delicate subject - abortion

Fire_Fox

amus wrote: »

I find it very strange that some people can differentiate between the need for abortion for medical reasons/rape and the need for abortion due to carelessness/failed contraception.

If people believe that a foetus is a life, even in the early stages of conception, how does one differentiate? After all if the foetus/embryo is the result of a rape it is still alive, it didnt ask to be conceived as a result of rape, so why should it 'be punished' by loosing its life? Why would this be considered OK.

If you hold a foetus in the same esteem as a living child then would that mean it is morally OK to kill a child (that has been born) if it was conceived through rape?

It is therefore my opinon that there is no middle ground in this area, you either feel that abortion is murder and is never acceptable, or you accept that what is aborted is a potential life in the same way as an egg or a sperm, and therefore is acceptable in all circumstance (obviously within legal limits).

You are being too black and white, either an embryo/ foetus is nothing or it has equal status to a human being is not everyone's view and nor need it be. The law differentiates between different 'types' of embryo/ foetus on the grounds of gestation or viability for example, it doesn't deem embryos/ foetus' as completely unimportant, simply that the mothers' wellbeing is more important. Some pro-life viewpoints is a more stricter version of that.

If you hold to the legal limits then you don't believe abortion is acceptable in all circumstances, that is not a caveat it is a cop out. Most of us would be horrified by it being allowed at, say, eight and a half months. The closer towards conception the fewer of us are horrified by the concept of abortion. It's a spectrum of belief/ morals/ opinion, the debates on reducing to twenty weeks highlight that. Other threads have shown we don't even all agree at what point conception takes place, is it fertilisation or implantation?

amus

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You are being too black and white, either an embryo/ foetus is nothing or it has equal status to a human being is not everyone's view and nor need it be. The law differentiates between different 'types' of embryo/ foetus on the grounds of gestation or viability for example, it doesn't deem embryos/ foetus' as completely unimportant, simply that the mothers' wellbeing is more important. Some pro-life viewpoints is a more stricter version of that.

If you hold to the legal limits then you don't believe abortion is acceptable in all circumstances, that is not a caveat it is a cop out. Most of us would be horrified by it being allowed at, say, eight and a half months. The closer towards conception the fewer of us are horrified by the concept of abortion. It's a spectrum of belief/ morals/ opinion, the debates on reducing to twenty weeks highlight that. Other threads have shown we don't even all agree at what point conception takes place, is it fertilisation or implantation?

Of course not its just my opinion of it, that you cant believe something is a life to be valued as you would a living child from the moment of conception without believing that in any circumastance abortion is murder.

No its certainly not black and white in terms of when a foetus becomes viable, I was referring more to abortions which are carried out within the first few months, which the majority are, there obviously becomes a point (in law defined as 24 weeks when the foetus could be considered viable) at which it becomes unacceptable.

The grey area for me is defining when the foetus becomes a life, not whether I see the embryo/foetus as a life or not. Certainly prior to 12 weeks I would not consider it a life, and therefore I have no problem with abortion prior to this point for whatever reason.

Fire_Fox

amus wrote: »

The grey area for me is defining when the foetus becomes a life, not whether I see the embryo/foetus as a life or not. Certainly prior to 12 weeks I would not consider it a life, and therefore I have no problem with abortion prior to this point for whatever reason.

A life does not necessarily mean a life of equal importance/ value/ necessity to every person, for some there will be a very clear distinction others a close run thing. Does every human life you come into contact with in a given week hold equal importance/ value/ necessity for you? People die in the third world of malnutrition and curable diseases all the time, Westerners let that happen because we don't have an emotional connection with those lives, that potential.

amus

Fire_Fox wrote: »

A life does not necessarily mean a life of equal importance/ value/ necessity to every person, for some there will be a very clear distinction others a close run thing. Does every human life you come into contact with in a given week hold equal importance/ value/ necessity for you? People die in the third world of malnutrition and curable diseases all the time, Westerners let that happen because we don't have an emotional connection with those lives, that potential.

I think everybody places values on lives depending on their own relationships, for example I would place my cats life above other peoples cats lives, simply because I have a personal relationship with my cat (does that sound wrong :rotfl:?).

I accept what you're saying with regards to there being a spectrum with regards to 'valuation of importance', it is just my view that it becomes difficult and morally conflicting to say that abortion is wrong if its for certain reasons, but OK for others, if you hold the view that even in the early stages, it is a life to be valued.

Errata

If the foetus has a heartbeat and can move of it's own volition then clearly it's alive and is a life.

amus

Errata wrote: »

If the foetus has a heartbeat and can move of it's own volition then clearly it's alive and is a life.

A life as comparable to a tadpole, an ant, a dog, a trout?

The question is not whether it is a life in the strictest sense of the word (theres a lot of things in the world which are 'alive'), the question is in what esteem do you hold that life?

PolkaDotsAndLace

I understand what Amus means - in the sense that with two separate pregnancies (let's say 8 weeks for simplicity) where one person has consensual sex and the other was raped, some people are against abortion in the first scenario but not in the latter. I can't understand this reasoning myself - if it's life it's life no matter how it was concieved. When someone makes that distinction on whether abortion is ok or not I can't help but feel it's less about the foetus and more about punishing the woman.

Hence why I'm staunchly pro-choice in all circumstances.

lazer

PolkaDotsAndLace wrote: »

I understand what Amus means - in the sense that with two separate pregnancies (let's say 8 weeks for simplicity) where one person has consensual sex and the other was raped, some people are against abortion in the first scenario but not in the latter. I can't understand this reasoning myself - if it's life it's life no matter how it was concieved. When someone makes that distinction on whether abortion is ok or not I can't help but feel it's less about the foetus and more about punishing the woman.

Hence why I'm staunchly pro-choice in all circumstances.

Its 2 fold - its about the life of the mother and the life of the child.

In the first instance where the mother has had consensual sex then a possible consequence of this is a pregnancy so therefore she should accept this consequence without it destroying her life.

In the second instance, giving birth to the child is still my preferred option - she can then give it up for adoption if she wants, however depending on the the views of the mother, carrying a child (against her will) that is the result of rape will probably have serious mental health implications - much more so than any mental health impact of carrying a child that was conceived through consensual sex.

I do not value the life of the foetus differently in both situations, as it is a human life and any decision to terminate it should not be taken lightly, but the woman is also a human life which is to be valued equally to the foetus (Her life is not more valuable than the foetus, they are both equally valuable - but forcing a woman to carry a child conceived through rape, could potentially result in attempted suicide, home attempts at abortion etc which are not benefical to either the woman or the foetus).

TBH - I am anti abortion but have never been clear how i stand on the more complex issues such as rape - I value the life of the foetus, and feel all possible attempts should be made to preserve that life, but it seems wrong to force someone to carry a child for 9 months, if the conception was completely against their will, but it also seems wrong to terminate the life of the foetus due to the actions of its father, the child is an innocent.

Fire_Fox

amus wrote: »

I think everybody places values on lives depending on their own relationships, for example I would place my cats life above other peoples cats lives, simply because I have a personal relationship with my cat (does that sound wrong :rotfl:?).

I accept what you're saying with regards to there being a spectrum with regards to 'valuation of importance', it is just my view that it becomes difficult and morally conflicting to say that abortion is wrong if its for certain reasons, but OK for others, if you hold the view that even in the early stages, it is a life to be valued.

Not wrong to me, I edited something about cats out of an earlier post because I thought it would be twisted! :rotfl:

You can value something greatly but value something else more, a necessary evil might be a good term in this context. Valuing life from conception is occasionally taken to extremes like the pregnant girl who died from leukaemia, after doctors fannied about deciding if she could have chemo. :mad: To me there is more logic in those who are pro-life but can recognise the potentially catastrophic effect of carrying the product of rape to term.

amus

lazer wrote: »

I do not value the life of the foetus differently in both situations, as it is a human life and any decision to terminate it should not be taken lightly, but the woman is also a human life which is to be valued equally to the foetus (Her life is not more valuable than the foetus, they are both equally valuable - but forcing a woman to carry a child conceived through rape, could potentially result in attempted suicide, home attempts at abortion etc which are not benefical to either the woman or the foetus).

.

Why is it that you see the life of an early foetus that cannot feel, think, see etc. more than a living, breathing fully formed human beeing with thoughts and emotions?

Is it because of your religious convictions i.e. is it your belief that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception?