Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
... dismembered in the womb ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:

quote:

---

Slavery is unjust and immoral, but motherhood is not slavery.

---

You are obviously not a mother.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
I hope the unconquered one is capable of taking on the reality of which bodies are most likely to be torn about - very small foetus in the first few weeks if abortion is allowed, or fully conscious adult human being if carried to term.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
... Death does, of course, remain a risk in childbirth, but is not guaranteed.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
To the mother, yes - I am not questioning that. But take this to its logical extreme and noone would have children because it's too dangerous. Or everyone who could afford to would use a surrogate womb. Neither of those would be good things imo.

The risks to the baby in each procedure are entirely different of course...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
... I think most people are pro-abortion in certain circumstances and anti-abortion in others. What varies is where the boundary between those two positions lies.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

Varicose veins, haemorrhoids, weakening of the pelvic floor, incontinence (single or double), fistula, prolapse of the womb, tearing of the perineum (cutting and stitching of the perineum), diabetes, eclampsia (possibly resulting in death), presentation of the baby at birth in a way which cannot emerge without medical help, excessive blood loss, incomplete passing of the placenta...

---

....'morning' sickness including hyperemesis, prolapse of not just the womb but also bladder and/ or bowel (happened to a friend of ours - whole lot came out with baby on the 'final push' ), post-partum infection, post-natal depression...

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:

Varicose veins, haemorrhoids, weakening of the pelvic floor, incontinence (single or double), fistula, prolapse of the womb, tearing of the perineum (cutting and stitching of the perineum), diabetes, eclampsia (possibly resulting in death), presentation of the baby at birth in a way which cannot emerge without medical help, excessive blood loss, incomplete passing of the placenta...

---

....'morning' sickness including hyperemesis, prolapse of not just the womb but also bladder and/ or bowel (happened to a friend of ours - whole lot came out with baby on the 'final push' ), post-partum infection, post-natal depression...

---

I hope no one who is pregnant reads this thread. Makes me glad I am menopausal.

--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Slavery is unjust and immoral, but motherhood is not slavery.

And if the mother hates the idea so much, and still feels the same way once the child has been born, then that child could be put up for adoption.

Rather than dismembered in the womb and thrown away.

(...just sayin'.)

---

1. being forced to carry an unwanted foetus through pregnancy is a form of slavery - the mother is being forced into work that she does not want to do and has her body and life taken over by that foetus for at least a year, even if the baby is given up at birth;
2. a vanishingly small number of abortions require the dismemberment of a foetus in utero. The vast majority - over 90% in the UK - are carried out in the first semester when the aborted foetal sac is smaller than an inch across and does not require dismemberment. That particular bit of propaganda is just that - propaganda.

---

I agree with all you posted. In the case of rape the girl/woman did not even consent to the sexual act that impregnated her. I do not see how it is ethical to use another human being, against their will, as merely a means to an end.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Well, if we're being pithy and rhetorical: I do not see how it is ethical to end the offspring's life because of a crime of their father.

...knowwhatImean?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
There's no such thing as rhetoric in such situations.

A rapist is not a father. Any product of rape is secondary or tertiary to the fact of the extreme and terrible violation of the woman or girl so assaulted. Anyone who does not understand this mustn't be female, or not have acquaintance with anyone who's been raped.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
There's no such thing as rhetoric in such situations.

A rapist is not a father. Any product of rape is secondary or tertiary to the fact of the extreme and terrible violation of the woman or girl so assaulted. Anyone who does not understand this mustn't be female, or not have acquaintance with anyone who's been raped.

---

You do realise that your second paragraph here is almost entirely rhetoric, don't you? In particular, the first sentence of that paragraph can only be true in a rhetorical mode, because plainly a rapist who impregnates a woman is a father in the literal and biological sense. The ad hominem at the end is also classic rhetoric.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
You may be technically correct, but you are psychologically and socially wrong. Fatherhood is more than biology. I am unwilling to accede to the technical fact that a rapist who impregnates someone is a father.

---

Of course the word 'father' has psychological and social connotations which it is inappropriate to apply to a rapist! The point is that by engaging those psychological and social connotations you are doing the thing that you were denying - using rhetoric. Employing psychological and social associations to reinforce the persuasiveness of an argument is pretty much the sodding definition of rhetoric.

And you were doing it to dodge Invictus_88's serious point. IF (big IF) the unborn entity is a human being with full moral rights, then you could argue that killing it in the case of rape is justified because the woman who has been impregnated by force has absolutely no moral duty to allow her body to be used for the support of the resulting child and can have it removed even though its death is a certain consequence. You could argue that, but it's a difficult thing to argue, because while it is true that the mother has no moral responsibility for the appalling situation, neither does the child.

Since you are pro-life in all cases, though, not just in cases of rape, surely you have an easier answer to Invictus_88: you can dispute the personhood of the foetus, rather than quibble about its paternity.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
A father is someone whose relationship with the child is analogous to the relationship of God to any person.

You want to pursue that analogy? In the context you have applied it?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
A father is someone whose relationship with the child is analogous to the relationship of God to any person.

You want to pursue that analogy? In the context you have applied it?

---

Believe me, you don't want to pursue this definition either....

This is a struggle for a lot of us.

---

Thank-you! Double and triple thank-you.


--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posted                       

quote:

---

I do not see how it is ethical to end the offspring's life because of a crime of their father.

---

1. Personhood seems to be recognised at quickening in the Bible and in many church traditions. Quickening is at around 19 weeks of gestation. Other legal definitions do not give a foetus personhood until birth.
2. Exodus 21:12-14 and Exodus 21:22

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Invictus88, as I was quoted, I think you're using false equivalence here.

quote:

---

I do not see how it is ethical to end the offspring's life because of a crime of their father.

---

You are equating the potential offspring that could be born, should there be no spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or foetal difficulties, with a zygote or embryo which is not recognised as having personhood¹ in Biblical references to unborn babies².

The view you expressed gives women the status of "foetal incubators" which disregards many of the rights of women, so placing the value of that potential life above that of the woman - who does have full personhood under all definitions.

Those of us who accept abortion in some circumstances regard the personhood of women as more established than the potential life of a zygote. Personally, I believe any baby born should be given the best life chances and that would mean a mother who wanted that child and was prepared to nurture it, including in utero.

1. Personhood seems to be recognised at quickening in the Bible and in many church traditions. Quickening is at around 19 weeks of gestation. Other legal definitions do not give a foetus personhood until birth.
2. Exodus 21:12-14 and Exodus 21:22

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heart beat is detected.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Penny S:
... And, of course, a woman is a fully conscious human being.* ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...
No - a fertilised zygote or embryo is a potential life.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...
No - a fertilised zygote or embryo is a potential life.

---

So what's a full life, when is that glorious stage reached?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...
No - a fertilised zygote or embryo is a potential life.

---

So what's a full life, when is that glorious stage reached?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That's where the interesting debate is, both at the beginning and end of life. ... increased risk of health and learning difficulties, ... medical intervention.
source

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:
Theologically, God knows who we are (eg the whole naming theme in Scripture), so in a sense we only exist because God sees us, know us. But we're not divine so we can't know if that chatbot, human-animal hybrid or human on life support is a person know by God. I think common sense and generosity should be our rule of thumb. That little clump of cells, that decrepit dying thing were or could be human, we should treat them like that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:
Theologically, God knows who we are (eg the whole naming theme in Scripture), so in a sense we only exist because God sees us, know us. But we're not divine so we can't know if that chatbot, human-animal hybrid or human on life support is a person know by God. I think common sense and generosity should be our rule of thumb. That little clump of cells, that decrepit dying thing were or could be human, we should treat them like that.

---

What about tumors? Do they qualify as human? If you reject consciousness and dependence as criteria I'm not sure how your typical neoplasm (benign or malignant) doesn't qualify as a person. They've got human genetics and typically those genes are in some way different than those of their 'parent'. Needless to say (but I'm going to anyway) the implications for medical treatment here are pretty huge.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Lamb Chopped, much as I would like to go with your argument I can't, because I believe it's actually indistinguishable from two other arguments which I believe to be untenable.

I believe your argument can be re-expressed in Job's prayer "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord", but you won't allow the Lord to take away. If the beginning of life must be in God's hands, then so must the end, and the argument for medical intervention becomes untenable. Either that, or we have the right to act exclusively to prolong life, even when it becomes a burden, whereas in other medical situations we are acting to relieve another equally acute burden, such as pain.

I am acutely aware that this is an absolute minefield, full of horrible stinking swamps which can explode all over everything. But I believe Pandora's box to be open, and I'm not sure that the lid can be clamped on in the way that you are advocating. Not least because the mother's life, on which the foetus is initially dependant, must be considered independently of the foetus from the moment of conception unless you are to reduce the status of the mother to that of biological incubator, which is every bit as dehumanising as the arguments you rail against.

ETA: This is offered as an argument, not as a conclusion. There's an awful lot in it which feels intensely awkward, but I don't see how it is to be avoided unless we just close all hospitals and become Christian Scientists.

---

Posted                       

• the rights, health and personal situation of the mother;
• viability of the foetus - a foetus is not viable ex utero until 23-24 weeks gestation;
• the situation of family - some abortions are carried out because of the effect on the existing family;
• information about the foetus;
• current societal expectations of consequence free sex.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Any point of view that insists that there is a sacred life from conception or implantation is disregarding any rights of the potential mother and the way nature spontaneously aborts many zygotes (50%) and foetuses (10-20%, 80% in the first trimester). If God regards all these lives as sacred, why the high occurrence of miscarriages?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This is the problem with many of these arguments. We used to live in a society when we accepted Job 1:21: "the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away" and it was God's will that many died. Nowadays, advances in medicine mean that we don't accept many die and we regard all life as sacred to be preserved at all costs.

---

quote:

---

I am trying to work out how to express theologically, badly, that when medicine allows many to live who would have died in the past, those choices are made medically rather than leaving it to God's will. We are already making many of these choices.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What's more interesting to me is who gets to make the decision to kill in our society. Whether it's soldiers or politicians or police officers or criminals, it seems to be mostly men making those kinds of decisions for other people.

---