, some of which might overlap with God or each other, and some of which would not.

For example, you would look at a room full of people and say, "Some of these people are Saved." while a Christian Universalist would look at the same group and say "All of these people are Saved." But neither of you would apply the word "Saved" to God. Yet, all would be "made in the image of God." "Saved" would not be a characteristic shared by all, however.

I do not believe that "innate dignity" is a defining characteristic of the human condition, anymore than I believe eye color is. So this is all by the by, when we're attempting to establish what societal harm "not being born" represents.

There are a number of ways someone might not be born, including celebacy and birth control. Are all those heinous as well?

[brownjenkins]

It's not really about the embryos, it's about the votes and the money. That's why conservatives spend a lot more time on abortion than they do on babies. It doesn't cost nearly as much to debate concepts as it does to truly help human beings.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's not really about the embryos, it's about the votes and the money. That's why conservatives spend a lot more time on abortion than they do on babies. It doesn't cost nearly as much to debate concepts as it does to truly help human beings.

The topic of this thread is 'abortion'. It's a typical dodge of the liberal side on this issue to heap abuse on conservatives by bringing up a WHOLE different topic (abortion alternatives, adoptions -whatever) - to keep from talking about the realities of what abortion truly is. If you like, start a thread about one of those - and don't avoid the truth of the issue.

Further - what you say about conservatives is both slanderous and baseless. Also - as a conservative myself, especially on this issue - I state emphatically that what you say is totally untrue.

Abortion is murder. It is cruel, and reprehensible treatment of innocents. And we do it to ourselves in America at a phenomenal rate.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

The topic of this thread is 'abortion'. It's a typical dodge of the liberal side on this issue to heap abuse on conservatives by bringing up a WHOLE different topic (abortion alternatives, adoptions -whatever) - to keep from talking about the realities of what abortion truly is. If you like, start a thread about one of those - and don't avoid the truth of the issue.

Um, if you haven't been following this topic, Valandil, it was started by inked on the science thread and we were told by Nurvingiel to take it to this thread:

We do have a thread about abortion here to discuss this subject. The abortion thread left off discussing zygotes as well so it should be pretty seamless to pick up the discussion.

General science discussion that doesn't have its own thread already can stay in this section.

with a nice little embedded link and everything.

Further - what you say about conservatives is both slanderous and baseless. Also - as a conservative myself, especially on this issue - I state emphatically that what you say is totally untrue.

Abortion is murder. It is cruel, and reprehensible treatment of innocents. And we do it to ourselves in America at a phenomenal rate.

Well, I guess we disagree on that- and certainly talking about the motivations, alternatives, or consequences of actions taken by all sides is part of the discussion, no?

Otherwise, it 's just an endless reiteration of

"Abortion is murder"

"No. it isn't "

"YES it is"

"NO it isn't"

Man: Look this isn't an argument.

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Mr Vibrating: It is not.

Man: It is. You just contradicted me.

Mr Vibrating: No I didn't.

Man: Ooh, you did!

Mr Vibrating: No, no, no, no, no.

Man: You did, just then.

Mr Vibrating: No, nonsense!

Man: Oh, look this is futile.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.

Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.

And so on....

[brownjenkins]

I disagree. But I still like Val, so I'll leave it at that!

I will say that for some like Val, it really is just about what they see as murder. But for very many others who are against it, it is not.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I don't really get why the topic of 'what happens to babies that are born to women who would otherwise have chosen abortion' wouldn't be germane, anyway.

I recently read a great blog post on one woman's experience of adoption, and i don't think much thought is given to the aftereffects of destroying families through adoption. It's all about the happy NEW family, and the losses experienced by families who lose children to adoption aren't often discussion.

[Valandil]

Sorry - I was uncharacteristically 'on edge' when I first responded. I agree that these issues surrounding abortion are germaine to the topic (Oooo... I like that word, and haven't used it in a long time - a shame to only be copying its usage ).


Siscuz - I suppose there could be some regrets about giving a child up for adoption (is that what the point of the blog post was?), but at least it seems so much better than just ending the child's life!


Conservative views on care of the born babies: The conservatives I hang out with are VERY concerned about that. Some think it could be done with government assistance - but that group isn't so much conservative. Many think it should be done - but with private assistance, or at least governmental help that is other than federal (or even governmental partnerships with faith-based organizations - these have a VERY high rate of effectiveness in dealing with social issues). Our federal government programs of this type, at the scale necessary, seem to be rife with problems: lack of accountability, inefficiency, a self-propogating bureacracy (did I spell that right?), etc. As can be observed, the solution of throwing more money at a social problem often seems to just make it a bigger problem.


As for those who DON'T care about the babies who are born - mostly politicians I suppose. But I don't hold much to what any politician says - whether they claim to be conservative or liberal. Most are really just trying to win their next election, and conducting themselves accordingly. OK... I'll say 'seemingly' - because I'm sure that statement is otherwise overly harsh toward a few.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Another piece of abortion news...
http://www.blogher.com/charge-archbi...-tags/feminism

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Siscuz - I suppose there could be some regrets about giving a child up for adoption (is that what the point of the blog post was?), but at least it seems so much better than just ending the child's life!

Val, it doesn't, to me. I don't see it as "ending a child's life." I haven't seen miscarriages as that, either.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Val, it doesn't, to me. I don't see it as "ending a child's life." I haven't seen miscarriages as that, either.

What do you see abortions as?

I have a vague view towards abortion, because I beleive that, like most cases in the human experience, conditions are that are involved in these situations are myriad, complex, and unique. Unfortunately this viewpoint can be (and is) abused.

BUT, I DO see miscarriage as a child's life "having been ended," but not someone ending its life. Your views? Or anyones?

[romeo.juliano]

say no to abortion except when mommy lives in danger... baby must die

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by romeo.juliano

say no to abortion except when mommy lives in danger... baby must die

To me this seems to be a bit of an odd idea, because either way (in my opinion) you are talking about a life. It's an incredibly difficult decision to make, but I'd like to hear some of your justification for this view point .

[inked]

Australia and abortion ...

"BABIES that are surviving late-term abortions at Melbourne's Royal Women's Hospital might be being left on shelves to die, according to an Anglican minister.

Dr Mark Durie, minister of St Mary's Caulfield, said staff were finding it hard to cope with a reported six-fold increase in late-term abortions at the Women's since abortion was decriminalised in Victoria two years ago. He said because conscientious objection by medical staff was now illegal, the hospital could employ only people who endorsed late-term abortions."

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ab...006-167u0.html

[inked]

Here, now, world babies and world abortions:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...155273928.html

[GrayMouser]

In a hospital room on the Greek island of Crete with views of a sapphire sea lapping at ancient fortress walls, a Bulgarian woman plans to deliver a baby whose biological mother is an anonymous European egg donor, whose father is Italian, and whose birth is being orchestrated from Los Angeles.
.She won't be keeping the child. The parents-to-be—an infertile Italian woman and her husband (who provided the sperm)—will take custody of the baby this summer, on the day of birth.

The birth mother is Katia Antonova, a surrogate. She emigrated to Greece from Bulgaria and is a waitress with a husband and three children of her own. She will use the money from her surrogacy to send at least one of her own children to university.
.........
"It's good that I can help these people have a family, and it's good for my family too," says Mrs. Antonova, who is 40. "I will have this baby, and move on with my life.

What a heart-warming story! And kudos to Rudy Rupak- in these days of greedy Wall Street crooks and supposedly respectable banks fraudulently foreclosing on home mortgages how refreshing to see a businessman with a sense of decency and morality.

Of course this business needs to be closely regulated- like any other form of free enterprise it needs to be properly supervised by the concerned government authorities to prevent exploitation and fraud.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Even besides the abortion etc., issues, the notion of surrogacy is one that worries me. If you want to adopt a child, and there are children out there who don't have families, isn't it ultimately vanity to jump through so many hoops just for the sake of genetics?

[Insidious Rex]

Yes it is. But we are wired that way. To propagate the genes at all costs. After all isnt it technically just as vein to produce children ourselves (you know, the natural way...) rather than adopt all the poor helpless children who desperately need a home?

But then this begs the question of is there an UNselfish reason to have kids at all? Most people have kids because they want them. Some people have kids because they felt thats what they were supposed to do. In years past many people had kids to produce labor to take care of the family farm or such. Others have kids to pass on the family name. Arent all these reasons selfish? Ironically, those people who get pregnant by accident and not by choice are often the ones who are castigated as irresponsible and selfish by those of us who have purposefully chosen to create another human being to satisfy our own desires.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yes it is. But we are wired that way. To propagate the genes at all costs. After all isnt it technically just as vein to produce children ourselves (you know, the natural way...) rather than adopt all the poor helpless children who desperately need a home?

But then this begs the question of is there an UNselfish reason to have kids at all? Most people have kids because they want them. Some people have kids because they felt thats what they were supposed to do. In years past many people had kids to produce labor to take care of the family farm or such. Others have kids to pass on the family name. Arent all these reasons selfish? Ironically, those people who get pregnant by accident and not by choice are often the ones who are castigated as irresponsible and selfish by those of us who have purposefully chosen to create another human being to satisfy our own desires.

So you are here yourself because of someone else's selfish desire?

Are you saying they would have made the more noble choice - had they ended the pregnancy or not had you at all?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I suspect IR is thinking of the system of thought where all human action is motivated by self-interest and altruism is a myth; if so, ending a pregnancy would not be any more noble than carrying it to term, since nobility is a fairy story we tell to feel good about ourselves.

After all isnt it technically just as vein to produce children ourselves (you know, the natural way...) rather than adopt all the poor helpless children who desperately need a home?

It's a good deal less grotesque, though. I mean, I believe in proportion. It seems to me that having a child naturally is proportionate to reproduction, while jetting all over the world, impregnating four different women, and all this global baby stuff is way out of proportion, particularly given that there are many children who need homes, and who you could adopt with much less hassle.

But then of course, I'm coming from a perspective where altruism is a meaningful category, and helping someone can be a good thing, even if it doesn't give you anything you couldn't get through other means.