It just shows that life is filled with choices that are not always as easy as one believes. What a shame that the religion that should bring them comfort and support bring instead shame and judgment. I hope this couple remembers going forward that nothing is black and white, not just what they go through. I'm very sorry for their pain.

Sad story. I recently read an article on slate about abortion advocates trying to get rid of the stigma of abortion. According to slates numbers 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest, and 5% are because of the health of either the mother or fetus. So what about the other 94% that are done for the sake of convenience? Just saying.

Amy, I predict that this will become a 100+ thread before the day's out. This is quite the hot topic.

Yes, it is a sad story and I feel compassion for the couple who learned of the tragic fate for their unborn daughter. And as a disclaimer, I've never been in their difficult position.

But terminating a life is never the answer. I don't believe that it is more compassionate to kill the fetus than to give birth to the child. The parents could have made the decision to not use any artificial life support means after birth--and the little girl would probably have died in their arms; heartwrenching, true, but it would not have been at the hands of her parents and their chosen doctor. "First, to do no harm..." isn't that still part of the Hippocratic Oath?

The advances in medical technology should be used to enhance and improve life where possible. Unfortunately, it is often used to predict problems which, when, uncurable, lead families like the Andersons to make these decisions.

Incidentally, I don't condone the murder of Dr. Tiller, either.

Obviously this was a gut wrenching decision for them. I think all abortion decisions are never easy. I grieve for them and hope they find peace.

"What a shame that the religion that should bring them comfort and support bring instead shame and judgment."

I think that is simplistic. Are you saying late term abortion decisions are guilt free if one is not religious? Also, as I know is taught, Christianity teaches that God loves you no matter how much you sin. But that is not the same as saying there is no sin.

I think that is simplistic. Are you saying late term abortion decisions are guilt free if one is not religious?

I didn't say its guilt free for anyone. When a woman describes herself as a devout Catholic and states that she doesn't know if she could sit with these people again in mass, that's very sad. When one of those people in her congregation can tell me they sat down with God personally and were given permission to judge her in any way, I'll accept it. Until then, I would hope that their claims of believing in God's love, compassion, and forgiveness would allow them to comfort a member of their congregation and not judge or alienate her no matter how much they disagree with what she was doing. Not to enter into the whole religion discussion, but let's be honest here. If she went to confession, she'd be told to say a few hail marys and she's forgiven? C'mon. Its a ridiculous system and obviously one that is not giving her the comfort or support that she now needs.

the other Beth did you even read the article?

They had 4 choices

1. Abortion

2. Natural birth(which would have killed the infant due to the streee on the deformed organs)

3.Csection follwed by no medical treatment ruestong in death by suffocation due to malformed lungs or heart attack due to heart deformity brought on by malformed lungs

4. Csection follwed by months in a oxegen filled chamber not feeling a human touch. Assuming the child even were to survived that it would be followed by dozens of surgeies any one of which might have resulted in death either on the table or in recovery. Assuming the child survived every single surgey it still would have survived childhood.

So which of those 4 options would have brought the least amount of harm to the child in question?

The quick painless death while still attached to the mothers life suppost system? Or one of the other three pain wrcking experiences?

Tell you what have someone hold a pillow over your face and suffocate you - then get back to us and tell us if you'd rather die unable to breath or if you'd rather die so quickly you dont have the chance to feel pain

Painless? How exactly is abortion painless? I agree choices aren't always easy, but a c-section followed by pain relief (because it IS available after birth) and death in it's loving parents arms would have been the ideal solution there if the child truly had no chance. Abortion was maybe easier on mom and dad since they never had to see the kid, and felt they'd be less attached if they never saw it.

Abortion is easier on parents. Never on babies.

Nobody with any sense ever said it was black and white.

But as Mike Hunter said - the vast majority of abortions - even late term abortions - are done for convenience.

Not in anything like these circumstances.

"not judge or alienate her no matter how much they disagree with what she was doing"

Yes, we should never judge. Let's not judge the priests who molest, the people who kill, the single moms who pop out 12 welfare kids with different dads. Society certainly needs less judgement and shame. (sarcasm off).

Newsweek had story about late-term abortion recently. The dr did 12 or more a day. One way he's tried to justify them for any reason was one mom who'd been raped, and tried to kill herself 3 times prior to seeking the late-term abortion. 1) if you're really suicidal as opposed to wanting attention, once is all it takes 2) she'd known she was pregant-and been unhappy about it-7 months. Why not do something earlier?? Like the morning after pill? There's no need for late-term abortions. Period. C-sections are safer for mom and baby past viability.

Man, you just cannot say the "a-word" without people immediately going crazy, can you?

Bill

Kristen writes: "What a shame that the religion that should bring them comfort and support bring instead shame and judgment. "

Well, the purpose of a system of morals isn't necessarily to comfort. If I'm doing something wrong, then my system of morals certainly should make me feel uncomfortable.

But I think Kristen's point is that this is a situation where the right answer is very difficult to discern. The amount of pain and suffering that the baby will go through certainly should be a consideration. If it were me, I honestly don't know what decision I would make, and quite frankly, I'm glad I don't have to face it. That being so, it's up to be to be tolerant of whatever decision the parents make in this situation. It's not like I have a better idea.

If you don't feel abortion is anything more than scraping away cells that have the potential to become a human being, why should you be prohibited from doing so by people who believe differently?

The problem there is that if you truly believe abortion is murder, then you can't take a live-and-let-live position on it. If I believe a fetus is a human person, then I'm ethically inconsistent if I'm OK with other people murdering it.

For the record, I really do think early embryos and fetuses are a collection of cells with the potential to be people. And that's where we get caught up: potential.

Thanks, Cousin Dave, for understanding what I was saying. For those who don't...this woman spoke specifically about her congregation, a place she goes to worship and find comfort and support sharing a belief in God, a belief I might add, that preaches about forgiveness and provides a place to go to confession where a priest absolves you of your sins. It is sad that this woman faces a very difficult decision that she is obviously not taking lightly and obviously in a great deal of pain, yet she feels she cannot go back to these same people for compassion and forgiveness. It is not the same as judging a priest who molests or any other various crime. It is a woman in pain who cannot get comfort from her church. The last I checked, a church does provide moral guidance, but also sympathy, compassion, and forgiveness. That is what seems to be missing for this woman. Nobody has to agree or like what she chose, but then again, he who who is without sin can cast the first stone, or at least that's what their relgious teachings tell them. And for the record, I am not an atheist or against religion. I just can see the hypocrisy in it.

>>...and death in it's loving parents arms would have been the ideal solution there if the child truly had no chance.

Momof4,
I sometimes think you're an odd fish (very likeable at times) but it's harsh to talk of an objective "ideal solution" here.

Of course, you're free to disapprove of their choice but your dogmatism here seems a bit cruel.

Yes, lujlp, I did read the article and I stand by my earlier statement. I fail to see how killing the unborn child, in utero, is any more merciful than simply allowing nature to take its course, if there was truly nothing that could have been done medically for her.

Nature is cruel. Humans have the capacity for mercy.

And sometimes mercy means the ugly choice of the lesser pain that is a quick end.

Its not an easy choice.

It should NEVER BE an easy choice.

But it is a choice that sometimes has to be made.

If there's nothing that can be done medically for her, and dying naturally will be as painful as being aborted, then it's fair to tend to the well-being of the parents.

I can't imagine going through the last few weeks and months of pregnancy, and doing all the hard work of labor, knowing that my child is going to die as soon as it's born. I recognize the societal belief that children's needs should always come before parents' needs, and, in general, I agree with it. But since there's nothing anybody can do for a baby in this situation, I'd like to see the parents suffer as little as possible.

If you don't feel abortion is anything more than scraping away cells that have the potential to become a human being, why should you be prohibited from doing so by people who believe differently?

If you don't feel that executing an abortionist is anything more then preventing a murderer from claiming his next victim, why should you be prohibited from doing so by people who believe differently?

>>If you don't feel that executing an abortionist is anything more then preventing a murderer from claiming his next victim, why should you be prohibited from doing so by people who believe differently?

A little matter of the law, Mike.

Be consistent.

If you demand that extreme measures be taken to sustain a life, no matter how small, you demand that others pay for it, including yourself.

If you demand that a woman bear a child she does not want - to the point she wants a doctor to cut it out of her - you need to prepare for the neglect of that child.

In the case of single motherhood, you cannot demand a single mother bear the child and then turn your head at the poverty and crime which results.

Be real. These things have real costs beyond offending your tender ideas.

Abortion is here to stay, and it has been here for centuries.

No amount of medical care can guarantee a healthy child.

As population grows it is inevitable that government steps in to limit reproduction. This is not fiction. It has already happened.

If your dog was dying of lung cancer woud you let nature take its course? or put it down?

If we want nature to take its course we would NEVER preform Csections.

If we had allowed nature to take its course in this case the child would have died before clearing the vaginal canal. As the child would have died thru taking the natural course anyway why force the mother thru another 13 weeks of pregnacy needlessly?

You would serious force a woman to carry a child to full term when there was no posibility of the child surviving a natural birth? What kid of monster are you that you would force someone thru the psychologic trama of carring aroud a dead baby for 3 months - let alone the physical pain the child would feel with a malfuctioning heart for that period of time.

Truly try to imagine having your heart compressed to the piont it fails to function properly for any period of time.

What is really your objection to abortion? because it sure as hell isnt mercy or the best intrest of the child or "letting nature take its course"

A little matter of the law, Mike.

I never said: 'Why are you prohibited from doing so by people who believe differently.' The answer to that is clear, it's illegal, and if you break the law you will be punished. I said '... why should you be prevented'.

No one disputes the fact that abortion is currently legal. The debate is about whether it should be legal. Are you saying that you would have no problem with people going around shooting abortionists as long as a bunch of politicians passed legislation allowing it?

Luj asks: "What is really your objection to abortion?"

Well, in general, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea. As Amy said, it's often used as an irresponsible form of birth control (I've known two women who have had more than one abortion). And coupled with the modern facilities for in-the-womb genetic testing, it starts to smack of eugenics.

HOWEVER: for the most part, I do not think it is an appropriate topic to be addressed by the law. It is my firm belief that law cannot be a substitute for morality. Law is there to prevent social disorder, a purpose which it serves pretty well. But as a moral arbiter, law sucks.

Momof4 asks Why not do something earlier?? Like the morning after pill? There's no need for late-term abortions.

My response

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-9-2006/pill-of-rights

www.examiner.com/x-1146-Seattle-Eastside-Family-Examiners~y2009m7d8-Pharmacists-cant-refuse-to-sell-morning-after-pill-says-judge

www.aclupa.blogspot.com/2006/07/rape-victim-denied-emergency.html

www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

web.archive.org/web/20051025235338/http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/99156.php

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

www.feministing.com/archives/006589.html

I wonder why the whole congregation was privy to this decision. My priest would NEVER have broadcast our private conversations.

It's my impression (anecdotal evidence only) that specialists tend to lean toward recommending abortion because, even with full disclosure, they are very often sued if the baby is very ill or dies after being born. I hope they had several "frank" discussions with several doctors.

I have to think dying in your parents arms with all the comfort medicine available in a hospital would be better than being aborted.

Finally, abortion IS a black and white issue in the Catholic Church, much as this poor guy may wish it weren't, and want to mitigate their decision with a discussion of mercy.

For those of you who are anti-choice, should these parents have had to pay for the abortion in this case?

Everyone should have to pay for their own health care. The issue is whether women should be allowed to get abortions in the first place, and under what circumstances.

I have to think dying in your parents arms with all the comfort medicine available in a hospital would be better than being aborted.
-Robin

Yes, nothing like a crushed improperly working heart not pumping enough blood, lungs so filled with cysts you are incapable of breathing without a hyperberic chamber and being touched for less then a minute before you broken, failed body expires in angony.

Your right Robin that sound so much better than having my brain stem cut before I have to rely on my trashed organs to fail to keep me alive

Why exactly do you think blinding pain for your entire life of less than a minute or two is better than oblivion?

The issue is whether women should be allowed to get abortions in the first place, and under what circumstances.

Posted by: Mike Hunter

In truth the issue is why people who cant prove the existance of their god think they have the right speak for it and tell everyone else how to live.

Had the Canninites killed the jews after they emerged from the desert and the rest of history unfoled on the same path those holier than thou protesters would be the first in line to scarifce their living children on the firey alter of Marduk.

What I find funny was a while back there was some Anglican group protesting abortion clinics in Whales.

I couldnt help but wonder by he followers of church founded on the divine right of a man to murder his wives for not birthing the right kind of child would protest abortion

In truth the issue is why people who cant prove the existence of their god think they have the right speak for it and tell everyone else how to live.

Morality doesn't have to be based on religion. I'm agnostic myself, but; that doesn't mean that I believe that anything goes. In fact we would all probably be better off if everyone's moral code was based on rationality instead of religion.

Lujlp, lots of posts here--I know not all are directed at me specifically, but I'll try to address a few:

You say: "I couldnt help but wonder by he followers of church founded on the divine right of a man to murder his wives for not birthing the right kind of child would protest abortion"

I presume that you're referring to good ol' King Henry VIII of England. If you recall, the whole reason he "created" a new church was so that he could do whatever the hell he wanted to, namely, divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon. Catholic Church wouldn't allow it so he decided to form his own church and named himself as the head. Classic case of a man using religion to try to get what he wanted; not an example of a Christian. (Incidentally, I don't count myself a follower of Henry VIII, and I do protest abortion)

You say: "In truth the issue is why people who cant prove the existance of their god think they have the right speak for it and tell everyone else how to live."

I can't prove that God exists any more than you can prove that He doesn't...and neither of us will change each other's mind, I'm afraid. As far as telling everyone else how to live their lives, if no one told anyone else how to live their lives, there would be anarchy. Hence--laws. Yes, I realize that abortion is legal and people that do them and get them aren't breaking any laws. But there are a great number of people who believe that abortion is wrong from a moral standpoint.

You say: "Yes, nothing like a crushed improperly working heart not pumping enough blood, lungs so filled with cysts you are incapable of breathing without a hyperberic chamber and being touched for less then a minute before you broken, failed body expires in angony.
Your right Robin that sound so much better than having my brain stem cut before I have to rely on my trashed organs to fail to keep me alive
Why exactly do you think blinding pain for your entire life of less than a minute or two is better than oblivion?"

Here I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions. How do you know that she'd experience blinding pain for her brief life, or alternatively, that "oblivion" would be what she feels as she's being aborted? I don't think that any of us can honestly and accurately assess that.

You say: "If your dog was dying of lung cancer woud you let nature take its course? or put it down?"

There are those of us (myself included) who believe that there is a distinct difference between animal and human life. If your grandma was dying of lung cancer, would you put her down? Human life is precious.

You say: "If we want nature to take its course we would NEVER preform Csections."

I said that medical technology and advances should be used to help save/maintain or improve human life, not to snuff it out.

You say: "If we had allowed nature to take its course in this case the child would have died before clearing the vaginal canal. As the child would have died thru taking the natural course anyway why force the mother thru another 13 weeks of pregnacy needlessly?"

Ok, and what then? The end result is still a dead little child, one that her parents loved and grieved for. She wouldn't have died by their choice and at the hand of a doctor. Force the woman thru another 13 weeks of pregnancy? Pregnancy is now torture? I know that some women have it alot rougher and more uncomfortable than others, but it's hardly torture.

You say: "What is really your objection to abortion? because it sure as hell isnt mercy or the best intrest of the child or "letting nature take its course"

My objection to abortion is that it is the forceable taking of the most innocent of human lives. I don't believe that people have the right to decide whether a child should be allowed to come into this world. Human life is precious and each one has eternal value.

So these people protested abortion, but when it came to it, they couldn't talk the talk or walk the walk? While it was a very difficult situation, they did have other options if they so chose, they did not choose those options which is also their right. Not only that, but instead of keeping this information private they blabbed it to their friends. They don't sound very bright in general, whether you keep abortion legal or make it illegal, they don't seem like such a good example.

Do you have other examples of the "gray" of late term abortion, because I do know someone who's life was in danger had the procedure not been performed, that's a good example, and it's not "gray", it's pretty straightforward.

Going back to the diagnosis of the baby, the doctors have been wrong. Sometimes they identify a problem that does not exist, and other times they don't see a problem that occurs after the baby is out, it's human error and it happens, certainly that would be another reason to try for a c-section delivery.

Abortion used as birth control muddies the issue. If you believe a fetus is a person, then, to be consistent, you must believe it's wrong to kill a fetus in all circumstances, except, perhaps, in cases when the fetus is not viable. Then we sway into euthanasia. If you believe a fetus is a collection of cells, then it doesn't matter how many abortions a woman has: She is not doing anyone any harm.

"It's not all black and white."

Sure it is. The Church says abortion is prohibited and if you get one you commit mortal sin. The Church's stance is pretty clear - god gets to make calls on who lives and dies, and we humans do not. It doesn't matter about slim chances of success, painful suffering, etc., etc., the rule is very very simple - a fetus is an innocent baby and you can't kill it no matter what if you want to follow god's law.

I don't see what the problem is. These people just don't want to man up and get with the program that their religion requires them to do something horribly unpleasant. You can call yourself a catholic and do whatever you want, but you're not really catholic.

It reminds me of Bill Maher who calls himself a libertarian because he wants weed to be legal but in the next breath says he wants government healthcare. Ummm..... not.

I too am agnostic. And I find abortion in the name of convenience morally repugnant.

MonicaP: You're absolutely correct. If the fetus is a person, then killing it is murder. If you don't believe it is, then abort away! The problem is, most people can't reasonably wrap their minds around the fact that a fetus is purely just a mass of cells, at least in the later stages of pregnancy, no matter how they may try to rationalize to the contrary.

"I sometimes think you're an odd fish"

Thank you! I like that.

"For those of you who are anti-choice, should these parents have had to pay for the abortion in this case?"

Fuck yes, in this and every case. Why should I pay to kill your child? You want me to pay, I'll pay to give it a chance at life. Oh, and I'm not anti-choice. I believe in every woman's right to choose the birth control method best suited and most effective for her, to use as many methods as she thinks are necessary to cover her, to not have sex if the possible consequences are impossible for her, to choose carefully who she screws, to give a child up for adoption if she can't or won't raise it, to see a dr immediately after sex if needed for the morning after pill. Lots of choice there. Choose to be responsible for yourself and your actions, how about that one?

"For those of you who are anti-choice, should these parents have had to pay for the abortion in this case?
What about other procedures you really don't believe in? Where is the line drawn on what should be covered?"

Amy, as a passionate "anti-choice" individual, here's my answer to that: I don't want my tax dollars going to fund something that I vehemently oppose. Period. Because I believe that it is fundamentally wrong and it goes against everything that this country represents...life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness.

As far as other procedures I don't really believe in--for me, it's quite simple. Should the nightmare of a govt option health care be forced down our throats, my line is drawn at what goes towards saving/enhancing life and health. A medical procedure specifically designed to take away life is always going to be a no-go, in my book.

But there are a great number of people who believe that abortion is wrong from a moral standpoint.

That is fine, but to take the position that is immoral under all circumstances is just as narrowminded as saying it is acceptable under all circumstances

Here I think you're making some pretty broad assumptions. How do you know that she'd experience blinding pain for her brief life,
Hold your breath for as long as possible and tell me how it feels, swimming underwater for 100yrds was the second most painful thing I ever did in my life, the most painful was trying to breath (even on morphine) immediatly after I had part of my lung removed so try and imagine what it must feel like to have under developed malfuncioning lungs which are also full of cysts which would cause a rending sensation as the lungs expanded and streached the cysts away from their ancor points, and on top of that imagine no matter how much you breath it will never be enough to keep you alive - how in the fuck could that possibly NOT be painful?

or alternatively, that "oblivion" would be what she feels as she's being aborted? I don't think that any of us can honestly and accurately assess that.

I'm assuming that doctor use utrasound to help guide the insterments, if a child were truly cut into peices while still alive and struggled against it d you really think that in all this time not ONE utra sound video surfaced to show that? Not even a faked one for emotonal impact?

You say: "If your dog was dying of lung cancer woud you let nature take its course? or put it down?"

There are those of us (myself included) who believe that there is a distinct difference between animal and human life. If your grandma was dying of lung cancer, would you put her down? Human life is precious.

If she wanted, is life so precious that no one can ever escape it no atter how bad their pain?

You say: "If we want nature to take its course we would NEVER preform Csections."

I said that medical technology and advances should be used to help save/maintain or improve human life, not to snuff it out.

Acctually you said "let nature take it course" specifically,

Ok, and what then? The end result is still a dead little child, one that her parents loved and grieved for. She wouldn't have died by their choice and at the hand of a doctor. Force the woman thru another 13 weeks of pregnancy? Pregnancy is now torture?

I would say it is indeed if you know that your child will be born dead

I know that some women have it alot rougher and more uncomfortable than others, but it's hardly torture.

Are any of those women you know going to give birth to a corpse?

My objection to abortion is that it is the forceable taking of the most innocent of human lives.

Fair enough

Human life is precious and each one has eternal value.

Assumes facts not in evidence

I don't believe that people have the right to decide whether a child should be allowed to come into this world.

I have a couple of hypotheitcal for you then.

What if instead of getting an abortion they had the child delived by Csection that day to die a 'natural' death?

Now suppose you have a child on a conveyer belt that will be dropped in a medium acid. You are just far enough away that you arent able to reach it before it falls in to dies horribly but you are given a gun. What would you do

Personally, I find it a very heartwrenching situation that I cannot pass judgement on or give advice about. Having never been in that situation I have no idea as to how I would proceed and either way my heart goes out to the parents and child.

Look, Luj, I think it's pretty fair to say that we're not going to reach a point of agreement here...

I'm not saying that the baby wouldn't have experienced any pain, however briefly, when coming into this life. Just that your experience with hypoxic swimming and lung surgery may not be an exact replica of--or even close to--what this little one would have experienced....as far as abortion not being painful for the fetus, well, think about the methods that are used: There's D&C (being cut up and scraped out), the saline solution, injecting the heart with chemicals that will shut it down, and that doesn't even touch the really barbaric one--partial birth abortion. Check out

http://www.silentscream.org/

since you asked for a video. Pretty graphic. And this is of a much earlier term abortion.

As far as the pregnancy being torture, sure, I can't even begin to imagine what that mom (& dad) were going through emotionally as they were grieving the impending loss of their child. I just don't see how you can say that aborting their child 13 weeks early would somehow bring them any greater peace of mind? The loss is still a loss--inconceivable and truly tragic. But now they have to wrestle--for the rest of their lives--with the knowledge that they chose the time, place and method of their daughter's death.

Lastly, my mention of letting nature take its course was referencing an option that the parents could have chosen--regardless of the delivery method. There is a difference between artificially sustaining life in a situation that is medically hopeless--and intentionally, purposefully ending that life.

I just don't see how you can say that aborting their child 13 weeks early would somehow bring them any greater peace of mind?

We can assume it the better choice for them because they chose it. Maybe they'll decide later that it was the wrong choice, but, at least on this point, we can't assume that the choice we would make for them is better than the one they would make for themselves.

"In truth the issue is why people who cant prove the existance of their god think they have the right speak for it and tell everyone else how to live."

Luj, I don't think this is what you meant, but that statement comes across as saying that all morality is religion-based, and that atheism frees one from all moral constraints. I was under the impression that principled atheists were trying to disavow the equation "atheist = libertine".

"We can assume it the better choice for them because they chose it. Maybe they'll decide later that it was the wrong choice, but, at least on this point, we can't assume that the choice we would make for them is better than the one they would make for themselves."

I would say if you can't face people with your head held high, you've made the wrong decision. And they made it clear they could not do that. When one has made the correct decision, other people's opinions and reactions to it don't matter. Whether they are other paritioners or not.

Not always. In the case of someone who has given a child up for adoption, say, there may be many reasons for feeling shame. Just because it's the right decision doesn't mean it's one that makes them feel good about themselves.

"We can assume it the better choice for them because they chose it."

I don't understand this at all. It's not hard for me to think of a choice I've made that was EMPHATICALLY not the best choice.

Is there something else to this standard?

"Is there something else to this standard?"

Nothing at all. But I'm not going to start telling fully functional adults that I know better than they do about what works for them. We can argue all we want that this was not the best choice for the baby, but arguing that we know better than the parents what decisions work for them is patronizing.

"I want an abortion."
"No you don't, sweetie. You're just upset. Here, let me make the big-girl decisions for you."

MonicaP: I would hope that, somehow, it did somehow give them greater peace of mind. I mean, yes, we've got to assume that they believed they were doing the right thing because they in fact did it.

I was simply pointing out that the loss of a child isn't going to be any less or more painful based on the timing of the loss.

For me, a decision I make that does not need to be rationalized in order for me to sleep at night, is the right one. I hope for their sakes, that this family is truly at peace with the decision they've made.

"I can't prove that God exists any more than you can prove that He doesn't..."

Setting aside for moment the absolute requirement that the extraordinary claim that there IS a God™ requires you to prove your claim first, I can show why and how various claims you might make are bogus. For instance, if you expect that any prayer is answered - and I show that no such thing occurs, we're all done.

And so, we're done.

But your need trumps anything else you may learn, so any kind of evidentiary rigor will fall on your deaf ears.

-----

But this isn't about a religion. Abortion does not care who or what you pray to or how you do it.

And the biggest cost is to the mother, not to you. Sorry if you were insulted by that observation, but as a spectator myself I am appalled at the number of people who express their own outrage as the most important thing.

Abortion ends a family's genetic line. In the short term and the long, people who get abortions are practicing the sort of natural selection that selects against future abortion.

That's the truth.

If you want abortion to stop, you're going to have to act as though the battle was lost. You're going to have to decriminalize sex and push contraception - or embrace Islam and force women to wear a sack, condemning your men to lonely desperation. You'll notice that's not working.

Start thinking logically. What produce the best outcome for each, not all, persons involved? Hint: it isn't suffering.

I did not see this as an abortion issue, but a religious one.

I always thought that people conformed to religious teaching, hoping that it would change them for the better somehow. What makes a person think they can do what they want, and then try to make the church change to conform to their views? I don't understand that totally inconsistent thinking with people of the Catholic church.

If you belong to a church you obey its rules, or you go join a Unity Church or something else that has no rules, no good or bad, and no right or wrong.

Be accountable for your actions.

Radwaste: Regarding religion, I mentioned it in the context in which it was brought up--namely, Lujlp's assertion that "people who can't prove the existence of their god, etc"

I wasn't attempting to hijack this thread and turn it into a "Does God exist?" issue. (all the same--I'll take the bait: I do have issue with the premise that there is "an absolute requirement" for me to *prove* my claim first, for you to then refute. If you're looking for God in a test tube or a mathematical equation, or some other "logically accepted" formula, you're not going to get it. Neither, I contend, can you provide me with incontrovertable evidence that He doesn't exist. It's a matter of belief, of faith. You don't believe; I do.)

Abortion may not be a religious issue for some, but for many, myself included, it goes ultimately to the very heart of the meaning and purpose of life, the sanctity of life and the existence of (a) God who created life would certainly override our right to make decisions concerning the destruction thereof.

It's not about personal outrage...it's about the fact that our society has allowed, encouraged, and applauded a woman's right to "choose", even if that choice results in the destruction of the most vulnerable and innocent life. I believe that those able of body and strong of mind ought to defend the weak and the helpless, not let them be "weeded out" as if they were some sub-human category of beings.

Again, if you're starting from the premise of natural selection and survival of the fittest, then abortion isn't so terribly abhorrent to you. However, for one who believes that human life is precious and even sacred, abortion is incompatible with that belief system.

Csection follwed by months in a oxegen filled chamber not feeling a human touch. Assuming the child even were to survived that it would be followed by dozens of surgeies any one of which might have resulted in death either on the table or in recovery. Assuming the child survived every single surgey it still would have survived childhood.

This is essentially what happened to me at birth(although I was in an oxygen chamber for weeks, not months). I underwent a lot of surgeries during the first two or three years of my life. Around the same time as I was born, several other children were born in the same hospital with the same/similar condition (diaphragmatic hernia which caused a lot of my organs to develop incompletely or improperly). Of all of them, I am the only one who lived.

I am now 25 and quite healthy and happy.

I am glad you were not the one making the decision whether or not to let me live, lujlp, because from what you wrote up there, I infer you would have killed me without giving me a chance to survive.

"But I'm not going to start telling fully functional adults that I know better than they do about what works for them."

Neither am I. I don't see how that's related to "We can assume it the better choice for them because they chose it." I can't assume that without a lot more evidence, but I have no intention of telling them what to do.

momof4 they never said they couldnt face their fellow parishoners, they said they were angry the only compasion and suppoert they recived was from strangers and not their friends.

You want to talk about shame? I'm ashamed that I didnt kill my stepmother before she started in on my little sister as well.

Does that mean I made the wrong choice?

What kind of evidence would prove that this is the best choice for them? Do they need to have no regrets whatsoever? Do we have to wait 20 years and ask them then?

Ultimately, "best choice" is a meaningless phrase too subjective to have much value. Best for the short-term mental health of the parents'? Their long-term spirituality? Their fiances? Their chances of having and supporting children in the future?

I always assume adults make the "best" decisions for them in the sense that the have determined it is the best decision. Since I can't determine whether, in fact, it is "best," there's no point in wasting time pondering it further. Much more interesting is the debate over whether this is an ethical or even reasonable decision.

Several of you seem awfully glib about what medical procedures and/or experiences an expecting mother should have to undergo. Just to set the record straight: neither pregnancy nor a C-section are benign experiences (both physically and emotionally). It almost seems some may think having a baby nothing more than the equivalent of passing a kidney stone or taking a large crap. Like most anti-choice types, you are more than happy to demonize anyone that does anything you find ‘icky’ (i.e. drugs, sex, abortion) but seem exceptionally hesitant, sometimes outright hostile, to dealing with the natural consequences. So long as it does not directly affect your life it does not seem it should be any of your concern. I don’t go around smacking the cigarette or jelly doughnut out of your hand, carrying on about how I find your life choices personally repugnant.

And to all those ‘Silent Scream’ types: a basic nervous system response to noxious stimuli is to move away from it. No shit! You try to get away from something that is damaging! This does not take human experience to understand: this includes the worm you put on your fishing hook, the slug in your garden you put salt on or a jelly fish swimming close to you that you poke with a stick. Notice I say ‘noxious stimuli’ and not pain. Pain is (by definition) a subjective experience—something you emotionally feel, not just a basic nervous system reflexive response. Unless you want to debate that the worm, slug or jelly fish is feeling ‘pain’…

Another note (especially tekende): don’t equate physical malformation with a genetic disorder.* The fact you are typing a response to this thread is a testament to that. The former is usually corrected with an operation (or a couple of operations). The latter (although associated with many physical disorders) is not corrected by a simple operation. When you have a genetic disorder you have lots of problems (especially with the ol’ noodle), which means you are, in the best or circumstances, a perpetual infant. Again, I would love to see you anti-choice types pony-up the money to take care of the incredible burden the parents who choose to deliver must bare.

*Note: everything is medicine is followed by an asterisk. You might be cured of that cancer, you might have a normal child and Ed McMahon said I might have been a millionaire. There are always exceptions to the rule—but it does not invalidate the rule. So please don’t start posting all the exceptions (the 1-5%) while ignoring reality.

Thanks Amy! I have been lurking for a while but now have been moved to Europe (after spending some quality time in Afghanistan).

Luj, I'm sorry about what you went through with your stepmother. You don't need to go into detail for me to fill in the blanks; any abuse of a child--by an adult supposed to be providing love and care--is horrific.

Yeah, Doc, you're right. I mean, I very very nearly died at birth, almost didn't even make it out of the womb, and was in pretty bad shape for a few years afterward, am hearing impaired as a result of the medicine I had to be on, and am still missing 3/4 of a lung, but it's totally not the same thing at all.

Except you and lujlp probably still would have killed me.

Luj, I'm sorry about what you went through with your stepmother. You don't need to go into detail for me to fill in the blanks; any abuse of a child--by an adult supposed to be providing love and care--is horrific.

I don't think people are being glib about procedures. The original post suggested that this was an example of a late term abortion that was okay. A number of people disagreed with it, which should not be a surprise to anyone since abortion is one of those issues people agree to disagree.

None of the four choices the couple has would end in an "easy" procedure, but when you're 7 months pregnant there is no easy procedure to get the baby out, that's why there are all sorts of painkillers available.

I am glad you were not the one making the decision whether or not to let me live, lujlp, because from what you wrote up there, I infer you would have killed me without giving me a chance to survive.

Posted by: tekende

Not to bust your bubble tekende, but yes had I been your father and given a voice I'd have went thumbs down. But even your condition wasnt as bad as this childs, its heart was crushed, its lungs were usless, even if it survived the wait to surgey and each and every surgery it still had 0% viability.

Your 4% vability was infinite to the order of infinate better as far as survival goes.

Perhaps the best way to end this debate would be to outlaw abortion, then have all the parents of unwanted and seriously ill children turn them over to the hospital - soon enough due to budget consrtaints they'll let them die like they do in texas.

And on a lighter hearted note I got into an agrument with a calvist who spends time protesting out side abortion clinics - absolutly hilarious

lujlp -

Then how about you just come and kill me this evening? What would be the difference?

Did I miss the part where lujlp supported holding a pregnant women down and aborting her fetus against her will?

I was adopted, and people often ask me how I would feel if my bio mother had chosen abortion instead. My answer is usually that I wouldn't feel anything: I'd have been terminated before I'd had the chance to develop an opinion about it. It wouldn't matter at all.

dont worry about it the other beth my point in mentioning it was shame isnt proof of wrongdoing.

And B the point of the 4 options I listed wasnt was was easiest for the parents but what was best for the baby who was going to die no matter which methed was used

Hey tenkende post your address then we'll talk

Doc Jensen, may I presume that you're male?

"Several of you seem awfully glib about what medical procedures and/or experiences an expecting mother should have to undergo. Just to set the record straight: neither pregnancy nor a C-section are benign experiences (both physically and emotionally). It almost seems some may think having a baby nothing more than the equivalent of passing a kidney stone or taking a large crap."

For the record, I have been pregnant 3 times and have 3 children. All this, and yep, still "anti-choice". If anything, my having children has further cemented for me that it is most definitely a child you're carrying when pregnant.

So, am I inferring correctly that your stance is that abortion does not cause any pain to the fetus? Cutting it up into pieces and then removing or causing it to be removed from the uterus is pain-free for the fetus? As is causing it to be immersed in salt solution so that it cannot survive the harsh chemical environment?

I think "glib" is actually an apt description for your comparing abortion to the reaction of a jelly fish, slug or worm. This is a human being, a helpless child of which we're speaking, not fish bait.

I have to cut you some slack though, seriously; you mention just returning from Afghanistan, where I'll bet you saw enough sh*t to jade you for a lifetime; from your handle I'm guessing you're a corpsman?

Cute.

I want you to think about this. And I mean actually THINK, not just respond within the parameters of your known pro-choice/pro-life arguments.

You are saying you would have chosen to kill me--KILL me--because I MIGHT not have survived long after being born. Here I am, 25 years old, and I've survived quite well. But had you been the one making the decision at the time, I would not exist right now.

Think about that. How the fuck do you justify something like that?

And what with the David Bowie obbsesion dude

While I would always have compassion for parents going through such an ordeal, it strikes me as very ironic.

I don't have much of a problem with a very early abortion. I would think that unwanted children are at a lifetime disadvantage. To me, the mother is the one best able to make decisions about the potential child’s quality of life. As the pregnancy progresses, to me the decision to abort becomes less and less viable. Late term abortions are rather dastardly. Often the baby’s skull is punctured and the brains are sucked out so the skull can be crushed for easy removal. This may be more painful than dying from the birth process. Yes, I did say painful. Children ARE viable at this gestation.

I was raised in an abusive household. I became pregnant as a teenager (when I sought refuge at a boyfriend’s apartment). I chose abortion. At that time, I was really screwed up(and a teenager and broke). I would not give my child up for adoption because I was even more afraid of adoption than raising the child myself. My mother tried to adopt an older child. Thank goodness it was not approved. The child may have gone from the frying pan into the fire.

To wrap things up, abortion is not an easy answer. People must make difficult decisions. It is not for strangers to make the decision. I hope the couple have learned some compassion. Perhaps they could share it with the world.

"Abortion is easier on parents. Never on babies. "

Agreed. That's why fetuses are aborted and not babies.

"Hey Bob, how's that little fetus of yours doing?"
*Fine, thanks for asking. The little guy is off to pre-school next week.*
"Amazing how fast they grow up, isn't it?"
*Yes, and it's so cute to see him meeting all the other little fetii in class.*

"I do have issue with the premise that there is "an absolute requirement" for me to *prove* my claim first, for you to then refute. If you're looking for God in a test tube or a mathematical equation, or some other "logically accepted" formula, you're not going to get it. Neither, I contend, can you provide me with incontrovertable evidence that He doesn't exist. It's a matter of belief, of faith. You don't believe; I do.)"

As I said: But your need trumps anything else you may learn, so any kind of evidentiary rigor will fall on your deaf ears.

And so you deny the need for the most fundamental, the most basic test, even as you take more care in buying groceries for dinner, a car or a house than you do in examining a belief of yours. You haven't even read the link. Not only does the Bible™ say things you do not support about prayer, your belief demands that you not even consider that not one solitary person who has even lost a limb is worthy of having it restored by prayer.

Whether it's about religion or abortion, an argument based on fallacy cannot satisfy any requirement.

But - of course - no one here would admit to employing a fallacy in any stage of their arguments, even if they don't know what they are.

Think about that. How the fuck do you justify something like that?
- tekende

As easily as you'd condem a child to a painful life of less than a year filled with crushing suffocation because you think its "right"

I dont know you, I dont care about you. You arent some bright and shieny miracle deserving of love and attention and constant validation. You are 1 of billions, a statistical anomoly who survived - good for you but who cares.

You want to think about something? Had you been born anywhere else in the world you wouldnt be here now either. Is the randomnes of your parents or locale of birth anymore kind or creul in the span of time and space then what I would have done in 1985 had I been the one to screw your mother?

Your inherent bias on this issue is understandable, and though you may be intractable on this issue, I do like your sardonic replies though, stick around, have some fun on the oter threads as well

By the way did everyone completly miss my joke about a calvanist protesting the actions of others?

"You want to talk about shame? I'm ashamed that I didnt kill my stepmother before she started in on my little sister as well.

Does that mean I made the wrong choice?"

I would way so, if you're still ashamed of it. You failed to protect someone related to you, that was smaller and weaker. Hmmm, pretty well related to this thread, no?

"So long as it does not directly affect your life it does not seem it should be any of your concern. I don’t go around smacking the cigarette or jelly doughnut out of your hand, carrying on about how I find your life choices personally repugnant."

Someone sawing your head off affects my life not in the least, yet I'd not allow it to happen if I could stop it. And the day my eating a jelly donut leads to the certain and immediate death of someone else, then feel damn free to knock it out of my hand.

Lujlp has a definite bias, his childhood was apparently shit, and so he may not wish it on others. Not his choice to make, ever, fortunately, seeing as he's a man. And why should we care about his POV, seeing as he's a statistical anomaly who was beaten, not the norm, and not special in any way? Right, Luj?

"soon enough due to budget consrtaints they'll let them die like they do in texas."

Wanna cite that? My little premature texans cost about half a mil. And were not, obviously, let to die. Neither were the 2 medicaid babies in their NICU room with them. Nor was the 23 weeker a friend of mine had. Nor...I can go on.

I always find it really interesting that, on the whole, men have the strongest pro-abortion-rights opinions. Like they really, really want to keep that ability to not be a dad, even after making the kid. Wanting to keep your paycheck is not a reason to kill someone. If it were, we could off a certain Kenyan with no jail worries at all.

Acctually momof4 given DOJ sataistics an abused child seems to be the norm

I love you mental gymnastics by the way - twisting the way only a beliver can, its wrong to kill a baby before it dies in pain, and its wrong for a 9 yr old to fail to kill a 30yr old woman

Here is you cite by the way http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6307046

Baby who could have been kept alive and given an organ transplant allowed to die over the cost of keeping it alive in your state no less - but had she tried to get an abortion you'd have condemnd her. Why havent you condemnd yourself for not overturning the law that lets hospital refuse treatment to people who cant pay?

tekende:

I totally would have killed you in utero. But I wouldn't kill you today because it looks like you are a positive contributor to society. (Consistency = I also support the death penalty.)

I'd be willing to bet you're a bit of a gambler. Your circumstances likely formed you that way. You probably have that outlook that, "anything is possible", "miracles happen" or "I must have a purpose here/I am what God wanted". It is true: your destiny may contain greatness.

But I am not a gambler, and I think of all those babies with you that *did* die and *did* suffer because their parents were gambling their family's well-being on "morality". With a heavy heart, I feel compassion for those babies and families for the horrible circumstances they endured. Personally, I would have preferred an abortion (or early withdrawl of life support) if I were a mother in that situation. I do not think it is "moral" to spend exhorbitant amounts of community resources on a very unlikely outcome all the while emotionally and physically torturing a mother, a baby, and their family.

You were incredibly lucky, and I am happy for you. And it's great that you look on the bright side of things. Like many "differently-abled" individuals out there, you could be drowning yourself in narcotics and alcohol in despair over their deformaties. But instead you are socializing on a public forum.

You had it rough, but you survived. And you are making something worthwhile of your life. Kudos. But I wouldn't wish your struggles with chance survival on my child's or any other child's life.

If it were, we could off a certain Kenyan with no jail worries at all.

Oh, you bring the class m4, you bring it.

If my parents didnt have money I would have wanted to be aborted. I was already heading twoard a life of homelessness but only two things stopped me 1)the lack of desire to do sex work (cuz when you're homeless and a young woman you kinda head that way) 2)my parents paid all my living expenses all the time and didnt ask questions.

I am bi-polar and its a pretty treatable disease, but it's expensive. It cost me $300 an hour sessions with a psychiatrist that does not take insurance. Plus when you're crazy you cant hold down food much less a job. At first I tried getting help the low income way, with terrible results. Anyways the only way I got out so quickly was cuz my parents were never stingy with the cash. They were shitty ass parents but they gave me an opportunity that only money can bring.

"Finally, abortion IS a black and white issue in the Catholic Church, much as this poor guy may wish it weren't, and want to mitigate their decision with a discussion of mercy."

i was wondering. i am not catholic. but i was taught once that the catholics had a rule where if you are doing a procedure for which the purpose was to save the live of the mother, but the unintended 'side effect' was the death of the fetus, it was acceptable? i.e. the example i was taught was say the pregnant mother has cervical cancer, and the treatment calls for a hysterectomy - this obviously results in the death of the fetus, but the purpose is the treatment of the mother's cancer - it was acceptable in the catholic church. there was a name for this rule but i can't remember it. did they teach me wrong? or did this change? i realize it's not the concern of the people posting on religion rules here, or even of this case, i was just curious.

Radwaste: Actually I did read the link, not in its entirety, but certainly enough to get the "gist."

I maintain that you and I have opposing belief systems when it comes to God. I could point you to the extraordinary complexity of a single living cell, let alone an entire organism, and challenge you how, even given billions upon billions of years, such a thing came about due to pure chance--despite being contrary to basic scientific law, such as matter in its natural state always going from a state of order to disorder vice the other way around. In fact, there is currently a large movement afoot (Intelligent Design) in the scientific community--away from Darwinism, as there are far too many questions than answers; many of these scientists are not religious or advocates of Creationism, either.

Still waiting for the promised "evidentiary rigor" to sway me to your side; the link you provided doesn't answer it (for me at least). I'm not sure why, if you were to jump from a plane and ask God to reverse the law of gravity, He doesn't do it. There are plenty of questions that can be raised on either side of the aisle.

Obviously you are an intelligent guy--I've seen your posts and most often I agree with you as they are well reasoned and formulated. But on this matter, we don't agree and won't come to any agreement. Your belief system is fundamentally different than mine; fair enough?

I'll shut up now :-)

Whatever,

You are right that is the rule. IF you have an ectopic pregnancy they remove the tube to save your life but the unintended consequence is that the baby dies. Same with Chemo. IF you miscarry because of chemo or other cancer therapies it wasn't intentional killing of the child and therefore licit. Even if you know death will result.

Well, luj, I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion on the DOJ stats of abused kids here before, with the basic agreement they're crap.

I"m always curious why people who would've been fine with being aborted don't off themselves. And for the love of God please don't have kids. We don't need more of you in this world, ya'lls idea of compassion is pretty fucked up, and right up there with eugenicists. There is a world of difference in alleviating someone's pain, and killing them because they might die anyway. By that logic, we should all be aborted until the species ends, since we all WILL die, most of us painfully (Amy's promise to kill herself via overdose notwithstanding)

I could point you to the extraordinary complexity of a single living cell, let alone an entire organism, and challenge you how, even given billions upon billions of years, such a thing came about due to pure chance

The problem here is that just because we don't know how it happened doesn't mean God did it.

I"m always curious why people who would've been fine with being aborted don't off themselves.

I don't want to die, but I'm not all that upset about the idea of never having existed. I prefer existing now that I know the joys of great cheese, but if it hadn't happened, I wouldn't be around to know it. So, no offing.

Well momof4 I am going to kill myself one day, once I need a machine or two or a pound of pills to keep going.

My compasion may seem like eugenics to you but I'm not the kind of person who sees a guy burning alive and just waits around for him to die of natural causes when there is no hope for his survival.

And when it comes down to the end of life there often is no difference between pain relif and killing.

I will not judge these people. Relatively few people are presented with a choice that so starkly challenges their faith. I am an Anglican Christian but, I cannot judge these people because I do not know what I would do in such a situation. So many self righteous people are on that thread. It's like combat. You can talk all you want before the shit hits the fan but when the bullets start flying then you really know how you will respond. I can only hope that God will grant them comfort. I know their decision is killing them inside.

"The problem here is that just because we don't know how it happened doesn't mean God did it."

It also doesn't mean that He didn't. My contention is that evidence of intelligent design points far more strongly in favor of the existence of a God than not.

...and we could go round and round all day on this. You, I and everyone else all believe *something* about what we see around us, ourselves, and how we attempt to explain it, etc. No one believes in *nothing*

"You can talk all you want before the shit hits the fan but when the bullets start flying then you really know how you will respond."

Moral relativism: deciding what suits you conveniently at that moment. Which is why moral decisions are supposed to be made when you have a clear head-prior to the issue coming up. You decide you'll never commit adultery before that really hot guy in the cubical down the hall invites you for drinks when you're in a bored rut with your husband. You decide not to have an abortion before your life would be so much simpler if you got one.

My contention is that evidence of intelligent design points far more strongly in favor of the existence of a God than not.

Except that it doesn't. The universe is majestic, and we don't know how it got that way, so we assume some divine intelligence must have done it because our tiny human brains can't figure out anything else (yet). Magic! The thunder is overwhelming and so much bigger than I am, so it must be Zeus in the heavens.

People supporting intelligent design get stuck in the trap that, if we don't yet know how this works, then it must be unknowable. We take away the unsupported assumption that SOMETHING caused the universe to be and we no longer have any case for God whatsoever.

I know, I'm not going to convince you there's no God, but it's fun trying.

Moral relativism: deciding what suits you conveniently at that moment.

Agreed. In this case, though, it may be more a discovery that we're not the people we think we are until our theory of ourselves is tested.

"Agreed. In this case, though, it may be more a discovery that we're not the people we think we are until our theory of ourselves is tested."

Momof4 was too busy being self righteous to see my point.

"And for the love of God please don't have kids. We don't need more of you in this world, ya'lls idea of compassion is pretty fucked up, and right up there with eugenicists"

Actually my idea of children is adopting them, better than popping them out. Think about it, without you your children would not have existed. Without me the children I adopt would have suffered greatly in the system. Whose more compassionate?

In fact lets take your argument of eugenics. You choose to have biological children for various reasons but I'm sure one of the main reasons was the need to create children with the man you love. I'm adopting children that have no genetic connection to me or mine. But yours? Hmm...whose more interested in DNA here?

ya'lls idea of compassion is pretty fucked up, and right up there with eugenicists.

I've always wondered why eugenics gets such a bad wrap. I'm not advocating governmental (or any other type of) enforcement, but why shouldn't someone evaluate their medical history and the medical history of their breeding partner and ancestors and decide if you really want to subject an offspring to that life to allow you the vanity of continuing your genetic line? I shudder every time I hear someone talk about how young slow miserable deaths run in their families as a justification for having kids early, or that they have a genetic illness that makes their life miserable while holding their child. People seem to loose all logic when it comes time to breed.

-Julie

"I know, I'm not going to convince you there's no God, but it's fun trying."

Monica--likewise. I too find it interesting that two people can look at the exact same subject and come up with entirely different conclusions.

Ppen: I concur that adoption is an entirely noble endeavor; I hope to adopt someday myself; I could procreate with my husband (already have 3 beautiful kids with my ex) for the sake of it, and nothing wrong with that, but I think I would rather give a child(ren) a stable, loving home who are already here and who otherwise would have to go without.

>>I've always wondered why eugenics gets such a bad wrap.

It's not always eugenics on it's own that gets people so twitchy, Julie.

There's your positive eugenics - very broadly speaking - when you select FOR desirable traits you figure are inherited.

And there's your negative eugenics - discouraging or stopping so-called undesirables from breeding, say, to improve society.

There's your positive eugenics - very broadly speaking - when you select FOR desirable traits you figure are inherited.

And there's your negative eugenics - discouraging or stopping so-called undesirables from breeding, say, to improve society.

Perspective parents should evaluate both their desirable genetic traits, and their negative genetic issues and decide if it is in the best interest of the child to carry on your genetic material. Independently implementing eugenics in your own life is the definition of compassion.

As far as governmental enforcement to weed out the undesirables, that is just disguised genocide.

-Julie

Sorry "Perspective parents" should be "Prospective parents"

-Julie

or those of you who are anti-choice, should these parents have had to pay for the abortion in this case?

There's nothing stopping pro-abortion folks from using their own moneys to start and fund an organization devoted to paying for abortions for "poor" women except their own unwillingness to do so. Writing a check just doesn't feel as good as forcing somebody else to write a check.

Writing a check just doesn't feel as good as forcing somebody else to write a check.

Neither does being shot in the head by a pro-lifer.

Its amazing how often a discussion of abortion turns into one about the existance of God. Quite frankly I find it a little odd.

Lets say that God exists, if he does, well abortion is probably a bad thing in most cases, to put it lightly. I think God would have enough sense to realize that not every situation is black and white, and make rational moral judgements about agonizing human choices.

But lets say he doesn't exist.

The idea being that abortion is reasonable if there is no God to say otherwise. That, like much regarding atheism, is the argument for the relative morality of convenience, which by extension means that the only morals that exist are the ones we'd find pleasant to believe at the moment.

By that argument, abortion is only as correct as the law decides, because any and all rights and liberties are purely HUMAN inventions, with no moral authority beyond the presently elected body.

In short, abortion is as equally right as it is equally wrong, entirely according to personal convenience and whatever state laws exist at the time. Incidentally that same morality, or lack thereof, can be used to excuse most forms of negative antisocial behavior. Its the ugly side of outright atheism that most atheists, especially the ones who actually ARE ethical, either play down or willfully blind themselves to in their quest to make reason the only basis for morality.

Now, to continue the point, one can make a Godless argument for the evils of abortion that is based entirely upon reason. It is telling that extreme leftist societies which modeled themselves essentially along Godless lines, had a mixed bag of abortion policies relating entirely upon the needs of the government. The USSR paid or forced abortions on certain population segments, others, like the government of Chau Chesku government, forbade abortion to support a rise in population growth. China's stance has been based upon limiting population growth, and has forced abortions on an often undesiring population, or substituted it with brutal fines.

The idea that a "Godless" argument must support abortion is pure fantasy, and the idea that a "Godly" argument must ALWAYS favor antiabortion, is equal fantasy. The long and the short of it ladies & gentlemen, is that the entire body of arguments boils down to one question:

When does life begin? The answer to that depends entirely upon when legal protections begin for the next generation.

Our answer to that question says much about how we weigh the value of life beyond our own skin, against our own personal convenience & wellbeing.

Myself, I'd argue that the time of viable survival is the time when legal protections should begin. The moment you "could live" is the moment the chance to do so should be protected.

I believe that if we must make a mistake under the law, then we should err on the side of life.

"--despite being contrary to basic scientific law, such as matter in its natural state always going from a state of order to disorder vice the other way around."
-The other Beth

Not true!

Since I hate it when people get the second law of thermodynamics wrong, I had to call you out on this one. What the law does state is that any natrual process will result in a NET increase in "disorder", however there are many natural processes that result in an more ordered part to a system, even though there will be an overall increase in entropy. For example, if this wasn't true water would never freeze to ice in the winter.

"I've always wondered why eugenics gets such a bad wrap. I'm not advocating governmental (or any other type of) enforcement, but why shouldn't someone evaluate their medical history and the medical history of their breeding partner and ancestors and decide if you really want to subject an offspring to that life to allow you the vanity of continuing your genetic line?"

No one's saying that. Feel free to judge thoroughly whether or not you need to pass on your genes. Everyone needs to consider that well before doing so. But when you say babies with health issues, or possible health issues, SHOULD be aborted to save suffering, that that IS the compassionate thing to do, that's where you cross the line. Deciding not to breed because you might pass something on is noble. Killing someone that has something wrong is not.

I get to be self-righteous. I've been offered "selective reduction" to up the odds one would survive. Against 80% in-utero death rates, both are super-healthy and scary-bright 5 year olds now. I've been run-actually run-to the OR on a gurney knowing I was very likely going to stroke-out and die due to rare and very severe sudden-onset preeclampsia. My last concious thought was "save that baby". And now, after baby 4, have been told that my uterus would not possibly support another baby without rupturing and likely killing us both. I got sterilized-I'm not dumb-but if I"m in that .03% that gets preggers anyway, I'll have that baby or die trying. Not being the person you thought you were would be pretty damn disappointing, since you are the person who decides who you are and what you do.

As for which is better-adopting or birthing-well that depends. Don't feel all high and mighty because you *might* go all angelina jolie. Unless you're adopting older damaged kids, you're not really doing anything. Healthy babies have no shortage of takers. There are waiting lists, in fact.

I'll have that baby or die trying.
-momof4

So what your saying is even in such a circumstance as your gaurenteed death you'd continue with a pregancy that would mean leaving your 4 kids without a mom and your husband with twice as much work in trying to raise them, all of them dealing with crushig greif, and your children that much more likey to become drug abusers, criminals, or unwed parents themselves?

All to gestate a baby that wont survive anyway?

"Unless you're adopting older damaged kids, you're not really doing anything. Healthy babies have no shortage of takers. There are waiting lists, in fact"

I have volunteered to adoption agencies. Yes, in this country there are waiting lists for healthy WHITE babies. And yes, workers there complained that when people came to adopt they had a "list" of requirements. Anways a damaged kid is not a possibility I have ruled out.

BUT the truth is I dont really think I'm morally superior for choosing to adopt. But alot of people who choose to pop them out of their vagina like to rub it in everyones face that they did me and society a favor by CHOOSING to have children. Look I dont view having children and raising them correctly as anything special. It's what you're supposed to do if you have them. And it shouldnt be the defining moment of your life.

ANY adoption of a child who would otherwise not have a permanent and loving home is admirable, in my opinion. Taking on the responsibility of a child with special needs is even more laudable.

@ maria: I appreciate your specificity re: 2nd law of thermodynamics. I confess I was referring to the boiled down version I recalled from middle school; however, consider this: If all the pieces of a simple machine were placed in proximity to each other, given billions upon billions of years, what are the mathematical chances that they will "assemble" themselves (ignoring decay for a moment) in the proper manner required to function, and then, actually function? And when you compare that to the enormous complexity of a single living cell...

Just sayin...I'll let you have the last word if you so desire; I did say that I was going to shut up, oh, several posts ago....

But when you say babies with health issues, or possible health issues, SHOULD be aborted to save suffering, that that IS the compassionate thing to do, that's where you cross the line.

I haven't heard anyone say that ill fetuses SHOULD be aborted. What has been said is that parents should have that option based upon the knowledge that they have at that moment and what would be the most compassionate thing to do. I see what these parents did as the most compassionate thing for both the parents and the child. Why is human life so 'sacred' that you make a point of extending the suffering of all involved? This is the same reason why I don't understand why a person in agony with no hope of recovery can't be given a slight overdose of pain medication and be allowed to die. What will several more weeks of agony do to show how sacred human life is?

In this case, it is the same issue. Why can't we choose to end suffering rather than extend life where no hope of recovery is possible and agony is a sure result?

-Julie

Julie W,

"This is the same reason why I don't understand why a person in agony with no hope of recovery can't be given a slight overdose of pain medication and be allowed to die. What will several more weeks of agony do to show how sacred human life is?"

From my understanding the biggest reason this is still illegal is because of the possible abusers to this issue. If you make it legal to euthanize a human in pain who is to say that an aging millionaire's children won't convince doctors that daddy with alzheimers needs to die so they get their inheritance early.

From my understanding the biggest reason this is still illegal is because of the possible abusers to this issue.

I like Oregon's law. Sadly it forces people to plan way in advance before they are unable to ask for themselves, but it addresses the abusers.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/6602/Euthanasia-Oregon-s-Euthanasia-Law.html

I'm just astounded that we treat our dying dogs more humanely that we treat our dying loved ones.

-Julie

A couple things:

First cells are incredible, but so is the second law of thermo.

As far as "things being assembled" I think that our solar system and galaxy are enormously complex, and they "assembled themselves" (or were assembled via natural forces)

Now I'm not trying for the last "word", as I am not "in" on the rest of your debate, but I do care very much about the correct use of scientific principles. And you are missrepresenting was the second law means.

"And it shouldnt be the defining moment of your life."

Actually, it should be, if you are going to have them. Raising another human being is the most important job you can do, if you're going to have them.

Again, ripping apart a fetus is not the pain-free compassionate end. Pain relief after birth would be. If you were dying and in pain, would you pay an islamist to hack your head off with a knife? Doubt it. So you really can't compare abortion to euthanasia-which I AM ok with.

So you really can't compare abortion to euthanasia-which I AM ok with..

Actually, no YOU cannot compare the two. Very often the 'late term abortion' that you are so against is very similar to the 'let nature take it's course' method that you so advocate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Procedures_used_in_later_term

The difference is that the fetus isn't allowed to suffer for weeks in the womb and the parents aren't forced to endure carrying a dying fetus any longer than required. Sometimes an injection of potassium to the heart happens first to attempt to ensure minimum suffering for the fetus (no one has determined if a fetus can suffer, but assuming that it can, stopping the heart before any further action takes place would certainly reduce the suffering.)

You are assuming that all abortions are D&E abortions, which typically isn't the case for late term abortions.

So, if you are okay with euthanasia, would you be okay with late term abortions of terminal fetuses if actions were taken to reduce possible suffering of the fetus?

-Julie

As an idea, if the mother was sedated, that should sedate the fetus as well.

-Julie