Interesting perspective on abortion

[sim_alyb]

I heard on the news a few weeks ago about a father who was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to 80 years in prison for killing his two-month old baby by beating her head on a diaper changing station. (I wish I had the source to cite, but when I tried to Google this story, I was overwhelmed by the number of different stories like this where a parent murders their infant.)

The thought I want to throw out is this: Had this same parent, who will spend the next 80 years in prison for killing his two month old, chosen (with his spouse) to abort this same baby half a year earlier, there would have been no penalty whatsoever. The same human being would have been killed, just in a different way and mere months earlier. Yet, there is no penalty for abortion!

[Newcomer4831]

I heard on the news a few weeks ago about a father who was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to 80 years in prison for killing his two-month old baby by beating her head on a diaper changing station. (I wish I had the source to cite, but when I tried to Google this story, I was overwhelmed by the number of different stories like this where a parent murders their infant.)

The thought I want to throw out is this: Had this same parent, who will spend the next 80 years in prison for killing his two month old, chosen (with his spouse) to abort this same baby half a year earlier, there would have been no penalty whatsoever. The same human being would have been killed, just in a different way and mere months earlier. Yet, there is no penalty for abortion!

Depends on your definition of life.

[prospectmom]

No penalty here on earth but I am sure there is a huge penalty later

[Jbs2763]

3 months earlier would have been legal...yay liberals

[jadams_4040]

3 months earlier would have been legal...yay liberals

Where do yu get this missconception from? {oh yea i forgot, Rush limbaugh]. The great truth teller.

[Jbs2763]

nah, i don't listen to that windbag...my windbag of choice is Glenn Beck

[Wingnut]

3 months earlier would have been legal...yay liberals

The baby was two months old. Three months earlier would mean 36 weeks gestation. Not legal.

[MarginOfError]

Well, let's put it on the other end of life. Your grandfather has a terminal disease and is on life support. Is it then legal to end life support and thus end his life? Is that murder? At what point do you distinguish between murder and end-of-treatment?

Moral absolutes don't always jive well with legal issues. The fact of the matter is, what one person finds morally reprehensible, the next person my find completely acceptable. In a secular government, how do you create laws that make sense to a divided populace?

If you think your take on abortion is new, I've got bad news for you...it isn't all that new. What's worse, it's an appeal to emotion that's intended to guilt people who don't share your moral standpoint into accepting it. It's manipulative and most people recognize the manipulative aspect of it, which usually has the reverse effect of what you intend. You'd do better to try to appeal to the logos if you want to make your argument (as opposed to pathos).

[WillowTheWhisp]

Some late abortions are comparable in timeline to premature biths where the baby survives. If the baby could have survived had it been born at that stage then surely an abortion at the same stage equates with murder?

On the flip sie of the coin. Is it also possibly morally wrong to artificially sustain life when a person is dying?

[MarginOfError]

Some late abortions are comparable in timeline to premature biths where the baby survives. If the baby could have survived had it been born at that stage then surely an abortion at the same stage equates with murder?

Yes, the infant may be able to survive birth, but at what cost? Technology is such now that a fetus of 28 weeks gestational age has a good chance at surviving birth, but only with extreme medical intervention. So is aborting a 27 week fetus the same as aborting a 34 week fetus? How do you factor in quality of life?

My point is that reality is a lot more complex than the phrase "abortion is murder." And while I agree that abortion is wrong and I would like to see them only performed in rare and extreme circumstances, I'm not sure putting the act in a category requiring punitive action is a wise thing to do.

[Stampede]

You know, When i read the D&C section on eternal marriage. It says that if they live up to their covenants as long as they do not "Shed innocent blood" they will become rulers alongside heavenly Father.

I really took that to heart and i thought about Abortion. Abortion for convenience sake is really abhorrent.

However, in extreme cases where the mother's life is at risk, rape, or incest. It is up to you and the Lord, but should not be looked upon as a bad thing if that is what is decided needs to happen.

[Fiannan]

Yes, the infant may be able to survive birth, but at what cost? Technology is such now that a fetus of 28 weeks gestational age has a good chance at surviving birth, but only with extreme medical intervention. So is aborting a 27 week fetus the same as aborting a 34 week fetus? How do you factor in quality of life?

My point is that reality is a lot more complex than the phrase "abortion is murder." And while I agree that abortion is wrong and I would like to see them only performed in rare and extreme circumstances, I'm not sure putting the act in a category requiring punitive action is a wise thing to do.

So by what criteria can we judge the Spartans who terminated infants who were not fit enough and stong enough to meet their demanding expectations in eugenics? I mean, if we adopted such a system think of all the money our health care system and education system could save.

[a-train]

Even if this baby was a fetus in the womb, the father could have been found guilty of double homicide if he killed the mother. Our courts DO uphold homicide verdicts for wilfull murder of infants against the mother's will.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

So by what criteria can we judge the Spartans who terminated infants who were not fit enough and stong enough to meet their demanding expectations in eugenics? I mean, if we adopted such a system think of all the money our health care system and education system could save.

The difference is those babies were not allowed to live because the cultural group couldn't afford it.

MOE is talking about children who can be kept alive with today's technology, but who will not thrive, no matter what.

There is a huge difference, and it has nothing to do with your incessant and subtle hints that you wish we could practice eugenics.

Elphaba

Edited March 26, 2009 by Elphaba

[Stampede]

So by what criteria can we judge the Spartans who terminated infants who were not fit enough and stong enough to meet their demanding expectations in eugenics? I mean, if we adopted such a system think of all the money our health care system and education system could save.

I really hope you're joking because that is not why we are here. Does all that stuff matter int he end, healthcare and education? sure it matters while we are here, but to those souls who do not have the opportunity to have a body who have to wait..... that's what matters the most

[Just_A_Guy]

MOE is talking about children who can be kept alive with today's technology, but who will not thrive, no matter what.

Well . . . the thing is, every once in a blue moon, one of them does thrive. So it does all seem to come back to the question of how much we're willing to inconvenience the many in order to save the few.

[Fiannan]

I really hope you're joking because that is not why we are here. Does all that stuff matter int he end, healthcare and education? sure it matters while we are here, but to those souls who do not have the opportunity to have a body who have to wait..... that's what matters the most

In the same vein as "A Modest Proposal" of course I am not seriosly proposing this. MOE invoked cost into the debate and "quality of life" so if that's where we want to take this issue (and ignore moral and religious concerns) then the logical next step may involve what the Spartans did.

[Elgama]

Yes, the infant may be able to survive birth, but at what cost? Technology is such now that a fetus of 28 weeks gestational age has a good chance at surviving birth, but only with extreme medical intervention. So is aborting a 27 week fetus the same as aborting a 34 week fetus? How do you factor in quality of life?

I believe 22 weeks is the youngest to have survived, so surely yes 27 weeks would be the same as 34 week. My brother's son was born at 24 weeks and my daughter at 34 weeks - my brother's son is 7, my daughter is 5, both great kids with very few lasting problems

-Charley

[MarginOfError]

I believe 22 weeks is the youngest to have survived, so surely yes 27 weeks would be the same as 34 week. My brother's son was born at 24 weeks and my daughter at 34 weeks - my brother's son is 7, my daughter is 5, both great kids with very few lasting problems

-Charley

As a general rule, writing laws and legal policy based on statistical anomalies is bad practice. Just because one 22 week fetus survived birth doesn't mean that you can expect the rest of them to survive birth.

In any case, the point was to illustrate that there's a period in gestation in which the probability of survival changes dramatically. A 27 week fetus is far less likely to survive than a 34 week fetus. Yet, a 36 week fetus is almost equally likely to survive as a 40 week fetus.

Referring back to the original poster's argument, a father is charged with murder of a two-week old infant. But three weeks ago it would have been a fetus, and so aborting a fetus should be illegal (I use legality because I don't think many here are questioning the morality). I just don't think that the logical progression of

Killing a two year old is murder, and three weeks ago, the child was a fetus, so killing a fetus should be murder.

holds much rigor, specifically because fetuses of various gestational ages can be radically different. That line of logic just doesn't make a good basis for legislation, and that's ultimately my point (hopefully articulated a little better).

[Stampede]

In the same vein as "A Modest Proposal" of course I am not seriosly proposing this. MOE invoked cost into the debate and "quality of life" so if that's where we want to take this issue (and ignore moral and religious concerns) then the logical next step may involve what the Spartans did.

OH! ok, i was like.... WHOA ...............

[Elphaba]

, but to those souls who do not have the opportunity to have a body who have to wait.....

This has never made sense to me. Are there going to be souls who will never get a body because of abortion? Wouldn't that be punishing these souls for something they had no control over?

Wouldn't God have known abortion would eliminate millions of bodies for souls to enter, and therefore make adjustments for that?

Putting aside the moral dilemma for a moment, women have been inducing abortions since they were able to figure out how to do so. So does that mean there are souls who haven't received a body because these ancient women had millions of abortions?

Additionally, women across the world are never going to stop having abortions. So, again, does this mean there will be souls who will not have the chance to have a body?

If so, is this an official Church doctrine, or teachng?

By the way, your baby is an adorable little princess.

Elphaba

[NeuroTypical]

Just a side note, but I knew a young nitwit in college who actually proposed making it legal to "terminate a pregnancy" within the first year of the child's life.

[Elgama]

As a general rule, writing laws and legal policy based on statistical anomalies is bad practice. Just because one 22 week fetus survived birth doesn't mean that you can expect the rest of them to survive birth.

In any case, the point was to illustrate that there's a period in gestation in which the probability of survival changes dramatically. A 27 week fetus is far less likely to survive than a 34 week fetus. Yet, a 36 week fetus is almost equally likely to survive as a 40 week fetus.

thats like saying just because one cancer patient die after treatment we should not bother treating another one. Fact is a baby born at 22 weeks gestation has it in them to choose survival, so should another have the right to remove that choice from them?.

-Charley

[MarginOfError]

But now you've turned your argument around. If we had a cancer treatment, gave it to 1,000 patients, and only 1 of them expired while on treatment, of course I would continue treatment. That's a 99.9% success rate.

But the survival of one child born at 22 weeks is not a 99.9% success rate. It'd be more like a 0.1% success rate. Statistically speaking, that's quite anomalous.

[Elgama]

thing is that patient has a choice, if a child has the capacity to survive surely the choice should be theirs as to whether they live or go back home to Heavenly Father

-Charley