Abortion and the Death Penalty

[iceaura]

Yes, perhaps the “one cell embryo” and the “six week old embryo” are not babies by our vocabular standards, but you must realize that it’s irrelevant and immaterial altogether. The only thing that matters is the potential of that “one cell embryo”,

Not just vocabulary but reality is involved - it's not a baby yet. And actual human life often matters far more than "potential" anything - the actual human life involved here is the woman's.

Many people do. Women grieve for miscarriages too. And for abortions.

No one treats an early stage miscarriage as they do the death of a child. The only time an early stage embryo is treated as a child by anyone in practice, is when a woman wants an abortion.

You won't find a cemetary with a large section (it would be something like a fifth of the graves by number) devoted to early miscarriages, for example.

If you cracked open an egg and found a half formed chick instead, could you still make an omelet from it? Does a 10-12 week old fetus look like a fertilised egg to you?

Nope. But I don't see a chicken, or a child, either. And neither does anyone else, except in one circumstance - abortion.

Human life is not a mechanical thing, switched on like a light bulb at some magic moment, and everyone knows this whenever they aren't trying to make sure a woman isn't getting away with irresponsible sex.

Its an individual, a unique human being and anyone who thinks that vacuuming off a human being from their uterus is not killing a person is fooling no one but themselves.

That alleged belief, regarding an early stage embryo, is never revealed by action or societal custom in any other circumstance than abortion. So who is actually fooling themselves ?

tangent: pharmacists are licensed, given a monopoly, and ethically as well as professionally bound to fill a doctor's prescriptions for what the doctor considers the welfare of the patient. There are all kinds of jobs people can't do for moral, ethical, or religious reasons - if pharmacist is one of them, said person should find different employment. And any pharmacist who denies prescribed pharmaceuticals and betrays a patient in need should have their license revoked, at least.

 

[lepustimidus]

ice:

and ethically as well as professionally bound to fill a doctor's prescriptions for what the doctor considers the welfare of the patient.

No they aren't.

 

[Asguard]

they are legally bound to fill scripts as part of there licence agreement
they are legally bound to provide pharmacy only meds unless there is a MEDICAL reason not to as part of there licence agreement

 

[lepustimidus]

they are legally bound to fill scripts as part of there licence agreement

No they aren't. That's not the case in the United States or Australia (as far as I'm aware).

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/01/1072908839357.html

Under the protocols, pharmacists who object to the morning-after-pill on religious or moral grounds will refer women seeking Postinor-2 to other pharmacists.

 

[Enmos]

He's not. He's deciding for himself what drugs he makes available to others. If the customer doesn't like this, they can shop elsewhere.

And thus deciding what medicines people can use.

The fact that there are people on this forum who would force a pharmacist to engage in what he believes is an act of murder is just mind-boggling.

No it isn't. He should get another job then.

 

[lepustimidus]

Enmos:

And thus deciding what medicines people can use.

Again, if a pharamacist refuses to sell a particular medicine, then the customer need merely shop elsewhere. Pharmacists who refuse to sell the morning after pill are few and far between, so it's hardly an issue.

No it isn't. He should get another job then.

No he shouldn't. Business owners should (and can) choose to deny services if it so pleases them. You don't like it? Tough fucking shit. Go shop elsewhere. How dare you dictate to any business owner as to what services they must provide, especially when they have ethical qualms about doing so.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos:

Again, if a pharamacist refuses to sell a particular medicine, then the customer need merely shop elsewhere. Pharmacists who refuse to sell the morning after pill are few and far between, so it's hardly an issue.

No he shouldn't. Business owners should (and can) choose to deny services if it so pleases them. You don't like it? Tough fucking shit. Go shop elsewhere. How dare you dictate to any business owner as to what services they must provide, especially when they have ethical qualms about doing so.

Shop elsewhere ? Wtf ?
I think he could loose his job in my country. That shit is government regulated.
I don't know what kind of weird pharmacies you have over there.. :shrug:

 

[DeepThought]

And actual human life often matters far more than "potential" anything - the actual human life involved here is the woman's.

Human lives are frequently sacrificed in the cause of something which has only 'potential'; democracy in Iraq, for example, or any large scale engineering project. Every year large numbers of people die on building sites all around the world. A technician was killed in an accident during construction of the Large Hadron Collider, for example, and how many have died in endeavors like the space program? Road deaths are another good example of humans dieing simply because there is some potential benefit perceived in them being somewhere else.

Life is all about becoming.

Not just vocabulary but reality is involved - it's not a baby yet.

Are they separate? According to you:

Human life is not a mechanical thing, switched on like a light bulb at some magic moment

Presumably, then, the emergence of the child from the womb does not cause some miraculous transformation in the child's biology, but is simply a continuation of the same life which begun there.

I think it's good you are exploring your reptilian hind brain.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Bells, I didn't have time to post yesterday, sorry for the slow response.

This one first:

Why? There are religious people who also believe in the right of the individual to choose for themselves. Just as there are atheists who are against abortion.

My mother, for example, is a strict Catholic who believes in the right of women to choose. She is personally against abortion, but she also respects the rights of women to choose and have autonomy over their own bodies.

According to my religion (Quran & Hadist, in which I based all my judgment),
if I see something wrong, I should try to stop it with my hand; If I can't, I
should stop it with my tongue; If I can't do that either, I should at least
disagree by heart, which is the weakest form of faith.

Hence, if other woman say she will do abortion, I will never show my agreement
even if I can't say it. To hell with respect. Those who earn respect are the
one who deserve it.

 

[Asguard]

inzomnia i wouldnt really trust the quran, after all acording to james list if a person remains friends with a rapist they surport rape and as mohumad was a pediphile who every suports the quran or mohumad is a surporter of pedophila. not exactly got the moral high ground there

 

[Sciencelovah]

Bells, James R.,

When you take a pain killer, you are playing God. Each time you go to the doctors for any ailment, you are expecting that doctor to play God when they attempt to make you better. When you drive a car, you play God in that you have in your hands, the power to take away another person's life (eg. running them over).


"Making children" is like making pies. You do have to prepare the materials and then cook it. And yes, if you don't want that pie, you should be allowed to not be forced to cook it for 9 months. If that pie is making you sick or putting your health in danger, you should not be forced to keep endangering yourself for that 9 months. And if that pie is deformed or not viable, you should be allowed to not have it if you choose not to.


I played God when I had both my children. I was the one who had to do everything I could to ensure their viability and their survival while they were inside me. Does that mean if something went wrong and I lost either or both, that I would have been somehow evil?

Every time somebody uses contraception, they are "playing God" in the same way. Are you against contraception?


Do you think you belong to God? Don't you have free will?

When I talked about playing God, I refer to terminating life. Terminating life
is the privilege of God. You are not allow to abort your baby, just as it is
forbidden to do suicide.

James, about the free will, I do believe that God grants me free will, but only
to limited extent. Terminating life, choosing sex gender, choosing your biological
parent aren't among free will.

I do have free will in other things. I can choose to study or to be lazy, to work
or to be lazy, to maintain my health or to be careless, etc. bearing all the
consequences.

Norsefire


It's like arguing that Prince Charles is heir to the throne of England, and so the fact that he will be King is a done deal. He might get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Something like that. No free will there.

 

[Sciencelovah]

And no, I don't believe in "spirits". Nor do I believe that a 5 week old foetus has a spirit.

That is the image of a 5 week old foetus. Do you think it is self aware or has "spirit"? I personally do not.

Whether you call it fetus or baby, they are all just names. You do know that it is
a growing life, a potential different individual. Do you actually expect that an
embryo suddenly becomes a baby in one night? It needs to go through stages
of development.

As for you do not believe in spirit, I have said earlier that discussing it with atheist
is pretty useless. We can't possibly understand each other's points of view.

 

[Sciencelovah]

What the fuck is 'work ethic'? And does this so called 'work ethic' apply to soldiers who are ordered by their superior to butcher innocent civilians? Hey, it's all part of the job!

I agree with you there. If I would run a restaurant business, I will never sell pork,
for example, because it against my belief. But if a homosexual will eat in my restaurant,
I will welcome him, as long as he doesn't order pork.

If I am a doctor and a homosexual ask medical advice to support his sexual
activity, I will refuse him. Even if I should lose my job.

 

[Sciencelovah]

inzomnia i wouldnt really trust the quran, after all acording to james list if a person remains friends with a rapist they surport rape and as mohumad was a pediphile who every suports the quran or mohumad is a surporter of pedophila. not exactly got the moral high ground there

That could be discuss in a different thread.

 

[Asguard]

you wont just lose your job, you would lose your licence and go to jail under 2 different pieces of legislation

1 being the antidiscrimination act, the other being the act which controls doctors because to refuse treatment to ANYONE in need even if your off duty or they cant pay it is a breach of the requirements which you agree to when you get your medical licence.

The only doctors who are exempt from this is are interns

 

[Sciencelovah]

you wont just lose your job, you would lose your licence and go to jail under 2 different pieces of legislation

1 being the antidiscrimination act, the other being the act which controls doctors because to refuse treatment to ANYONE in need even if your off duty or they cant pay it is a breach of the requirements which you agree to when you get your medical licence.

The only doctors who are exempt from this is are interns

To insist me to support homosexual activity in that case will be the same with
if I insist you to pray in mosque. Here is a news: I am not a doctor.

 

[S.A.M.]

Not just vocabulary but reality is involved - it's not a baby yet. And actual human life often matters far more than "potential" anything - the actual human life involved here is the woman's.
No one treats an early stage miscarriage as they do the death of a child. The only time an early stage embryo is treated as a child by anyone in practice, is when a woman wants an abortion.

I've never known anyone who had a miscarriage who did not think they had lost a child. Have you?

 

[sniffy]

James R,

But they don’t! And the reason for that is completely beyond our control. Naturally, who has more responsibility: the mother who physically carries the baby(ies) for nine months and deals with all of the symptoms/pains, or the father who goes through none of these hardships? Indisputably, the mother has more responsibilities than the father. Yet … you say, “they should have equal responsibility”. Yes, ideally they should, shouldn’t they? But alas, biology disharmonizes with your "admirable' pipe-dream of ultimate equality.


Kadark the Dream

As a women is the one responsible for what goes on in her body then she is the one who should make all the decisions about it.

All other arguments are therefore moot.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Whether you call it fetus or baby, they are all just names. You do know that it is
a growing life, a potential different individual. Do you actually expect that an
embryo suddenly becomes a baby in one night? It needs to go through stages
of development.

But the issue is that you are balancing the rights of the the fetus and the mother. The fetus is a "potential individual" as you say, and the mother is (ignoring potential bizarre hypotheticals) an "actual individual." In that calculation, there is a strong argument for holding the rights of the actual individual to be superior to those of the potntial individuals.

I mean, why stop there? Why not outlaw contraception, since a sperm and an egg, taken together, also form a "potential person." In fact, that's why the Catholics are against birth control...it inhibits the development (and rights) of potential people, by preventing fertilization.

A "potential" person is not a person any more than an egg is a chicken.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

But babies aren't being aborted, ever.
It's embryos/fetuses and they can only be aborted before 24 weeks. Not after that.

*************
M*W: I don't know where you got this information, but in Texas abortion is permitted up to 26 weeks. In Kansas and California, it's okay anytime. I don't know about the other states. However, the prenatal ultrasound determines the gestational age, and that can be manipulated somewhat give or take a week or so. There are some cases where an aborted fetus cries and takes it's first breath. I've known that in some of those cases, the physician would bash the newborn child's head on the counter to kill it or pierce the brain and pull it out with forceps. I wish I could take them all home with me, but it doesn't work that way. In an abortion clinic, you never want to hear a baby cry.

And a woman should never attempt an abortion before the sixth week as the embryo is too small to successfully terminate.