quote:Originally posted by Penta: Unless they work from separate accounts and through separate corporate entities (which is done already by Catholic Charities, which is simply a corporate subsidiary of the local diocese/archdiocese), yes.
For one thing, if one entity keeps multiple books, that's accounting fraud. Every financial entity is supposed to have ONE set of books. [/QB]
Actually, other than a little mom and pop shop, few put all their financial records into one listing. Things are divided into different ledgers depending on what type of transaction it is...and generally into more specific subsidiary ledgers depending on WHO the transaction is with. That is not fraud, it is simply organization (and it complies with GAAP). Of course, in a business ALL the books are opened up to independent auditors, otherwise they couldn't sign off on the financial statements.
It would be feasible for a church to open up only the records pertaining to their dealings with the government. Though, I'm not sure what the laws are when it comes to a church's accounting practices (and how much transparency is required).
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Without birth, the baby in the mother's womb is sinless; it was not born and nothing can be used to judge agaisnt it. Thus refutes all Christian claims against abortion.
If you anti-abortionists had their way, all the pregenent 12 year olds would have to stay pregenent or risk life-sentences. I don't know about you, but I don't have the heart in me to imprision those children. If you do, I don't want to live in your kind of society. Indeed what we'd end up in is a Cavinist theocracy; using harsh laws and consequences to create a "perfect" society. [/QB]
Hey, we're not trying to establish a theocracy. You're the one who assumed that our arguments have no merit so long as the unborn child is "sinless"--an argument that also justifies the murder of anyone who has accepted Christ, because, of course, if they die they'll go to heaven, so why shouldn't we kill them?
Furthermore, most anti-abortionsists would never say that "all the 12-year olds would have to stay pregnant or risk life sentences". Most people who support legislating abortion make exceptions for people who have been raped or who would die or risk serious injury if they carried the child to term. What we're suggesting is that when the easy out of abortion is no longer available, people will take the possibility of pregnancy a little more seriously, which could limit the number of pregnant twelve-year-olds. Furthermore, if these girls are really children, then I doubt they would be tried as adults and recieve life sentences. But they and their parents might learn that there are consequences to their actions.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's hard to say if these proposed laws would actually make anyone think any harder than they do now... People do what they want, I'm not sure I agree that laws are as good a deterrent as we might like to think.
Seems to me we need social change, not top-down change. Well, both ideally, I suppose...
Posts: 70 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: Actually, other than a little mom and pop shop, few put all their financial records into one listing. Things are divided into different ledgers depending on what type of transaction it is...and generally into more specific subsidiary ledgers depending on WHO the transaction is with. That is not fraud, it is simply organization (and it complies with GAAP). Of course, in a business ALL the books are opened up to independent auditors, otherwise they couldn't sign off on the financial statements.
It would be feasible for a church to open up only the records pertaining to their dealings with the government. Though, I'm not sure what the laws are when it comes to a church's accounting practices (and how much transparency is required).
Well, OK, quick bits:
1. Religious entities, to get the tax exemption, must generally be audited, same as any for-profit corporation, if I remember right.
2. Not opening all the books is an invitation to fraud.
3. Most religious entities are small. It's only the big ones like an entire Diocese in the Catholic Church (where even the small ones aren't small potatoes, and the big ones are multimillion/multibillion $ entities) where we speak of large amounts of money. For most churches, even a *small* government grant would be a great deal of money.
4. Part of what GAO would need to look at, to assure fraud isn't occurring, is the overall financial health of the entity getting the money. If it's weak, you need to watch more carefully. Can't assure yourself of that if some of the books are closed.
5. Frankly, putting yourself in the shoes of Bob Churchgoer, wouldn't you be a lot happier to give if you knew your church wasn't cooking the books? What would the average religious entity have to hide, anyway? How does the government (who is giving you cash, remember) assuring itself you're not committing fraud with its cash impinge on how you practice your faith?
Posts: 19 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always been really bothered by how polarized the abortion debate is, but I've never been able to explain why, until recently.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have hit on a slogan recently, that "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
I read an article recently that made the comment that this formulation allows for both sides to work toward the same goal, and I thought: "That's it! Both sides recognise the same problem, polarization only makes it harder to find a solution."
See, abortion is going to happen whether it's legal or not. But being legal is essential in keeping it safe for the mother. There's a huge amount of evidence for this, that can't be discounted.
Another side affect of legalizing abortion that I find quite interesting: Prior to Roe v. Wade, unwed mothers got very little sympathy, especially from the religious groups that are so vehemently against abortion. Very often they had no say at all in what decision they made. Keeping the baby was virtually impossible, their only choice was to give the baby up for adoption, or hope that the father would marry them (which was less likely then, due to the double standard).
With the legalization of abortion, the same groups that had previously vilified unwed pregnancy then had to cater to the needs of unwed mothers, in order to prevent them from choosing abortion. The result is that unwed motherhood has been humanized to a degree that nobody back then ever would have expected.
The debate today over abstinence education is similar. As data is gathered, we are seeing that although abstinence is a critical part of the solution, it can't be relied on as the only solution. This is one thing that I can't reconcile with the Catholic church, in particular. They can't have it both ways: If you are against abortion, you have to make birth control and the knowledge of how to use it easily available to everyone. End of story. Doesn't matter whether abortion is legal or not, opposition to birth control undermines their whole argument.
So I'd say that the goals that both sides should address could be summed up as follows:
Teach responsible behavior. (That's a huge category. I leave it vague on purpose)
Offer options, and provide support for those options. (same here)
If all else fails and a woman is considering abortion, encourage her to make her own decision, encourage her to make the decision as early as possible, encourage her to stick by her decision and don't push guilt on her regardless of her final choice.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Euthenasia has to be legal, because it's the only safe alternative to smothering handicapped children to death".
Reminds me of the Law & Order in which McCoy deliberately sabotaged his own case to let off a woman who withheld medication from her handicapped son until he fell into a coma, then thinking he was dead, burned the apartment down around him, risking the lives of all the neighbors (not to mention killing her son).
He pitied her because her son was an incredibly difficult case. He was seriously mentally disturbed, and could get violent (though mostly against himself). She had tried to put him into an institution, but he was miserable there, and she took him back.
And so she gets to KILL him?
Usually, I like the conclusions they come to on Law & Order, but that one just floored me. Especially after reading essays by our own sndrake.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This topic really intrigues me. As someone from a quite liberal family, it's strange to see so many different ideas and beliefs about abortion.
However, once people get down to the nitty gritty, it is a belief situation. If anyon'es goal in this forum is to change everyone's minds about abortions and their beliefs about what constitues a life and what constitutes killing something, I certainly want no part in it. A belief is something you believe in; you can't truely change your heart.
I'm sorry if I got on your nerves.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
it is not possible to stop people having abortions. The poor people will have unsafe alley abortions and the rich will fly to a country and have a safer one. This also creates inequality between the rich and poor, going against equal protection for all.
and it is my opinion that a baby is considered alive when it could survive outside of the womb.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is not possible to stop people having abortions. The poor people will have unsafe alley abortions and the rich will fly to a country and have a safer one. This also creates inequality between the rich and poor, going against equal protection for all.
It's not possible to stop people from doing anything which they are physically possible. There are 15,000 or so murders in the U.S. each year. There are many, many more assaults than that. The rich have always had an easier time getting away with criminal offense. Neither prong of your argument relies on a principle that is recognized in any other criminalization context.
quote:Usually, I like the conclusions they come to on Law & Order, but that one just floored me. Especially after reading essays by our own sndrake.
Stephen has a way of helping one see these situations more clearly, doesn't he?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueBambue: and it is my opinion that a baby is considered alive when it could survive outside of the womb.
This preemie would like to note that that marker gets pushed back on a regular basis.
In 1983, I was born 94 days preemie (about 13-14 weeks preemie, if I do my math right). I was very touch-and-go, and nearly died a few times.
24 weeks was considered the point at which a fetus was viable outside the womb.
Now?
A kid born as early as I was is still touch-and-go, but their chances of survival (albeit with disabilities, sometimes pretty severe) are very good, easily over 80-90% if they don't have a brain bleed.
The point at which a fetus is generally deemed viable is about...20-22 weeks, now.
It's a good marker to use in the abortion debate, I think, but it is one that progress pushes back farther and farther. Be aware of that.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is not possible to stop people having abortions. The poor people will have unsafe alley abortions and the rich will fly to a country and have a safer one. This also creates inequality between the rich and poor, going against equal protection for all.
Then again, as mentioned above, it's not possible to "stop" murder (we convict a good number of them) aggravated assault, rapists, etc. Just because you can't stop something doesn't mean that we in turn, give a carte-blanche pass of condoning it.
People love using analogies don't they? Only this one doesn't make sense. Alley abortions are dangerous to a mother's health. If you legalize abortion, mothers will have less risk of personal injury or death. Where-as if abortion is illegal, many mothers will try it anyway; the baby will still die and the mother's life may also be threatened. Definately NOT the same as murder or rape or torture.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People love using analogies don't they? Only this one doesn't make sense. Alley abortions are dangerous to a mother's health. If you legalize abortion, mothers will have less risk of personal injury or death. Where-as if abortion is illegal, many mothers will try it anyway; the baby will still die and the mother's life may also be threatened. Definately NOT the same as murder or rape or torture.
People love refuting analogies, don't they? Only this refutation doesn't make sense. All abortions are fatal to the child. If you ban abortion, children will have less risk of death. Where-as if abortion is legal, many more mothers will obtain abortions; more babies will die.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If abortion is banned, some people will do it anyway, but probably not as many as would do it if it were legal. The important thing is that we as a society will be sending the message that we don't want people even to think about killing others just for convenience and will have headed off the killing of more-developed people that we might later be ashamed of killing.
Now if you are sure that allowing the killing of babies before birth has only an infinitesimal chance of encouraging the killing of people just a little older, and just a little older, etc., then feel free to advocate abortion up until whatever time you think. But I personally think that if I completely accepted the idea that abortion before some point was okay, I'd have a very hard time fighting the urge to allow abortion just a little later, so I'm for banning all abortion. If enough other people are confident that they can defend the abortion limit they choose, I'll be outnumbered. I just hope the people who want abortion really are confident about this.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: If abortion is banned, some people will do it anyway, but probably not as many as would do it if it were legal. The important thing is that we as a society will be sending the message that we don't want people even to think about killing others just for convenience and will have headed off the killing of more-developed people that we might later be ashamed of killing.
Now if you are sure that allowing the killing of babies before birth has only an infinitesimal chance of encouraging the killing of people just a little older, and just a little older, etc., then feel free to advocate abortion up until whatever time you think. But I personally think that if I completely accepted the idea that abortion before some point was okay, I'd have a very hard time fighting the urge to allow abortion just a little later, so I'm for banning all abortion. If enough other people are confident that they can defend the abortion limit they choose, I'll be outnumbered. I just hope the people who want abortion really are confident about this.
This is a false argument, in my mind. I have never had an issue with first trimester abortion. I have always had an issue with third trimester abortion. Third trimester abortions are abominable. I'm not even sure if I buy the 'health of the mother' argument for third trimester abortion, since if it is safe enough for an abortion (which is an invasive surgical procedure at that point) then how would it not be safe enough for a caesarian?
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you say what you think makes third trimester abortions abominable but first trimester ones okay?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typically it's because most people recognize that the figure inside is recognizable as a baby in the 3rd trimester, and not so much in the 1st.
One of the most moving museum shows I've ever seen was one of actual preserved fetuses at progressively older gestation, from just a week after conception to near term.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tmservo: We've had children survive at 5 months. And we're up to an 80% success rate at 28 weeks (7 months).
20 weeks? We have?
quote:Originally posted by Penta: The point at which a fetus is generally deemed viable is about...20-22 weeks, now.
My understanding is that 22 weeks (or 154 days) was still the minimum for viability, at least so far. (Not to nitpick, just curious for other reasons.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Just for clarity, I am using as the most up-to-date resource the Executive Summary of the Workshop on the Border of Viability, set up through the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in March 2004.
Of course, determining the exact date of gestation is always a tricky thing, and only with facillitated conception (e.g., IVF) do we really ever know exactly when the conception occurred. And of course, the lower age in the range of viability has been growing increasingly smaller. However, I just wanted to keep the current status accurate in my own mind as well as for purposes of a well-informed discussion here.
I'm always curious as to where the lower numbers (that is, lower than I am aware of) come from. Sometimes it seems that it gets cited somewhere as having appeared somewhere else, and then it spreads quickly as a reference. I usually can't find the entry point for the information, though.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
JennaDean, I am indeed sorry if this came across as nitpicking to you. I was not trying to advance any particular agenda.
I was assuming that tmservo was equating 1 month to 4 weeks, since he went on to equate 7 months with 28 weeks, as you quoted as well. But then again, that's why I used a question mark -- I wasn't sure what he meant. And then with Penta's reiteration of 20 weeks, I really wasn't sure what was being claimed.
What did you think he was trying to say? [Honest question!]
More importantly, do you have a citation for survival of an infant of 22 weeks' gestation? [To be perfectly clear, I mean 154 days.] I'm honestly trying to find one, and I can't. I used the 22 week mark in my first post above because I know resuscitation is at least attempted at tertiary care centers for that gestational age, but even so, I can't find data to support survival in such cases. 23 weeks is the lowest I've found for longterm survivability outside the womb.
Again, I apologize if my tone is or was distressing. Perhaps I'm reading more into your post than I should, but if my brusqueness or style was annoying to you, I'd be happy to edit and modify it to be better-worded. Never a problem.
--------------------------------------------
Edited yet again to add: I have no idea if I'm shoving my foot still further down my throat with this, but some further clarification might help. I'm pretty firmly convinced, myself, that we will be seeing yet still earlier survival ages in the near future. I just want to know it when it does happen, as I am sometimes in a position (because of my work) to field questions about the specifics of such cases. I don't want to give out inaccurate information, so I'm always sort of fact-checking on these particular claims when I come across them.
Again, I agree that these ages will likely get younger and younger. In fact, there was a goat (IIRC) gestated to term completely via an artificial womb in Japan. I think there were some problems at delivery, though, and as far as I know, this event has yet to be replicated.
However, if anyone has new and breaking info on advances regarding artificial wombs, I'd love citations on that, as well.
quote:What makes an embryo substantively different from a tumor?
A tumor will never be anything more than a tumor. It will never, not even with the best medical help available, become independent and self-sustaining. A human embryo, nurtured with just basic care, has a better than excellent chance of being fully independent, self sustaining, and socially contributing.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"JennaDean, I am indeed sorry if this came across as nitpicking to you...."
Sorry. I was just acknowledging that I was nit-picking myself. I get confused when some people count pregnancy as 40 weeks, some as 9 months, some as 10 4-week months (that's really confusing!). So I was just reiterating that 20 weeks is halfway, or 4 1/2 months, and 22 weeks is 5 months. Not that I really added anything to the discussion.
I have heard that there has been survival at 22 weeks, in fact I have heard that's the youngest we've had an infant survive, but it was in my childbirth prep class. I haven't done the research myself.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Sorry. I was just acknowledging that I was nit-picking myself.
Ah, I get you.
quote:I get confused when some people count pregnancy as 40 weeks, some as 9 months, some as 10 4-week months (that's really confusing!).
Like this stuff isn't confusing enough, eh? *smile
quote:I have heard that there has been survival at 22 weeks, in fact I have heard that's the youngest we've had an infant survive, but it was in my childbirth prep class. I haven't done the research myself.
It's bound to happen (or have happened already). Best wishes for the infant and family, of course, as well as for those that follow.
Such tiny, tiny little babies.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Typically it's because most people recognize that the figure inside is recognizable as a baby in the 3rd trimester, and not so much in the 1st.
Hmm.... I'll have to think about it more, but that might actually work. At that point (around 4 months?) it's pretty much impossible to say that the fetus isn't alive. That line won't lead to the killing of "inconvenient" retarded or old people because even the sickest of them definitely looks like a human. And if someone wants older unborn babies to be aborted, saying, "But they won't suffer!", you can always say, "Tough. We're physical creatures as well as mental ones, and killing something that looks that much like us can't help but inure us to greater crimes against humanity."
But I wouldn't rule out voting for someone who wanted to ban abortion (and stem-cell research) entirely, since I do think my reasons above are "good" reasons to do so.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: That line won't lead to the killing of "inconvenient" retarded or old people because even the sickest of them definitely looks like a human.
I'm not sure that "looking human" is a standard that would cover everyone you would want it to cover. Not to be difficult here, but there are some congenital anomalies which are associated with unique phenotypes.
I think the "looking human" road might lead us further than we might want to go.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes an embryo substantively different from a tumor?
A tumor will never be anything more than a tumor. It will never, not even with the best medical help available, become independent and self-sustaining. A human embryo, nurtured with just basic care, has a better than excellent chance of being fully independent, self sustaining, and socially contributing.
That's something in only potential at any given moment, not necessarily something that is true for any given moment. Should we lock people up for crimes they have the potential to commit (ala Minority Report)? Anyways, what you are saying is that an embryo is something that could be a human, given enough time, right? Well, isn't any egg or sperm also a potential human, as well? All one would need is its complement. The potential is there. Potentially, I am a multi-billionaire. All I need is a couple billion dollars. Other than that, the potential is there. Potential, while sometimes meaningful, is not the same as something of the moment. In most cases what is of the moment is more significant.
This is an issue that is almost always tied in with religion, I think, because there is no good scientific answer. It's a moral issue, for which science is singularly ill-equipped to handle, after all.
From my personal theological/philosophical point of view, what distinguishes us from animals is the functioning of our brain. Not just the existence of any old brain, but a brain that reacts and functions in a uniquely human way. In a more philosophical mode, I would go so far as to say that the brain is where a soul is able to inferface with the material world. No brain = no soul = no humanity. When has the brain's structure finally been set? At the very end of the first trimester. When does the chance of miscarriage drop most substantially? (Assuming implatation took place, which is the single largest hurdle an embryo has to pass -- anywhere between 50-75% of fertilized embryoes don't.) At the very end of the first trimester. When are the other organs all in place, and the fetus obviously different from any other species? At the very end of the first trimester. But these things aren't true before that point.
None of this is conclusive nor is it meant to be convincing. It is my evaluation, and no more.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At that point (around 4 months?) it's pretty much impossible to say that the fetus isn't alive.
It's pretty much impossible to say it's not alive once the cells start dividing.
If 'life' is the standard, then stop eating. All of the things you eat were once alive but they had to be killed to feed you. The point isn't 'life' or not. The point is 'human life' or not.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a decision based on the moral perspective of the person seeing the situation. There are those who believe that abortion=murder; therefore, legality does not equate to morality for them.
In the end, the argument for abortion of "people will do it anyway" is a very weak argument. Come at it with a more scientific viewpoint. Give logical reasoning for the societal benefits of abortion, etc. While people may disagree, you can build the case. And that is better reasoning then "people would do it anyway" [/QB]
Let's put it this way:
Legal Abortion - Zygote dies; less risk of health problems for the mother.
Street abortion/forced miscarrage - Zygote dies; serious risk of health problems for the mother.
Why do we allow children to get Birth Control pills without parental consent? Because we know most of them are going to do it anyway. We can't stop them, so it's better if they do it safely. Many people strongly believe in abortion. They won't sit quietly for ten months with an unwanted child in their abdomen. It has serious implications to their career, health, and social life. They believe abortion is a civil liberty and will fight to exercise that liberty. Prohabilation is a perfect example of this. During Prohabilation, the selling of liquor became illegal. However, that did not stop people from drinking alcohol. Wine and rum were smuggled and sold on the black market. Bars became even more popular, more people were drunk than ever. Indeed, the law was so useless on a large scale that all it did was create antigovernment sentiment and increase smuggling. I believe that people will fight even more strongly for their right of abortion than for their right to drink alcohol.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that people will fight even more strongly for their right of abortion than for their right to drink alcohol.
Um...yeah.
Do people really have a right to drink alcohol? Or is it just a system maintained by corrupt officials so that the populace can be fleeced like sheep by multinational corporations?
How many people really strongly believe in abortion? Do they get pregnant just so they can have one? I believe a lot of people see it as a necessary evil. That's different from "believing in" IMHO.
P.S. I've never heard of an abortion taking out a zygote.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's put it this way: Legal Abortion - Zygote dies; less risk of health problems for the mother. Street abortion/forced miscarrage - Zygote dies; serious risk of health problems for the mother.
CT, could you confirm or correct my understanding here: no or almost no abortions are performed when the unborn child can accurately be called a "zygote," right? I thought zygote was only appropriate upt to 5 days or so.
Regardless, VetaMega, your dichotomy can more accurately be presented as follows:
Legal Abortion - Aprox. 1 million fetuses die each year in the U.S.; less risk of health problems for the mother. Street abortion/forced miscarrage - Fewer than 100 thousand fetuses die; more risk of health problems for the mother.
quote:They believe abortion is a civil liberty and will fight to exercise that liberty.
And many others believe it to be the killing of an innocent human being and will fight to prevent such killing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is good but those numbers would change once abortion is illegalised. People won't be able to have legal abortions.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
VM, I don't understand your post. My two cases were if elective abortion is legal (which we have now) and if elective abortion is illegal.
Of course the numbers would change. That's the point.
Elective abortion illegal = fewer abortions. I vastly overstated the expected number of abortions if elective abortion is banned.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Elective abortion illegal = fewer abortions. I vastly overstated the expected number of abortions if elective abortion is banned.
And who is expecting this number? Your sources for these numbers would be.... I'm guessing a colonic extraction, but feel free to correct me if I'm off on that.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is an issue that is almost always tied in with religion, I think, because there is no good scientific answer. It's a moral issue, for which science is singularly ill-equipped to handle, after all.
I don't agree that this is a primarily religious issue at all. I am not particularly religious, and yet I oppose abortion, and on ground I don't consider remotely religious. I also think the apparent dichotomy you present between religion and science is a false one in the best of times, but is absolutely invalid here. Those aren't the only bases (religion or "science"). How about ethics? You do believe there are ethics outside of religion, don't you?
-o-
quote: If 'life' is the standard, then stop eating. All of the things you eat were once alive but they had to be killed to feed you. The point isn't 'life' or not. The point is 'human life' or not.
jeniwren did not say that life was the standard. She replied to a particular flawed statement--the assertion that before four months, one could argue that the fetus was not alive.
-o-
quote: Why do we allow children to get Birth Control pills without parental consent?
Another truly screwed up bit of law. This is completely outrageous, and I hope some day it gets fixed. But ending abortion is a much higher priority for me.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is an issue that is almost always tied in with religion, I think, because there is no good scientific answer. It's a moral issue, for which science is singularly ill-equipped to handle, after all.
I don't agree that this is a primarily religious issue at all. I am not particularly religious, and yet I oppose abortion, and on ground I don't consider remotely religious. I also think the apparent dichotomy you present between religion and science is a false one in the best of times, but is absolutely invalid here. Those aren't the only bases (religion or "science"). How about ethics? You do believe there are ethics outside of religion, don't you?
Is it possible to establish an ethical system outside of a religious framework? Absolutely. Is there any kind of metric to measure those various religious or secular frameworks? Not at all.
Science is about HOW THINGS HAPPEN. That's it. More strictly speaking, the scientific method is a way of explaining natural phenomena using experimentation to validate or disprove hypotheses about the function of those processes. What experiment can measure 'good?' What can you use to measure 'happiness' or 'despair?' What equation can define proper behavior in any given situation?
Any ethical system, even secular one, is not going to be based on measurements, mathematics, physics, or chemistry. It is instead going to be fundamentally grounded in abstract and inherently unmeasurable values that stand wholely outside of any scientific framework.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why do we allow children to get Birth Control pills without parental consent?
Another truly screwed up bit of law. This is completely outrageous, and I hope some day it gets fixed. But ending abortion is a much higher priority for me.
I agree that it is wrong for children to get medical prescriptions without their parents' knowledge, much less approval. However, I think this is a state dependant law.
I am intrigued, however, to hear about a secular basis against all forms of abortion. What about ectopic pregnancies? What about the 'morning after' contraceptives?
edit to add, this is in the wrong forum, is it not?
Posts: 218 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is in the wrong forum, but *shrug* here it is.
-o-
I don't disagree with anything in your first post, but I don't see where you're driving with it. I'm not the one trying to make a "scientific" argument against abortion. I'm saying that one can come to the ethical conclusion that abortion is wrong without need of a commandment from God, and without being told by the heirarchy of a religion. So I'm not sure what the point of your first post on this page really is.
-o-
My basis for my opinion on abortion is presented elsewhere in this thread, and it's late at night, so forgive me for not rewriting it. In principle, I oppose all forms of abortion. What form of abortion and what form of pregnancy is not relevant to me, because that's not the side of the coin I'm analyzing.
In practicality, however, I recognize the need for compromise in order to better the current situation. So the earlier someone wants to allow abortions, the more amenable I am to it. And if people are willing to limit it to special cases, then I am willing to allow it in those special cases. (Insofar as I have a say, of course.)
My understanding of the morning after pill is that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus? I could certainly compromise on my stance in favor of leaving something like this legal, if we could, in return, outlaw abortions of second and third trimester fetuses, at the very least. Certainly such a pill seems more morally gray than a late second trimester abortion.
I think those of us who oppose abortion will need to be willing to compromise if we want to have our way here--unless, of course, the Supreme Court obviates the need.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
