Uk abortions - because of cleft palate?

alex73

http://www.zenit.org/article-33037?l=english

Words fail

Baggio1

well nothing surprising there just another indication of the absolute contempt for life and the evil it really is, all will face God in the end to answer for it.... simple as

gimmebroadband

It's disgusting!

Indian women in the UK aborting girls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7123753.stm

alex73

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's disgusting!

Indian women in the UK aborting girls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/7123753.stm

But it's her body.. We are told to keep our rosaries off women's overies... New found "rights"... Who cares about a mass of cells that just happen to look like a baby. It's all subjective, a baby is only a baby if the mother believes it is...

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

But it's her body.. We are told to keep our rosaries off women's overies... New found "rights"... Who cares about a mass of cells that just happen to look like a baby. It's all subjective, a baby is only a baby if the mother believes it is...

You can use this article as a stick to beat those who advocate the abuse of the 'disability' ground in the UK legislation. But dont use it to bash those who advocate a far more nuanced position, and who do not support the manner in which the 'disability' ground is currently being abused. I would wager that the majority, or at least a substantial minority, of pro-choice advocates are in the latter ground.

philologos

drkpower: would you support legislation to restrict the grounds on which one could abort then? For example, that it would be unacceptable to abort because you don't like the gender of your child?

drkpower

philologos wrote: »

drkpower: would you support legislation to restrict the grounds on which one could abort then? For example, that it would be unacceptable to abort because you don't like the gender of your child?

Before a certain point (I would suggest 8-10 weeks, and I have given my rationale on a million threads), i advocate choice for any reason or none. After that, I dont believe you should be allowed to abort except in certain specific cases. Gender would certainly not be one of those grounds.

PS - have you commenced or completed your research on the murderous effect of oral contraceptives?

Morbert

As someone who is pro-abortion, I would object to having these statistics covered up. I would agree with drkpower's all or nothing policy, with a relatively short window of 10-12 weeks.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

As someone who is pro-abortion, I would object to having these statistics covered up. I would agree with drkpower's all or nothing policy, with a relatively short window of 10-12 weeks.

What it is about the transition out of 10-12 weeks that draws such a go/no-go line for you?

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

What it is about the transition out of 10-12 weeks that draws such a go/no-go line for you?

I believe the mind emerges from the thalamocortical complex. This doesn't manifest until after 20 weeks, but there is no hard line where we can say "ok, here is when the mind immediately emerges." 10-12 weeks is more than safe, as before 10 weeks there isn't even a neural structure, nevermind a thalamocortical complex.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

I believe the mind emerges from the thalamocortical complex. This doesn't manifest until after 20 weeks, but there is no hard line where we can say "ok, here is when the mind immediately emerges." 10-12 weeks is more than safe, as before 10 weeks there isn't even a neural structure, nevermind a thalamocortical complex.

Thanks.

Is it because you suspect this mind is capable of suffering during an abortion that you see it as requiring protection. Or is it that you attach value to this particular collection of cells (thalamocortical complex) as having the potential to bloom into personhood (which strikes me as somewhat arbitrary since the potential for cells to bloom into personhood occurs at the point of conception.


Or is it something else?

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks.

Is it because you suspect this mind is capable of suffering during an abortion that you see it as requiring protection. Or is it that you attach value to this particular collection of cells (thalamocortical complex) as having the potential to bloom into personhood (which strikes me as somewhat arbitrary since the potential for cells to bloom into personhood occurs at the point of conception.


Or is it something else?

It's not suffering (many people are incapable of suffering, such as those under anaesthetics or coma patients), nor is it potential for personhood. It's simply that I believe they are a person, as they have a brain and, once a coherent electroencephalographic rhythm begins, a mind.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks.

Is it because you suspect this mind is capable of suffering during an abortion that you see it as requiring protection. Or is it that you attach value to this particular collection of cells (thalamocortical complex) as having the potential to bloom into personhood (which strikes me as somewhat arbitrary since the potential for cells to bloom into personhood occurs at the point of conception.


Or is it something else?

The point of conception is just as arbitrary. You could say two people who find each other attractive has the potential to bloom into a person. Thus cock blocking is a form of abortion(mods just adding a little humour to my point).

gimmebroadband

From a Christian POV, those 'cells' as you call it, have a soul and was created in the image of God!

token56

gimmebroadband wrote: »

From a Christian POV, those 'cells' as you call it, have a soul and was created in the image of God!

Just a quick question does a zygote have a soul?

Robert ninja

gimmebroadband wrote: »

have a soul and was created in the image of God!

I wonder at what stage of the fetus' development did the souls arrive. Too bad we can't measure it in any from what-so-ever and therefore have to assume that what you see is what you get.

Every sperm in a man's sack has the chance to form a complete human making every man mass murderers. Who was it from the RCC that said every sperm is sacred?

Anyway, I don't know why people are so outraged. "Breaking news, abortions happen!" ORLY. Oh it's supposed to be even worse because it's being performed on really young girls that couldn't handle a baby physically and financially and fetus that show signs of defects. I suppose performing abortions on adult women who totally can support a baby and give birth to it without any noteable problems and there's nothing physically wrong detected with the baby is not as bad.

>_>


Pictured: God's Image (?)

gimmebroadband

Robert ninja wrote: »

I wonder at what stage of the fetus' development did the souls arrive. Too bad we can't measure it in any from what-so-ever and therefore have to assume that what you see is what you get.

Every sperm in a man's sack has the chance to form a complete human making every man mass murderers. Who was it from the RCC that said every sperm is sacred?

Anyway, I don't know why people are so outraged. "Breaking news, abortions happen!" ORLY. Oh it's supposed to be even worse because it's being performed on really young girls that couldn't handle a baby physically and financially and fetus that show signs of defects. I suppose performing abortions on adult women who totally can support a baby and give birth to it without any noteable problems and there's nothing physically wrong detected with the baby is not as bad.

>_>


Pictured: God's Image (?)

The soul is infused at the moment of conception, as for measuring the soul, that's where science is 'limited'!!

As for the rest of your post, pure drivel!!

gimmebroadband

Biotech company using aborted fetal cell lines to test it's flavour enhancers.

http://www.cogforlife.org/senomyxalert.htm

alex73

The maze of opinions that pro-choice camp have on abortion is unintelligible. 1 2 3 10 weeks... Life is a subjective point of view.

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

The maze of opinions that pro-choice camp have on abortion is unintelligible. 1 2 3 10 weeks... Life is a subjective point of view.

It isnt unintelligible. The differences in views in the 'pro-choice camp' reflects the complexity of the issues, and the different attempts to resolve those issues. Pointlessly simplifying them doesnt make the arguments any better.

But in any case, the 'pro-life camp' encompassses many dispirate conclusions also.

alex73

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Biotech company using aborted fetal cell lines to test it's flavour enhancers.

http://www.cogforlife.org/senomyxalert.htm

So aborted baby kidney cells are used in flavours for pepsi and nestle? (or in the development of flavours.) ?

alex73

drkpower wrote: »

But in any case, the 'pro-life camp' encompassses many dispirate conclusions also.

the only conclusion that pro-life camp seems to have is that abortion is always wrong.

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

the only conclusion that pro-life camp seems to have is that abortion is always wrong.

Always? Are you sure about that? First, there are many many people who consider themselves to be pro-life who consider an abortion to be permissable in certain circumstances?

Second, are there are no circumstances where you consider an abortion to be permissable?

alex73

drkpower wrote: »

Always? Are you sure about that? First, there are many many people who consider themselves to be pro-life who consider an abortion to be permissable in certain circumstances?

Second, are there are no circumstances where you consider an abortion to be permissable?

Correct. There are NO circumstances that I consider abortion permissible.

Abortion being = Electing to terminate the pregnancy.

Of course if the mothers life is at risk and neither can survive, then morally doctors should treat the mother which may mean that the pregnancy can't continue. (ectopic etc..) In England it would be classed as an abortion.. In Ireland were we do such procedures they are classed as elective abortion.

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

Correct. There are NO circumstances that I consider abortion permissible.

Abortion being = Electing to terminate the pregnancy.

Of course if the mothers life is at risk and neither can survive, then morally doctors should treat the mother which may mean that the pregnancy can't continue. (ectopic etc..) In England it would be classed as an abortion.. In Ireland were we do such procedures they are classed as elective abortion.

The excerpt in bold above is slightly contradictory. Do you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

alex73

drkpower wrote: »

The excerpt in bold above is slightly contradictory. Do you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

The objective is to treat the mother. The objective was not abortion it is to save a life. If the baby can be saved then even better.

Its the same "choice" that people make in real life. Like the man in Japan trying to save his 3 kids in the tsunami. He physically could not hold them and was forced to let one go so he could save the other 2. Was what he did wrong?, did he kill his child? or did he save 2 children? Reality is he wanted all his children to survive.

Anyway pro-choice always focus on these pinch points that make up .001% of terminations.

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

The objective is to treat the mother. The objective was not abortion it is to save a life. If the baby can be saved then even better..

You havent really answered the question.

Try again: Do you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

alex73 wrote: »

Anyway pro-choice always focus on these pinch points that make up .001% of terminations.

I am simply challenging your assertion that there are NO circumstances where you would advocate an abortion. That is why I am focussing on it.

alex73

drkpower wrote: »

You havent really answered the question.

Try again: Do you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

I am simply challenging your assertion that there are NO circumstances where you would advocate an abortion. That is why I am focussing on it.

Killing an innocent life is always wrong.

Follow the logic man... The principle of double effect ?

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

• the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
• the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
• the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

The end is not to terminate the pregnancy or abort it. There simply is no otherway of saving both lives.

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

Killing an innocent life is always wrong.

Follow the logic man... The principle of double effect ?

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

• the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
• the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
• the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

The end is not to terminate the pregnancy or abort it. There simply is no otherway of saving both lives.

You still havent answered the question.

Try again: Do you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

alex73

drkpower wrote: »

You still havent answered the question.

Try again: Do you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

Then I suggest specsavers as you obviously can't read my previous post.

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

Then I suggest specsavers as you obviously can't read my previous post.

Your previous post did not answer the question as to whether you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

If it is the latter, you do advocate killing a foetus in certain specified circumstances.

If it is the latter, and you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death, why do you choose to end the life of one entity to save the life of another, rather than simply letting both entities equally run the risk of life and the risk of death?

Do you not believe that the foetus and the mother are equal?

alex73

drkpower wrote: »

Your previous post did not answer the question as to whether you mean that you would advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother was definitely going to die, or do you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death?

If it is the latter, you do advocate killing a foetus in certain specified circumstances.

If it is the latter, and you advocate the termination of the pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death, why do you choose to end the life of one entity to save the life of another, rather than simply letting both entities equally run the risk of life and the risk of death?

Do you not believe that the foetus and the mother are equal?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73259736&postcount=28

drkpower

alex73 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73259736&postcount=28

Simply repeating your assertion that you do not advocate the killing of a foetus ad nauseum achieves nothing if your views actually betray a different view.

But it is incredibly difficult to ascertain your position if you refuse to answer any questions on it. Would you like to try to answer the questions finally?

If not, I dont really have time for you.

Morbert

alex73 wrote: »

the only conclusion that pro-life camp seems to have is that abortion is always wrong.

While the diversity of opinion on any side is in no way an indication of which side is correct, I have to disagree with the above.

Anti-abortion (pro-life is a misnomer, as many pro-life advocates are in favour of the death penalty, and of animal slaughter) people can differ on the moment life begins. Irish law, for example, believes life begins after conception, at the moment of implantation.

gimmebroadband

The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother's life — including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies — are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.


It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans direct abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the preborn baby's life.
The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother's life against that of her preborn child's are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.



In such cases, under the principle of the "double effect," attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

http://www.hli.org/index.php/abortion/400?task=view

drkpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the preborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this kind of surgery would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

Are you suggesting that the principle of double effect only applies where the mother will definitely die without a termination?

gimmebroadband

drkpower wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the principle of double effect only applies where the mother will definitely die without a termination?

No, I'm suggesting that the mother will definately die without treatment, (a direct termination not an option). The baby could possibly die as a result of the treatment it's mother receives, as in the case of chemotherapy, removal of fallopian tube etc.

drkpower

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No, I'm suggesting that the mother will definately die without treatment, (a direct termination not an option). The baby could possibly die as a result of the treatment it's mother receives, as in the case of chemotherapy, removal of fallopian tube etc.

What if the mother will not definitely die? For instance, where there is a risk to the health of the mother or if there is a risk to her life, short of certain?

Robert ninja

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The soul is infused at the moment of conception

Oh now I get it, so how do you know this? Oh, what's that? It's just something you believe with no evidence to support it at all? K. We should totally run more medical facilities that are responsible for human health on that kind of stuff.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

as for measuring the soul, that's where science is 'limited'!!

As far as I can tell, you're using a scientifically engineered computer to post text across through cyber space as well as I am. Do not doubt how much you actually rely on science in hundreds of ways throughout your day. As for it being 'limited', not being able to detect something doesn't mean you do not possess the ability to detect it. It might be the case that there's nothing there to detect. Perhaps the cells we examine are *gasp* just cells :O

gimmebroadband

Robert ninja wrote: »

Oh now I get it, so how do you know this? Oh, what's that? It's just something you believe with no evidence to support it at all? K. We should totally run more medical facilities that are responsible for human health on that kind of stuff.
:O

Howard Storm, a former athiest would beg to differ!!

And this Scientist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMICW2aaplA

Fanny Cradock

I like Lewis' quote on souls.

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

Robert ninja

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Howard Storm, a former athiest would beg to differ!!

And this Scientist!

I don't think you realise how stereotypical religious nut you present yourself right now. "AND THIS SCIENTIST!111!(omgz is scientist that believes)" Ugh.... People going from no belief in god(s) to some form of theism or deism does not count as evidence for a soul. How could it? You're basically just saying, "I think there's a soul and so do these guys!" You, those two other guys, and everyone in the world who believes souls exist don't have any evidence... and being a scientist doesn't give you a free pass to validate things that are BS, though it certainly convinces a lot of people when it suits them, yet not when the VAST MAJORITY of scientists don't believe in <insert supernatural thing here> or when they try to present evidence for evolution - then suddenly them being scientists makes them close-minded people who rely on weak thing called science that is 'limited'.

philologos

Robert ninja - It depends wholly on what you think a soul is. Is it the I? Or is it something more complex?

Robert ninja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I like Lewis' quote on souls.

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

(Sorry for double post, this horrible browser I'm using has a text limit)

That quote reminds of the phrase, "You don't own yourself, you are yourself." (which I agree with) Though ultimately, saying you ARE a soul instead of HAVING a soul is just playing with words and doesn't validate anything. If you ARE a soul and just own a body, then the body doesn't really need to be around and then two eggs coming together to form a fetus doesn't really mean anything. If it did. that would mean the soul is effected by physical and chemical properties, which would be measureable and destroy the idea that the souls is some ghostly thing that is completely seperate and independant of the physical world we know to be occupying. But what's the point of me saying any of this anyway? It's all magic to the christian audience in here and will always just make sense somehow.

philologos

Robert ninja - What do you think a soul is? It must be something outrageous if you're intent on saying that it doesn't exist. There was a thread on the philosophy forum a while back with someone trying to deny that there was such a thing as an I. I had to just bring it up to them that they were using the word 'I' while simultaneously denying the concept. If the soul is a reference to the persons being the full character of the person, every possible attribute that makes themselves themselves I can't honestly see what the huge issue with the soul is.

Robert ninja

@philologos - I wasn't ignoring you the first time. As I said, this browser has a text limit (which is endlessly annoying)

To answer your question, I generally don't define what a soul is but in general I would sum up a basic description of it from what I understand other people have told me with "/" seperating what some have told me that is contrary to what others have said.

1. Everyone has one / Some people don't have a soul (and are evil because of it)

2. A soul is good, a lack of one is evil / A soul can be evil

3. It is not a physical thing / It's a physical thing, the body loses weight immediately after it dies! (gotten this from a muslim & catholic)

4. It defines who you are / It's you / it's your life force / it doesn't do much, it's like a badge you've earned when you do good things (from a christian) / It's your consciousness / It's something you need or else you wouldn't be able to <list of physical and mental processes that we know our brains and bodies take care of>

(text limit reached)

Robert ninja

(Apologies again for double post, result of text limit on browser)

As for why a soul came up in this convo and why it's a big deal... people are trying to tell me abortions shouldn't be performed because of this thing... a serious medical procedure that can cause AND avoid physical damage to women (among other things) shouldn't be performed because of some supernatural ball of who-knows-what that everyone I've talked to who thinks it exists can't even agree on what it is.

Zombrex

alex73 wrote: »

http://www.zenit.org/article-33037?l=english

Words fail

Another fine example of the shockingly poor state of Catholic media.

Also, what is the point of a Catholic who believes all abortion is wrong complaining about late term abortions? Aren't early term abortions equally bad?

Fanny Cradock

Robert ninja wrote: »

But what's the point of me saying any of this anyway? It's all magic to the christian audience in here and will always just make sense somehow.

You missed the point of the quote. Incidentally, Christians generally don't believe in magic. I know this is a difficult concept for you to grasp but try your best. But if all you can muster is mild derogatory tittle-tattle then I suggest you stop posting here.

Robert ninja wrote: »

If you ARE a soul and just own a body, then the body doesn't really need to be around and then two eggs coming together to form a fetus doesn't really mean anything. If it did. that would mean the soul is effected by physical and chemical properties, which would be measureable and destroy the idea that the souls is some ghostly thing that is completely seperate and independant of the physical world we know to be occupying.

I don't pretend to know what the soul is. Perhaps we would be better served by talking about spirit. Either way, I don't follow your train of thought here. Do you care to explain it to me in more detail?

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Incidentally, Christians generally don't believe in magic.

?

mag·ic/ˈmajik/ - Noun: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I like Lewis' quote on souls.

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

I wonder who'd win in an intellectual fight of sorts Feynman or Lewis.

Yes I am implying Lewis is an intellectually inferior person.