www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:In recap, if there isn't a life or death factor. Then there is no reason for abortion. Again, this is all IMO.

Agreed, but this goes both ways. If the foetus isn't sentient, then it isn't alive, and therefore doesn't count.

Captain Seafort wrote:Agreed, but this goes both ways. If the foetus isn't sentient, then it isn't alive, and therefore doesn't count.

Something being alive and something being sentient are two different things. So no, it does not go both ways.

What if carrying to term threatens the life of the mother? In that case, I'd say abortion is called for. My faith teaches that an actual life takes precedence over a potential one.

Mikey wrote:What if carrying to term threatens the life of the mother? In that case, I'd say abortion is called for. My faith teaches that an actual life takes precedence over a potential one.

That falls under the life or death ideal.

Mikey wrote:What if carrying to term threatens the life of the mother? In that case, I'd say abortion is called for. My faith teaches that an actual life takes precedence over a potential one.

But the baby is alive. Unless its a miscarriage. The baby is alive as sperm and egg. Life is independent of its development.

stitch626 wrote:

Mikey wrote:What if carrying to term threatens the life of the mother? In that case, I'd say abortion is called for. My faith teaches that an actual life takes precedence over a potential one.

But the baby is alive. Unless its a miscarriage. The baby is alive as sperm and egg. Life is independent of its development.

Technically, a tumor is alive.

I'm just saying.

But the tumor kills, that puts it in the "protecting life" range.

A tumor is alive only as much as my big toe; it is a part of an organism, not an orgaism of itself.

As is a fetus for the first two thirds of its existance inside the womb.

Sionnach Glic wrote:As is a fetus for the first two thirds of its existance inside the womb.

...and the circle is complete. Yes, the point I was trying to make is that my faith seems to attempt to erase the weird dividing line that cause people to say "it's sad" when children die but "it was his time" when old people die. A life is a life, irrespective of age; and in a case in which carrying to term threatens the life of the mother, halacha (Jewish rulings on practical life, rather than worship) demands that an actual, extant life be given preference to the unknown potential of a fetus.

IMO, that's out the window by the third timester; but often with the aid of vertical C-sections and incubatory devices, the choice doesn't need to be made at that point.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Well, since I'm pro-choice I must naturally argue that we need more fetuses for stem cells and face cream.

A fetus shows independent brain activity from as early as 20 weeks
The "Quickening" (I thought Highlander too!) when muscular and nervous system are complete being approx. 2 weeks before.

People in a Persistent vegetative coma are considered alive without brain activity,

The real issue,to my mind, is the life or potential thereof (all emotions and sentiment aside) worth the inconvenience and care until it can suitably take care of itself, and if not, should it be born?

I think with all the other options out there it shouldn't be necessary unless failing to do so would cause immediate death of the mother.

Sionnach Glic wrote:The difference between this child and a four month or so old fetus is that this child can think (to an extent) and feel pain. That does not hold true for a fetus, which does not even have a working brain.

The problem, Sunny, is that you're not acknowledging any middle ground here. What you're saying is that either you should be against both baby-killing and abortion or for both while not realising that there are perfectly valid reasons to accept one and not the other.

It isn't that I'm not acknowledging the existances of middle ground positions. I'm sure there are many, as this thread demonstrates. However the constant theme is putting a threshold somewhere dividing a lump of cells and a supremely precious life. From the first part of your post perhaps you'd put it when the child can feel pain, or wiggle it's big toe or somesuch. Does it just have to have the neurons in place, or does it actually have to wiggle a toe to be a life? Does there just have to be a pain receptor neuron in place that can fire to be considered life?

It isn't that I don't appreciate the arguments, or the desire, perhaps need, to balance morality with convenience by defining morality in such a way that it's convenient. But it always seems so silly to me once you define that final razor thin threshold between such great extremes, wherever you place it.

sunnyside wrote:razor thin threshold

Here's the problem. In your initial resposne in this trhead, you blurred the distinction between and infant and a fetus. Calling birth a "razor-thin threshold" is ludicrous. It's as momentous a demarcation as is possible. I can't imagine anyone considering it to be any less than the Great Wall of China of thresholds.

Mikey wrote:

sunnyside wrote:razor thin threshold

Here's the problem. In your initial resposne in this trhead, you blurred the distinction between and infant and a fetus. Calling birth a "razor-thin threshold" is ludicrous. It's as momentous a demarcation as is possible. I can't imagine anyone considering it to be any less than the Great Wall of China of thresholds.

So, if I understand you properly, if everything else is the same, such as time, location etc:

Situation #1 Doctor terminates child inside womb, then removes them = removal of unwanted extra cells

Situation #2 Doctor removes child from womb, then terminates child = horrible murder

This order of operations issue is the most stark for a near term child, which could be "born" any minute, but got whacked just before they managed to cross that magic threshold, perhaps even while they were starting on their path down the birth canal. But that's the situation to be considered if you take "birth" to be the threshold.

sunnyside wrote: if I understand you properly

Which, apparently, you do not - or are being hyperbolic in order to make a point and not answer the meat of the matter. If you had read through the thread, you would have seen me profess my abhorrence for late-term abortion. You are extrapolating things from one argument wand using them in another which is tangential. I mentioned this:

Mikey wrote:Here's the problem. In your initial resposne in this trhead, you blurred the distinction between and infant and a fetus. Calling birth a "razor-thin threshold" is ludicrous. It's as momentous a demarcation as is possible. I can't imagine anyone considering it to be any less than the Great Wall of China of thresholds.

in response to your claim that there is little difference between a fetus and an infant. It was never said, intended, or implied to be part of any argument on the morality or legality of abortion.

I have made my opinions on the morality and legality of abortion perfectly clear. To mistate my position in an overly-simplistic and melodramatic manner as you did just above is both obnoxious and insulting. However, if you must have a definition to assuage something inside of you, here is the one I profess to use - with ZERO implication involved regarding anything to do with reproductive rights:

from conception to birth, progeny may be considered either zygote, embryo, or fetus, depending on length/stage of development.
after birth, progeny may be considered... well, someone who's been born. Trying to obscure the issue by claiming that birth isn't a clear demarcation is N-V-T-S nuts.