Roe vs. Wade and the Supreme Court

[hedrick]

Not sure if I'm missing something here. If the gestational period is 40 weeks and the prefrontal cortex is operational 2/3 of the way through doesn't that work out to more or less 25 weeks?

I'm not sure if I'm missing your point.

Sorry. Bad math. You’re right, though I think 28 or 29 weeks is a more common definition. Of course there can still be reasons, of the sort mentioned above. I assume they would be rare that late.

 

[tango]

Sorry. Bad math. You’re right, though I think 28 or 29 weeks is a more common definition. Of course there can still be reasons, of the sort mentioned above. I assume they would be rare that late.

Thanks for clarifying.

With regard to abortions after the prefrontal cortex is developed do you believe they should be allowed if there is no compelling medical reason they are required? Obviously cases where the mother's life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy are very different propositions to cases where the mother simply decides she doesn't want a baby after all.

 

[Albion]

Not backtracking at all. I believe that abortion should remain available for woman when they need it.

Then what you mean HAS TO BE that you approve of killing a child/fetus when it feels pain.

How can that be justified by any Christian?

 

[Josiah]

Question....


For those who support that abortion is simply the sole choice of the mother.... any or no "reason" is fine as long as it belongs to the mother.... and includes the choice of killing her innocent, defenseless son or daughter... right up to the moment when the last cell on the last toe exits the birth canal (even if the head is pushed so that that toe remains in the canal so that the baby's neck can still be cut).... all that is morally good and right. The position of the pro-abortion camp in the USA, Communist China and North Korea.... then why THAT point in time????? That microsecond...;. that event.... the last cell of the baby allowed to leave the birth canal?

Why is it morally good and right BEFORE the last cell is allowed to exit the birth canal but not a microsecond later? Or one day after that? Or one year after that? What happens as that last cell is allowed to exit the birth canal that makes it morally good BEFORE then but immoral after that?????

Might children be regarded as unwanted AFTER that moment? Even if not so BEFORE that moment? If "wanted" and 'unwanted" is the determining issue for the morality of terminating a human life, then what difference does it make if that last cell has exited the birth canal? Might a mother determine her child is unwanted AFTER that last cell exited the birth canal? What if that happens when the child turned 13? Why is "unwanted" make it morally good at one second before the last cell exits the birth canal but not on the 13th birthday if "unwanted" by the mother is the issue?????

And what if the mother felt she could afford the baby before that last cell exited the canal but then she gets fired from work and now can't afford her baby? If it's okay to kill her BEFORE that last cell exited because she can't afford her, why not a week later when she can't afford her???? If economics is the moral determining factor, why before but not after?

What if someone THOUGHT they were having a boy suddenly discovers at the birth event that well, it's a girl.... can't the mother choose to "terminate" that girl because she doesn't want a girl and didn't know she was having one before then? Shouldn't abortion be allowed for at least some time AFTER birth????? And what if it's discovered the little girl is disabled in some way and that wasn't known before birth.. but is discovered one year later.... and the mother doesn't want a disabled child, why can't she kill her daughter who is not wanted???? She didn't know this before birth, not until a year later, but it's okay to kill someone who is disabled, but why before the last cell is allowed to exist the birth canal (when this wasn't known) but not okay one year later??????


?



.

 

[tango]

Then what you mean HAS TO BE that you approve of killing a child/fetus when it feels pain.

How can that be justified by any Christian?

If the choice is to terminate the pregnancy (i.e. kill the fetus) or continue with the pregnancy knowing the chances are mother and fetus will both die it's pretty easy to justify it, however difficult the decision is for the ones who have to make it.

if the choice is to terminate the pregnancy as a matter of convenience or desire it becomes much harder to justify it.

 

[Josiah]

If the choice is to terminate the pregnancy (i.e. kill the fetus) or continue with the pregnancy knowing the chances are mother and fetus will both die it's pretty easy to justify it, however difficult the decision is for the ones who have to make it.

if the choice is to terminate the pregnancy as a matter of convenience or desire it becomes much harder to justify it.

Morally, I agree a case can be made for abortion when the mother's physical life is in great jeopardy, this under the "self defense" issue. Here, if nothing is done, TWO lives will otherwise likely be ended... so it can be justified to kill one so that the other can live.

But that's not what we're talking about. The issue of Roe v. Wade is about the INTENTIONAL killing of an innocent, defenseless child who is NOT an unusual threat to the physical life of the mother. AND that such can be done for ANY reason whatsoever (in fact, none is needed or requested.... NO reason can be used to hinder the choice: baby is wrong gender, wrong race, whatever - cannot be limited) AND that it's okay during all 9 months - right up to when the last cell is allowed to exit the birth canal (even "partial birth abortions" are okay).





.

 

[Albion]

If the choice is to terminate the pregnancy (i.e. kill the fetus) or continue with the pregnancy knowing the chances are mother and fetus will both die it's pretty easy to justify it, however difficult the decision is for the ones who have to make it.

if the choice is to terminate the pregnancy as a matter of convenience or desire it becomes much harder to justify it.

So you are saying that there are rare but extenuating circumstances by which an abortion is permissible in order to say the life of the mother-to-be.

Agreed. And this is how it is with many other situations in life. We justify speeding in order to get a heart attack victim to the hospital. We justify lying in order to save hostages from their captors. We justify stealing a loaf of bread when it's absolutely the only alternative to starvation.

But none of that is what we've been talking about here.

The discussion has been about aborting and/or torturing an unborn human child when there is no such emergency, let alone to SAVE a life.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for clarifying.

With regard to abortions after the prefrontal cortex is developed do you believe they should be allowed if there is no compelling medical reason they are required? Obviously cases where the mother's life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy are very different propositions to cases where the mother simply decides she doesn't want a baby after all.

probably

 

[kiwimac]

Then what you mean HAS TO BE that you approve of killing a child/fetus when it feels pain.

How can that be justified by any Christian?

Given the bible is quite clear that foetuses are not children...

 

[tango]

Given the bible is quite clear that foetuses are not children...

Chapter and verse?

 

[tango]

So you are saying that there are rare but extenuating circumstances by which an abortion is permissible in order to say the life of the mother-to-be.

Agreed. And this is how it is with many other situations in life. We justify speeding in order to get a heart attack victim to the hospital. We justify lying in order to save hostages from their captors. We justify stealing a loaf of bread when it's absolutely the only alternative to starvation.

But none of that is what we've been talking about here.

The discussion has been about aborting and/or torturing an unborn human child when there is no such emergency, let alone to SAVE a life.

I realise the context of this discussion is when there is no medical emergency, I just express nuance where it exists even if it's not directly relevant to the discussion. It avoids some knucklehead seizing on a post and misrepresenting its intention later in the thread.

(Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying anyone in this thread is a knucklehead, I have just grown wary in general of things being taken out of context and misrepresented)

 

[Albion]

Given the bible is quite clear that foetuses are not children...

''For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful…
My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place…
your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.'' (Psalms 139:13-16)


"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,.." (Luke 1:41)

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for clarifying.

With regard to abortions after the prefrontal cortex is developed do you believe they should be allowed if there is no compelling medical reason they are required? Obviously cases where the mother's life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy are very different propositions to cases where the mother simply decides she doesn't want a baby after all.

Yes. I don’t think the government has any business regulating it. The issue is a religious or philosophical. The first amendment says that laws can’t be made on that basis.

 

[hedrick]

''For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful…
My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place…
your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.'' (Psalms 139:13-16)


"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,.." (Luke 1:41)

this is surely not a statement about the nature of fetuses. It’s pretty obvious that there’s no way for one to know anything about someone else’s child. Assuming this is literally true, it is miraculous. And it was at least 6 months into the pregnancy anyway.

 

[Albion]

this is surely not a statement about the nature of fetuses. It’s pretty obvious that there’s no way for one to know anything about someone else’s child. Assuming this is literally true, it is miraculous.

Of course it was miraculous, but it still attests to the personhood of the unborn child.

 

[Albion]

Yes. I don’t think the government has any business regulating it. The issue is a religious or philosophical. The first amendment says that laws can’t be made on that basis.

It's actually a scientific matter. The unborn child/fetus is either a human or it is not.

The answer is not simply a matter of philosophy or religion. And if that is true, the government has as much right and duty to regulate it as it does when regulating speed limits or pesticides.

 

[kiwimac]

Of course it was miraculous, but it still attests to the personhood of the unborn child.

Nope, just to its movement in Elizabeth's case.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

Nope, just to its movement in Elizabeth's case.

Sent from my ELE-L09 using Tapatalk

"when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb."

So you think that God's miracle here was something on the order of a trick performed by a magician by making a 'clump of cells' respond in a way that only a sentient being can? What would that so-called "miracle" prove such that it should be highlighted in Scripture?

And of course, your claim also makes Scripture out to be a lie when it refers to that which jumped in Elizabeth's womb as a "baby."

 

[tango]

Yes. I don’t think the government has any business regulating it. The issue is a religious or philosophical. The first amendment says that laws can’t be made on that basis.

If that's the case why does the government have any business in regulating whether I'm allowed to kill my neighbor? If I place no value on his life isn't that just as much a "religious or philosophical" matter as the value or otherwise I place on a fetus? What of the value of an elderly person who is incapable of looking after themselves, or a severely disabled person who needs extensive personal care? Can we just kill them too, if we consider them to be "not-human", on the basis that the issue is religious or philosophical? For that matter, what if the mother gives birth to a healthy baby but changes her mind six months later? Is it a "religious or philosophical" issue for her to decide she does not wish to be a mother after all, and leave her baby out in the snow overnight?

Is a fetus really some kind of "Schrodinger's clump of cells", which can be either human or not-human, and can change from one to the other, depending on the mother's opinion of whether or not it is valued at this precise moment?

In any situation in which we accept the government has at least some role in protecting would-be victims from would-be aggressors we have to consider the situation in which the defenseless unborn is a victim and the person seeking to end their existence is an aggressor.

 

[Lamb]

A baby in the womb has its own distinct set of genetic code separate from the mother's. That's science. It's not a chair or a lamp or a puppy. It's genetic code for a human that has life and is growing.