UK medical ethicist: Infanticide 'justifiable'

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36763


Sunday, January 25, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
UK medical ethicist:
Infanticide 'justifiable'
Government adviser suggests acceptable to kill babies with 'defects' soon after birth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 25, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
One of the British government's leading advisers on genetics has provoked an uproar by suggesting it may be acceptable to kill babies with ''defects'' soon after birth.

Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee and author of 15 books on the ethics of genetics, was asked during a debate on *** selection, what moral status he accorded an embryo.

He responded by endorsing infanticide in cases where a child has a genetic disorder that remained undetected during pregnancy and suggested there's no moral difference between aborting an unborn baby and killing an infant once it's born, reports the London Telegraph.

Said Harris: ''It's not plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal.''

He declined to say up until what age he believed infanticide should be permissable and later stood by his remarks, which he claimed had been elicited ''in response to goading'' from pro-life campaigners.

''People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time.

''It is well-known that where a serious abnormality is not picked up – when you get a very seriously handicapped or indeed a very premature newborn which suffers brain damage – that what effectively happens is that steps are taken not to sustain it on life-support.

''There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics of all of this and ask ourselves the serious question: What do we really think is different between newborns and late fetuses?

''There is no obvious reason why one should think differently, from an ethical point of view, about a fetus when it's outside the womb rather than when it's inside the womb.''

Julia Millington, the political director of the ProLife Party, who posed the question to Harris, called the admission ''absolutely horrifying.''

''Infanticide is murder and is against the law. It is frightening to think that university students are being educated by somebody who endorses the killing of newborn babies and equally worrying to discover that such a person is also a member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association,'' she told the Telegraph.

Recently, an unborn baby was reportedly aborted in the UK at seven months for a cleft palate. Even so, Harris believes it's up to individual families to make decisions about the future of their child and was not concerned such a course of action could lead to infanticide for cosmetic reasons.

Rev. Joanna Jepson, the Church of England curate who is going to the High Court to try to block late abortions for ''trivial reasons'' such as a cleft palate, told the newspaper: ''It is frightening to hear anyone endorsing infanticide but it is shocking when the person is responsible for teaching others.''

''This affirms the need for an investigation into the practice of abortion. We have already seen, in the cleft palate case, how the law needs to provide more rigorous protection for such babies but, with medical practitioners such as John Harris at work, there is no question of our fundamental need to reaffirm the human value of every baby's life, no matter what its *** or disability.''

he's right, there is no moral difference between pre and post delivery of the child through the ******. nor is there a moral difference between 11 weeks and 12 weeks, or 6 months and 12 months, or 1 week and 3 weeks, or conception and 1 week.

i'm glad this pro-choicer has seen the light. :roll:

[California Joe]

That's a rather skewed opinion.

[Seoulstriker]

what's your opinion on the matter, CJ? when do you think infanticide/abortion is moral?

[California Joe]

1st trimester when a WOMAN decides it. I'm conservative in my opinion that it shouldn't be a form of birth control for people too lazy to have safe ***.
But I'm also of the opinion that Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or a bunch of old white men in Washington that are banging their secretaries shouldn't be telling women what to do with their wombs.

[Seoulstriker]

so if a woman decides to abort the child 1 day before birth, you are fine with that, and you don't consider that infanticide?

[California Joe]

so if a woman decides to abort the child 1 day before birth, you are fine with that, and you don't consider that infanticide?

Didn't I say 1st Trimester? I could have sworn I said 1st Trimester.

[Seoulstriker]

so if a woman decides to abort the child 1 day before birth, you are fine with that, and you don't consider that infanticide?

Didn't I say 1st Trimester? I could have sworn I said 1st Trimester.

i know that is what you said.

what is the difference between before the 1st trimester and immediately after the first trimester?

i look at it like this: what is the difference between day before birth and one day after birth? 2 days. keep doing that back in time and tell me when life is created. it certainly doesn't begin at 1st trimester. it begins at conception.

[Haiw]

1 day before birth it's a living and kicking thing...First 3 months its a brain-dead vegetable, and hence my conclusion that abortion shouldn't be a problem in the first 3 months. (And before you start posting your personal abortion pictures again; yes, I know it looks like a miniature baby already but that doesn't mean that it really lives)

Most strange thing that always comes to mind is that it's always men that are against abortion... :roll:

[Seoulstriker]

haiw, you're trying to tell me that after three months the child magically turns into a living creature?

come on, man. brain-dead vegetable? do you even know what the definition of 'life' is? i really feel sorry for you: you are ignoring all that is known in science about human development/embryology and you just want to say that life starts at 3 months and that's that.

you are using politics to justify your opinion, not science.

and you don't think women are against abortion? do you know any women who have had 2 abortions (who are still sane)?

[farmgirl]

This is an issue I'm torn about. Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and just because a fetus is not viable outside the womb does not mean it is not a life to be valued.
I am ABSOLUTELY against abortion as birth control. I could be swayed by some of the arguements against legislation such as incest, danger to the mother or rape, but the fact is that less than 5% of all abortions performed are because of all of those reasons combined.
I think that full term abortion is murder... plain and simple, and I cannot believe that it is tolerated. It sickens me.

That said. I would NEVER have an abortion under ANY circumstances, but that's just me, and I can't speak for everyone. I find it ironic that the woman responsible for the fight to begin with (Roe VS Wade) is now anti abortion.

[Haiw]

haiw, you're trying to tell me that after three months the child magically turns into a living creature?

come on, man. brain-dead vegetable? do you even know what the definition of 'life' is? i really feel sorry for you: you are ignoring all that is known in science about human development/embryology and you just want to say that life starts at 3 months and that's that.

you are using politics to justify your opinion, not science.

and you don't think women are against abortion? do you know any women who have had 2 abortions (who are still sane)?
I'm not saying it starts at 3 months; it propably starts later, but you have to draw the line someway away from 'beginning of life' to be sure.

What does my politics have to do with ANYTHING?!

There's plenty of women against abortion (like Ms. Conservatist farmgirl p-) ), however I'm pretty sure the majority of women is pro-abortion (at least up here in the Netherlands). I have my doubts about 2 abortions; I've heard somewhere 2 abortions isn't possible unless you never want to give birth again. Any truth in that?

[Haiw]

Oh and my definition of life: when the 'life' itself has a will of its own, experiences everything around it, is aware of its own life (to an extend), and knows whats happening around it.

BTW if you value life so much, I take it you're a vegetarian and a pacifist?

[California Joe]

It's the most personal decision I can see a woman making. I have 2 kids, I remember watching them on a sonogram. That made me more conservative on this issue. I couldn't do it. But everyone is not me and there are grey areas and it is legal. Everyone that comments on this has a PERSONAL opinion.

[Seoulstriker]

exactly, haiw. you need to draw the line of where life starts. you're right, three months is completely arbitrary. that's why i ask you what the definition of 'life' is. you could say life starts at age 2 when speech is developed, because anything before age 2 the child is a useless automaton that can't live on its own (it needs food to be given to it directly). or maybe life doesn't start until age 21 because before that, there is no independence from the family unit. so, i just defined life as being older than 21 years old. that means the mother can kill her 21 year old child because life is defined at 21 years.

sounds idiotic, doesn't it? it's the same reasoning that you are using. 'life starts when the child is born', 'life starts when the child first kicks', blah blah blah.

do you know what science says about life? science holds that life starts at conception. that's when human development begins. there is absolutely no life in nothingness that is not the embryo. conception is the beginning of human development and the beginning of human life, as is held by SCIENCE.


you don't trust the science, so you trust your own political view: feminism. you believe that women have the right to kill their own children. you stated it above. politics is what is driving your opinion, not science.


sane women do not have more than one abortion because after the first, they realize what they have done and go into depression (post-partum). it has severe effects on the women's psychological condition, as they understand that they killed their own child. (imagine what your mother would feel if you were 5 years old and she shot you deliberately to get rid of you. imagine that.)

[California Joe]

Have you ever been laid? Was she ever late? Did you get that rush of adrenaline while your mind spins out of control over the possibilities? This issue is as much emotional as it is science. It is not clinical, it is about crying and fear and guilt and lost youth.....

[Seoulstriker]

Have you ever been laid? Was she ever late? Did you get that rush of adrenaline while your mind spins out of control over the possibilities? This issue is as much emotional as it is science. It is not clinical, it is about crying and fear and guilt and lost youth.....

first, no.

second, you're right, i should start living life by emotion, not facts. so if i feel like going on a killing spree, i should, regardless of the implications? it would be justified. if i didn't go on a killing spree, i wouldn't feel young, right? and i don't want to feel old, so i would have to feel bad about doing it, right?

nice rationalization using emotions.

[Gauntlet]

Wow, I finnally see people who have the same logic as I do when it comes to abortion.

I believe that life first begins when the egg meets the sperm. I think this because that zygote with time will become a living and breathing infant. So I even consider the microscopic humble zygote cell a human.

So when a women who becomes pregenant and doesn't want it, then I think adoption should be the answer. A women shouldn't escape her responcebility even if she had protected *** because everyone should know that condoms and pills aren't fool proof.
When it comes to rape, I can understand it a little even if I still don't like it. Because I'm sure that some people believe that a child consieved from rape should be considered unpure or the most disgusting misforchune that anyone can have.

All in all, I think women shouldn't have the right to choose abortion. Doctors should use it in case the women's/baby's life is in danger and action must be taken, thats it. It shouldn't be used for selfish purposes.

[Gauntlet]

Oh. In these Abortion debates, I always pull out this quote which is directly from the original Hippocratic Oath


I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

[Seoulstriker]

Doctors should use it in case the women's/baby's life is in danger and action must be taken, thats it. It shouldn't be used for selfish purposes.

which is about zero in 1,000,000 births. in fact, abortion kills thousands of women per year.

[California Joe]

Have you ever been laid? Was she ever late? Did you get that rush of adrenaline while your mind spins out of control over the possibilities? This issue is as much emotional as it is science. It is not clinical, it is about crying and fear and guilt and lost youth.....

first, no.

second, you're right, i should start living life by emotion, not facts. so if i feel like going on a killing spree, i should, regardless of the implications? it would be justified. if i didn't go on a killing spree, i wouldn't feel young, right? and i don't want to feel old, so i would have to feel bad about doing it, right?

nice rationalization using emotions.

That's not remotely the point. Put yourself in the place of a 16 year old girl and tell me that emotions do not factor into the equation. You'll never be a great doctor if you don't learn empathy my friend. I would never rationalize that issue. That's for the women that have abortions to do. Not you, not me, the women with their legs up in the stirrups. I have 2 children, I don't want anymore. My wife was on the pill for over 20 years in between. I had a vasectomy because it was the right thing to do for my family. Not everyone thinks that far down the line as far as family planning.

[Haiw]

exactly, haiw. you need to draw the line of where life starts. you're right, three months is completely arbitrary. that's why i ask you what the definition of 'life' is. you could say life starts at age 2 when speech is developed, because anything before age 2 the child is a useless automaton that can't live on its own (it needs food to be given to it directly). or maybe life doesn't start until age 21 because before that, there is no independence from the family unit. so, i just defined life as being older than 21 years old. that means the mother can kill her 21 year old child because life is defined at 21 years.

sounds idiotic, doesn't it? it's the same reasoning that you are using. 'life starts when the child is born', 'life starts when the child first kicks', blah blah blah.

do you know what science says about life? science holds that life starts at conception. that's when human development begins. there is absolutely no life in nothingness that is not the embryo. conception is the beginning of human development and the beginning of human life, as is held by SCIENCE.
That's the science definition of life that counts PLANTS as life. Okay? I'm talking about what we should consider as living and 'considerable life'.



you don't trust the science, so you trust your own political view: feminism. you believe that women have the right to kill their own children. you stated it above. politics is what is driving your opinion, not science.
So basically I end potential life when I beat the meat in the shower. Feminism ain't no political view, and abortion ain't killing. My opinions aren't driven by science, nor by emotion. They're driven by rationalized thought


sane women do not have more than one abortion because after the first, they realize what they have done and go into depression (post-partum). it has severe effects on the women's psychological condition, as they understand that they killed their own child. (imagine what your mother would feel if you were 5 years old and she shot you deliberately to get rid of you. imagine that.)
All the women that I knew that did abortion were glad they did it. Then there's some that wished they did it because, even though they loved their child, it still pretty much ****ed up their life...

[Seoulstriker]

exactly, haiw. you need to draw the line of where life starts. you're right, three months is completely arbitrary. that's why i ask you what the definition of 'life' is. you could say life starts at age 2 when speech is developed, because anything before age 2 the child is a useless automaton that can't live on its own (it needs food to be given to it directly). or maybe life doesn't start until age 21 because before that, there is no independence from the family unit. so, i just defined life as being older than 21 years old. that means the mother can kill her 21 year old child because life is defined at 21 years.

sounds idiotic, doesn't it? it's the same reasoning that you are using. 'life starts when the child is born', 'life starts when the child first kicks', blah blah blah.

do you know what science says about life? science holds that life starts at conception. that's when human development begins. there is absolutely no life in nothingness that is not the embryo. conception is the beginning of human development and the beginning of human life, as is held by SCIENCE.
That's the science definition of life that counts PLANTS as life. Okay? I'm talking about what we should consider as living and 'considerable life'.



you don't trust the science, so you trust your own political view: feminism. you believe that women have the right to kill their own children. you stated it above. politics is what is driving your opinion, not science.
So basically I end potential life when I beat the meat in the shower. Feminism ain't no political view, and abortion ain't killing. My opinions aren't driven by science, nor by emotion. They're driven by rationalized thought


sane women do not have more than one abortion because after the first, they realize what they have done and go into depression (post-partum). it has severe effects on the women's psychological condition, as they understand that they killed their own child. (imagine what your mother would feel if you were 5 years old and she shot you deliberately to get rid of you. imagine that.)
All the women that I knew that did abortion were glad they did it. Then there's some that wished they did it because, even though they loved their child, it still pretty much f*** up their life...


so, plants aren't considered life?

considerable life? i don't consider considerable life until after someone dies. what? that's what i feel like calling life. so what if it's not based on science?

sperm is a germ cell. an ovum is a germ cell. when the two meet, guess what happens, according to science? that's right, human life.

you believe in rational thought yet you don't think feminism is a political view? what DO you think feminism is, then?

surprisingly, women in the US don't have the same satisfaction of killing innocent life as women in the Nederlands do. :|

[Seoulstriker]

Have you ever been laid? Was she ever late? Did you get that rush of adrenaline while your mind spins out of control over the possibilities? This issue is as much emotional as it is science. It is not clinical, it is about crying and fear and guilt and lost youth.....

first, no.

second, you're right, i should start living life by emotion, not facts. so if i feel like going on a killing spree, i should, regardless of the implications? it would be justified. if i didn't go on a killing spree, i wouldn't feel young, right? and i don't want to feel old, so i would have to feel bad about doing it, right?

nice rationalization using emotions.

That's not remotely the point. Put yourself in the place of a 16 year old girl and tell me that emotions do not factor into the equation. You'll never be a great doctor if you don't learn empathy my friend. I would never rationalize that issue. That's for the women that have abortions to do. Not you, not me, the women with their legs up in the stirrups. I have 2 children, I don't want anymore. My wife was on the pill for over 20 years in between. I had a vasectomy because it was the right thing to do for my family. Not everyone thinks that far down the line as far as family planning.

like i said before, if you want to live life by emotion... basically you say 'i'll do it if i feel like doing it.'


i'll never be a great doctor if i don't understand ethics. ethics is the foundation of medicine, not emotion. empathy and sympathy are important, but they don't drive what you do. doctors are never supposed to be connected to their patients emotionally as can cloud their logical judgement.

[Haiw]

For christs sake are you really trying that hard not to get the point? I KNOW the scientific definition of life, but it's a CRAP definition.

Scientific definition of life: It grows, and has some cells that do stuff --> it's life!

Just compare it with the case of someone who's had a bad accident and is clinically dead (brain-dead). In those cases the doctors simply bull the plug because, well basically it can't be considered much like a 'life' anymore, as all it does is resemble the scientific definition of life, and that's it. Same goes for a little growing thing that's 2 months old; it's as much alive as a brain-dead patient.

Spare me the sperm and egg cell story, I've had high-school education too, I was just pointing it out...

Feminism is in no way a political view: it's more of a bunch of moral values. All it's basically about is improving the rights and liberties of women. If anything I'd say it's just a way of thoughts like pacifism and such.

And again...you call it killing innocent life and equate all Dutch abortionists to baby-killing butchers.

[Seoulstriker]

For christs sake are you really trying that hard not to get the point? I KNOW the scientific definition of life, but it's a CRAP definition.

Scientific definition of life: It grows, and has some cells that do stuff --> it's life!

Just compare it with the case of someone who's had a bad accident and is clinically dead (brain-dead). In those cases the doctors simply bull the plug because, well basically it can't be considered much like a 'life' anymore, as all it does is resemble the scientific definition of life, and that's it. Same goes for a little growing thing that's 2 months old; it's as much alive as a brain-dead patient.

Spare me the sperm and egg cell story, I've had high-school education too, I was just pointing it out...

Feminism is in no way a political view: it's more of a bunch of moral values. All it's basically about is improving the rights and liberties of women. If anything I'd say it's just a way of thoughts like pacifism and such.

And again...you call it killing innocent life and equate all Dutch abortionists to baby-killing butchers.


well, i define life starts at 21 years of age. killing anyone younger than 21 is perfectly ok because i define it that way. sounds logical? hardly.

it's about as logical as saying 3 months old and younger are ok to kill. logical? hardly. it's not ground in any facts. human life starts at conception. don't tell me anything else besides that.

you and CJ both share the same view: it's ok to kill someone until a specific point in time. just tell me that this is true.

[Roger Rabbit]

If a woman wants to have her baby aborted before she is 3 months pregnant then thats her choice. I don't see what its got to do with you Seoul. Unless your the father of the baby then you should mind your own business. If a woman wants to have HER child aborted then it is HER choice and seeing as we live in a free world then thats fine by me.

If the father wants her to have the baby then its a different matter and you can have no standardised law to deal with every case. Which brings me to my main point, every circumstance surrounding an abortion is different.

Seoul if your not happy with performing abortions then you shouldnt go into that field of medicine, you chose to become a doctor so deal with it, dont go around trying to enfore your beliefs on other people. I really can't stand all these poxed right-wing Christians who go around thinking they are IT because they believe in the true God and everyone should listen to them.

[Seoulstriker]

feminism is only a political viewpoint. feminism today in the US is fighting for the right of women to kill children. :|

[California Joe]

Have you ever been laid? Was she ever late? Did you get that rush of adrenaline while your mind spins out of control over the possibilities? This issue is as much emotional as it is science. It is not clinical, it is about crying and fear and guilt and lost youth.....

first, no.

second, you're right, i should start living life by emotion, not facts. so if i feel like going on a killing spree, i should, regardless of the implications? it would be justified. if i didn't go on a killing spree, i wouldn't feel young, right? and i don't want to feel old, so i would have to feel bad about doing it, right?

nice rationalization using emotions.

That's not remotely the point. Put yourself in the place of a 16 year old girl and tell me that emotions do not factor into the equation. You'll never be a great doctor if you don't learn empathy my friend. I would never rationalize that issue. That's for the women that have abortions to do. Not you, not me, the women with their legs up in the stirrups. I have 2 children, I don't want anymore. My wife was on the pill for over 20 years in between. I had a vasectomy because it was the right thing to do for my family. Not everyone thinks that far down the line as far as family planning.

like i said before, if you want to live life by emotion... basically you say 'i'll do it if i feel like doing it.'


i'll never be a great doctor if i don't understand ethics. ethics is the foundation of medicine, not emotion. empathy and sympathy are important, but they don't drive what you do. doctors are never supposed to be connected to their patients emotionally as can cloud their logical judgement.

Not ME genius, quit relating the post to the poster. I hope you grow up during residency. Good luck. Better pray you don't intern in an emergency room where they bring in gang bangers that were shot during drug deals. You might have to morally pass judgenment on them. Better hope you don't have to deal with rape victims and their "emotions" while you try to clinically get samples. They might not appreciate your clinical detachment.

[Roger Rabbit]

Yeah thats stupid. Saying feminism is one idea, thats really dumb, thats like saying Islam is all about killing all the non-believers and all the believers who aren't Muslim enough.

[Seoulstriker]

If a woman wants to have her baby aborted before she is 3 months pregnant then thats her choice. I don't see what its got to do with you Seoul. Unless your the father of the baby then you should mind your own business. If a woman wants to have HER child aborted then it is HER choice and seeing as we live in a free world then thats fine by me.

If the father wants her to have the baby then its a different matter and you can have no standardised law to deal with every case. Which brings me to my main point, every circumstance surrounding an abortion is different.

Seoul if your not happy with performing abortions then you shouldnt go into that field of medicine, you chose to become a doctor so deal with it, dont go around trying to enfore your beliefs on other people. I really can't stand all these poxed right-wing Christians who go around thinking they are IT because they believe in the true God and everyone should listen to them.


you have a moral viewpoint that it is ok to do something if you consent to it (or: if i feel like doing it, i'll do it).


saying that it is morally incorrect to kill other humans has existed throughout time. it's part of something called 'universally accepted moral code'.

[Seoulstriker]

Yeah thats stupid. Saying feminism is one idea, thats really dumb, thats like saying Islam is all about killing all the non-believers and all the believers who aren't Muslim enough.

what is feminism in the US?

[Roger Rabbit]

Your not a woman, its not your body, its not your choice, you have no say in the matter unless its your child. So stop bitching about it.

[Haiw]

well, i define life starts at 21 years of age. killing anyone younger than 21 is perfectly ok because i define it that way. sounds logical? hardly.

it's about as logical as saying 3 months old and younger are ok to kill. logical? hardly. it's not ground in any facts. human life starts at conception. don't tell me anything else besides that.

you and CJ both share the same view: it's ok to kill someone until a specific point in time. just tell me that this is true.
Look I stated some perfectly acceptable reasons why it isn't really considerable as real life before, but instead of refuting those you keep bringing up the totally bull**** 21-year remark. Hey if you're too lazy to think of a real argument just say so!

I'm not saying 3 month and younger per se, but just as long as it's outside of my definition of 'considerable life' it's okay with me. However, like I said before, you have to draw a line somewhere safe away from a 'turning-point' (not that there is any, but for the lack of a better word) to avoid any problems that may arise. Human life starts at conception, yes, just like a life doesn't end with a person that's brain-dead and fed by a machine...

[Haiw]

feminism is only a political viewpoint. feminism today in the US is fighting for the right of women to kill children. :|
:bash:
I don't know what the feminists in the US did, but it must have been a lot different than anything they did in the Netherlands... Maybe go read up on them in a book?

Oh and I'm still dying to hear if you're a vegetarian and a pacifist...

[dhfactory]

Please don't be offended by this people.

I don't see the problem with aborting at ANYTIME. If the child is born with some sort of birth defect then i also have no problem with infanticide.

I see sustaining the life of a disabled person and allowing them to breed. As a weakening of the human race. Years ago this would not have been a problem, in this day and age. With all the society and all the laws it is becoming harder to control your own life and family.

This doctor has a very good point that there is no difference with a baby, 5 minutes before or after birth. Pity people don't like making hard decisions anymore.

To kill one disabled child. may allow a family to give birth two one or more (less demanding) children. Is this so wrong? no it's not.

-Sean

[Roger Rabbit]

Can't eat vegetables, they're a form of life, that would be murder. I'm coming to :bash: you Haiw your murdering bastard, that carrot had a family how do you think they felt watching their father being plucked from the ground, skinned, decapitated and then boiled and eaten, its disgusting the way people treat lesser forms of life.

[Haiw]

Can't eat vegetables, they're a form of life, that would be murder. I'm coming to :bash: you Haiw your murdering bastard, that carrot had a family how do you think they felt watching their father being plucked from the ground, skinned, decapitated and then boiled and eaten, its disgusting the way people treat lesser forms of life.
Well you see, unlike some hippies I don't have some crazy ass holy moral that values life above all else, no matter the situation... :)

So 'Bring It On!' (Copyright, All rights reserved GW Bush 2003) I say. :D

[dhfactory]

Btw, i realise a new born child is a living being. I am not debating this, and i realise that this would be classed a murder under the laws that we have created.

Tell me how going to war and killing another man, just trying to defend his own family is any different? He just happens to come from a country with politcal differences. (how come murder is ok in war?)

Killing is killing, if there is a reason. The loss maybe deemed acceptable.

Somethings need to be done. They make life easier and better, sometimes the sacifice it big.



-Sean

[Scrim]

Seoulsricker- No offence mate, but you need to go out and get laid dude.

[Haiw]

Seoulsricker- No offence mate, but you need to go out and get laid dude.
But what if the girl got pregnant? ;)

[Seoulstriker]

well, i define life starts at 21 years of age. killing anyone younger than 21 is perfectly ok because i define it that way. sounds logical? hardly.

it's about as logical as saying 3 months old and younger are ok to kill. logical? hardly. it's not ground in any facts. human life starts at conception. don't tell me anything else besides that.

you and CJ both share the same view: it's ok to kill someone until a specific point in time. just tell me that this is true.
Look I stated some perfectly acceptable reasons why it isn't really considerable as real life before, but instead of refuting those you keep bringing up the totally bull**** 21-year remark. Hey if you're too lazy to think of a real argument just say so!

I'm not saying 3 month and younger per se, but just as long as it's outside of my definition of 'considerable life' it's okay with me. However, like I said before, you have to draw a line somewhere safe away from a 'turning-point' (not that there is any, but for the lack of a better word) to avoid any problems that may arise. Human life starts at conception, yes, just like a life doesn't end with a person that's brain-dead and fed by a machine...

well, i'm really glad that you accepted that life begins at conception. :hug:

then comes the legal issues/drawing the line... but i didn't want to get into that. :)

[Haiw]

The problem is that only 'scientific' life starts at conception while 'considerable' life starts a whole lot later... So basically you're basing everything on a pretty theoretical definition. That theoretical definition is crap. That definition classifies pulling the plug on a braind-dead person and reaping crops as murder and killing...

So stop reading the damned textbooks for a while and start using the grey stuff above the neck.

[Gauntlet]

Behind you all the way Seoulstriker.

By the way Rupert. Why should abortion be the women and the women only when it comes to the decision. What if the father really wanted this child? There are men out there don't just have *** with their girl for the thrill of it but to have a family.

[California Joe]

How old are you?

[Seoulstriker]

Behind you all the way Seoulstriker.

By the way Rupert. Why should abortion be the women and the women only when it comes to the decision. What if the father really wanted this child? There are men out there don't just have *** with their girl for the thrill of it but to have a family.

one of the many problems with abortion. ;)

[Tane Angle]

I think a lot of good points are made. Am I against abortion? Yeah. Are there times when it should be done? Yeah. That's not being morally selective, that's being realistic. Little in life is black and white.

I don't think it should be used as birth control; certainly not. I don't completely know when it should be used, but I think that the option should be there for those few situations. I don't know when life begins, but I don't know a lot at all.

I also wonder about Gauntlet's point; why don't men have more of a say?
By the way, I think the doctor might actually be anti-abortion, and is being cynical. And why are most conservatives so anti-abortion, isn't that a bit "big government?"

Anyways, have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[Seoulstriker]

And why are most conservatives so anti-abortion, isn't that a bit "big government?"

because it has to do with murder. that is why the government can impose its 'morals' by punishing murder. :|

[Tane Angle]

Well, the current administration's environmental policy is at the very least manslaughter on a national, and indeed, global scale then, but I guess that doesn't count for much. p-)

[Haiw]

And why are most conservatives so anti-abortion, isn't that a bit "big government?"

because it has to do with murder. that is why the government can impose its 'morals' by punishing murder. :|
A It's not murder.
B I wouldn't speak so highly about the current government's morals...

[Fox2]

I am against abortion and in agreement with Mr. Striker.

I see a lot of good discussion here, and a lot of it and similar discussions with others have made me think.

Many have said they don't agree with abortion as birth control; that it should only be used when something is seriously wrong. Well, how would one enforce that? At what point are the medical conditions bad enough to terminate that baby's existence?

Also, some have said that it is a woman's body, so it is a woman's choice. Well, that all depends. Hence, why there needs to be a definition of when life starts. As Tane said, many things in life are shades of grey. But the law can't be shades of grey. You can't "sort of" break the law. You either abide by it or you don't. So there needs to be a definitive answer to the question of when life starts.

If life starts at conception, then that baby is not simply an organ of the body, is not "owned" by the mother. It is a separate entity. Therefore, because it cannot speak for itself yet, it is NOT the mother's choice. As arrogant as that may sound, I believe that to be the truth.

Secondly, to mirror what someone else said, (believe it was Ruper or Joe) I too dislike hypocritical Christian types.

I believe it was Billy Graham who said:


The biggest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians. Who profess Jesus with their lips, but deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelieveable.

I am, however, one of those Christians who believes there is only one true God and that there are absolutes. Call me bigotted, but that is what I see as the truth. But I'm not going to force you to believe that or infringe on your free will, because that's not what it is about. I will stand up for those who cannot speak, though, and that's what I'm trying to do.

To quote Tane: Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Fox2]

And why are most conservatives so anti-abortion, isn't that a bit "big government?"

I believe the reason most Christians (who are for the most part conservative) are against abortion is because of text in the Bible such as this:


I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world. - Jeremiah 1:5

Take a look here. Some questions and doubts I have had myself were answered on this page. It'll provide a good insight into why conservatives/Christians are anti-abortion.

http://www.youthfire.com/issues/a1.html

[hank]

It is a shame that this issue has become political - meaning conservative against liberal. It is unfair to both sides to politicize this issue.

I am conservative and vote exclusively Republican. I believe that life begins at conception and would never knowingly let my wife/girlfriend/whatever abort my child even one day after conception. (Note here that my wife is 7.5 months pregnant and I also have videos of the sonograms). That is my choice. That does not mean that someone who believes differently is a murderer. It simply means that they believe differently.

Sure there are parts of the Bible that say abortion is wrong. Not everyone in this world is Christian. The Bible also says something along the lines of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." I'm pretty sure that is in the Bible somewhere, although I'm certainly no expert. Point being, we all know what we think is right or wrong for us in a perfect world. This world is not perfect.

What should not happen is for rational people to call each other names and label people who believe differently. I'm not accusing anybody here of doing that, but if this thread lasts long enough that will happen. It always does.

The point is that there is no answer. Seoulstriker is right, Joe is right, I am right. If you believe strongly for or against the rightto abortion then do whatever you can, in your own life, to see that belief born out. What I will not do, and what I feel strongly that others should not do, is make decisions for other people in this area. CJ hit the nail on the head. I don't want to make decisions for 16 year olds that make mistakes, becuase I will not have to live with the consequences.

That being said, out society needs to wake up and understand that there are far more people that want to adopt than there are adoptable babies. I am 33 and my father is 57 and remarried. He just adopted his second child with his new wife. Thank goodness that my little sister's biological mother chose life.

One other interesting point. There is so much misinformation about the legality/illegality of abortion in the USA. I am a law student and actually read Roe v. Wade and many of the follow up decisions last year for the first time. The Justices on the Court, both for and against abortion, agonized over those decisions and I am sure even they would admit that there is not right answer. Justice O'Connor has often said that she is personally against abortion but feels compelled to allow it for the reason that CJ stated. It's not her decision.

Anyway, good thread. Keep an open mind and don't be quick to judge someone with another opinion. Everybody finds this emotional and everybody believes strongly that they are right.

hank

[Seoulstriker]

I am against abortion and in agreement with Mr. Striker.

I see a lot of good discussion here, and a lot of it and similar discussions with others have made me think.

Many have said they don't agree with abortion as birth control; that it should only be used when something is seriously wrong. Well, how would one enforce that? At what point are the medical conditions bad enough to terminate that baby's existence?

Also, some have said that it is a woman's body, so it is a woman's choice. Well, that all depends. Hence, why there needs to be a definition of when life starts. As Tane said, many things in life are shades of grey. But the law can't be shades of grey. You can't "sort of" break the law. You either abide by it or you don't. So there needs to be a definitive answer to the question of when life starts.

If life starts at conception, then that baby is not simply an organ of the body, is not "owned" by the mother. It is a separate entity. Therefore, because it cannot speak for itself yet, it is NOT the mother's choice. As arrogant as that may sound, I believe that to be the truth.

Secondly, to mirror what someone else said, (believe it was Ruper or Joe) I too dislike hypocritical Christian types.

I believe it was Billy Graham who said:


The biggest cause of atheism in the world today is Christians. Who profess Jesus with their lips, but deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelieveable.

I am, however, one of those Christians who believes there is only one true God and that there are absolutes. Call me bigotted, but that is what I see as the truth. But I'm not going to force you to believe that or infringe on your free will, because that's not what it is about. I will stand up for those who cannot speak, though, and that's what I'm trying to do.

To quote Tane: Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

excellent, post, Fox2.

one thing i'd like to add: abortion is almost never medically necessary. the medical 'need' for abortion is completely unfounded.

so what's the point of abortion? birth-control? that is extremely extremely sad and selfish.

to prevent one's life from being screwed up? you mean that the girl is not screwed up enough to take responsibility for her actions?

[Tane Angle]

Well, I understand the reasons, I'm just joking about big government. Sorry for the miswrite. By the way, why is it that big bad China gives out condoms and other birth preventives for free, even in the villages? Why don't we?

[hank]

Tane, I know you are probably out of the loop on birth control seeing as how you are soon to be a grand dad and all but there are lots of places to get free condoms. If you are in college you can't go anywhere without seeing free condoms around campus.

Even in high school (I was in high school from 1985-1989) I got my hands on free condoms when I needed them which was not often I assure you.

Birth control pills are free also but under 18 there are some strings.

hank

[Fox2]

Thanks for your post Hank.

I am in no way intending to start name-calling or allow this thread to get to that level. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I also apologize if it seemed I was making this political, which I am not or at least not trying to do.

I know that I will sound arrogant and bigotted and a host of other things. But I cannot be so mute about an issue of such importance. We are dealing with human lives! Lives that have not yet seen their potential! Not some trivial political matter!


That is my choice. That does not mean that someone who believes differently is a murderer. It simply means that they believe differently.

Sir, with all due respect, if you yourself believe it to be murder, and someone else has an abortion, does that not make them a murderer in your belief?!

Many have seen what happens in the Middle East with the honor killings and such. We have all wondered to ourselves, "How can people do that?"

Now, is that not hypocritical to say that those who commit those honor killings are murderers, regardless of their beliefs in right and wrong, and yet those that do what we deem wrong are let off the hook?



Sure there are parts of the Bible that say abortion is wrong. Not everyone in this world is Christian. The Bible also says something along the lines of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." I'm pretty sure that is in the Bible somewhere, although I'm certainly no expert. Point being, we all know what we think is right or wrong for us in a perfect world. This world is not perfect.

Forgive me for sounding arrogant, but this recent trend of not wanting to step on other's toes or offend anyone is getting on my nerves.

The part of the Bible you quote from is the account of a woman accused of adultery brought to Jesus by the Pharisees. In an attempt get him to slip up, they reminded him of the law that said a woman who committed adultery should be stoned. Not exactly eye for an eye. That's when Jesus made his famous remark of "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

We are all sinners by the Bible's account, yes, it is true. So, does that mean we should not stand up for what is right at all? Imagine our law system if we had such a lack of accountability!

"Ok, Mr. Smith, you are charged with killing 30 people in the past week. But, you know what, last week, I lied and got out of some taxes, so, what the hell, we're letting you go. Case dismissed."

I have an open mind on most issues. When it comes to unborn babies being killed, I am close-minded. Just as I am sure many are about other types of murder. Murder is not a "no right answer" question. There are rights, and there are wrongs. If it was not so, we would not have laws to keep things in check.

I apologize if I have seemed too heavy-handed in this post, but I just cannot allow myself to be wishy-washy on this matter.

[Haiw]

Well the biggest problem starts by people labeling it murder from the beginning. That's not really the way to keep it open for discussion eh?

[Fox2]

Well the biggest problem starts by people labeling it murder from the beginning. That's not really the way to keep it open for discussion eh?


Well, if the human life starts at conception, and that human life is terminated by another individual, then yes it IS murder. :|

And you're right, the morality of murder is never open to discussion.

[Haiw]

See my post above about 'considerable life'. From the start of conception untill somewhere maybe halfway (or later on) the long road to birth that becomes a reality. Before that it's more 'scientifical life' or life in the way NASA looks for it on Mars. Nothing more than living cells. Now just answer this; when you pull the plug on someone that's braindead after an accident for example...is that murder too?

[hank]

Fox2 - I don't think you are calling people names. I am not offended by what you have posted and I hope you are not offended either.

I don't have a problem with any of your beliefs or with you or anyone else expressing them. I simply choose to recognize that not everyone else has the same beliefs that I do. Surely at this point you can recognize that you can't "prove" when life begins anymore than you can "prove" that Jesus is the son of God. You believe both to be true. So be it. The fact is that neither are quantifiable - beliefs never are.

I believe that life begins at conception. Yet, a fetus taken from the womb will not survive on its own until the beginning of the second trimester. Can I prove - through empirical scientific evidence - that life begins when a fetus can't survive on its own? No, I can't. And yet I believe it. Why? Because it is a part of my belief system. There is nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong with acknowledging that not everyone shares my belief system.

Both of these concepts (life at conception and Jesus = son of God) are beliefs - you must take them at face value and be able to live with the assumptions that underlie them.

Don't be so naive as to believe that people who are "Pro Chioce" are "Pro Abortion". Quite the contrary, very few people in this world are pro-abortion. The fact is that there are two lives involved in the decision surrounding abortion. For you the choice is simple. You will always choose to not allow anyone to abort your child. I respect that. I made and always will make the same choice.

I don't mind stepping on toes. In fact, if my wife had told me last June that she wanted an abortion then stepped on toes would have been the least of her worries. I don't have a problem saying that abortion is wrong according to my beliefs. But telling a woman that she can't is where I, and the US Supreme Court, draw the line. The decision is one that women make for themselves, right or wrong.

As for the existence of rights and wrongs, I agree. There are a lot of things in this world that are wrong. There are a lot of wrongs that can never be fixed. Abortion is one of those wrongs. The only part of abortion that you or I can effect is your child. Stick to your beliefs and never allow anyone to abort your child. Teach your children the same thing. Morality does exist irrespective of the realities of life. But, trying to change people who don't believe the same as you by labeling them "wrong" has never and will never work.

The sooner that we among the conservative right understand that some people will never agree with us and quit labeling others who disagree "wrong" the quicker the world may be able to actually deal with this problem.

hank

[hank]

haiw - no it is not murder. If it is a crime then at best it is manslaughter b/c the person pulling the plug lacks intent.

In most states in the USA, the difference between the crime you describe and abortion is that under almost every state's current laws, a fetus is not a life. States make it illegal to take a human life. If you intend to take human life, you commit murder. If you take human life without intent, you commit manslaughter or something similar. The reason that abortion is never murder and manslaughter only in a few places under certain circumstances is that in the definition of human life there will be some caveat about "born" or some specific mention that a pre-first trimester fetus is not a human life.

Whether or not the crime you describe is a crime at all is similar to the problem surrounding abortion. It depends on whether you "believe" it is right or wrong. A question about whose answer everyone will never agree.

hank

[Fox2]

Hm.

So, what you are saying, or more specifically, what the current law says, is the doctor pulling the plug is comparable to Grandma Ida accidentally gunning a red light and running over Jack Brown?

How is there not intent? So, even though the doctor premeditates his action, and infact knows the consequences and effects of his action, he still does not intend to kill the unborn child? I'm no law expert, but I just can't see it. I am open to your answer, Hank.

[Roger Rabbit]

By the way Rupert. Why should abortion be the women and the women only when it comes to the decision. What if the father really wanted this child?

Ok i obviously did not make my case clear. If the father wants the woman to have the child then it is not 100% the womans decision. However, yet again this is not a simply black and white issue. What if the father was a rapist, or what if he was in jail and had no way of supporting the child, what if he was terminally ill and would be dead before or within a few years of the baby being born. Theres too many IF's to set down a absolute law for this kind of thing.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This Brit scientist may be what we'd consider cold & unfeeling, but he makes a good point I can respect him for. There is no difference whether the killing is done inside or outside. We simply use the difference to shield ourselves from feeling guilt. Scientifically, there's no difference.

So this begs the question - do we have the balls to admit that we no longer consider human life sacred? If mental capacity is the sole indicator of "worth", can we kill the old and infirm for our convenience? How about the retarded? And how diminished must our capacity be to be worthless?

Sounds a lot like eugenics. Eliminate people who will drag on our society. Sounds like Hitler too. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint, if we're willing to admit we now think this way. Personally, I don't but clearly some do.

In many states, if you kill a pregnant woman, and the unborn baby dies, you are charged with 2 deaths. But it's also legal to abort that same child. So how are we to morally square 2 acts that result in the same death - one is legal and the other not? Is human life sacred or not?

Looking at it from a purely legal standpoint does not answer any questions. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right or wrong. Slavery used to be perfectly legal (and still is in some countries). Is it right?

One problem is that we have created an abortion industry, with vast numbers of people who's livelihood depends upon continuing the practice. They pour massive amounts of money into preserving their way of life, pretending that they're just protecting civil rights. Who's civil rights? Why, their customer's civil rights of course.

We have indoctrinated several generations of children into believing they are worthless & could just as easily have been dispatched to the great beyond at our whim. And we complain when they have self-worth issues? Should any of us have self worth, now that we exist solely at society's convenience & can be killed when we're inconvenient?

[Roger Rabbit]

Make it stop make it stop, oh the humanity i'm now a Nazi believing in Social Darwinism and trying to exterminate the weeker part of society because i believe a woman has the right to abort her child in certain cases.

Ok lets say your a woman, now your walking down the street one day and you get gang raped. Not exactly nice but it happens. Any how you become pregnant. Are you telling me that you would want to have that child just because you think it would be immoral to have it aborted?

[hank]

Fox2 - intent means intent to kill and in most states the definition of human life does not include a fetus. I am not trying to rationale away the act, I was just answering haiw's question. Legally, depending on the statute and the state, abortion does nto meet the definition of murder b/c the intent is to abort a fetus. Fetus is not a human life and the intent is thus not to kill a human.

Abortion is also not legally defined as murder b/c the intent would be to abort a pregnancy - not terminate a human life as defined in most statutes. I am not saying it is OK or right. I'm just saying that even if it were a crime the intent element would mean the crim would be some unintentional killing like manslaughter.

However, you make a good point with abortion - that is if a state defined a human life in such a way that it included a fetus and someone said out loud to witnesses - I intend to kill this fetus - then murder it would be.

As for the old lady example- it would not be and ususally is not charged as murder b/c the person' intent is not to kill - but to stop feeding or something else. There is no idea of transferred intent in murder. Either you intend to kill a human - and that is very hard to prove without an admission - or you commit manslaughter when you take a life. Look at Kevorkian - he talked all the time about what he was doing and Michigan had a hard time convicting him of manslaughter. The reason is that he says - my intent was not to kill - but to end suffering.

Also, pulling a plug on a machine that ultimately leads to death is hard to show as an act that kills. The time lag between the pulling and hte death oftne makes it impossible to convict or even charge for murder even assuming you can show intent. There is what they call a break in the "causal chain".


Remember - I'm not defending either position - just answering haiw's question

hank

[hank]

2 sheds jackson - you say in many states that if you kill a pregnant woman you commit 2 murders. I know of only one state that does that. I can't remember which state it was, but we had a visiting professor talk about this type of law in the fall of 2001 and he gave us a copy of the staute and told us it was unique but that he suspected that other states would follow. I'll try to find that stuff if I still have it. Which states are you referring to? Just curious.

If there really are a lot of states that is a great point. My suspicion, however, is that you read a news report that said "many states". the media is terrible about printing stuff that is terribly skewed while strictly accurate. I'll wait a while to hear your answer. You may be right, and I certainly am not calling you a liar. I will try to get time to do a LEXIS search tonight to find out how many state have laws like this.

One other thing I forgot to put in my other post. All Roe v. Wade says is that a state may not hinder or impede a woman's right ot get an abortion in the first trimester. So another answer to the question of whether or not abortion is murder is that it ain't b/c the Supreme Court said it can't be illegal to abort a fetus in the 1st trimester.

hank

[martinexsquaddie]

well abortion is legal in the UK and long may it remain so.
you just have to look at Eire abortations is illegal Does it stop it happening? no you just have women going on holiday.
Abortions have happened for many years like prostitution might not like them but its a fact of life better legally in a clinic than a backstreet.
IMHO a goverment that belives a chastity programme is a mature reponse to a rise in teenage pregnancy's has lost the plot.
Abortion is not murder same way a miscarrage is not a death.
I was a born again Christian but Fortunatly Like drink you eventually sober up. I find ironic conservatives are anti abortation but pro death penalty sort of rules out the chance of redemption. same as liberals are pro choice and anti death penalty.
But Rupert has the right Idea if your not likely to get pregnant SHUT THE **** UP

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The ability to think, rather than feel is one of the things that separates us from the lower animals. Morality does not depend upon the *** of the observer. Convenience does. It is more convenient for women to have abortions available. It doesn't make it moral. Again, I'm not advocating either side of the argument - I'm only showing that this is clearly not being argued on a consistent moral, or scientific basis. We have simply made the decision based on egalitarian principals - if a man doesn't have to bear children, why should women?

Surveys conducted by pro-abortion groups have verified that less than 1% have become pregnant by rape or incest - so it's not a valid point for the larger argument. In fact, the same pro-abortion group funded surveys have pointed out that economics are not a factor in the decision either, and that 90+% are carried out simply for convenience. As a result most abortions are now performed on women who have already had at least one. I don't have the info in front of me - but I can get it tonight or tomorrow (have it in some books at home). In answer to hank's question about the states & fetus murder etc. - I'm not certain that it's actually murder (maybe manslaughter etc.) maybe I can find the info somewhere. Again, I'm not arguing legality - just morality.

True, I'm taking the devil's advocate position - but I'm only saying that as a society we have completely de-valued human life. Martinexsquaddie even says that a miscarriage is not a death. As a guy who's suffered through 2 of them, I can tell you that it is. If a miscarriage is not a death, then what is the definition of life? Is it defined as paying taxes? Being able to talk? We've created false parameters to enable us to be comfortable with our actions (the same way the enemy is dehumanized in war etc.). No problem killing them (insert race/nationality of choice here), they're not like us.

For the record, I do support very limited legal abortion. And I don't hedge and say it's not killing because (insert excuse here). I believe there are circumstances that make it preferable to end a person's life such as profound malformation (i.e. the baby has no chance of going full term or living outside the womb), or the mother's life is endangered (which is very over used, as this is almost never the case).

Even Clinton - left wing bastard that he is - says he wanted to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare". Well, if it's morally acceptable, why make it rare? If there's no problem with it, hell - put a do-it-yourself suction machine on every street corner? Where's the problem? It's because even he concedes that it's killing and to be avoided.

[hank]

Actually 2 sheds - you did confuse morality and legality. You said that killing a pregnant woman = 2 murders and abortion is not. And then you asked whether it is moral. The answer to that question depends on your moral view. The answer depends on when you believe when life begins.

There is nothing wrong with feeling like you feel about miscarriages, etc. That, in my opinion is normal. My wife has never had a miscarriage, but my sister and 2 aunts have and it was traumatic for the whole family. The feelings I had were simialr to losing a loved one. That is the way I am. Not everyone feels that way. Do I understand why someone feels that way? Hell no! Do I acknowledge that not everyone has the same beliefs that I do. Yes, I do.

The "fact" is that no one her will be able to point to a scientific study that says when life begins b/c it cannot be answered. When life begins is a belief you have. Sometime between conception and birth that fetus does become a person and everybody has a different opinion. Scientists cannot agree. This is something that Seoulstriker should be able to back up - there is no magic date as he said in an earlier post. Life and its definition in realtion to unborn babies is hard to define. Yet, "life" gets thrown around by people like it is easily quantifiable.

That is the problem with this whole argument. Everybody throws around words like moral, murder, right, wrong and nobody really knows or thinks about what any of those words mean. Murder is a legal term that describes premeditated killing. It has nothing to do with morals. Right or wrong are terms we use to characterize the choices we make. Abortion and euthanasia are scientific terms that describe medical procedures.

Nothing anybody has written here can or will change the fact that abortion is not murder. It may be killing, right, wrong, good, bad - but all that depends on your idea of morality. Murder does not depend on morality.

Same goes for euthanasia, right or wrong is irrelevant for purposes of determining what murder is when somebody pulls the plug.

The point I make is that one way to quit all this name-calling is to either a) stop lableing others wrong, right, murderer, etc. and b) if you do decide to plop a label on someone else at least know what the label is. Nobody ever does that.

If I've taken anybody out of context, then forgive me, but what I see here is I'm right and you are a murderer, or wrong, etc. People disagree on this issue for all the right and sometimes all the wrong reasons. But labeling won't get anybody any closer to agreement.

2 sheds - you wrote that it is murder when you kill a pregnant mother - I think what you meant to say is that many people think it should be. That kind of confusion between beliefs and legality is often what leads to the mislabeling.

For the record, as I've already said, I think abortion is wrong and I would not allow the mother of my child to have one. I can back that up with my actions. That's not to say that abortion was ever even considered in our case. But, just because I believe that abortion is wrong doesn't mean that people with a contrary view are wrong and certainly not that they are murderers. It simply means that we disagree, and more specifically it means that we can't agree about what assumptions we are willing to live with. Think about that.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Actually 2 sheds - you did confuse morality and legality. You said that killing a pregnant woman = 2 murders and abortion is not. And then you asked whether it is moral. The answer to that question depends on your moral view. The answer depends on when you believe when life begins.

Er, actually I never said that killing anybody is murder. I think I just said that people can be charged with killing someone etc. That's the whole point of my post - it's an arbitrary label we stick on to acts that suit us. The state kills lots of people in prision, war etc, but it's not murder.

[Haiw]

So this begs the question - do we have the balls to admit that we no longer consider human life sacred?
Take a look around and find out we basically never did...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

FWIW, I found some info that's relevant here. Bear in bind that I didn't gather this research myself, so all I can do is offer it here as peer reviewed data and hopefully not total BS. It's from "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork. Yeah he's a right-winger, but it's not his data.


But it is clear, in any event, that the vast majority of all abortions are for convenience. In those cases, abortion is used as merely one more technique of birth control. A 1987 survey of the reasons given by women for having abortion , made by researchers with the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is very much pro-abortion, demonstrated this fact. The following table shows the percentage of women who gave the listed reasons:

Woman concerned about how a baby could change her life=76%
Woman can't afford baby right now=68%
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood =51%
Woman is unready for responsibility=31%
Woman doesn't want others to know she has had *** or is pregnant=31%
Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child=30%
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children=26%
Husband or partner wants woman to have abortion=23%
Fetus has possible health problem*=13%
Woman has health problem=7%
Woman's parents want her to have abortion=7%
Woman was victim of rape or incest=1%
Other=6%

*of this 13%, only 8% had actually been told of a possible problem by a physician


As to holding human life sacred...well I guess that's a debatable point. Certainly we differentiate between the guilty & innocent (as judged by our moral code) and necessary evil (war, executions etc.). I'd say that as a society at least we used to, though many individuals certainly didn't. It seems as though our entire society is sliding towards treating humans like major appliances - if it gets inconvenient or expensive, get rid of it.

Ok - all done being uncool and heavy for today. There's beer to drink - which is prolly a moral lapse in some people's view.... ;)

[Nawlins]

Ok lets say your a woman, now your walking down the street one day and you get gang raped. Not exactly nice but it happens. Any how you become pregnant. Are you telling me that you would want to have that child just because you think it would be immoral to have it aborted?

I am a woman, and if that happened to me I would have the baby. Now, chances are I wouldn't want to keep a reminder of such a horrific event, so I would give it up for adoption. That child deserves a chance at life, regardless of his beginnings.

(However, pregnancies because of rape are very rare because 1) the trauma can possibly preclude fertilization, and 2) sadly, more and more rapists are wise to investigation procedures and use condoms so they can't be caught.)

I am absolutely against abortion, early, late, anytime. I don't see any reason for it. And I think that doctor in the article was absolutely right: if abortion is okay, then infanticide should be no problem. There's no moral difference between an unborn child and a newborn, except that we can see that it's a moving, breathing life of its own.

[farmgirl]

Make it stop make it stop, oh the humanity i'm now a Nazi believing in Social Darwinism and trying to exterminate the weeker part of society because i believe a woman has the right to abort her child in certain cases.

Ok lets say your a woman, now your walking down the street one day and you get gang raped. Not exactly nice but it happens. Any how you become pregnant. Are you telling me that you would want to have that child just because you think it would be immoral to have it aborted?

I'll give you my two cents here as well. If that happened to me, I would also have the baby. I can't say if I would keep it or not, but I would have it. The baby would still be half mine, and the added guilt of ending the pregnancy would only add to the pain of dealing with the rape.
Nawlins is correct when she says that this is a very rare thing. Rapes do not normally end in pregnancy.

[Fox2]

I hope that you did not take my post personal, Hank.

I was genuinely curious as to the legal definitions of intent, et cetera.

However, I will respond to this, and I think that this will be my last post, as this is depressing me. :( Please humor my inferior knowledge and intellect this one last time.

Morality and law cannot be separated. They are intertwined in many ways. Law was put in place to keep the population safe, secure, and in check based on the morals defined by society. When the United States was formed, those morals were based on the Bible, whether we like it or not. Morals are the only things that make this "civilized" world civil. And law is the only way to make sure things stay civil.

Right and wrong do exist, whatever this politically correct world says. Every person deep down knows that some things are right, and some are wrong. The absence of right and wrong, and the idea that everyone can have their own right or wrong, is lawlessness. Hypothetically, if I say in my heart, "To kill another in malice is wrong," and do nothing when I see it happening before me, then I myself am wrong. If we concede to live in our own little world, with indifference to the behavior of those around us, then we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.

I'm sure it was the same for peaceful Germans in the 1940s, even when they had heard of the suffering of the Jewish people. They must have known in their hearts that it was wrong, but who were they to say so outloud? I mean, those were their beliefs, and not everyone shared the same beliefs. Remember that in that time and place, Jews were regarded by the Nazis as less than human, similar to the way we are now discussing fetuses. "Well, if they're not human, it can't be murder, right?"

Who gets to decide when life begins, and when a human is not yet human, and therefore expendable? At the moment, it's judges. That's right, individuals with their own personal ideals that may or may not be the same as your own. They are dictating to us what we should think. And it's only one part of the three parts of government, to boot! Judges nowadays RUN this country.

I am not afraid of "labeling" people. Furthermore, I am not afraid of disagreement. If the goal of morality and law were agreement, then we would simply have no morals or laws. And sometimes I fear that is what we are heading to.

I am sure I have offended many of you in this post, and I sincerely hope you will forgive me.

Thank you all sincerely for the discussion.

[hank]

I'm sure not offended by anything anyone has written here. I hope that nothing I have written has offended anybody. If I have offended anybody then I apologize. Everybody has to get up in the morning and feel good about the face looking back. I can do that and I'm sure ya'll can too. That is good enough for me.

Right and wrong is a tricky thing, though. Context is everything. Rare is the man who can idealize about what he would do in a perfect world and then do it when the s_ _t hits the fan. Doesn't mean idealizing is wrong, just that a lot of times ideals get lost in the tire tracks when the rubber meets the road. The person we want to be and the person we end up being aren't always the same and the result often depends on the difficulty inherent in the choices we make.

Oddly enough, morality and law often have nothing to do with each other. Look at Islamic law. A muslim, maybe not now but certainly at the turn of the century, would think nothing of cutting off the hand of a man who stole bread to feed his children. Is that moral? By today's standards certainly not to a Christian. Yet for centuries it was legal in most of hte world.

What about forcing a person to work as your slave? Is that moral? Certainly not, and yet Thomas Jefferson, the champion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" owned many slaves during his lifetime. Also, remember that our forefathers only intended for landowning white males to have the benefits of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (that came much later). Does this make the ideals in the Constitution immoral. No, yet the morality embodied has certainly changed in the last 200+ years.

Legality and morality change and often are unrelated. Absolute statements like "to kill another in malice is wrong" sound good at home. How do you think it sounded from the Enola Gay? The pilot of that plane knew he would kill women and children who probably had nothing to do with Japanese Imperialism. Yet they dropped that bomb and killed a lot of deserving and undeserving people. Does that make them wrong? Totally depends on your point of view. If you strictly adhere to the idea that killing with malice is always wrong then in order to remain consistent you must answer yes. That is the problem with absolutes - there will always be a situation where it is tough to apply that absolute rule. I refuse to say that the guys on the Enola Gay did wrong, b/c I rationalize what they did by saying that in the end they were just doing their jobs AND they probably, almost certainly, saved lives in the long run. The same problem comes up when you try to say abortion is always wrong. A situation will always come up that requires a hard answer. I just refuse to decide that hard answer for someone else, often times a confused 16 year old who made a mistake and does not know where to turn.

It a difficult thing to say that every time you see something you think is wrong and you do nothing then you are equally as guilty. If that were the case in every situation then nobody would be innocent. if you follow that line of thinking to it logical conclusion then why haven't you gone to Africa to feed the poor or to South America to stop the drug trade or blown up an abortion clinic to stop abortion? It will never stop - if you stick an absolute tag on it and then just act consistent

Judges have never tried to tell us when life begins. Read Roe v. Wade. O'Connor really struggles with the problem. She can't answer and she knows she can't. What she ultimately does is compromise. She says that forcing a woman to have that baby in every situation can't be the right answer because you can't anticipate every problem. So, she decides not to try. She ultimatley decides that since no fetus has ever survived birth before the end of the first trimester that that date will be the cutoff. She does specifically reserve the right to change that date if and when science can figure out a different and more appropriate date.

Unfortunatley Judges do not run this country. So much of what we do on a daily basis gets decided by an appointed bureaucrat. For example, Congress passes a law and allows the president to create the EPA. From then on, the EPA has told all Americnas what is good and what is bad for the environment. Judges and Congress get left out of the loop.

Anyway, I am enjoying this topic. Its hard to find people willing to talk about it. Sorry if I am boring everybody. I will eventually shut up. Fox 2 is right, disagreement is OK. We can respectfully disagree. Don't get depressed about this issue. You can't convince everybody and neither can I. But, by understanding where you come from and vice versa then maybe if faced with this tough decision (or fi you try to help somebody faced with this tough decision) we'll be a little better equipped.

It is always interesting to me to hear females give their opinion on this. Thanks farmgirl and nawlins. Somehow it always seems right to me that the people that have to carry, deliver, raise, and rear that fetus make the decision. Gald to see that you guys would make the choices you would. In the end, maybe that is the best way to try to solve the problem. Instead of trying to get everybody to agree, just try to get a few more to understand the implications of choosing abortion.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Unfortunatley Judges do not run this country. So much of what we do on a daily basis gets decided by an appointed bureaucrat. For example, Congress passes a law and allows the president to create the EPA. From then on, the EPA has told all Americnas what is good and what is bad for the environment. Judges and Congress get left out of the loop.

I'll have to disagree with that one. I think one of our biggest problems is that we have the judiciary creating law. They're supposed to apply the law created by Congress. Instead they simply throw out what they don't like. It's ruling by fiat - like a king. A legislative body such as Congress conducts lengthy debate, assesses a plurality of opinion and creates law- then a judge gets a bad Egg McMuffin one day for breakfast, and throws it out. One person's opinion vs hundreds, maybe millions. The 9th Federal Circuit Court should be towed out to sea and sunk to create a coral reef.

[hank]

All the circuits usually get overruled when their cases go up to the Supremes. I saw a report on Fox (I love Fox so this is just an example) when one of the 9th's decisions when up and got overturned and the reporter was standing in front of hte 9th Circuit in San Fransisco talking about how often the 9th Circuit gets overturned by the SC - no facts or statistical comparisons to back it up. The reality is that the SC does not take cases unless they want to change something - hence the high percentages of overturns on appeal to the Supremes for all circuit courts.

That is really not a fair characterization of what judges, and especially the circuits do. Congress intentionally writes laws to leave a fair amount of interpretation room - otherwise the problem you describe wouldn't happen. When was the last time the 9th Circuit threw out a law passed by Congress? I'm just curious b/c I can't remember the last time a Circuit Court successfully threw out a Federal law. The only grounds by which a court can throw out federal law is on constitutional grounds. Under our system the constitution trumps anything congress does unless they amend it. If teh judiciary gets a bad wrap, sometime rightfully so, it is b/c of the constitution - not the individual judges.

Gramm-Rudman is a great example. Congress passes a law that presidents have to submit balanced budgets. Sounds like a great idea, huh? Everybody loved it. Then the SC struck it down as unconstitutional. People were outraged and called for the SC to get its head right. Only problem is that the Constitution specifically gives the executive branch the right to submit a budget to Congress. Not the Court's fault that out forefathers wrote the constitution that way, yet they get blamed by teh press b/c they are easy targets. They never speak out when they get hammered by thh press.

Another great example of the fact that the circuits follow Congress when they can are the federal sentencing guidelines. Congress appointed a committee to make mandatory sentences for all federal crimes. Many of these sentences, especially in drug cases, are really long - much longer than for comparable state laws. Prisoners have been tryin for years to get the federal courts to say that these long sentences are unconstitutional b/c they are cruel and unusual (too long). Without exception the circuits and supremes have upheld the guidelines - remarking that the people have spoken and who are the courts to say otherwise. Nobody, newspeople that is, ever bring this up.

Also, the way it works is the way our forefathers wanted it to work. Three equal branches. Judiciary is one of those branches. One person never gets to make the decision to overturn a legislated law - its always at least three and often 9 or more depending on the situation.

Right now John Ashcroft has a lot more effect on your daily life than Scalia or Rehnquist, believe me.

Also, what makes you think that what Congress does represents the will of millions? Most of what Congress does these days is decided by interest groups and the Congressmen's own keen interest in sepf-preservation (meaning the desire to get re-elected).

2 sheds - Don't take any of this personally. I just like debating. I usually can't stand judges but they get blamed for a lot of stuff by the media simply b/c they ALWAYS remain silent.

hank

[Salty Dog]

little fetuses....i say eat em all!.......with sauce!