Abortion a lesson ?

[Mr Walker]

Who is "we all"? Again, an unborn what?

Every human being only has the rights conferred on it by the society it lives in. "We all" are the peole responsible for creating and conferring and arbitating those rights; and again an unborn human being is an unborn human being, just as an unborn cat is an unborn cat. To use language otherwise is an attempt to alter the nature of what is.

[Mr Walker]

Yes, of course, genetically a child is half the man's and woman's. I never said that once conception takes place the man's responsibilities are over with!

You said,"The child may live for a century, and the father will always be the fathe rand forever shape the genetic nature of the child." Um, no. Once conception has taken place, any 'genetic shaping' is over with.

As far as me voting against the right of any woman to do with her body as she pleases, again 'no'. I don't believe I have that 'right', or 'responsibility'. In such a case as voting in a referendum regarding this issue, I would support any woman to have the 'right' to decide. That, is the only 'responsibilty' I have.

Then why are the man's rights over with?

You misunderstood my point. I was making the same point you are The man's genes remain forever locked into that child and will continue through it for every generation to follow The child is genetically shaped by the contribution of the mans genes at conception, for ever. This confers ultimately on a father the same responsibilities for, and duties to, the child as the mother has.

No. Like it or not, your duty has nothing to do with women.They have the abilty to argue for them selvesand generally do so very effectively. It goes to the unborn humans, who have no say, and are otherwise unrepresented. This is the same duty of care you have as a human being on other isues like euthenasia, the disabled, womens rights, slavery, child labour, etc. Just because you are not a woman, does not relieve you of either reponsibility, or rights, to debate and decide in/on any of these issues, including the rights of the unborn.

The rights of women, like all adult humans is a separate issue; and of course in many ways the rights of a living adult woman overide some of the rights of an unborn child, but not all, not unilateraly and not arbitrarily. A N ethical and rational balance has to be struck, in law and in social attitudes, between the rights of a mother, and the rights of an unborn child. It is not a one sided issue.

[Cybele]

Some peole like to cal them babies for emotive shock value others like to call them a fetus to reduce them to a thing, as if that somehow makes it ok to kill them.

This is an issue in which the use of language is critical but it is no more correct to call an unborn a fetus than a baby or an unborn human being if the reason in doing so is to alter the emotionall respsone of an audience. This is an issue which must be discussed and decided using logic not emotion.

According to wiki, fetus is merely a scientific term for an unborn vertebrate between the embryonic stage and birth. I don't think most use the term "fetus" as a way of making it more emotionally acceptable to condone abortion, but rather for the sake of precision. Many people would make significant ethical distinctions between aborting based on the trimester or developmental stage in terms of level of brain development, whether the unborn is yet capable of feeling pain, etc.

[Mr Walker]

According to wiki, fetus is merely a scientific term for an unborn vertebrate between the embryonic stage and birth. I don't think most use the term "fetus" as a way of making it more emotionally acceptable to condone abortion, but rather for the sake of precision. Many people would make significant ethical distinctions between aborting based on the trimester or developmental stage in terms of level of brain development, whether the unborn is yet capable of feeling pain, etc.

I KNOW that for many years some activists have used fetus to try and reduce the emotional imagery which is created by anti abortion activists, they have stated ths quite clealry

The argument about aborting based on pain is as fallacious as the basis for arguing its ok to kill a person who doesn't feel you killing them or know you have done so. The real division is about what IS a human being. Logically, i cant see any argument that an unborn human being is NOT a human being. Having established that, then we can allocate proportional rights to mothers and to their, as yet unborn, children. People who argue for unfettered abortion via a woman's right to do as she wishes with her own body, have to argue that an unborn human is not truly a human being, in order to specifically negate in the unborn, the rights we allocate to all human beings.

Think of a mother and unborn child as temporarily conjoined twins. We dont just kill one of those twins because the other wants more privacy, freedom, or opportunity. Or has the right to do as she wishes, with "her own body". We weigh the rights, medical conditions, viability etc., of both of the twins.

And they are joined for life.The mother and her child will be separated by nature within 9 months, greatly reducing the urgency to do anything at all.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Mr Walker

[regeneratia]

This statement might mean something to me if I believed in an afterlife. One doesn't need concepts of divinity or an afterlife to adhere to human moral conventions.

Oh really?!

[Mr Walker]

Oh really?!

No As a secular humanist /atheist i was taught how to create, and then personally developed, a philosophically based set of underlying values, on which i created value lines and positions on all ethical moral questions. This created a coherent and consistent set of ethical/morla priorities which i then applied ot everything in my life. It gave me logical /rational reasons for how to act. "Being religious" merely alters some of the underlying priorities, and hence values, attributed to certain outcomes; but often, because both systems are logical and rational, it alters nothing. It might change the reasons for our beliefs and actions, but not the beliefs and actions themselves. Eg the concept of not stealing from others is both humanist and religious/spiritual, and even the philosophical reasons for its prohibition, overlap in both systems. Edited October 27, 2012 by Mr Walker

[regeneratia]

No As a secular humanist /atheist i was taught how to create, and then personally developed, a philosophically based set of underlying values, on which i created value lines and positions on all ethical moral questions. This created a coherent and consistent set of ethical/morla priorities which i then applied ot everything in my life. It gave me logical /rational reasons for how to act. "Being religious" merely alters some of the underlying priorities, and hence values, attributed to certain outcomes; but often, because both systems are logical and rational, it alters nothing. It might change the reasons for our beliefs and actions, but not the beliefs and actions themselves. Eg the concept of not stealing from others is both humanist and religious/spiritual, and even the philosophical reasons for its prohibition, overlap in both systems.

I must state that I really can identify and respect how you have come to see this.

I think first we need to define just what divinity is, and what it is not. Then I think we need to assess just what we each think of how we were created and why. As for me, I am Gnostic. So when I read about electromagnetical forces and plasma and so on, I relate it to Gnostic texts and see just how they combine.

I am reading this book right now, a very complex (perhaps too much for this head of mine) and yet interesting book: http://joyfirepublishing.com/

As for abortion: life is about lessons and love. Sometimes you have to see that you must love yourself, and not allow yourself to be directed by bioligical meanderings that may occur along the way. I have learned this. Obviously the author of this thread has leanred it. And I want to state that rather than thinking that sex is bad, I want to establish that sex is a small substitute for what we can really access without having to have sex, that bliss that comes from a energy merging and exchange that is far beyond words.

Edited October 28, 2012 by regeneratia

[regeneratia]

I KNOW that for many years some activists have used fetus to try and reduce the emotional imagery which is created by anti abortion activists, they have stated ths quite clealry

The argument about aborting based on pain is as fallacious as the basis for arguing its ok to kill a person who doesn't feel you killing them or know you have done so. The real division is about what IS a human being. Logically, i cant see any argument that an unborn human being is NOT a human being. Having established that, then we can allocate proportional rights to mothers and to their, as yet unborn, children. People who argue for unfettered abortion via a woman's right to do as she wishes with her own body, have to argue that an unborn human is not truly a human being, in order to specifically negate in the unborn, the rights we allocate to all human beings.

Think of a mother and unborn child as temporarily conjoined twins. We dont just kill one of those twins because the other wants more privacy, freedom, or opportunity. Or has the right to do as she wishes, with "her own body". We weigh the rights, medical conditions, viability etc., of both of the twins.

And they are joined for life.The mother and her child will be separated by nature within 9 months, greatly reducing the urgency to do anything at all.

I do not believe that a zygote or a embryo is a human being, No medical professional could medical advise you that it is. The heart beats on reflex only, it is not functional for moving blood. The pain issue may well be a reflec as well. This cluster of cells is totally and absolutely dependent on the mother for it's growth and existance, like a parasite or a cancer.

Edited October 28, 2012 by regeneratia

[darkmoonlady]

This thread seems to have dwindled down to an argument on the concept of abortion as a physical act and what it's moral repercussions are (if any) however that isn't what the OP was asking. The OP was asking about it in a spiritual sense which is a completely different argument. For example one can be completely against war, think it's awful and no way moral however if someone asked if participation in war, dying in a war would be the result of a spiritual need or spiritual "punishment" or whatever that would be a different thing.

Conceptually abortion (if taken in the spiritual sense of reincarnation which is what the OP I think meant) it isn't an more or less a moral act as something for a soul to go through, for whatever reason. The OP posited the question as is abortion or can abortion be seen as SPIRITUAL punishment. Like if you were the reincarnation of Hitler would you be subjected to a decade of abortion to be "punished" being put into a body only to have it taken away? It's a conceptual argument not a physical one.

[Mr Walker]

I do not believe that a zygote or a embryo is a human being, No medical professional could medical advise you that it is. The heart beats on reflex only, it is not functional for moving blood. The pain issue may well be a reflec as well. This cluster of cells is totally and absolutely dependent on the mother for it's growth and existance, like a parasite or a cancer.

But unlike a parasite or a cancer it will naturally develop into an indepndent human being time and fortune alowing Tha tis its eveloved nature. No other humam has an unfettered right to stop such a process, logically or philosophically, or we could claim the same right to halt the progression of human development at any time until a natural death occured.

The complicating factor is the baby's physical attachment to its mother, its reliance on the mother's body for its temporary survival, and its potential impact on the rights health etc of that mother. Because the mother has certain human rights, the unborn baby has less, and rightly so, but still it is a human being, albeit an undeveloped one. It cannot, and will not, ever be anything other than a human being, time allowing. In the embryonic form it includes everything it will require as a fully functioning human being, although it requires nurturing, "food" and time, to achieve this.

I am not sure about medical professionals, but what, other than a human being, can an embryo be. An embryonic cat remains a cat. We tend to play games with words to support our self rationalisations. One needs to deny the humanity of an embryo to feel comfortable with killing it. Or at least it helps.