Just Abortion theory

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If it’s wrong to hurt people because of skin color or gender, why is it okay to hurt them because they are smaller, less developed, or in a different location?

Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now.


OP - that is the whole point do this thread. Most people don’t think war is right or good but Just War theory articulates when it is justified and therefore moral

Similarly Just Abortion theory would hold that Abortion is not inherently right or good but that it is important to support abortion rights because there are many circumstances when abortion is justified and the lesser of evils. Some criteria to meet the threshold for justified are clear cut (when bringing pregnancies to term puts mothers’ life at risk, pregnancies born of rape or incest and severe congenital abnormalities if the fetus. Other criteria are more subtle but I believe should be factored in: ability of mother to care for her existing children if she continues with pregnancy, and access to decent medical care during and after pregnancy.

The issue of when personhood (or from religious perspective ensoulment) occurs is contested. I personally don’t believe that embryos and early fetuses are “people” until sentient consciousness or the soul emerges sometime during the second trimester when the brain and other organs are formed (lungs develop later). I don’t think that embryos while containing physical life hold spiritual life/ consciousness until after the organs are formed and their little bodies can host a soul that is required for conscious awareness of self and environment around it. However, I am open to medical and scientific evidence to justify different beliefs in this regard.

There are degrees of both good and bad. We have been gifted with brains and discernment to utilize for pursuing optimal goods for both ourselves as individuals and for our society/ communities. To me, Bring Pro life means supporting optimal outcomes for sentient human life.


What are you basing your belief that an unborn baby doesn’t have a soul until the second trimester on?


OP again

Defining sentient life as conscious self awareness and awareness of self in relation to environment … or what people of religious faith may refer to as ensoulment/ Embodied soul.

Both Muslim and Jewish scholars contend that ensoulment or when the human soul becomes embodied in a fetus happens in the second trimester. Earlier Christian theologians contend it happened around then also.

From a Western science/ Medical perspective I think sentient consciousness would require the brain and most organs to be formed before the embodied soil could physically be aware of itself and experience reality. The baby does not breathe on its own until outside the womb so the lack of fully formed lungs probably does not impact capacity for consciousness in the womb.

As stated, I am open to new sound science and evidence around when fetuses develop self aware consciousness and what people Of religious faith might refer to as ensoulment.

I have to go out now but can discuss more later if desired.

Happy Palm Sunday all.


What science do Jewish and Muslim scholars base their beliefs on?


The science that the mother id already living and her life is what matters and that life begins at first breath. Because until very recently babies were not sustained until they were born vaginally and near full term.


what does that have to do with the various theories about ensoulment? The unborn baby is alive too. The baby is alive inside the womb. Life begins at conception.

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:



"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:



"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

Life doesn’t begin when a baby takes their first breath outside the womb. You are spreading false information that are not based on science when you state that.


TLDR but if you believe that you best start outlawing IVF and the accompanying destruction of embryos. Oh, not a priority? Huh, weird.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.


Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.


Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.


Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.


Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.


Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.


No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.


Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.


Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.


No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.


If I am plugged into some woman, she has the right to pull that plug.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If it’s wrong to hurt people because of skin color or gender, why is it okay to hurt them because they are smaller, less developed, or in a different location?

Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now.


OP - that is the whole point do this thread. Most people don’t think war is right or good but Just War theory articulates when it is justified and therefore moral

Similarly Just Abortion theory would hold that Abortion is not inherently right or good but that it is important to support abortion rights because there are many circumstances when abortion is justified and the lesser of evils. Some criteria to meet the threshold for justified are clear cut (when bringing pregnancies to term puts mothers’ life at risk, pregnancies born of rape or incest and severe congenital abnormalities if the fetus. Other criteria are more subtle but I believe should be factored in: ability of mother to care for her existing children if she continues with pregnancy, and access to decent medical care during and after pregnancy.

The issue of when personhood (or from religious perspective ensoulment) occurs is contested. I personally don’t believe that embryos and early fetuses are “people” until sentient consciousness or the soul emerges sometime during the second trimester when the brain and other organs are formed (lungs develop later). I don’t think that embryos while containing physical life hold spiritual life/ consciousness until after the organs are formed and their little bodies can host a soul that is required for conscious awareness of self and environment around it. However, I am open to medical and scientific evidence to justify different beliefs in this regard.

There are degrees of both good and bad. We have been gifted with brains and discernment to utilize for pursuing optimal goods for both ourselves as individuals and for our society/ communities. To me, Bring Pro life means supporting optimal outcomes for sentient human life.


What are you basing your belief that an unborn baby doesn’t have a soul until the second trimester on?


OP again

Defining sentient life as conscious self awareness and awareness of self in relation to environment … or what people of religious faith may refer to as ensoulment/ Embodied soul.

Both Muslim and Jewish scholars contend that ensoulment or when the human soul becomes embodied in a fetus happens in the second trimester. Earlier Christian theologians contend it happened around then also.

From a Western science/ Medical perspective I think sentient consciousness would require the brain and most organs to be formed before the embodied soil could physically be aware of itself and experience reality. The baby does not breathe on its own until outside the womb so the lack of fully formed lungs probably does not impact capacity for consciousness in the womb.

As stated, I am open to new sound science and evidence around when fetuses develop self aware consciousness and what people Of religious faith might refer to as ensoulment.

I have to go out now but can discuss more later if desired.

Happy Palm Sunday all.


What science do Jewish and Muslim scholars base their beliefs on?


The science that the mother id already living and her life is what matters and that life begins at first breath. Because until very recently babies were not sustained until they were born vaginally and near full term.


what does that have to do with the various theories about ensoulment? The unborn baby is alive too. The baby is alive inside the womb. Life begins at conception.

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:



"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:



"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]


"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

Life doesn’t begin when a baby takes their first breath outside the womb. You are spreading false information that are not based on science when you state that.


TLDR but if you believe that you best start outlawing IVF and the accompanying destruction of embryos. Oh, not a priority? Huh, weird.


Trust me, that's coming. Soon.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.


Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.


Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.


No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.


That is not remotely what we are talking about.

To make your analogy work, I would have to become so ill that I need daily tranfusions of something from you -- and only you. Every day or I die. Let's say every day for 9 months or I die.

Do you feel you should have no choice about that? That your life should have to become all about ensuring that I continue to live, just because you are the only human who can support my continued existence?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.


Those are your beliefs, not mine.


OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.


Those are your beliefs, not mine.


OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.



I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.


Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.


Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.


No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.


If I am plugged into some woman, she has the right to pull that plug.


So if I can take that embryo out of you and raise it without your body, you would be ok with banning abortion? I didn't think so.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:To me, abortion is no different than an appendectomy, tonsil removal, root canal, amputation or masectomy.


OP again - that is simplistic in the other direction. Unnecessary Body parts do not embody consciousness while at some point during the pregnancy, human consciousness/ soul emerges.

I don’t know any people of faith who regard abortion in such callous detached terms but as the lesser of likely harms.

While I agree that decisions to have abortions should be largely medically based, it is not always so. Some justified abortions involve viable fetuses born of rape or incest. Other viable fetuses may not endanger life of mother or child during birth but involve congenital abnormalities that are 90% likely to result in death of baby within hours of birth. There are other non medical factors at play.



Bolded is not scientific in any way.


OP again

If the human soul is defined as human consciousness then there is a lot of multidisciplinary scientific research being done into this non-material aspect of personhood.

It is one of the reasons materialist philosophers have trouble reducing reality to physical processes. The conundrum of human consciousness (what religious people refer to as the soul) cannot be adequately explained by physical functions alone.

The whole physical/ metaphysical dichotomy is a product of the Enlightenment period when Renee Descartes (ironically) sought to prove the existence of God. That cannot be done either Except in ontological ways of lived experiences. Reality is complex.

While we are far away from understanding human consciousness from a scientific perspective, I do believe that people of faith have a duty to at least try to seek Justice for women who need abortions for medical or moral purposes for which there is broad stream agreement.





Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The entire framework is already there.

For a government, the ability to put one individual's rights over another's requires both to have legal rights, which is why the idea of when human life beings is vital to this issue (and that fact that human cells are alive doesn't make it a living human being -- many combinations of human cells doe not develop into a person). It is what makes this issue different for all other religious-based legal controversies. Roe tried to avoid the religious ensoulment issue and use the best available scientific evidence to answer this, and decided that when the fetus could live on its own outside the womb it attains rights that the government can protect. Many disagree with this as either to restrictive or not restrictive enough. Beyond that, the government cannot know any more than theologians, who concede that they don't know, but they have religious based beliefs about the issue.

"Anti-abortion at any point" is based in theology on the concession that one cannot know when the soul enters the body and life begins, and that some religions decide that the morally safer -- not morally correct, but morally safer - choice is to assume (not know) that is happens at conception. That is the Catholic teaching. This can inform one's personal choice. Theologians also acknowledge that different religions believe the soul enters the body at different times (e.g. upon the first breath of life), and so their moral choice is different. Others do not believe in a soul at all, so there is no moral aspect to the decision. None of these positions can be proved objectively right or wrong, and all studied theologies acknowledge that we do not know, but we can form beliefs.

And to the "cells are alive so ensoulment doesn't matter" poster, yes, it does matter legally whether the cells are a separate human being from the host mother, otherwise any removal of human cells would be murder, as all cells are alive, but not all cells are human beings with separate legal rights. The concession about unknowable ensoulment is why this pivot is seen as necessary to the pro-life movement - they they can't prove ensoulment so they must argue it doesn't matter -- even though the whole premise of the theology of abortion is based on ensoulment.

As an American, one must accept that when different religions have different beliefs on a point, the government cannot adopt one religion's belief system over all others, nor can it force an individual to personally act against her religion (except when two peoples' rights come into conflict -- hence the soul question). So they can't force abortions on people, but they also cannot choose which religion has the correct moral view on when life begins and adopt a particular religion's moral belief and ban all abortions, thus denying the rights of others to hold and act on contrary religious and moral beliefs.

As for when it is justified after the point of viability, we already have jurisprudence that balances the rights of individuals against each other: self-defense, good-samaritan, suicide, etc. The most basic one is that a government cannot force a person to be a hero, specifically, to take an action that would result in personal harm even if by taking that heroic risk the person would save another (aka Bystander Laws or Good Samaritan Laws). Why would this not apply to the personal harm of pregnancy and childbirth? Similarly but opposite, our laws acknowledge that a killing is justified to save oneself from death or serious bodily harm (not that some states are saying just death when it domes to pregnancy and this is creating seriously tragic results); or when in an unenviable position of having to choose between two lives, you have not committed murder in making that terrible choice. Consider this: if suicide is unlawful, why can a mother decide to give birth knowing it will cause her own death? Why should the reverse decision be unlawful then?

Anyway, there is more, but I propose that the framework for you request, OP, already exists.


Your argument rests on a flaw: that we should consider "soul" when discussion whether life is worth protecting. Scientifically, human life absolutely begins at conception. I don't see how anyone can argue against this with a straight face. Go look at any biology book, or go look at all those sources another poster listed. For a multicultural/multi-religious society like ours where some people don't believe in souls and others do, we shouldn't consider souls at all. Let's just stay at the biological level. Human life beings at conception. Now, I think a natural conclusion from that is all human life deserve protection. The burden is on you, the folks who want to give license to freely kill off a portion of human population, to justify yourself. Whatever appeal you make to poverty, burden to parents, stress, medical conditions, etc, just remember that those characteristics may just as easily apply to you one day.


Correct, which is why I got an abortion. I have zero regrets about it.


No, I mean you might be poor or a burden on society or have some accident and no longer have full mental capacity. And someone will argue for your extermination out of a bogus "just killing theory." Maybe you are ok with that, but let's all be clear that is what we are talking about.


If I am plugged into some woman, she has the right to pull that plug.


So if I can take that embryo out of you and raise it without your body, you would be ok with banning abortion? I didn't think so.


Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. As of now, abortion needs to remain safe and legal.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.


Those are your beliefs, not mine.


OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.



I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.


The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.


Those are your beliefs, not mine.


OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.



I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.


The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.


An unborn baby isn’t a criminal. An unborn baby isn’t attacking mom. An unborn baby is in a location, mom’s uterus, because of mom’s actions.

Many states allow their citizens to use deadly force against an intruder/attacker that forcibly and unlawfully enters their home or vehicle, and they believe their lives are in imminent danger. Some states require their citizens to retreat: In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

You are not making any sense whatsoever with your post. It’s amazing how far some people will go to make themselves feel justified in killing an unborn baby.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP, just war theory rests on a basic fundamental assumption: that someone else was the aggressor and you are defending yourself. Herein lies the difference and why your just war analogy will never fly within Catholic circles. Killing of life in utero is not allowed because that life is wholly innocent. It is NEVER justified to INTENTIONALLY take innocent lives under Catholic doctrine. Innocent people might be killed in a just war, but that can never be the intent. With abortion, the intent is to kill the innocent life. In cases where mother's life is in danger, Catholic doctrine does allow for life saving measures aimed to save the life of the mother that have the consequence of killing the unborn child. But again, distinction is in the intent.


Those are your beliefs, not mine.


OP again

That was not me. However, I also do not share those beliefs.

I never claimed they are exactly equivalent but I doubt that you have read Saint Augustine’s argument for Just War theory that was later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

For me the fundamental assumption in Just War theory is that war is not a collective good to be pursued and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However, there are circumstances when war is justified such as self defense. There are criteria that need to be followed to ensure that wars are just such as protection of innocent civilian life.

Just Abortion theory (which is just a proposed theory by me and not anywhere close to accepted theory) would probably hold that abortion is not inherently good or right and that Christians should avoid it when possible. However there are many circumstances when abortion is justified either medically and/ or morally.

There is a great deal of harm being done to many women and children in the name of simplistic extremist moralism that assumes life begins at conception . It is further incredibly irresponsible to ban contraception while outlawing abortion rights.



I don't know who you are responding to, but abortion, in the vast majority of cases, is not analogous to self defense. And in the minority of cases where health of mother is at risk, no mainstream religion is arguing that the mother must die. You are trying to justify a conclusion you've already reached (that outlawing abortion is wrong), instead of using reasoning to see where it takes you.


The defense of the mother’s mental health—which is at issue in many abortions—is absolutely a form of self-defense.


An unborn baby isn’t a criminal. An unborn baby isn’t attacking mom. An unborn baby is in a location, mom’s uterus, because of mom’s actions.

Many states allow their citizens to use deadly force against an intruder/attacker that forcibly and unlawfully enters their home or vehicle, and they believe their lives are in imminent danger. Some states require their citizens to retreat: In jurisdictions that implement a duty to retreat, even a person who is unlawfully attacked (or who is defending someone who is unlawfully attacked) may not use deadly force if it is possible to instead avoid the danger with complete safety by retreating.

You are not making any sense whatsoever with your post. It’s amazing how far some people will go to make themselves feel justified in killing an unborn baby.


There you go.

It's about punishing a woman for having sex.

Forum Index » Religion
Go to: