|
On April 29 2011 06:02 mister.bubbles wrote:
Sorry for being unclear, I only brought in the extreme example to highlight the fact that there is a grey area and that banning abortion is just as stupid as making it mandatory.
I'm not claiming I know who is better off dead and who isn't, but the mother of a child has a much more informed and consequential say in the matter and my point is that the state regulating abortions is like turning a blind eye to the most important factor who can see the child's potential situation better than anyone. Ignoring facts, all though it may be more comfortable, is in it's ends cruel to all parties involved.
It really sounds silly whenever someone says they are killing someone for their own good. It's a good thing our government protects us from these people.
|
On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate.
Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this.
The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak.
Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not.
|
On April 29 2011 06:08 Derez wrote:
Ok, this is going to be crude but the point has to be made.
Why should any of this matter to me? I don't believe in a god, I don't hold the bible in any higher regard then the average text written by Homer (not the guy from the simpsons) and I certainly don't believe it applies to life in the 21st century.
Next step, what gives you the right to impose your morality on the rest of the a country? What is this obsession with demanding everyone lives by your rules? In a century marked by diminishing numbers of religious people, what could be more crucial then allowing everyone to live their life the way they want it? By assuring I can live by my own morality, you're also assuring you can live by yours. You can live by your thruth, I get to live by mine.
For all I know, the bible held the best of humanity's knowledge at the time, and I understand that it can help people in search of moral guidance/ a sense of purpose even today. But large parts of it (especially the old testament) are simply not applicable to the modern world anymore (not touching a pigs skin, not working on a sunday). What is so wrong about facing that and adjusting your beliefs accordingly?
You have your morality and I have my morality. Sounds good. Guess what, my morality says that I should kill you for something you just said that insults me. Still have no problem with my morality? You probably want someone to impose their version of morality on me now don't you?
|
On April 29 2011 05:55 -Archangel- wrote:
Hmm, personal attacks.
On April 29 2011 05:55 -Archangel- wrote:
This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
Hmm, personal attacks.
The whole point of my post was to show YOU were resorting to personal attacks. Pay attention for once. You accuse me of personal attacks after JUST making one? lol...
|
20 weeks seems pretty deep into a pregnancy, I feel like if you wanted an abortion you'd have had it by then anyways
I've always been in favor of the right to abortion so coming from someone who favors it this doesn't seem too restricting
20 weeks is a long time
|
On April 29 2011 06:08 Derez wrote:
For all I know, the bible held the best of humanity's knowledge at the time
Actually it didn't. It was a collection of myths, religious rules and religious fan fiction from the very first redaction into written form.
|
On April 29 2011 06:12 Owarida wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate. Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this. The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak. Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not.
Even though the fetus may be a separate entity, the uterus still belongs to the woman and it is her who must provide the fetus nutrition etc. The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus that causes many physiological changes. Of course the moral ramifications are what makes the dilemma.
|
On April 29 2011 06:16 gimpy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 06:08 Derez wrote:
Ok, this is going to be crude but the point has to be made.
Why should any of this matter to me? I don't believe in a god, I don't hold the bible in any higher regard then the average text written by Homer (not the guy from the simpsons) and I certainly don't believe it applies to life in the 21st century.
Next step, what gives you the right to impose your morality on the rest of the a country? What is this obsession with demanding everyone lives by your rules? In a century marked by diminishing numbers of religious people, what could be more crucial then allowing everyone to live their life the way they want it? By assuring I can live by my own morality, you're also assuring you can live by yours. You can live by your thruth, I get to live by mine.
For all I know, the bible held the best of humanity's knowledge at the time, and I understand that it can help people in search of moral guidance/ a sense of purpose even today. But large parts of it (especially the old testament) are simply not applicable to the modern world anymore (not touching a pigs skin, not working on a sunday). What is so wrong about facing that and adjusting your beliefs accordingly? You have your morality and I have my morality. Sounds good. Guess what, my morality says that I should kill you for something you just said that insults me. Still have no problem with my morality? You probably want someone to impose their version of morality on me now don't you?
Which incidentally is what it would be like to live in a country under Old Testament law. There are laws punishing things like disrespecting one's parents or having gay sex (to name two) with death. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to live like that should move to a country where they have Sharia.
It's good that those laws worked over 2000 years ago when the world was a more cruel, primitive place. Maybe it was necessary for that group of people to survive then, but things have changed. There is no justification for many of these old laws in a modern society. And there is no sense in cherry-picking some to keep and others to discard, that is simply using the Bible as an excuse for an ulterior philosophy.
Therefore, those among us who believe in God should find personal comfort and enlightenment in the scriptures and through prayer. They should not force us to live under a barbaric system of law.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 29 2011 05:24 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 17:27 Jibba wrote:On April 28 2011 16:50 Omnipresent wrote:There are two main problems with this bill. The first is simple. The law requires doctors to give patients inaccurate information about abortion. In this case, it's the "fetal pain" claim, which all available evidence suggests if false. There's a second issue here that usually gets lost in these discussions. It's the issue of enforcement. This is largely the grounds on which Roe v Wade was decided (for anyone outside the US, this is the supreme court case which essentially legalized abortion). As much as we like to argue over a woman's right to choose, enforcement is the real legal issue here. There's no way to enforce anti-abortion laws without violating 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches. That is, there's no way to make a case against anyone breaking this law without accessing her medical records, violating privilege, or otherwise infringing on her privacy. This second issue is especially interesting because of the problem it poses for much of the right in America, especially libertarians. While they may personally oppose abortion for moral or ethical reasons, any law banning it necessarily infringes on basic civil liberties. That's why I find it strange that so many "libertarians" support anti-abortion laws. I've quoted one such libertarian below. + Show Spoiler +On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill. It's also important to note the context in which this law is being passed. It's one of several very similar laws making its way through state legislatures around the country. This version is fairly benign compared to others, but it's part of the same campaign. The end goal, it seems, is to eventually have one of these laws challenged in court. It's clearly unconstitutional (based on precedent), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court (which would almost certainly accept it). At that point, Roe v Wade would likely be overturned. In short, the goal is to pass a law custom built for legal challenge, with the final result being the overturn of Roe v Wade. This law doesn't look particularly unreasonable on its face. 20 weeks seems like a fair amount of time to obtain an abortion. The restrictions placed on doctors are relatively moderate. But when viewed in the context of a nationwide campaign to overturn Roe v Wade, it's a scary proposition. As a Hoosier, I'm concerned. As an anti-choice pro-deather myself, let me reiterate that Roe v. Wade is a bad decision. The only thing this bill challenges is the time frame frame of Roe v. Wade, because that was made in the 70's. They both rest on the exact same rationale, that the woman's right to choose is predicated upon her necessity towards the fetus. This is not designed to take down Roe v. Wade, and when that does eventually happen (as it should, so a proper decision can be made on the issue) this law will still stand, essentially protecting the same line that R v. W drew. What bothers me most, even though deep inside I knew it would happen, is that no one, on either side of the debate, is getting past initial moral arguments or even coming close to looking at the jurisprudence of the bill. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this, but my opinion on where life begins means nothing. In fact, it means so little that I don't even pretend to know where it begins. There's a novel concept- not immediately picking sides, but instead deferring to experts? What is this madness? You can never be past "initial moral arguments." The heart, not the feet, or hands, or face, of the matter, is a moral one. Science cannot answer the question of what is right or wrong in this case. Science can only answer what happens in week 20, in week 19, week 10, week 1, day 1, conception, preconception. Science can answer when the egg is fertilized, when the 'baby' starts to look like a baby, when the heart starts beating, when the brain starts functioning. It cannot answer at which point the baby is a baby, to be cared for, to be loved, or not a baby, to be discarded, like any other trash or inconvenience. Science is neutral. On every issue. Science merely explains the physical; it can never explain the moral. So, do not presuppose your opinion and try to get science to back it up. You are not standing on science, then, you are standing on your own wisdom, and claiming the former! If we are all just an accidental chemical reaction, then none of this relativistic moral poop means anything, and abortion is not only not wrong, it's inconsequential; let these people do what they want to do, for there is no right or wrong. If there is a truth, however, and we are searching for it, even on this forum, the truth must reside outside of us or else we create the truth ourselves and it is not truth, but perception. And if there is a truth that is outside of us, a real truth, for what else can truth be, then it must come from something, and if truth comes from something, you must ask yourself what that something is because, as we see, it is not something produced within. The very fact that so many are arguing their side so zealously indicates this very thing. Otherwise, who would care? The majority of this section has no meaning, it's just aggrandizement and fluff. Even agreeing that it's partially a moral issue, there are actual experts such as philosophers, doctors, researchers, religious experts, and so on that discuss these issues and do so much better than the vast majority of this forum. I've kept tabs on this thread and have seen nothing but rudimentary arguments going back and forth, rarely ever having a counter-point. My argument is that if there is a debate to be had, the people having it should be well read and well prepared. Regardless of my position on abortion, most of the posts here are full of glaring holes.
Owarida and a few others are the only ones who have actually critically examined things in their posts. The rest are just gut level reactions.
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, this is what it says, and this is what I choose to believe, since I believe the source of morality, God, made Himself known this way.
Exodus 21:22-23 If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life...
This verse says that if a woman's child is hurt while in the womb, even on accident, and there is 'no serious injury' to the child, then it's up to the woman's husband and the court to decide the fine. But, if the child is killed, the offender shall be as well, even if it is an accident. Clearly, a baby, even unborn, is of great value to God.
Jeremiah 1:5a "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."
This verse is not speaking directly to abortion, but it is clear that we were known of God before we were born.
So, what day, what hour, and what minute, are we finally a baby? A human worth saving? I'm not sure that is the point. But, there is strong evidence in the Bible for conception. And anyway, erasing someone else's life on earth is not a line I want to come close to.
The Bible is not a source of infallible information. Regardless of your faith and whether God exists, it did not write the Bible. It was written by a selective group of men who picked and choose what to include as the foundation of their religious movement. Any Christian historian will tell you that. I'm not trying to challenge your faith, I'm simply saying that using that as evidence is akin to the people who cite Michael Crichton when it comes to global warming.
Even among the portions you cited, there are two main translations of Jeremiah which carry significant differences, and many believe it went through external editing.
|
On April 29 2011 06:42 ShovZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 06:12 Owarida wrote:On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate. Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this. The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak. Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not. Even though the fetus may be a separate entity, the uterus still belongs to the woman and it is her who must provide the fetus nutrition etc. The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus in the same way that one may determine whether to cut their hair. Of course the moral ramifications are what makes the dilemma.
Again, your missing the point. Hair growing from a woman's body that has the same genetic makeup of the woman is by definition the woman's. A child with a separate genome and separate organs ect is NOT the woman's. It is no where near the same as cutting hair. Not even introducing morality in the argument.
|
On April 29 2011 06:49 Owarida wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 06:42 ShovZ wrote:On April 29 2011 06:12 Owarida wrote:On April 29 2011 02:57 SolidusR wrote:On April 29 2011 02:46 Owarida wrote:
Please, stop saying that its "the woman's body." Its not, its just NOT.
The baby happens to be inside of the woman, but the baby IS NOT THE WOMAN. It is not HER body, it is the baby's body. Period. There is no argument you can make that it is some how the woman's body. The baby is inside of her, that's all. Yeah, actually it is. The fetus would never have been created if it had not began as part of the woman's body. I know it's really confusing, but zygotes don't just float in the womb until they become babies, they implant themselves and become one with the mother for support until they properly develop. Really, hearing any man talk about this crap as if he ever had a right pisses me off. This issue has nothing to do with anyone other than the mother and her child. It's a difficult decision enough as it is, let alone having to deal with all of these moronic sanctimonious assholes who think they have some god given right to judge every other person on the planet. If you've never given birth, then just shut up please, you have no right to even enter the debate. Its not confusing, I have a BS in biology and a BA in human development. At no point between zygote to birth is the child EVER NOT ITS OWN ENTITY. The argument that because the mother supports the life it is some how her body is absurd. If you are on life support because you cannot function without it, are you somehow under the ownership of the life support system? A child after birth cannot live on its own. It could not eat for itself, defend itself, or drink. It depends 100% on the caregiver to provide, it does not give the ownership of itself to said caregiver for this. The mother and the child have completely separate genomes, they are NOT the same. It is NOT the woman's body she is killing, she is killing another entity. Also this argument you presented of, If you have not given birth you cant argue against abortion is fucking retarded. So then if a virgin is raped and becomes pregnant, she by your lines of argument, could not lobby for her position to have an abortion and has "no right to even enter the debate." Please think before you speak. Also I am not an anti-abortion religious fanatic. I am an pro-abortion atheist, but I also have the sense not not prove my own stupidity by saying its the woman's body she can do what she wants with it, because, under no circumstance will the child after conception be considered the woman's "own body." Its just simply not. Even though the fetus may be a separate entity, the uterus still belongs to the woman and it is her who must provide the fetus nutrition etc. The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus in the same way that one may determine whether to cut their hair. Of course the moral ramifications are what makes the dilemma. Again, your missing the point. Hair growing from a woman's body that has the same genetic makeup of the woman is by definition the woman's. A child with a separate genome and separate organs ect is NOT the woman's. It is no where near the same as cutting hair. Not even introducing morality in the argument.
Yes, I concur, it is different from cutting hair, I did go back and edit after deciding that the analogy was crap.
I changed it to 'The argument is that the woman may determine if she chooses to remove the fetus that causes many physiological changes.' and no, I didn't change it after you posted 
|
On April 28 2011 11:02 gun.slinger wrote:
Old man regulating what happen inside a women womb :S
My English teacher is an older lady, and she always says something similar to that. Our class had a paper assigned on a topic in the 1920s and one girl chose birth control (the equivalent of abortion now) and the teacher wouldn't shut up about how men govern women's bodies. She pretty much gave the girl a perfect thesis in class, and a little bias might of scored her some extra credit lol.
|
No one has the right to take another life, however small.
|
On April 29 2011 06:20 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 05:55 -Archangel- wrote:
This is the kind of person that warrants what I always wanted, a psychological/intelligence test for all people before being allowed to vote no matter if they are 15 or 55. So only stable and smart people would be the ones deciding what happens to us all.
Hmm, personal attacks. The whole point of my post was to show YOU were resorting to personal attacks. Pay attention for once. You accuse me of personal attacks after JUST making one? lol...
Yes, that could be interpreted as a personal attack but it really wasn't. I just got pissed by his post so went on a rant about all kinds of people having a right to vote and used his post as an example. I didn't talk only about him. So, while it was a personal attack it wasn't just towards him but all the people in this world that would fail this test that at the moment make my life worse because of their voting (and trust me in this country some system like this one was needed 8 years ago and not only now as it is run by gangsters with a good media machine behind them).
|
A fetus has not achieved any rights because it hasn't been born (this is the logic in sweden which has no laws for unborn "people"). A women has the right over her own body.
So in principal it's woman rights vs anonymous mammal rights (yes it's impossible for a layman to distinguish a human fetus from a pig fetus up to 20 weeks). I choose to trust the women decisions rather than a conservative group of people.
Also if the woman dies the fetus dies too, they are interconnected. This means that you can say that abortion is like killing a part of the woman not another human being.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The way I see it, it's an implicit responsibility for the woman to care for the fetus, just like it's an implicit responsibility of the parents to take care of a born baby. Likewise, it's a moral responsibility of a doctor to do no harm and whenever possible take care of an unborn child. An abortion violates both of the implicit responsibility of the mother and the moral responsibility of the doctor.
The dilemma of making abortion illegal is that the law cannot force an unwilling mother to assume responsibility and the law cannot prevent demand from finding supply. For women, if the mother is unwilling to follow through on the responsibility of bearing the baby and then taking care of a child, illegality of the abortion isn't going to change that. There needs to be someone to take responsibility for the child if it is to continue to term. I'm not busy-body enough to want the public take that responsibility through the force of law. In my mind, that is why it should not be illegal for the mother to elect.
For doctors, it is a total violate of the Hippocratic Oath, but unscrupulous doctors will cater to the demand for abortions by irresponsible mothers. In the past, I would have though that it should be illegal for doctors to perform the abortions, but that only invites black market health hazards. Today, I would suggest that abortion fall into the category of extremely morally reprehensible, but legal procedure. I would ostracize all doctors that perform abortions under all but the most extreme of circumstances and would urge others to do the same.
The ideal outcome would be that abortion is legal but socially taboo. The closer to term, the more socially taboo it becomes. I also make the distinction between dislodging the fetus from the uterus and invasive destruction of the fetus. An invasive action against the fetus is a much more serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
|
On April 29 2011 07:57 TanGeng wrote:
The way I see it, it's an implicit responsibility for the woman to care for the fetus, just like it's an implicit responsibility of the parents to take care of a born baby. Likewise, it's a moral responsibility of a doctor to do no harm and whenever possible take care of an unborn child. An abortion violates both of the implicit responsibility of the mother and the moral responsibility of the doctor.
The dilemma of making abortion illegal is that the law cannot force an unwilling mother to assume responsibility and the law cannot prevent demand from finding supply. For women, if the mother is unwilling to follow through on the responsibility of bearing the baby and then taking care of a child, illegality of the abortion isn't going to change that. There needs to be someone to take responsibility for the child if it is to continue to term. I'm not busy-body enough to want the public take that responsibility through the force of law. In my mind, that is why it should not be illegal for the mother to elect.
For doctors, it is a total violate of the Hippocratic Oath, but unscrupulous doctors will cater to the demand for abortions by irresponsible mothers. In the past, I would have though that it should be illegal for doctors to perform the abortions, but that only invites black market health hazards. Today, I would suggest that abortion fall into the category of extremely morally reprehensible, but legal procedure. I would ostracize all doctors that perform abortions under all but the most extreme of circumstances and would urge others to do the same.
The ideal outcome would be that abortion is legal but socially taboo. The closer to term, the more socially taboo it becomes. I also make the distinction between dislodging the fetus from the uterus and invasive destruction of the fetus. An invasive action against the fetus is a much more serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
I understand where you are coming from regarding doctors who perform abortions. When I interviewed for medical school (ended up choosing math grad school instead but this was before I had decided), the panel asked questions about abortion where we had to defend our position. I was politically pro life at the time. They asked challenging questions, but were probably more interested in my ability to reason and feel empathy than which side I took. One of the final questions was whether, as a future physician, I would be willing to perform an abortion under circumstances where there was not another person qualified to perform the procedure but I was. My response was that I would do it only if necessary as a matter of life or death for the woman; that if it was a matter of her elective I could not bring myself to perform the procedure and she would have to wait to find another doctor. In his response, the interviewer concluded that "people who do things that are against their conscience live tortured lives." Although it is a quite obvious statement, that particular phrase has stuck with me since then, even as I have forgotten most of the rest of that day. It would be terrible to do a job that you believe is wrong, harmful, evil, etc.
I can only assume that practically all doctors who perform abortions honestly believe that life begins at birth. They probably see it as doing a service for the woman to help her improve her life, so that she can live as she wishes, possibly have a child when the time is right.
Some people's job is to kill what is unquestionably a living person. An Executioner probably feels that what he does is in the interests of protecting society. It would otherwise be an impossible job to fulfill. A Soldier does not look at his job as murdering enemy soldiers who might only be trying to defend their country. He sees it as fighting for what is right, fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves, etc. A General may have to send some soldiers to their certain death to achieve a tactical objective, but he must believe that the sacrifice is worth it.
How do you feel about these professions?
|
Government shouldn't tell people what to do, unless they don't agree with me. Then by all means, tell them what to do.
Don't tread on me.
|
On April 29 2011 07:57 TanGeng wrote:
The way I see it, it's an implicit responsibility for the woman to care for the fetus, just like it's an implicit responsibility of the parents to take care of a born baby. Likewise, it's a moral responsibility of a doctor to do no harm and whenever possible take care of an unborn child. An abortion violates both of the implicit responsibility of the mother and the moral responsibility of the doctor.
The dilemma of making abortion illegal is that the law cannot force an unwilling mother to assume responsibility and the law cannot prevent demand from finding supply. For women, if the mother is unwilling to follow through on the responsibility of bearing the baby and then taking care of a child, illegality of the abortion isn't going to change that. There needs to be someone to take responsibility for the child if it is to continue to term. I'm not busy-body enough to want the public take that responsibility through the force of law. In my mind, that is why it should not be illegal for the mother to elect.
For doctors, it is a total violate of the Hippocratic Oath, but unscrupulous doctors will cater to the demand for abortions by irresponsible mothers. In the past, I would have though that it should be illegal for doctors to perform the abortions, but that only invites black market health hazards. Today, I would suggest that abortion fall into the category of extremely morally reprehensible, but legal procedure. I would ostracize all doctors that perform abortions under all but the most extreme of circumstances and would urge others to do the same.
The ideal outcome would be that abortion is legal but socially taboo. The closer to term, the more socially taboo it becomes. I also make the distinction between dislodging the fetus from the uterus and invasive destruction of the fetus. An invasive action against the fetus is a much more serious violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Just an FYI - getting an abortion is still looked down upon - especially late term.
|
On April 29 2011 07:05 Fym wrote:
No one has the right to take another life, however small.
better dont go there dude if you want to stick with this have fun with your life
In germany abortion is legal until the 12th week and I think that's a good point to say from here on abortion is illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
