Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

All things philosophical, related to belief and / or religions of any and all sorts.
Personal philosophy welcomed.
rubato
Posts: 14245
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by rubato »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Oh rubato - those pesky facts - not to mention history and math.
...and as late as the 26th week of pregnancy for women who are in their first pregnancy or might be a little overweight.
http://www.babiesonline.com/articles/pr ... kening.asp
The word "quick" originally meant "alive". Historically, quickening has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of "individual life" by the fetus. British legal scholar William Blackstone explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century, relative to feticide and abortion:

Life… begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.

Nevertheless, quickening was only one of several standards that were used historically to determine when the right to life attaches to a fetus. According to the "ancient law" mentioned by Blackstone, another standard was formation of the fetus, which occurs weeks before quickening. Henry de Bracton explained the ancient law, about five hundred years before Blackstone:

If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide. The rule that a fetus was considered alive upon formation dates back at least another millennium before Bracton.
Wikipedia "quickening"

The Bible of course says in Exod 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follow" i.e. the child and mother survive the experience, the offender pays a fine. If however, either dies, its eye for an eye time. In other words, the Bible considers the potential child of equal human value as the woman. OTOH the Bible nowhere explicity forbids abortion as far as I am aware.

I don't know what the "Christian" church believed and regard that as a matter of minor interest. Nor am I convinced that what any church believes at a given moment of historical time is of necessity synonymous with God's word - far less His contentment. The issue of slavery immediately leaps to mind.

FWIW neither of my two posts mentioned God or the Bible and both suggested that the legislative action(s) were probably not justified.

Meade

Yawn, your own posts confirm my statement. A fetus is not a 'person' at conception but at a much later date. There is general agreement that 'quickening' occurs at the end of the 2nd trimester but a few people move the date slightly further back, 20 rather than 24 weeks. No one places it in the 1st trimester.



And your own god kills one out of six fetuses by stillbirth or spontaneous abortion even in planned pregnancies with all of modern medical science trying to keep it going.





yrs,
rubato

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

SisterMaryFellatio wrote: You thought not? Are you a Psychic? You seem to know me and my experiences very well.
I made an assumption (as you did about my experience) and it may well be wrong (as yours definitely was). I should not have fallen into the same error. I am sorry for that.

Have you been through the trauma of abortion? It is horrible is it not?

Yours
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

rubato wrote: Yawn, your own posts confirm my statement. A fetus is not a 'person' at conception but at a much later date. There is general agreement that 'quickening' occurs at the end of the 2nd trimester but a few people move the date slightly further back, 20 rather than 24 weeks. No one places it in the 1st trimester. And your own god kills one out of six fetuses by stillbirth or spontaneous abortion even in planned pregnancies with all of modern medical science trying to keep it going. yrs, rubato
How on earth does
These first movements are often referred to as quickening. In actuality, your baby begins wiggling and moving by the 8th or 9th week of pregnancy.


turn into confirming that a fetus isn't a person? I wasn't aware you were in charge of defining personhood - thanks for the clarification.

How does when a woman "feels" the movement of her child translate into a reliable definition of "personhood" or more importantly "life" - especialy since the first such feelings are more likely to be self-interpreted as indigestion? Do you mean if two women "feel" their baby moving at 15 weeks and at 24 weeks respectively, the second fetus wasn't actually a person until week 24 but the first one was at week 15?

The old fiat that a fetus is not a person until the 3rd trimester is based not upon "feelings" but upon the viability of the child outside the womb (successfully remaining alive whether by nature alone or by mechnical intervention - viability is ever-expanding into the 2nd trimester of course). The very argument acknowledges that the child is alive in the womb before "viability outside the womb". In other words, the child needs the natural environment of the woman's womb to stay (not become) alive. Of course, when we rip it out and chop it up it's not "alive" or "viable" or even a "person" because we have made it so.

Dress it up how you will, abortion is the killing of a living being which has as much right to its life as I have to mine. Some may define that as less than zero!

I have not in any of these messages claimed that abortion should be illegal. I have expressed doubt that governmental actions described in the OP and afterwards are correct. I would prefer people to be honest and not hide behind words such as "abortion" in order to pretend that what they are doing (and what I did do) is not the killing of a human life

Careful with the yawning - there's a good sister who can show you how to fill it
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Scooter »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:I made an assumption (as you did about my experience) and it may well be wrong (as yours definitely was).
Her "assumption" was no assumption at all; it was a statement of biological fact. You could not and never will have to face the decision of whether to have an abortion because you aren't built to get pregnant (unless, of course, there is something about you which you have thus far declined to disclose to the rest of us).
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Yes scooter. The good sister said "Until you have walked a mile in someone else's shoes and had to have made that decision".

I have had to walk a mile in my own. My wife and I hadto decide upon the fate of our unborn son, the only child we would have together, when amniocentesis identified a Trisomy defect (I don't remember the number). It was ironic because my wife worked in the Genetic Center and her friends and colleagues had to be the ones to tell us. You take 50% as a rough guide - 50% won't come to term; then 50% will be born dead; then 50% will die in a few minutes after birth; then 50% will not live to be a year old; and so on until you reach 100% death by age 7.

We decided upon the abortion and I was with my wife through the whole thing. It was the saline/"birth" method. And indeed I held that baby on a scrap of blanket on the palm of my hand and I wept. We both did.

The abortion seemed obviously the "right" thing to do. Our (UCC) pastor even told us it was the right thing to do. Our friends all said it was the right thing to do.

Simply put, it wasn't.

I have written about this before but it was a long time ago and I'm not surprised if you missed it. Think I escape the charge of "could not and never will have to face the decision of whether to have an abortion"?

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Scooter »

Did you advise in someone's else's decision to have an abortion, and provide support to see her through it? Sure.

Did you, or could you ever, make the decision to have an abortion? No, because you can't be pregnant. Finis.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Scooter wrote:Did you advise in someone's else's decision to have an abortion, and provide support to see her through it? Sure. Did you, or could you ever, make the decision to have an abortion? No, because you can't be pregnant. Finis.
I also advised my daughter not to have an abortion when she became pregnant and I "saw her through it". That is, she did not have an abortion and my granddaughter is now 18 years old, a wonderful young woman about whom no boast would be sufficient. I had told her that I would not pay for an abortion, I would not take her to have an abortion and I would not cease in any way to love and support her if she did have an abortion.

But I think I misunderstood your first line? You refer to my wife as "someone else"? Thanks for clarifying how my life experiences went. Again, making assumptions is dangerous. Had I said "no abortion" my wife would have abided by that decision; she said so at the time. There are decisions that a husband and a wife agree should be 100% for a change in circumstance to occur. If you feel the need to insult my wife, go ahead.

If you have any experience in this area yourself, I would be pleased to discuss it if you wished to do so.

Finish and klaar
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Scooter »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:You refer to my wife as "someone else"?
Um, yes. You are not your wife, your wife is not you, therefore your wife is "someone else" i.e. someone other than you. Is there something difficult to grasp about this concept?
Thanks for clarifying how my life experiences went. Again, making assumptions is dangerous.
Once again, it is no assumption to point out a biological reality, i.e. that you and your wife are two separate and distinct persons. Unless, of course, you are siamese twins, which would be the only circumstance under which my "assumption" might be called into question.
If you feel the need to insult my wife, go ahead.
I will defend the right of your wife to make HER decision (which only she could make, because only she could be pregnant) based on whatever criteria and process she would choose to employ, just as I would for any other woman.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Scooter wrote:
MajGenl.Meade wrote:You refer to my wife as "someone else"?
Um, yes. You are not your wife, your wife is not you, therefore your wife is "someone else" i.e. someone other than you. Is there something difficult to grasp about this concept?
Thanks for clarifying how my life experiences went. Again, making assumptions is dangerous.
Once again, it is no assumption to point out a biological reality, i.e. that you and your wife are two separate and distinct persons. Unless, of course, you are siamese twins, which would be the only circumstance under which my "assumption" might be called into question.
If you feel the need to insult my wife, go ahead.
I will defend the right of your wife to make HER decision (which only she could make, because only she could be pregnant) based on whatever criteria and process she would choose to employ, just as I would for any other woman.
Yes, I misunderstood at first that you were asking "Did you ever advise someone else" (other than your wife)? Which is why I mentioned my daughter. Then I realised "someone else" probably did mean my wife in the first place and so responded to that as well. Good observation. My marriage is a kind of "siamese twin" if you like - WE2R1 and so forth.

Your statement was "Did you, or could you ever, make the decision to have an abortion? No". And I have (as anyone else here can plainly see) told you that yes I could make that decision; I have made that decision and I have regretted making it. Nothing you can say changes the fact.

Obviously I could not physically have an abortion. You are quite right on that score.

Thank you for defending my wife's right to allow me to make the decision. In this case she acted biblically and I did not - but then I wasn't a Christian at the time. I know this event was what brought me to realise how sinful I truly am.

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Scooter »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:Obviously I could not physically have an abortion.
Then you could not, and can never, make the decision to have one. If the decision to have an abortion were yours, then you could use force to hold a woman's legs in the stirrups while a doctor did his/her job, if the woman were opposed to it. Since you couldn't force your will on a woman in that situation, neither could you force her to refrain from having an abortion if she should so choose. Making the decision hers, and hers alone.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Scooter wrote:
MajGenl.Meade wrote:Obviously I could not physically have an abortion.
Then you could not, and can never, make the decision to have one. If the decision to have an abortion were yours, then you could use force to hold a woman's legs in the stirrups while a doctor did his/her job, if the woman were opposed to it. Since you couldn't force your will on a woman in that situation, neither could you force her to refrain from having an abortion if she should so choose. Making the decision hers, and hers alone.
I shall not continue to argue the point. Your observations are not at all related to the context of the good sister's comment.

Of course, I do understand full well your intention to switch from the issue of my personal experience of abortion (and factually making that decision) to some brilliant and argumentatively devastating generalization about how a person without a uterus should not be permitted to speak on anything involving a person who has one. You have the advantage of me there.

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Scooter »

Sister Mary's observation was that you have not had to face the decision to have an abortion. Since you cannot have an abortion, you cannot, and will not ever, be faced with the decision to have one.

What is so incredibly incomprehensible about that? I am not a tree, therefore I cannot decide to sprout foliage. I am neither a bird nor an airplane, and so cannot decide to fly. You are incapable of becoming pregnant, and so cannot decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

This isn't exactly rocket science...

And that has nothing to do with whether you may express your opinion on any matter regarding those who possess a uterus. What you cannot do is decide what someone else may choose to do with their own uterus, whether you happen to have one or not. And since you don't have one, you won't ever face that decision yourself.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Scooter wrote:Sister Mary's observation was that you have not had to face the decision to have an abortion. Since you cannot have an abortion, you cannot, and will not ever, be faced with the decision to have one.

What is so incredibly incomprehensible about that? I am not a tree, therefore I cannot decide to sprout foliage. I am neither a bird nor an airplane, and so cannot decide to fly. You are incapable of becoming pregnant, and so cannot decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

This isn't exactly rocket science...

And that has nothing to do with whether you may express your opinion on any matter regarding those who possess a uterus. What you cannot do is decide what someone else may choose to do with their own uterus, whether you happen to have one or not. And since you don't have one, you won't ever face that decision yourself.
Quod erat demonstrandumb
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Scooter »

Wow, that ignore button sure is a great feature :D
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by dgs49 »

A little more detail for those who care:

Utah is steps away from banning insurance coverage of elective abortion and joining five other states with similarly restrictive laws.

HB354 was first pitched by Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, as a safeguard against public money being used to fund abortion. Under the original version, health plans sold on government-run retail marketplaces known as exchanges would have not been permitted to cover elective abortions.

But an expanded, House-approved version of the bill would apply to all private insurance plans, prohibiting abortion coverage except in cases of rape and incest, where the woman’s life or health are at risk or the fetus has a lethal defect.

Providers say the bill likely won’t reduce Utah’s already low abortion rate.

"Most women, about 98 percent, pay with cash or credit for services," said Miriam Staker, director of Utah Women’s Clinic in Salt Lake City. The price for a surgical procedure at 10 weeks gestation is $425 and $400 for the abortion pill.

"Women would rather pay out-of-pocket than talk to their insurance company," said Staker. Some are afraid their employer might learn of the procedure. Others haven’t yet met their deductible and a good many are simply unaware that their policy may cover abortion, she said.

Still, pro-choice and women’s rights groups oppose the bill, saying it’s discriminatory and reduces women’s health care choices.

"We’re always worried about policies that take benefits away from women," said Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C. Women in Utah already earn less than their working male counterparts and are more vulnerable to losing their health insurance.


(a) What difference does it make if they lose their health insurance, IF IT'S NOT COVERED ANYWAY? Just wondering.

(b) It's discriminatory? What? Discriminates against women who are pregnant? Hardly. Presumably maternity benefits are covered. Indeed, it would be MUCH MUCH cheaper for the insurance company to pay for - actually encourage! - abortions, rather than pay for gyno & pediatric care.

(c) Unconstitutional? Have any of you read the Utah constitution? Is there a Federal right to have a private insurance company pay for your abortion? Guess I'd better brush up.


I really think it's time for the pro-choice crowd to send money to the NOW to create a National Abortion Trust Fund, to pay for the abortion of any woman who wants one but can't afford it.

Big RR
Posts: 14639
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Big RR »

(c) Unconstitutional? Have any of you read the Utah constitution? Is there a Federal right to have a private insurance company pay for your abortion? Guess I'd better brush up.
That's not the real question,is it. the question is does a state,which generally does not have the right to restrict access to abortion (under the US Constitution and the USSC decisions relating to abortion), have the right to tell a private insurer it may not pay for such a procedure? I would maintain it does not.

User avatar
loCAtek
Posts: 8421
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: My San Ho'metown

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by loCAtek »

I can see MajGenl.Meade's point, when so many couples today announce, "WE'RE pregnant!". I would say that's because the man is taking great joy in his wife bearing HIS child. It is not just her child, therefore it's very common to say 'we' as if they both had a baby in the womb.
As is also common, after the family is established both the parents will say 'WE have children", not: 'My wife has children, and I'm the father"

Obviously, the good Genr'l so loves his wife, that perhaps they did announce 'We're pregnant' and with the tragic news of the baby's medical condition, when on to say, 'We're having to abort the baby'.
Do not discount the strength of the paternal bond, to say he can not grieve for the loss of his child, like a woman can.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8931
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by Sue U »

MajGenl.Meade wrote:The abortion seemed obviously the "right" thing to do. Our (UCC) pastor even told us it was the right thing to do. Our friends all said it was the right thing to do.

Simply put, it wasn't.
Why?
GAH!

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Thanks Loca. I don't know. My only point really (I thought) was that a woman (?) was saying that I had no idea what it was like to go through the abortion process and make that decision. (Anyone can read what was actually said rather than Scooter's lies). But I have and I did. Scooter makes the obvious point that I personally could not physically go through with an abortion because I cannot be pregnant. I agreed. But his desire to personally attack me (long rooted) renders him unable to understand that a man can say yes or no to an abortion and that his decision really might decide. I suspect (but cannot be sure) that he has not experienced this. If he had, he may perhaps have been more charitable. I note that the good Sister remains silent also - perhaps she did and perhaps she didn't go through the same experience. Perhaps her sock puppet speaks for her. All I see from them both is hatred. Which is a pity

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 21178
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Sue U wrote:
MajGenl.Meade wrote:The abortion seemed obviously the "right" thing to do. Our (UCC) pastor even told us it was the right thing to do. Our friends all said it was the right thing to do.

Simply put, it wasn't.
Why?

Because I killed my child

Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Post Reply