Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[AmorLibertas]

I don't believe, moreover, that attempting to take away the personal responsibility of women and girls for the consequences of their volitional acts is the way you deal with the problem of "unwanted pregnancies." Let me reiterate: The LDS Church makes, in its policies on the subject, exception for those situations where pregnancy is truly unwanted. If pregnancy occurs as a result of any other series of events, however, then the pregnancy is not truly "unwanted," but is, rather, simply "inconvenient."

I disagree with the terms you are using, not the intention behind them. Rather than using the term "unwanted", I believe a better (more accurate) term might be pregnancies resulting from non-consensual sex.

You choose the consequences of your voluntary acts.

Not really. But an informed individual is generally aware of the potential consequences of their voluntary actions.

If those consequences include the possibility of conception of another genetically distinct human organism, then one must make allowances for that created life form's right not to be predated.

The question in my mind, however, is when one must make such allowances. I maintain that an zygote, and embryo, and a 1st trimester fetus are significantly different than a 2nd or third trimester fetus or one that has been born. Furthermore, I find your sense of morality rather questionable. If you regard zygotes, embryos and first trimester fetuses as being indistinguishable from later term fetuses or children, then you are justifying their murder solely on the basis of the involuntary action which resulted in their conception. Why not justify infanticide on the same basis?

The position of the LDS Church on abortion indeed implies that there is a difference, but the LDS Church also appears to want to hold individuals responsible (punish?) for their consensual sexual activities which result in unwanted pregnancies.

And "society," whatever that is, has no moral duty one way or the other to intervene in the voluntary acts of its constituent parts and their possible, probable, or likely consequences.

Amen. So I gather on this rationale that you're opposed to the Church involving itself in legislating against the voluntary acts of society's individuals such as gambling, responsible consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, regulated prostitution (to ensure the participants are voluntary), early term abortion, and same sex marriage?

[Pahoran]

No. My position is that during the early stages of physiological development, the zygote, embryo, and fetus are no more or less human than the placenta or a dermoid tumor. The determining factor for whether or not a growing human life-form should be regarded as having inalienable rights protected under the Constitution is when that human life-form reaches a point of physiological development that it becomes capable of sentiency or cognition.

So that should be the determing factor, should it? Nothing else should count?

And how do you arrive at that?

And why then? Why not when it's able to vote or pay taxes?

You rather glibly suggested that anything else is equivalent to a "dermoid tumor." Isn't that also true of a comatose adult, who is likewise not experiencing "sentiency or cognition"?

If you're not going to accept that the existence of the conceptus as a distinct living human carries any moral weight, then don't you think you're pretty much out of criteria for creating hard-and-fast rules?

Regards,

Pahoran

[AmorLibertas]

So that should be the determing factor, should it? Nothing else should count?

Can you think of anything else which should be a determining factor in whether or not constitutional protections should be afforded to a living human being?

And how do you arrive at that?

A non-sentient mass of tissues can hardly benefit from constitutional protections for its continued life; a sentient mass of tissues can. What happens to a sentient mass of tissues matters to it, even if it matters to no one else, thus making it an individual. A non sentient mass of tissues is incapable of caring what happens to it because it is incapable of even formulating a thought, feeling, or emotion.

And why then? Why not when it's able to vote or pay taxes?

Because even though children have not reached the age of developmental maturity to vote or pay taxes, they are nevertheless capable and almost without exception do care to go on living/existing; even if they do not fully grasp what that means.

You rather glibly suggested that anything else is equivalent to a "dermoid tumor." Isn't that also true of a comatose adult, who is likewise not experiencing "sentiency or cognition"?

Not entirely. A comatose adult is different from an adult who is clinically brain-dead. One who is clinically brain-dead, where the brain is in a state of complete non-function or degenerative decay, or one whose brain is significantly damaged or missing is not capable of sentience or cognition. A person who is merely comatose has a brain that is capable of sentience or cognition that simply isn't currently functioning but might begin doing so again at any moment. As they have at one time been sentient and cognizant, it may be reasonably surmised that they may wish to be again (lacking medical directives to the contrary); and such wishes should be respected every bit as much as the wishes of you or I to go on living after we have retired to sleep each night.

If you're not going to accept that the existence of the conceptus as a distinct living human carries any moral weight, then don't you think you're pretty much out of criteria for creating hard-and-fast rules?

No, I don't; and you're going to have to come up with a better argument than simply disagreeing with you as to what does or doesn't carry moral weight to cause me to disregard what I believe to be a sufficiently "hard-and-fast" rule for governing when a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy for any reason other than self-preservation.

Namaste

Libertas

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I disagree strongly. Why is it that the man (The father)is always left out of this?

The father should never be left out...especially if married. If you are going to kill a man’s child he should know about it. If the father is not notified in a LDS household it should result excommunication and immediate grounds for divorce.

"Children are the heritage of the Lord." Isaiah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In your mind when does the undifferentiated lump become a human?

Which one of these deserves the right to life and which one doesn't? I think that is the main question in the whole debate.

When the soul enters the body, at first movement. It still should be a decision between man and wife.

[USU78]

A non-sentient mass of tissues can hardly benefit from constitutional protections for its continued life; a sentient mass of tissues can.

I guess they were just foolin' with us when they wrote, voted on, and adopted "life, liberty and property" in the Constitution's preamble.

Organisms are obviously not interested in their own continued existence.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

[saemo]

No. My position is that during the early stages of physiological development, the zygote, embryo, and fetus are no more or less human than the placenta or a dermoid tumor. The determining factor for whether or not a growing human life-form should be regarded as having inalienable rights protected under the Constitution is when that human life-form reaches a point of physiological development that it becomes capable of sentiency or cognition.

A normal, healthy, newborn feels pain and pleasure. It responds to human touch, taste, smell, light and darkness. It even responds with a sense of familiarity to certain sounds and smells.

So you value a dermoid tumor as being equally valuable as a toddler?

What differentiates a tumor from a zygote? I think it is obvious that one is a human life, in development, and the other is not. If you're going to reduce everyone to a cellular level, we're all nothing but clumps of cells, no different from a tumor.

We continue to grow and develop. You are proposing that there is an arbitrary point where it is OK to terminate that development. I'm proposing that a human life has value, regardless if it is functioning at a level that you deem as worthy of being called human. The life growing is a human life. To say it is not, or that it is not different than a clump of malignant cells, is to deny reality.

[thesometimesaint]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

Where does it say anything about life, or property?

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

I've not seen any tumor that looks anything like even the simplest of animals.

[mfbukowski]

But don't seek to impose your values upon me or anyone else by coercion or force of law. It's not nice, and it's not Christian either... as Jesus said, "Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you." Live and let live; it's the libertarian way.

Can't we all just get along?

Let's all get together and sing Kumbaya!

The reality is there are certain principles of civilized behavior which society has evolved to protect, and if anyone needs protection, it is the unborn.

No species can continue by murdering its children. This is precisely the place where one man's right to swing his arm ends at the tip of my nose.

Libertarian or not- that line has to be drawn.

[Jeff K.]

Preamble is a rather vague introduction which speaks to the purpose of the Constitution, it is not by its nature specific. General welfare could be interpreted as property rights since it was something that has remained with our nation and the culture that wrote the Constitution going back to the Magna Carta.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I think the Preamble is deliberately vague. To be malleable to the needs of the People. It is doubtful the founders saw any need for laws governing airplane travel, and it took a civil war to define Blacks as people and not property.

[blueadept]

Can't we all just get along?

Let's all get together and sing Kumbaya!

The reality is there are certain principles of civilized behavior which society has evolved to protect, and if anyone needs protection, it is the unborn.

No species can continue by murdering its children. This is precisely the place where one man's right to swing his arm ends at the tip of my nose.

There's a 'Survivor' T-Shirt that's fairly awesome IMO that summarizes your comment rather well MFB. http://www.catholicposters.com/shop/product.php?prodId=742&cat=

It has the word Survivor '73 on the front and this is what it says on the back. "Since 1973 1/3 of my generation has been slaughtered by abortion at the rate of 4000 babies per day. My friends...My classmates...My generation compromised by the selfishness of others. As a survivor I will not let future generations be slaughtered in the name of convenience. I will not be silent. I will not forget. I will not compromise."

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I think the Preamble is deliberately vague. To be malleable to the needs of the People. It is doubtful the founders saw any need for laws governing airplane travel, and it took a civil war to define Blacks as people and not property.

The Magna Carta while a great document. The Magna Carta did not apply for ordinary peasants, it only applied for freeman like barons, merchants and knights

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

I think the Preamble is deliberately vague. To be malleable to the needs of the People. It is doubtful the founders saw any need for laws governing airplane travel, and it took a civil war to define Blacks as people and not property.

To a certain extent I agree, but the preamble spoke only of intent, however the Articles were in fact the limits of the federal government which defined the intent more clearly.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

True enough. I believe the true genius of the document is in the ability to be modified to our laws to meet our current situation. All while staying within the basis ground rules of it.

[mfbukowski]

Not necessarily innocent. The fetus is biologically speaking a parasite. Although we do tend to put a high value on our parasites.

Baloney.

If they are "parasites" they should all be exterminated.

When you use language sloppily, you can have disastrous results. Good thing your mom didn't regard you as a "parasite".

To a well-known German dictator at the start of WWII who shall remain nameless due to board rules, Jews were "parasites" too.

[mfbukowski]

There's a 'Survivor' T-Shirt that's fairly awesome IMO that summarizes your comment rather well MFB. http://www.catholicposters.com/shop/product.php?prodId=742&cat=

It has the word Survivor '73 on the front and this is what it says on the back. "Since 1973 1/3 of my generation has been slaughtered by abortion at the rate of 4000 babies per day. My friends...My classmates...My generation compromised by the selfishness of others. As a survivor I will not let future generations be slaughtered in the name of convenience. I will not be silent. I will not forget. I will not compromise."

How many Nobel Laureates does that include?

[blueadept]

How many Nobel Laureates does that include?

One-third less...

after 1973.

[AmorLibertas]

I guess they were just foolin' with us when they wrote, voted on, and adopted "life, liberty and property" in the Constitution's preamble.

When you are going to cite one of the Documents upon whichever the laws of this nation are based, you'd do well to actually read it and not misquote it, much less refer to a completely different document. Secondly, you'd do well to actually make a cogent argument when doing so.

Organisms are obviously not interested in their own continued existence.

Please take the trouble to read and understand the argument before attempting to comment on it. The argument I am making is sentience and cognition as a defining characteristic of human life with inalienable rights.

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

I'm happy to be here, and so was my mom. She not only gave birth to me. She put up with me living with her for my first 19 years(no small feat).

Sorry if biology offends you, but it doesn't me. There is no intrinsic biological value for the mother, her baby takes everything it can from her, and her baby is totally dependent on her for its existence.

[thesometimesaint]

dup

[thesometimesaint]

dup

[AmorLibertas]

What differentiates a tumor from a zygote? I think it is obvious that one is a human life, in development, and the other is not. If you're going to reduce everyone to a cellular level, we're all nothing but clumps of cells, no different from a tumor.

That is not correct, as I pointed out, the difference is that one mass of cells and tissue is eventually capable of sentience and cognition, whereas the other is not. Before that time, however, neither are capable of sentience or cognition and neither should be afforded constitutional protections to their continued existence or development. It is our sentience and ability to think which is the critically significant difference between organisms that should be afforded constitutional protections and tumors and the like which should not.

We continue to grow and develop. You are proposing that there is an arbitrary point where it is OK to terminate that development. I'm proposing that a human life has value, regardless if it is functioning at a level that you deem as worthy of being called human. The life growing is a human life. To say it is not, or that it is not different than a clump of malignant cells, is to deny reality.

Value is entirely subjective, dependent upon one valuing something. That you might value the zygote, embryo, or fetus growing in yourself or another person does not bestow upon it the qualities which I maintain are the critical distinguishing features between an organism that should be afforded the constitutional protections and a cluster of living cells or tissues that should not.

[AmorLibertas]

The reality is there are certain principles of civilized behavior which society has evolved to protect, and if anyone needs protection, it is the unborn.

No species can continue by murdering its children. This is precisely the place where one man's right to swing his arm ends at the tip of my nose.

Libertarian or not- that line has to be drawn.

On that we do not disagree. We only disagree on where the line should be drawn and why. I believe the line should be drawn at the first trimester and no sooner. Others appear to want to draw the line at conception.