The Day the Music Died

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 16, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In the age of on-line entertainment and instant information it was, perhaps, possible to live without knowing about the carnage going on around us, but the video of evolutionist Deborah Nucatola casually and callously explaining the crushing of innocent babies and harvesting their young bodies leaves us forever without excuse. Between gulps of red wine and bites of salad we learn that “a lot of people want liver” and that “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver …” We are also told how to play games with the law so the harvesting of human body parts can proceed efficiently: Read more

Comments

StephenB: The point was that abortion was, on a few rare occasions, believed to be necessary–not because they were necessary. Yes, by expert medical opinion with detailed knowledge of the specific cases.Zachriel_{July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
So we agree that abortion was sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother from 1967-1990.
I am starting to grow fond of you because you are so darned creative. The point was that abortion was, on a few rare occasions, believed to be necessary--not because they were necessary. The conditions that prompted the abortion could have been treated without resorting to such a grisly alternative. As a reward for your creative responses, I think I will give you the last word.StephenB_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB: The .0004% pertains to the years 1967 to 1990. The citations that followed, which you studiously ignored, came later. So we agree that abortion was sometimes necessary to save the life of the mother from 1967-1990. StephenB: .0004% or (150 out of one-half million) is vanishingly small by anyone’s standard, except for those who cannot count or do not understand proportions. Your claim is "never". A single counterexample is all that is required to contradict your claim. We provided a specific example above, from 2012, and your own citation belies your claim. ETA: It's not that rare a situation. Fetuses die for a variety of reasons, and they are a danger to the mother as they decline. StephenB: I am on the record for supporting objective morality and values. Well, you're on the record for *claiming* the existence of an objective morality. However, there's no objective evidence of such. It's because we value humans that we seek to nurture them. Take away love, and there's nothing left but self-interest.Zachriel_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
You mean your subjective standard. A misanthrope doesn’t value people — at any stage of development.
On the contrary. I am on the record for supporting objective morality and values. You are on the record for supporting subjective morality and values. I don't presume to create my own morality. By definition, you do. Accordingly, I hold that all innocent humans deserve to life. You hold that only those innocent humans that seem valuable to you deserve to live.StephenB_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
One hundred fifty lives is not vanishingly small to the hundred and fifty families.
.0004% or (150 out of one-half million) is vanishingly small by anyone's standard, except for those who cannot count or do not understand proportions.
In any case, now we’re quibbling over numbers, not the existence, of such cases.
No, we aren't. You are reading selectively again. The .0004% pertains to the years 1967 to 1990. The citations that followed, which you studiously ignored, came later. You were supposed to read it all so you could understsand the trend. From 1967 to 1990, we thought that it was almost never necessary to kill a baby in order to save a mother's life. We now know that it is never necessary. And, of course, you missed the point of the .0004%. The baby killers say that abortion for the sake of saving a mother's life is a common occurrence. On the contrary, even in their own judgment, and even in an era of less advanced technology, it was considered to be almost never necessary.
It was your citation.
Of course, I thought you might like to know that even the baby killers know and admit that abortion is almost never necessary. In fact, it is never necessary at all. There is no medical condition for which abortion is the only option.StephenB_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

StephenB: Our objective standard of morality is that all humans at every stage of life have inherent worth by virtue of the fact that they are, in fact, human. Where they are in the process of development is irrelevant. You mean your subjective standard. A misanthrope doesn't value people — at any stage of development.Zachriel_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

harry:
Will you continue to deny “the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.?
Zachriel:
Well, it’s certainly a human zygote. The question is the relative moral value.
More precisely, the question is what standard do each of us use to determine moral value: Our objective standard of morality is that all humans at every stage of life have inherent worth by virtue of the fact that they are, in fact, human. Where they are in the process of development is irrelevant. We argue, therefore, that all humans at every stage of life have a natural right to live. Your subjective standard of morality is that humans have no inherent worth and are valuable only insofar as you care to confer value on them. Accordingly, babies have a right to live because you say so. Zygotes and fetuses have no right to live because you say so.StephenB_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

StephenB: We know that the .0004% of abortions from 1967 to 1990 were carried out to saved the life of the mother, a vanishingly small number. One hundred fifty lives is not vanishingly small to the hundred and fifty families. In any case, now we're quibbling over numbers, not the existence, of such cases. StephenB: That doesn’t mean, however, that it was necessary even in those few cases. It was your citation.Zachriel_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
Then we’re in agreement. At least some abortions can save the mother’s life, as in the tragic example provided above.
Not quite. We know that the .0004% of abortions from 1967 to 1990 were carried out to saved the life of the mother, a vanishingly small number. That doesn't mean, however, that it was necessary even in those few cases. It means that, contrary to what the pro-abortionists tell us, it was almost never considered necessary even among pro-abortion doctors. Otherwise, it would be a more frequent occurrence. As we now know, it is never necessary. There is no condition for which abortion is the only alternative.StephenB_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

harry: Will you continue to deny “the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.”? Well, it's certainly a human zygote. The question is the relative moral value. Did you ever answer? Which would you save first, the baby or the vat?Zachriel_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Will you continue to deny "the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death."? Since you use "the very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life," I suspect you will continue to deny the facts. When you display some intellectual honesty I will answer your question.harry_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

harry: I am for medical practices that do not violate the {Declaration of Geneva} The Declaration of Geneva has been updated many times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva In any case, you didn't answer the question. Are you against in vitro fertilization as a form of child endangerment?Zachriel_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Zachriel, I am for medical practices that do not violate the Geneva Code and that uphold "the traditional Western ethic" that "has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition," which "has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy." It is too bad you haven't been forced into intellectual honesty as was Dr. Watts.harry_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

harry: {Nazi, Nazi, Nazi} Are you against in vitro fertilization as a form of child endangerment?Zachriel_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Zachriel @185,
The original oath also requires fealty to pagan gods. The prohibition is against pessaries, not herbal treatments. The Hippocratic Corpus actually suggests the Lacedaemonian leap to expel a healthy fetus, though the only other remedies provided are for removing dead or deformed fetuses.
The Corpus Hippocraticum, which was written by many authors, contains a treatise concerning the case of a dancer who, so the story goes, was pregnant for six days. The author of this particular Hippocratic treatise proposed that she expel the "seed" using the "Lacedaemonian leap," which is jumping such that the heels touch the buttocks. The author probably didn't consider the "seed" to be expelled a living human being. In any event, if the "First do no harm" medical ethic of Hippocrates wasn't commonly understood to prohibit taking the life of the child in the womb according to objective scholarly research, why did Justice Blackmun, in the Roe decision, feel compelled to discredit the Hippocratic Oath by claiming it was obsolete? Interestingly, the twenty Nazi physicians at the Nuremberg Doctors' trial, who prosecutors claimed had "violated the Hippocratic commandments which they had solemnly sworn to uphold and abide by," also claimed the Hippocratic Oath was obsolete. In response to the Nazi assault on the Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, also known as the Geneva Code was enacted in Geneva Switzerland in 1948 by the World Medical Association. Its updated version of the medical oath taken by physicians to "First do no harm" states in part:
Now being admitted to the profession of medicine, I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity ... I will practice medicine with conscience and dignity. The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration ... I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception ... Even under threat I will not use my knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
Before Roe and after California's highly controversial "legalization" of abortion (that which is clearly contrary to the "laws of humanity" referred to by the Geneva Code one can only pretend is legal), pro-abortion Dr. Malcolm Watts wrote an editorial that appeared in the September, 1970 edition of California Medicine. His audience was not that of the local mass media in California -- that audience consisted of many who could be easily propagandized. No, his audience was to consist of educated medical professionals who had taken some version of the "First, do no harm" medical oath and knew quite well the earth-shaking nature of the "legalization" of taking the life of the child in the womb. Dr. Watts was forced into intellectual honesty. Here are some excerpts from his editorial. An intellectually honest defense of the indefensible is quite interesting:
THE TRADITIONAL Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each and every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong and enhance every human life which comes under their surveillance. This traditional ethic is still clearly dominant, but there is much to suggest that it is being eroded at its core and may eventually even be abandoned. This of course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and in Western society. ... What is not yet so clearly perceived is that in order to bring this about hard choices will have to be made with respect to what is to be preserved and strengthened and what is not, and that this will of necessity violate and ultimately destroy the traditional Western ethic with all that this portends. It will become necessary and acceptable to place relative rather than absolute values on such things as human lives, the use of scarce resources and the various elements which are to make up the quality of life or of living which is to be sought. This is quite distinctly at variance with the Judeo-Christian ethic and carries serious philosophical, social, economic and political implications for Western society and perhaps for world society. The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.
He goes on to assert that the "new ethic of relative rather than of absolute and equal values will ultimately prevail..." His "new ethic" isn't new at all. It had been tried by the Nazis and was condemned by the whole world because it violated the "laws of humanity." Note that his "shift in public attitude" that had "affected the churches, the laws and public policy" was brought about by propaganda that depended upon an "avoidance of the scientific fact" that "human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death." This media-manufactured bigotry towards the child in the womb was a classic case of the use of the "Big Lie," which in this case was to separate "the idea of abortion from the idea of killing." As I mentioned previously, Joseph Goebbels must have enjoyed watching all this from his eternal home in the depths of Hell.harry_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother’s life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. Then we're in agreement. At least some abortions can save the mother's life, as in the tragic example provided above.Zachriel_{July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
>>https://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf
Even if 12% of women cite health concerns, and that number is much higher than most other studies, those concerns are misplaced. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, founder of the same institute that conducted the study, once said this: “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” That was a long time ago. Here is some more recent information to consider: Abortion to save the mother’s life: "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. (Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, cited in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5) In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992) When Dublin's National Maternity Hospital (where 10% of all births in Ireland occurred) investigated the 21 deaths of pregnant women there between 1970-1979, they found that not a single one of those deaths could have been avoided by abortion. (Irish Medical Journal 1982 vol. 75, pp. 304-306) Ireland, a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected, has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. The UK, where abortion is available practically on demand, has over five times Ireland's maternal death rate. (World Health Organisation: maternal deaths, three-year average) Developments in medicine mean that the 'abortion to save the mother's life' argument is becoming harder and harder to justify. It is now possible for women with heart defects to carry a baby to term with expert help and life-threatening conditions such as cancer can often be treated without harming the unborn child. Women facing difficult pregnancies have a right to the best available medical support. Direct abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Treatment to save the life of the mother that results in the death of the child as an expected but not intended side effect is not a direct abortion, e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In this situation, the baby begins to develop in the woman's fallopian tube and has to be removed or the tube will rupture and cause the death of the woman. This involves the unavoidable death of the unborn baby but the aim of the operation is to save the mother not to kill the baby."StephenB_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

StephenB: That study does not confirm your claim that 12% of women have abortions out of concern for their health. https://www.guttmacher.org/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf StephenB: This is another treatable condition. The report found that abortion law was a key factor in the death of the mother. StephenB: How long after conception must a baby live for you to defend its right to live? Nearly everyone admits to shades of gray. People look on fertility clinics, that routinely endanger blastocysts, as a positive good. And most people would be horrified to think that you saved the vat before the baby. The current standard is birth, with some social responsibility in the latter part of pregnancy, especially if the fetus is viable. There's no perfect answer because the world is not black and white.Zachriel_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

Zachriel
We provided expert opinion and a specific example. About 12% of women have an abortion because of concerns about their health. See Finer et al., Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005.
It reads, "The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason." That study does not confirm your claim that 12% of women have abortions out of concern for their health. Even if that was the case, it would not show that abortion is ever a life saving procedure. When are you going to answer my question: How long after conception must a baby live for you to defend its right to live?StephenB_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

harry: This is why the “First, do no harm” physician’s ethic of Hippocrates explicitly prohibits abortion. The original oath also requires fealty to pagan gods. The prohibition is against pessaries, not herbal treatments. The Hippocratic Corpus actually suggests the Lacedaemonian leap to expel a healthy fetus, though the only other remedies provided are for removing dead or deformed fetuses. Are you against in vitro fertilization as a form of child endangerment?Zachriel_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB: I asked for evidence that abortions are ever necessary to save the lives of mothers. Handwaving. We provided expert opinion and a specific example. About 12% of women have an abortion because of concerns about their health. See Finer et al., Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005. StephenB: This is another treatable condition. Handwaving. The report found that abortion law was a key factor in the death of the mother.Zachriel_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, People have always referred to a pregnant female as being "with child." This is why the "First, do no harm" physician's ethic of Hippocrates explicitly prohibits abortion. This ancient medical ethic has been abandoned by the medical profession only twice in modern history, during the twelve years of the Third Reich by the Nazi medical profession, and again in contemporary society. In the early twenties the German intelligentsia began proposing the legalization of abortion and euthanasia, a bold social experiment in deifying the state, allowing state-sanctioned killing of innocent humanity as a matter of social policy. This would give the state god-like authority over innocent human life. The Nazi regime established everything they wanted. And how did their grand social experiment work out? No social experiment in the history of the world has demonstrated more clearly that power corrupts and absolute, god-like authority in the hands of mere mortals corrupts absolutely and in the most diabolical way. A few decades later the U.S. Supreme Court inexcusably reestablished that social experiment in state-sanctioned killing, putting god-like authority over innocent human life in the hands of women who were "with child." Roe struck down laws in the vast majority of the states that protected the life of the child in the womb. Those laws had been put there by the elected representatives of the people through the American democratic process, by people who knew what humanity has always known: a pregnant woman is "with child." Roe struck down democracy. Roe struck down the very idea of the Founders: Humanity precedes the state and brings it into existence to protect its inalienable rights. The state exists for humanity, not humanity for the state. It is humanity that bestows and withdraws the state's right to exist, not the reverse. Roe overthrew the government established by the Founders. As modern history demonstrates, regimes hostile to theism always end up murdering innocent human beings by the millions. The mass murder of such regimes makes the combined sins of Christianity over the centuries look like swiping a cookie from the cookie jar. The photographs of containers filled with dead babies murdered by "physicians" look terribly similar to those photographs of piles of corpses taken by the American troops who liberated the Nazi concentration camps. Would simply referring to those corpses as "adult tissue" have made what the Nazis had done acceptable? No. Nor does referring to containers filled with dead babies as "fetal tissue" excuse murder. Another terrible similarity is that the Nazis would harvest the bodies of their victims for profit, as do today's Nazis. People trapped in your mindset are dangerous enemies of the human race.harry_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: “Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.” http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG.....n-Comments
LOL. I didn't ask for unsubstantiated claims. I asked for evidence that abortions are ever necessary to save the lives of mothers. In fact, abortion is never the only alternative. It does more harm than good to the mother (not to mention what it does to the baby).
Irish abortion law key factor in death of Savita Halappanavar, official report finds: While trying to explain to Mrs Halappanavar, a Hindu of Indian origin, why she could not have her pregnancy terminated Ann Maria Burke, the hospital’s midwife manager told her it was “because Ireland is a Catholic country”. Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....finds.html
This is another treatable condition. Abortion is not necessary. Indeed, abortion is likely to complicate the problem. Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother and only puts her life in further jeopardy.StephenB_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Gee whiz, StephenB. Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses. It clearly showed that it was a special definition.
Of course, you are not telling the truth. You did not read the article. You cannot comment on it because you know nothing of its contents. (*I think you mean to ask, why didn’t I use ellipses? The answer is that the later quotes were not those of the author and parts of it could be misunderstood as being so. However, if you have a problem with that, then re-create the article any way you like so that we can discuss it.) In any case, the definition that is presented is not, as you falsely claim in your ignorance, a “new” definition. It is a response to the baby-killers' broad definition often used in medical literature. The true definition is consistent in legal literature, ethical literature, and the dictionary itself. Legal Definition: the intentional and artificial termination of a pregnancy that destroys an embryo or fetus. The spontaneous expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it is capable of living outside the womb. AND Dictionary Definition: : the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. AND Ethical Definition:. the intentional killing of the human fetus, or the performance of a procedure intentionally designed to kill the human fetus. Meanwhile, I ask for the eleventh time: How long after conception must a baby live before you will defend its right to live?StephenB_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

StephenB: Abortion is never necessary to prevent grievous harm or death to the mother. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: "Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives." http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2012/Response-to-Politicians-Inaccurate-Abortion-Comments

Irish abortion law key factor in death of Savita Halappanavar, official report finds: While trying to explain to Mrs Halappanavar, a Hindu of Indian origin, why she could not have her pregnancy terminated Ann Maria Burke, the hospital’s midwife manager told her it was “because Ireland is a Catholic country”. Despite evidence of septicaemia and her worsening condition, doctors refused to consider terminating the pregnancy for another 48 hours until after the foetal heartbeat stopped and there was a spontaneous miscarriage, a delay that led to a life-threatening deterioration in Mrs Halappanavar’s health. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/10119109/Irish-abortion-law-key-factor-in-death-of-Savita-Halappanavar-official-report-finds.html
StephenB: I don’t believe that you read it. Gee whiz, StephenB. Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses. It clearly showed that it was a special definition. Why did you use ellipses? Was it because it contradicted your claim? Or was it because you used a quote mine? Yes, abortion leads to the death of the fetus. That's usually because the fetus isn't viable, but sometimes the life of the fetus is directly ended. Where the essay fails is by pretending that an abortion done to save the life of the mother isn't really an abortion as long as you aren't trying to kill the fetus, but the fetus dies as a secondary consequence of the procedure. That is simply false. It's still an abortion. By the way, the term abortion includes miscarriages, also called spontaneous abortions. - edited for clarityZachriel_{July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Zachriel
Abortion is sometimes necessary to prevent grievous harm or death of the mother.
Abortion is never necessary to prevent grievous harm or death to the mother. I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses.
I don't believe that you read it. Summarize the main points. Tell me which parts you agree with, which parts you don't agree with, and why.StephenB_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

So murder is OK if it is convenient. Murder is OK if the dead was defective. Murder is a procedure. Murder is sometimes necessary. Abortion is murder and no amount of special pleading of subjective definitions matter.Virgil Cain_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

StephenB: So, you refuse to do your homework, even after I went to the trouble of digging up the information and presenting it to you on a silver platter. Gee whiz. Not only did we read what you posted, but we found the original source in order to determine what was represented by your ellipses. It clearly showed that it was a special definition. StephenB: “The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.” That's right, though incomplete. As pointed out, abortion does entail the death of the fetus, usually, but not always, because it can't survive outside the womb. An abortion might be done for convenience. It might be done due to defects in the fetus. It might be done to protect the life and health of the mother. It's still an abortion. StephenB: Yes, an abortion could be suggested as a means (immoral) to that end, but it would not be an end in itself. That's right. An abortion is a procedure. There may be many motivations for having an abortion. It's still an abortion. StephenB: It would be one thing, for example, to say, “I am going to do all I can to save the mother, and I hope the baby will survive this procedure, though it seems unlikely” If there is hope the fetus will survive, and actions are taken to preserve the fetus, then it is called giving birth, not an abortion. An example is induced labor late in a pregnancy. StephenB: Abortion is never necessary. Abortion is sometimes necessary to prevent grievous harm or death of the mother. Of course, if you redefine the term, then your position is a tautology, which hardly constitutes an argument. StephenB: Murder is different than self defense. They're both homicide. An abortion is feticide. The ethical question you raise is whether it is murder. By the way, are you satisfied with your answer that you would save the vat of embryos before the baby?Zachriel_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

velikovskysJ
Only if the purposes were mutually exclusive, I would guess.
It’s all about apriori intent. What prompted the medical procedure in the first place? That could only be one thing. Presumably, the mother’s health is in jeopardy and the purpose is to protect her from injury. Yes, an abortion could be suggested as a means (immoral) to that end, but it would not be an end in itself. It would be a means to an end.
The purpose of riding a bike is both transportation and exercise, cannot it not be both at the same time?
Yes, of course. However, that is not the same thing as a carpenter using a hammer for the sake of building a house, or an abortionist using murder for the sake of preserving a mother’s health. The transportation is not for the sake of the exercise, and vice versa.
Just curious, what would you call the medical procedure that requires the termination of fetus to save the mother’s life?
An abortion is defined by its directness. It would be one thing, for example, to say, “I am going to do all I can to save the mother, and I hope the baby will survive this procedure, though it seems unlikely” That is indirect and moral. It is quite another thing to say, “I have decided, in advance, that the baby must die so that the mother may live.” That is direct and immoral. It would be no different than an end of life decision. It is one thing to say, “This person is suffering terribly, and with his permission I will continue to give him increasing amounts of morphine as needed. Whatever it takes to relieve his suffering!! If he happens to die from an overdose, which would be the minimum amount of medicine to help him, that would be indirect and moral. It is another thing to say, “This person is suffering terribly, so I am going to kill him right now.” That would be direct and immoral.
So it is not an abortion if it is for the sake economic considerations? Rape?
I would call it an abortion if it is a direct killing, as opposed to indirect or incidental killing. So, yes, if it is a response to rape or greed, it would still be an abortion. That’s not to say that both responses are equally blameworthy SB: It is precisely because of the different moral implications that we have two terms to make the distinction
We don’t,you do. A gun is a gun whether I use it the save a life or the kill an innocent person.
That is a good example of why distinctions are important. It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the ethics of abortion (or firearm use) in the absence of carefully defined terms. Abortion is different than medicine. Murder is different than self defense. People make distinction to clarify the issues. People refuse to make distinctions in order to muddle the issues. That is why simple minded people think, without qualification, that all use of firearms (whatever the purpose) is bad. Simple minded people think about abortion the same way. Note that no one has bothered to read and study the comments on "The Ethics of Abortion." SB:An abortion is the deliberate taking of an innocent life in order to get rid of the baby.
Getting rid of the baby is the life saving procedure,
You might be interested to know that there is no medical situation for which abortion is the only solution.
The purpose of the medical procedure remains the same, why the medical procedure happens is where the intent , morality lies.
Yes, everything turns on the why. That is where the morality lies.StephenB_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

SB: Please do the requisite reading so you will be prepared to discuss this topic in a sensible way. Zachriel
Please avoid redefining words as a substitute for sensible discussion.
So, you refuse to do your homework, even after I went to the trouble of digging up the information and presenting it to you on a silver platter. Duly noted. In any case, I didn't redefine the word, you did. All you have to do is consult a dictionary. Indeed, I provided the dictionary definition for you. Here is it again: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." It is the dictionary that provides the common meaning of words, not your perception of who is saying what. Recall, that we are discussing the ethics of abortion. You cannot possibly understand why your definition is irrational and the dictionary definition is rational until you do the requisite reading. I can't do it for you.StephenB_{July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply