Thanks Plaything for a good read, but that pic was grizzly for some readers...
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (damnrad,) 1) If it's religious, why should it be imposed on the rest of society, on the irreligious as well as on the religious? And it is not the only religious view -- in fact, the traditional religious view was that the soul was infused at the point of quickening, weeks into the pregnancy. Some religions stick to this view, so why should one religious view be championed over another in public law?
2) It is not true that a unique biological organism is always created at conception. In fact, most fertilized human eggs do not survive to be born. That's a wastage of potential, and in fact partially a means of quality control, quite common to biology. But if a soul is created for each fertilized egg, then that is a wastage of souls that seems a bit strange. More importantly, even among fertilized eggs that survive, not all go on to become unique human individuals. Identical twins are fairly common, and multuplets hardly unheard of, yet they represent different people who result from the same fertilized egg. If only one soul is created at conception, which twin gets it? Moreover, not every individual results from a single fertilized egg. Fertilized eggs sometimes fuse together. Chimeras are organisms that contain the DNA of more than one fertilized egg. In at least one case, in fact, a human's DNA has been shown to have derived from more than one father. So, if more than one conception went into making a human, does that person have more than one soul?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
We base the majority of our ethics and morals on the Bible. Those values create the laws we have today (the criminal ones at least). That is partly a runaround to work religious values in our legislative decisions, but people, after all, write the laws.
A large question in abortion and human research is the ethical implications on the worth of a human life. I find it ironic that the same political group that values the potential of a human life would very well let people rot in jail or die by the hand of the government for their actions, violent or nonviolent (drug offenders), as if they could play God themselves! Regardless of the implications of hypocrisy, they do have a point in preserving the value of human life, whether you believe in a soul or not.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (damnrad,) At base then, I argue that Roe v. Wade already gives us an excellent basis for deciding on abortion, ethically as well as legally. Would that we could agree on that. Think of it: we could get rid of the impediments to abortion early in the pregnancy that sometimes results in abortions' being sought in the third trimester; we could treat earlier abortions as medical procedures that should be funded just as other medical procedurses; and we could clarify what was acceptable in the third trimester (e.g., what conditions could not have been tested for earlier that might lead to the seeking of a late abortion). But that won't happen -- instead, we will continue to have a major societal fight over the question, leading to many tears on all sides.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Abortions because of medical complications shouldn't be restrictied, and should be the choice of the mother. I would find that casual abortions performed widescale during the third trimester to be ghastly and a blatant disregard of human life. It would be indicative to a deteriorating society and culture. Freedom comes with responsibility. Choice should never be simple, especially in this case.
Lately, with improving technology, babies have been delivered prematurely and kept alive through machines until they can survive on their own. I think that's a working framework to determine when abortion should be outlawed. If the fetus is physically dependent on the mother to survive or would no way survive on its own even with the help of machines, then abortion can be performed. If it takes a mother 9 months to decide to abort a baby, she definitely can't make the responsible choice. Her choice should rest during the first 4 months. It's not a perfect solution, but what ever is?
In this age where fertility rates are declining and families are deciding to have children at an older age, adoption is a very viable solution. Non-restrrictive abortion would give too much responsibility and power to a person already proven to be uncapable of handling her own life, let alone anothers.