- preserving the life of the mother -

[LeSellers]

There are two moral issues in the aboration debate. (Yes, I can spell, but this is how at least one pro-abortion advocate spells it, and I thought it looked appropriate.)

First, the issue of aboration itself. Is it murder, justifiable homicide, convenience, or something else? I find myself seeing it as homicide of some degree, depending on the circumstance, running from full-fledged murder to self defense. I do not believe that rape or incest is a valid reason for abortating one's child. There is no legitimate rationale for imposing capital punishment on the most innocent of the victims, the child. The person who needs punishment is the aggressor, not the baby, whether he is the father or the mother.

Second, and in some respects more important (because, as thesometimessaint said, we who do not want aborations should not

[Nathair/|\]

Speaking for myself only, I would not insist that one person give up her life to save another, but were it possible for me to be in that position, the only way I could have an abortion is if otherwise both of us would die.

As far as the state is concerned, I believe that people have the right to do any moronic thing they want until they harm someone else.

Yours under the steadfast oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Uncle Dale]

...

The person who needs punishment is the aggressor

...

I generally agree with all that you said, but here is

a possible kink in that rationale:

1. A doctor removes/destroys sperm and egg from a woman,

before they unite, in some medical procedure --

a sin from the viewpoint of Roman Catholicism and some

other religious groups -- but not illegal.

2. A doctor removes/destroys the same sperm and egg,

one second after they unite -- a sin from the

viewpoint of most Christians -- but not always illegal.

3. A doctor destroys the same combination, 9

months after the initial conception, and after

a live delivery -- both a sin and a crime; and in

some jurisdictions the doctor would be executed as

a murderer.

If we accept the punishment in the third listed instance

as being proper under some legal/canon codes, then what

would be the right punishment for the same doctor in

instances #1 and #2?

Is there some consensus legal principle, upon which

act #2 must be punished more severely than act #1?

UD

.

[Brenda]

I generally agree with all that you said, but here is

a possible kink in that rationale:

1. A doctor removes/destroys sperm and egg from a woman,

before they unite, in some medical procedure --

a sin from the viewpoint of Roman Catholicism and some

other religious groups -- but not illegal.

2. A doctor removes/destroys the same sperm and egg,

one second after they unite -- a sin from the

viewpoint of most Christians -- but not always illegal.

3. A doctor destroys the same combination, 9

months after the initial conception, and after

a live delivery -- both a sin and a crime; and in

some jurisdictions the doctor would be executed as

a murderer.

If we accept the punishment in the third listed instance

as being proper under some legal/canon codes, then what

would be the right punishment for the same doctor in

instances #1 and #2?

Is there some consensus legal principle, upon which

act #2 must be punished more severely than act #1?

UD

.

Are #1 and #2 for birth control purposes only? If so, then no abortion unless for the exceptions we've all listed. If the medical procedure was happening for other purposes, and the abortion is an unwanted consequence, then it depends on the necessity of the procedure.

Abortion as birth control is inexcusable. But too many in society are clueless to the damage done by unmarried sex. THAT cannot be "fixed" by a medical procedure.

[Uncle Dale]

Are #1 and #2 for birth control purposes only?

...

I don't know -- I don't know how it could be proved

in a court of law that act #2 was murder of a fetus.

Because a sperm enters an egg, conception does not

automatically occur -- and, even if it does, the

fertilized egg may not attach properly, in order to

obtain sustenance and begin to mature.

How could a court of law determine that, one second

after a sperm united with an egg, a viable human being

exists? Perhaps days later such a determination could

be made by scientific methods. But not at the "moment

of conception," as some people seem to think.

Is it Guatemala or Nicaragua which has the "moment of

conception" law on the books? Even a normal miscarriage

is theoretically prosecutable as manslaughter there.

Makes no sense to me -- and such talk of a viable

fetus, prior to attachment to the uterine wall.

UD

[3DOP]

In other words -- in cases where both mother and fetus are likely

to die anyway, if no medical attention is given.

But, if there is a chance that the fetus can live outside of

the womb, and its doing so causes the mother's death, then

RCC doctrine requires the mother's death and fetus' life. Yes?

UD

The Catholic Church places no higher value on any one person than another. The Prince of Wales in the womb of a queen is as valuable as a child in the womb of a peasant. The life of the queen mother is as valuable as the life of a peasant mother. A person begotten by a rapist is as valuable as a person whose father is the loving husband of the mother. The mother's life is as valuable as the life in her womb. Equality of value is the principle. An eternal soul to be protected by just laws of the state is the principle. There is no distinction. The Church does not argue that since the baby cannot work, it is of less value than an adult. The Church has no authority to decide on any basis of evaluation that the life of a mother or the baby is more or less worthy of protection. The goal is always to save both. Under most circumstances, not aborting is the best way to have both lives saved. If anyone can prove that aborting is the best way to have the most lives saved, the Catholic Church will approve of such an abortion. Risk to the life of the mother is not sufficient reason to approve the certain death of the life of the child.

[Obiwan]

Obiwan:

Then you are deliberately going against Church counsel and stated policy.

No I'm not.... Health and trauma of the woman are the only "valid" reasons according to the Church. Of course, trauma could be interpreted as being "emotional" as well if there is indeed such a valid case that is diagnosed. These are the ONLY things we are allowed to "use our judgment with the Lord" on. Anything else is morally forbidden.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Risk to the life of the mother is not sufficient reason to approve the certain death of the life of the child.

I could understand that, if the risk was 40% -- or perhaps even 60%.

But what about those rare instances in which the probability of the

mother's death, if the fetus is not removed approaches 100%?

What does God want us to do in those highly unusual but heart-wrenching

medical situations?

UD

[handys003]

I agree totally.

But, I'm trying to picture a surgeon with a pregnant lady

on his operating table -- say, the victim of a car crash --

and the other doctors there are saying: "Remove the fetus,

or the lady is certain to die within minutes!!!"

And the surgeon is a supporter of the doctrine of no

abortions, under any circumstances.

What then? Try to remove the fetus in such a way that

it has a chance to survive -- to be a living baby?

And let the mother die? It just seems wrong to me.

What if the operation fails and both lady and fetus die?

UD

.

I don't think you will find one. The Hippocratic oath takes precedence. Also I'm sure the Supreme Court would not allow such law to be legal. It is illegal to murder and killing the mother to save a baby is in conflict of asking someone to commit a felony is a felony in itself.

[Uncle Dale]

...

killing the mother to save a baby

...

I doubt that the Nevada lady thought this one completely through,

or she would have voiced some sort of exception in her remarks.

The chances of her opinions becoming the law of the land are zero,

so probably nobody's going to jail any time soon.

Still, I'd like to hear how she would recommend punishing mothers

and doctors, if her opinions could somehow be made law.

Isn't there some Arab country (Saudi Arabia?) where the penalty

for an abortion is execution of the surviving mother?

UD

[3DOP]

I could understand that, if the risk was 40% -- or perhaps even 60%.

But what about those rare instances in which the probability of the

mother's death, if the fetus is not removed approaches 100%?

What does God want us to do in those highly unusual but heart-wrenching

medical situations?

UD

Two people are alive. You have your choice between "one is going to live and another might die" vs. "one is going to live and another is going to die". The Church teaches that we must choose "might die" instead of "going to die". The Church denies the morality of killing one to save risk to the other. If it were 100% certain that both could not live, and that one was going to die, the Church would not choose to kill the mother to save the child, or kill the child to save the mother. The choice is always to not kill regardless of which would be the survivor. The Catholic Church is equally solicitous for the life of mothers as of all persons. There is a phenomenon called ectopic preganancy where a medical procedure is permitted by the Church which saves the life of the mother while the child is indirectly lost.

[Brenda]

I don't know -- I don't know how it could be proved

in a court of law that act #2 was murder of a fetus.

Because a sperm enters an egg, conception does not

automatically occur -- and, even if it does, the

fertilized egg may not attach properly, in order to

obtain sustenance and begin to mature.

How could a court of law determine that, one second

after a sperm united with an egg, a viable human being

exists? Perhaps days later such a determination could

be made by scientific methods. But not at the "moment

of conception," as some people seem to think.

Is it Guatemala or Nicaragua which has the "moment of

conception" law on the books? Even a normal miscarriage

is theoretically prosecutable as manslaughter there.

Makes no sense to me -- and such talk of a viable

fetus, prior to attachment to the uterine wall.

UD

As society degenerates and morality dissolves, as ours is doing, then our freedoms are taken bit by bit by the increasing laws which must define every detail. It's hard to imagine that generations existed before abortion was legalized. A moral society does not need to define exactly when a fetus is viable. A righteous people govern themselves and protect the innocent. A righteous people doesn't need these kinds of minute legal definitions.

The whole subject is depressing. I look forward to the Millennium.

[Tarski]

I, Romney and Reagan used to agree with you, but we were wrong, and you are wrong.

It's actually one of the mandates of the Constitution for the "state/government" to protect the innocent.

You can't get more innocent than unborn children.

A fetus is not an innocent person unless it is first definitely a person.

The notion of a person is not identical with the notion of a body (a missing cerebellum would call personhood into question for example).

I am confident that a 3 week old fetus is not a person at all. Now you can disagree but since this is a point of contention in the debate I don't think you get to just assume it when it comes to public policy.

[Uncle Dale]

...

A righteous people doesn't need these kinds of minute legal definitions.

...

Perhaps not. But laws and the criminal justice system are instituted

for a mixed society, which contains actual criminals and criminal acts.

It may seem to us idiotic that a person 17 years, 364 days and 23 hours

old would be prosecuted according to different standards than an

18 year old, in some court systems.

But in an un-righteous society, we structure the laws as best we can,

so that the whole system does not collapse into anarchy.

I'm afraid that the only way to solve the "abortion issue" in a

mixed society is by incrementalism -- slowly establishing just laws

for the third trimester and then moving on to doing the same for

the second trimester, etc. A slow improvement over time.

Again, that may sound idiotic, but there are not many other viable

options in most modern countries.

UD

.

[Brenda]

A fetus is not an innocent person unless it is first definitely a person.

The notion of a person is not identical with the notion of a body (a missing cerebellum would call personhood into question for example).

I am confident that a 3 week old fetus is not a person at all. Now you can disagree but since this is a point of contention in the debate I don't think you get to just assume it when it comes to public policy.

So who has that right? Having carried four fetuses to term, to me, they were people from the moment I learned of their existence.

[Uncle Dale]

So who has that right?

...

Whomever a society entrusts that particular responsibility to.

Different cultures and different nations will come up with different

solutions -- some of which are patently unjust. That's the world.

My best solution is that fetus viability depends upon a successful

attachment to the uterine wall and successful cell division, past

just one or two initial divisions.

Eggs which cannot meet that standard are almost always naturally

passed out of the mother's body anyway -- as not viable. Since

God has presumably provided that bodily mechanism for determining

whether a fertilized egg will produce a living fetus, I suppose

we can at least learn more of the details involved in first

trimester miscarriages -- and particularly those that occur in

the first hours after ostensible conception.

Such an unattached fertilized egg, naturally passing out of the

mother's body -- before any signs of pregnancy are at all noticeable,

I would conclude was NOT a human being, destined for eternal life.

Either that, or God has provided a diabolical natural method by

which the body rejects souls.

UD

[frankenstein]

here is the LDS Church stance on the exceptional circumstance for justified abortion - though not automatic.

Gospel Principles manual - Chapter 39

Breaking the Law of Chastity Is Extremely Serious

...

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion:

pregnancy is the result of incest or rape,

when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy,

or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

The justifiable reasons go beyond the health of the woman.

as for "who" a person is, I think that has to do with viability on its own out of the womb. Hence laws concerning abortion after a set period of gestation are even more strict.

[Tarski]

So who has that right?

what right? The right to unilaterally decide for society what constitutes as person and what is mere molecular machinery?

Fortunately, no one person gets to decide such things.

Having carried four fetuses to term, to me, they were people from the moment I learned of their existence.

An understandable and expected attitude to have toward ones pregnancy. On the other hand, it isn't really one that you seem to have come to as a matter of rational thought.

If you had somehow found out that you were pregnant when the fetus had only a few dozen undifferentiated cells would you still have thought of it as a person? Does it matter that this entity would have no brain and therefore no thoughts or feelings. Would it matter that it had no organs, no heart, no skin, no legs, no bones, no organs at all?

If such a tiny collection of undifferentiated cells with less intelligence and far far fewer concerns and desires than a housefly were on one side of a room and my living daughter on the other side and both were threatened with death in such a way that you could only save one of them, would it be a hard decision which to save?

It would be a no-brainer for me.

[Uncle Dale]

...

as for "who" a person is, I think that has to do with viability on its own out of the womb.

...

I understand that concept. There is a certain amount of logic behind it.

And yet, we see premature babies which could not possibly survive an hour

outside of a hospital incubator live and grow into full fledged human beings.

In some cases, even infants too immature for birth are delivered

by C-section or other irregular means, and are unable to even breathe

on their own --- and yet, with intensive care, some grow to normal maturity.

It is this phenomenon which tells me that "viability on its own out of the womb,"

is an insufficient measure of what constitutes a person.

My thoughts are that the "viability" discernment must be pushed back to

some watershed event in maturation inside the womb -- probably to the

first weeks of pregnancy. But how legislators, lawyers and judges ever

determine that standard, is beyond my ability to say.

UD

[Nathair/|\]

frankenstein, on 29 June 2010 - 10:53 PM, said:

...

as for "who" a person is, I think that has to do with viability on its own out of the womb.

...

I understand that concept. There is a certain amount of logic behind it.

And yet, we see premature babies which could not possibly survive an hour

outside of a hospital incubator live and grow into full fledged human beings.

In some cases, even infants too immature for birth are delivered

by C-section or other irregular means, and are unable to even breathe

on their own --- and yet, with intensive care, some grow to normal maturity.

It is this phenomenon which tells me that "viability on its own out of the womb,"

is an insufficient measure of what constitutes a person.

My thoughts are that the "viability" discernment must be pushed back to

some watershed event in maturation inside the womb -- probably to the

first weeks of pregnancy. But how legislators, lawyers and judges ever

determine that standard, is beyond my ability to say.

UD

When does the spirit first enter the body?

Yours under the resolving oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Tarski]

When does the spirit first enter the body?

How about "it doesn't" for a simple answer.

[Nathair/|\]

How about "it doesn't" for a simple answer.

Are you proposing that the body forms around the spirit?

[Uncle Dale]

When does the spirit first enter the body?

...

Perhaps that is the wrong question. Perhaps the better

question is, how can we be most helpful, no matter the

answer to such questions.

What can we do to provide an opportunity for life and

growth, for every human being, whether we know the

exact answer or not?

Let's say that we put a human egg and some sperm into

a test-tube in a "fertility laboratory" and observe that

egg, and eventually notice that it has divided in two,

indicating a successful conception. If, at that very

moment, we happen to drop the test-tube and it shatters

on the floor, have we caused a "spirit" to depart from

a "body" in that lab accident?

I think not -- but if a living prophet has a revelation

from God, to communicate to us on the matter, I'd listen.

UD

[Tarski]

Are you proposing that the body forms around the spirit?

I am proposing that the notion of "spirit" be jettisoned.

What really happens is that eventually the nervous activity of a human body (or brain specifically) is actively and meaningfully "situated" in a social environment and can use language and has command of concepts of self and other. The description of what's going on can get more and more refined and include more and more details. It can also become more and more sensitive to philosophical issues, moral issues and practical issues. But at no point does one need to introduce the word spirit. It never had any real explanitory power in the first place. It is just a ancient word that sort of provided a pseudo-explanation for the difference between the inanimate and the animate.

[Nathair/|\]

I am proposing that the notion of "spirit" be jettisoned.

What really happens is that eventually the nervous activity of a human body (or brain specifically) is actively and meaningfully "situated" in a social environment and can use language and has command of concepts of self and other. The description of what's going on can get more and more refined and include more and more details. It can also become more and more sensitive to philosophical issues, moral issues and practical issues. But at no point does one need to introduce the word spirit. It never had any real explanitory power in the first place. It is just a ancient word that sort of provided a pseudo-explanation for the difference between the inanimate and the animate.

What would you call a non-corporeal entity if not a spirit?

Yours under the naming oaks,

Nathair /|\