Bishops, Abortion, Pregnant Children That Have Been Raped and Sedition

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

There is one point at which a major change occurs in the child - at birth. The change is not biological, but social. In the eyes of society, a baby in the womb is competely different to a baby outside the womb; or, at least, the difference is much greater than that between a baby in the womb for n days and a baby in the womb for n-1 days. The line is not moral or scientific, but social and practical. I contend that, if the religious baggage surrounding this issue were to be removed, the line would be relatively in keeping with society's views on pregnancy. A foetus is never really viewed as a separate person, but rather as an extension of the mother. A woman has a baby and becomes a mother when she goes into labour and the baby pops out of her, not nine months before.

A line completely devoid of morality. As religion and morality are neither mutually dependent nor exclusive, I don't see how the removal of one leads to the removal of the other.

Having said that I agree that there is no other line and therefore allowing abortion up to nine months is the only logical position for a pro choice person to hold, any time scale below that is reflective only of that which their imagination is unwilling to tolerate.

It is not necessarily a line completely devoid of morality, tonys. Morality can be many different things, there are many different moral schools and traditions. There are rights- and duties-based moral traditions and there are utilitarian moral traditions, as well as religious ones and probably others as well. Without wanting to get into a philosophical debate, I will say that I think the cardinal question here is whether or not the foetus has personal rights like we do. If the baby has a legally recognized right to life, then the right of the mother to choose cannot trump that right, even if she is raped, unless her life is in serious danger (and the suicide excuse doesn't cut it).

On the other hand, if the baby does not have a right to life, a prohibition of abortion becomes a policy- or morally-based prohibition only. The mother's right to bodily autonomy, however, is a very strong one especially in this context as its abrogation has the potential to change her life completely. So there is no sufficiently compelling policy reason to justify its abrogation.

So there might still be a morally-based prohibition. But I believe that such a prohibition could only be based on religious morality because in such a scenario we are assuming that the foetus does not have personal rights. Where the moral prohibition cannot be justified on rights grounds it must be justified on the grounds that some higher power has declared abortion immoral.

evercloserunion wrote:

tonys wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

There is one point at which a major change occurs in the child - at birth. The change is not biological, but social. In the eyes of society, a baby in the womb is competely different to a baby outside the womb; or, at least, the difference is much greater than that between a baby in the womb for n days and a baby in the womb for n-1 days. The line is not moral or scientific, but social and practical. I contend that, if the religious baggage surrounding this issue were to be removed, the line would be relatively in keeping with society's views on pregnancy. A foetus is never really viewed as a separate person, but rather as an extension of the mother. A woman has a baby and becomes a mother when she goes into labour and the baby pops out of her, not nine months before.

A line completely devoid of morality. As religion and morality are neither mutually dependent nor exclusive, I don't see how the removal of one leads to the removal of the other.

Having said that I agree that there is no other line and therefore allowing abortion up to nine months is the only logical position for a pro choice person to hold, any time scale below that is reflective only of that which their imagination is unwilling to tolerate.

It is not necessarily a line completely devoid of morality, tonys. Morality can be many different things, there are many different moral schools and traditions. There are rights- and duties-based moral traditions and there are utilitarian moral traditions, as well as religious ones and probably others as well. Without wanting to get into a philosophical debate, I will say that I think the cardinal question here is whether or not the foetus has personal rights like we do. If the baby has a legally recognized right to life, then the right of the mother to choose cannot trump that right, even if she is raped, unless her life is in serious danger (and the suicide excuse doesn't cut it).

On the other hand, if the baby does not have a right to life, a prohibition of abortion becomes a policy- or morally-based prohibition only. The mother's right to bodily autonomy, however, is a very strong one especially in this context as its abrogation has the potential to change her life completely. So there is no sufficiently compelling policy reason to justify its abrogation.

So there might still be a morally-based prohibition. But I believe that such a prohibition could only be based on religious morality because in such a scenario we are assuming that the foetus does not have personal rights. Where the moral prohibition cannot be justified on rights grounds it must be justified on the grounds that some higher power has declared abortion immoral.

I take a much more straight forward view, I ignore the legal position & various schools of thought, I know the child inside the womb to be essentially the same being that emerges 9 months later albeit at a later stage of development, just as it will be at an even later stage of development at any point up to 17 or so years later. So on the basis of my own school of thought I say, don't touch, there is another life involved here, unable at the moment to speak or fend for itself, but like Bulmers apples, all it needs is time.

That's fair enough tonys. But on what basis do you say that your own school of thought is the one, out of all the different schools of thought, that should be reflected in the law?

evercloserunion wrote:

That's fair enough tonys. But on what basis do you say that your own school of thought is the one, out of all the different schools of thought, that should be reflected in the law?

As long as the majority of this country see it that way. If and when the majority think differently the law will then reflect whatever the current mood is, that said, whatever the law says, it won't change the way I see the issue.

Where does the man stand in your philosophy, tonys?

Kate P wrote:

Where does the man stand in your philosophy, tonys?

I believe as he is as responsible for the child as the Mother is, the man involved should have the same say in the future of the child, however given the practicalities of the situation this is not in fact the case.

Auditor #9 wrote:

imokyrok wrote:

Auditor - I would be pretty much in agreement with cactus on this one. I have attempted to have a discussion about the point where an embryo becomes equivalent to a "person" but nobody seems to want to engage on the scientific and moral issues involved.

You are a blastocyst and you are a person

I think that's a philosophical odyssey big enough for half a dozen forums and five hundred years. It gets down to metaphysics and convincing someone what life is in the first place and the difference between it and "intelligent" life ....

If you want to try, the music will go on and on and on and you'll have to be prepared to read up on and study biology, religion, physics, metaphysics, AI, mysticim etc. etc.

Plenty of time though during the recession.

Well, I had a go at the issues in an earlier post, but as imokyrok said, very few people are prepared to discuss them.

What do you think about the situation of the raped 9 year old girl expecting twins, and the excommunication of her mother? Children who have been raped incestuously generally ?