March 5, 201214 yr When do you start being a person? At conception, or at birth? If the answer is 'at birth', abortion does not take life; it merely obliterates a collection of developing cells. Just a thought before giving my feelings about abortion. I support abortion in cases of rape, where the mother's life is at risk, or where the baby is going to be born defective (a lot of room for argument on this one). I am against abortion in such cases as... a couple having unprotected sex in the knowledge that, if conception occurs, an abortion can be arranged, and therefore they need take no responsibility. In view of the last statement, and because I'm (sometimes) fairly realistic, I support the use of all forms of contraceptive devices. Whether the Catholic Church (of which I'm a member) likes it or not, people are going to have sex far more often than they can afford the resulting babies; I think the Church is penalising its own people by refusing to accept contraception.
March 5, 201214 yr The church is living in the dark ages. Of course more babies means more potential Catholics. Consequently more tything... It all boils down to that in the end.
March 5, 201214 yr I'm for each person assessing their own individual circumstance, making their decision and having to live the rest of their life, with that decision. The cloudy bit for me is, when does the baby become more than just a bunch of cells? It's certainly before the day of birth, that's for sure. So the answer to your question IMO, is somewhere in-between. Albeit, we weren't planning a baby, my Mrs got pregnant 4 years ago and I was overjoyed. Under Doctors orders she had to change the type of pill she was on and so there was a slight window which my swimmers took great advantage of !!. The timing wasn't right (is it ever) and as I say it wasn't planned but the thought of an abortion never even entered my head. Best thing that has EVER happened to me.
March 5, 201214 yr My thought is life exists when there is a discernible heart beat. It would be hard to say it isn't a living being at that point.
March 5, 201214 yr Author No idea But religion should have no say whatsoever I think religion is going to have a say, whether you (or anyone else) likes it or not. One aspect of the question is, what is a human being? An immortal soul, or an improved version of a chimpanzee (greatly improved, but still....). Mr BJ, you're not the first person I've heard say an unplanned birth was "the best thing that ever happened to me"... and that's part of what makes this such a difficult question. My own gut feeling (which conflicts with what the Church tells me) is that the person (and by this I mean the immortal soul) begins the moment the baby draws its first breath. The idea that it begins on conception seems to me to be an easy way out of a problem.
March 5, 201214 yr This is a question probably best answered by the mother in each instance. Until the child is born, it is not wholly real to the father, or other people. But to the mother it is real from much earlier - many from the mpment of conception, others from about three months. And of course this accords much nearer to Church teaching than political thinking.
March 5, 201214 yr You start developing at conception, I also support termination if the mother is at risk and also, in 'reservation', the cases of rape, but not the case of any kind of abnormality in birth. Termination in cases of just having too many beers/pina coladas/gin&tonics is just a bridge too far, there is no reason for it, although the condom is only 95% effective, for those of you in your prime that is a sobering point. Although the 'Church', and I have been taught by the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy, (have to look hard for the Christian and Mercy part there) do not advocate the use of contraception, excepting health care, in latter years contraception is practised by the younger generation. It is just the natural order of things, you follow the rules to suit your personal views.
March 5, 201214 yr The church is living in the dark ages. Of course more babies means more potential Catholics. Consequently more tything... It all boils down to that in the end. Sorry my friend, it is not in the Dark Ages, it has evolved in many ways, whilst hanging on to its old values, I am afraid if it was down to the collection plate it would have diminished long ago.
March 5, 201214 yr My thought is life exists when there is a discernible heart beat. It would be hard to say it isn't a living being at that point. Interesting point, but if something is going to create that heart beat, isn't that the point of creation and therefore life.
March 5, 201214 yr No idea But religion should have no say whatsoever Why Rakers, why shouldn't it have a say? We are all influenced to a certain degree by things around us, some bad, some good. Religion can have a positive effect on a great number of people for all sorts of reasons, why shouldn't it have its say.
March 5, 201214 yr My own gut feeling (which conflicts with what the Church tells me) is that the person (and by this I mean the immortal soul) begins the moment the baby draws its first breath. The idea that it begins on conception seems to me to be an easy way out of a problem. Although I appreciate your view, I think you are finding a way out of the situation ( not problem) if conception evolves into breath then that person will ultimately evolve into the Immortal Soul, you cannot just draw a demarkation line, because it already exists.
March 5, 201214 yr My thinking is that the day a man can get pregnant and carry a baby to term is the day he can tell a woman what to do with her body. I am with Humphrey here (yes indeed, we do concur every once in a while). It is the woman's choice to do with her body what she will. And while I personally would most likely choose not to have an abortion I don't pretend that I am all wise and all knowing and capable of assessing another woman's life and telling her how to live it.
March 5, 201214 yr This is a question probably best answered by the mother in each instance. Until the child is born, it is not wholly real to the father, or other people. But to the mother it is real from much earlier - many from the mpment of conception, others from about three months. And of course this accords much nearer to Church teaching than political thinking. You know Humph, about the question I wholly agree and I admit if I was in a situation where it would have serious phychological effects, for any rason on the mother, I would defer and support the mothers decision, as long as she was in a position, to make that decision. But having suffered a miscarriage before 3 months, and the mother suffered much more than me, I do not subscribe to the 3 month rule.
March 6, 201214 yr No idea Me either, but I do not think that it is at conception and it is before birth - very confusing really.
March 6, 201214 yr Author My thinking is that the day a man can get pregnant and carry a baby to term is the day he can tell a woman what to do with her body. I am with Humphrey here (yes indeed, we do concur every once in a while). It is the woman's choice to do with her body what she will. And while I personally would most likely choose not to have an abortion I don't pretend that I am all wise and all knowing and capable of assessing another woman's life and telling her how to live it. I agree that it's the woman's decision in the last resort, but every pregnancy presupposes some sort of relationship, and unless this relationship has failed completely, the man should have some say. I suppose to be consistent, if I oppose the death penalty, as I do, I should also oppose abortion, which is also the taking of life. This is why I posed the original question, When does a person become a person? because, if this happens at the moment of birth, the foetus is not a person, and abortion would not be killing a person. But, as Mossfinn says, maybe I'm just finding a way out of the situation. My real concern is with the backstreet abortionists who butcher many women illegally... because legal abortion is not available to them. I'm afraid the Catholic Church bears some (not all) responsibility for these, especially in countries like the Philippines. A case, perhaps, of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
March 6, 201214 yr My thinking is that the day a man can get pregnant and carry a baby to term is the day he can tell a woman what to do with her body. I am with Humphrey here (yes indeed, we do concur every once in a while). It is the woman's choice to do with her body what she will. And while I personally would most likely choose not to have an abortion I don't pretend that I am all wise and all knowing and capable of assessing another woman's life and telling her how to live it. I agree that it's the woman's decision in the last resort, but every pregnancy presupposes some sort of relationship, and unless this relationship has failed completely, the man should have some say. I suppose to be consistent, if I oppose the death penalty, as I do, I should also oppose abortion, which is also the taking of life. This is why I posed the original question, When does a person become a person? because, if this happens at the moment of birth, the foetus is not a person, and abortion would not be killing a person. But, as Mossfinn says, maybe I'm just finding a way out of the situation. My real concern is with the backstreet abortionists who butcher many women illegally... because legal abortion is not available to them. I'm afraid the Catholic Church bears some (not all) responsibility for these, especially in countries like the Philippines. A case, perhaps, of the road to Hell being paved with good intentions. I've personally been part of a team which carries out abortions on many occasions across the UK. I have colleagues who will not be a party to this and I respect them for their religious beliefs. My reasoning is similar to yours isanbirder in that this procedure WILL be carried out and thus is best done by appropriately qualified people. What does surprise me is the number of women who have this carried out and don't subsequently sort out proper contraception. Also on the question of when a person has legal rights I believe that is 24 weeks in the UK currently. I would expect this to drop to 22 or even 20 weeks in the years to come. A sobering thought.
March 6, 201214 yr No idea But religion should have no say whatsoever Why Rakers, why shouldn't it have a say? We are all influenced to a certain degree by things around us, some bad, some good. Religion can have a positive effect on a great number of people for all sorts of reasons, why shouldn't it have its say. When it comes to such a difficult topic, it is important ALWAYS to have the best wishes of the mother and child in mind. Religion does not always do that. Religion will often look to 'the word of god' above the best wishes of mother and child. Even when a pregnancy could be potentially fatal to both mother and child, or in instances such as rape, many religious factions will simply not waiver and insist on outlawing all abortion. Period. Of course, not all branches of religion are as vehement as each other on the matter but where to draw the line? What religions get a say and what don't? Which religions should be given the louder voice? It's a murky area already. The thing is that just because an abortion may be legal, it doesn't make it mandatory. The religious can still approach abortion according to their beliefs. If they get to continue as they would do anyway, why should they get to dictate to others? Of course, that does not mean to say 'religious people' should not be allowed an opinion, but nowhere should 'the word of god' be entwined into the framework of abortion laws.
March 6, 201214 yr Author The last two posts are thought-provoking; thanks, both of you. Religion comes into this debate, inevitably, because Christians consider the soul more important than the body. This places them in direct opposition to atheists (to use the word as an umbrella term), who do not believe in the soul. I don't believe that my religious beliefs should control the law in respect of those who do not share them. What I would look for is abortion legislation which is, literally, "the best of both worlds". But I still think that a sexual act which leads to conception also engenders the responsibility of parenthood, and this cannot be discarded as if it were meaningless. This is a large part of the reason why I support all forms of contraception; young couples will have their fun, and why shouldn't they? But they must show a minimum, at least, of responsibility for their actions.
March 6, 201214 yr But I still think that a sexual act which leads to conception also engenders the responsibility of parenthood, and this cannot be discarded as if it were meaningless. This is a large part of the reason why I support all forms of contraception; young couples will have their fun, and why shouldn't they? But they must show a minimum, at least, of responsibility for their actions. I agree entirely Allowing people to become so 'willy nilly' with something that requires so much responsibility (other lives) would set a terrible precedent. If getting an abortion becomes easy, what would follow next?
March 6, 201214 yr A human being? Birth to the age of twelve Teenagers are not human beings After 19 (In all seriousness, however, I'd agree with the second trimester)
March 6, 201214 yr No idea But religion should have no say whatsoever Why Rakers, why shouldn't it have a say? We are all influenced to a certain degree by things around us, some bad, some good. Religion can have a positive effect on a great number of people for all sorts of reasons, why shouldn't it have its say. If not religion, then what? Hollywood and beer commercials? The Inland Revenue? It seems there are far more people opposed to religion than have ever given it much effort... SC
March 6, 201214 yr I believe we are the only forms of life that actually have sex for enjoyment as well as reproducing. I haven't got around to asking the Red Backed Great Box Frog yet though. If there is a God, why did he make it so? He must have intended us to have our cake and eat it.
March 6, 201214 yr Given that our planet is already overfilled and likely to be even more so in the future with dwindling resources nature will likely play its part in the issue. If governments don't somewhere along the line. Thankfully that will be well after we've all gone off to meet our maker or be eaten by maggots, whatever your choice may be.
March 7, 201214 yr No idea But religion should have no say whatsoever Why Rakers, why shouldn't it have a say? We are all influenced to a certain degree by things around us, some bad, some good. Religion can have a positive effect on a great number of people for all sorts of reasons, why shouldn't it have its say. If not religion, then what? Hollywood and beer commercials? The Inland Revenue? It seems there are far more people opposed to religion than have ever given it much effort... SC Ethics. That's what his question is about. I am sorry to hear that you think religion should influence such discussions. I myself believe it's a question of the state of development of the fetus. I am not an expert but see that some countries consider three months, others 24 weeks as the point when a bundle of cells become a person, to use the OPs words. They will have based their decision on doctors' advice.The truth is somewhere in that area, I believe. Certainly long before birth. This does not mean that I'd advocate an easy, no-questions-asked abortion before that point in time, for exactly the reasons that have been mentioned already.
March 7, 201214 yr Author I believe we are the only forms of life that actually have sex for enjoyment as well as reproducing. I haven't got around to asking the Red Backed Great Box Frog yet though. If there is a God, why did he make it so? He must have intended us to have our cake and eat it. If all other forms of life only have sex for reproduction (I'm not sure about the other higher apes), isn't that a pretty good indication that that is its purpose... and that the pleasure we get from sex is a bonus?
March 7, 201214 yr Author No idea But religion should have no say whatsoever Why Rakers, why shouldn't it have a say? We are all influenced to a certain degree by things around us, some bad, some good. Religion can have a positive effect on a great number of people for all sorts of reasons, why shouldn't it have its say. If not religion, then what? Hollywood and beer commercials? The Inland Revenue? It seems there are far more people opposed to religion than have ever given it much effort... SC Ethics. That's what his question is about. I am sorry to hear that you think religion should influence such discussions. I myself believe it's a question of the state of development of the fetus. I am not an expert but see that some countries consider three months, others 24 weeks as the point when a bundle of cells become a person, to use the OPs words. They will have based their decision on doctors' advice.The truth is somewhere in that area, I believe. Certainly long before birth. This does not mean that I'd advocate an easy, no-questions-asked abortion before that point in time, for exactly the reasons that have been mentioned already. The process of foetal development is no different, as far as I know, from that of any of the higher mammals. But somewhere, somehow, a sea-change takes place which makes us human... or do you think we are just an improved model of chimpanzee (albeit much improved!)? My feeling is that that change is either set into motion when the sperm fertilises the ovum, or when the baby is born. To suggest that it happens any time between these two events seems to call for some additional external intervention.
March 7, 201214 yr Ethics. That's what his question is about. I am sorry to hear that you think religion should influence such discussions. I myself believe it's a question of the state of development of the fetus. I am not an expert but see that some countries consider three months, others 24 weeks as the point when a bundle of cells become a person, to use the OPs words. They will have based their decision on doctors' advice.The truth is somewhere in that area, I believe. Certainly long before birth. This does not mean that I'd advocate an easy, no-questions-asked abortion before that point in time, for exactly the reasons that have been mentioned already. The process of foetal development is no different, as far as I know, from that of any of the higher mammals. But somewhere, somehow, a sea-change takes place which makes us human... or do you think we are just an improved model of chimpanzee (albeit much improved!)? My feeling is that that change is either set into motion when the sperm fertilises the ovum, or when the baby is born. To suggest that it happens any time between these two events seems to call for some additional external intervention. I'm not sure about your external intervention, but yes, that's what I'm saying. Or are you saying that abortion is OK if performed on apes but not on humans? If so, I would like to hear why. You may call a cell culture a living being, but I wouldn't call it a person. Am I ethically allowed to kill a cell culture? Would the answer make a difference between a cell culture in a petri dish and a cell culture inside a human body?
Create an account or sign in to comment