When does life begin?

[bailey228]

I'm quite sad to see that my husband (eukreign) agrees that abortion is ok on a moral level. Our baby was as much alive 5 months ago as she is today. She had her own personality and her likes and dislikes. Maybe you have to carry a baby to realize this. Technically according to some of you she was a "parasite" to me. I did not want her there and I tried to make sure I didn't get pregnant. I did not consent to her living inside me when she was conceived. But since I knew there was a chance I could get pregnant when I had sex, I had a moral obligation to let her live. Lex said that if today I raised a knife to kill her it was wrong because I had intent to kill her. Letting her live inside me required no action on my part. Yet getting an abortion would require me to have the same intent to kill her as if I was going to kill her after she were born. Abortion is pre meditated murder. You knowingly and willingly are ending a life with force.

[Lex]

I'm quite sad to see that my husband (eukreign) agrees that abortion is ok on a moral level. Our baby was as much alive 5 months ago as she is today. She had her own personality and her likes and dislikes. Maybe you have to carry a baby to realize this. Technically according to some of you she was a "parasite" to me. I did not want her there and I tried to make sure I didn't get pregnant. I did not consent to her living inside me when she was conceived. But since I knew there was a chance I could get pregnant when I had sex, I had a moral obligation to let her live. Lex said that if today I raised a knife to kill her it was wrong because I had intent to kill her. Letting her live inside me required no action on my part. Yet getting an abortion would require me to have the same intent to kill her as if I was going to kill her after she were born. Abortion is pre meditated murder. You knowingly and willingly are ending a life with force.

Can't agree on everything! 

[Lex]

I'm quite sad to see that my husband (eukreign) agrees that abortion is ok on a moral level.

After discussing this with my wife I would like to clarify that I was not talking about morality. Even in the Rothbard article I provided he states: "Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question."

So my personal opinion on abortion is that it is not good. Abortion is unnatural and the depression and grieving that mothers go through after abortion is natures way of saying that it probably wasn't the right thing to do.

[KBCraig]

This is always an emotional topic. I regret that people who agree on so much can be so vehemently opposed on this issue.

I must also bow out of the discussion. We've had some drama at home that has us all shaking. If you've ever heard the expression, "I feel like I've been shot at and missed and shit at and hit,", well... that's me right now.

So I'm going to avoid anything contentious online, and focus emotional energy closer to home.

Kevin

[Dreepa]

? But elective abortion seems to compare life with convenience.? "My convenience vs the child's life", and as such seems to spit in the face of life itself.? Someone else's life isn't even worth a little inconvenience on my part.

Caleb

What about someone who drinks or does drugs when they are pregnant?  Should they be imprisoned?

What about the good of the child?  Some people shouldn't be parents.

(These are just ideas.. I don't know the answers.)

[Lex]

This is always an emotional topic. I regret that people who agree on so much can be so vehemently opposed on this issue.

I must also bow out of the discussion. We've had some drama at home that has us all shaking. If you've ever heard the expression, "I feel like I've been shot at and missed and shit at and hit,", well... that's me right now.

So I'm going to avoid anything contentious online, and focus emotional energy closer to home.

Kevin

I hope everything goes well for you Kevin.

[KBCraig]

Thanks, Lex.

[Caleb]

Dreepa,

Good questions, but I think part of the problem is I have been looking at it from a MORAL perspective, not a LEGAL perspective.

I very rarely look at things from a LEGAL perspective, because I tend to think that the law is an ass anyway, and I find that if I abide by moral requirements, that's really all I need to be a good person.

So to answer your question, should persons who use drugs or alcohol be put in prison? 

That isn't what I'm saying.  I'm saying it is morally repugnant to harm a human life.  I believe that my Mona Lisa as toilet paper illustration quite vividly portrays what is wrong with the whole thing. 

Abortion truly grieves me.  "Pro-Choice" people tend to say, "well, no one likes abortion ..."  but if thats the case, why do they spend so much time talking about it.  There are so many rights that we are losing, its hard for me to get all worked up over defending someone's right to kill a defenseless human fetus.

I truly believe that, just as people today look back on men like Jefferson and say "Well, look at Jefferson:  He owned slaves!" and use that to disregard what he says, so I believe that men and women of the future will look back at us and say, "Well, what did they know?  They practiced feticide"

Caleb

[AlanM]

This is always an emotional topic. I regret that people who agree on so much can be so vehemently opposed on this issue.

I must also bow out of the discussion. We've had some drama at home that has us all shaking. If you've ever heard the expression, "I feel like I've been shot at and missed and shit at and hit,", well... that's me right now.

So I'm going to avoid anything contentious online, and focus emotional energy closer to home.

Kevin

I hope everything goes well for you Kevin.

I second that. Best wishes Kevin.

[Dreepa]

Caleb  I Agree so do we have the moral right to stop the women from drinking?

[Eli]

No, the question is, Do you have a moral obligation to stop the pregnant woman from drinking?

[Lex]

No, the question is, Do you have a moral obligation to stop the pregnant woman from drinking?

I agree, I think that's really the way we should approach all of these things. No point in judging other peoples morality. But we can and probably should judge our own morality.

[Caleb]

Dreepa,

Here's how I would address both your question, as well as the larger issue being addressed.  It seems to me that the major question seems to be, what are our rights and obligations in trying to "enforce" (for lack of a better word), our own particular version of morality.

The question can be answered two ways, because there are two levels involved.  It can be answered on the individual level, and on the societal level.

I remember once discussing abortion with a friend of mine who happened to be strongly pro-choice. He told me a personal story of a friend of his who had had an abortion under very difficult circumstances, an abortion which he felt was even morally justified.  The mother apparantly had been living with a horrible man who beat her and was abusive.  She was afraid to leave the marriage out of fear of her husband, but also because of her other children, one of whom was very sick, and they needed the father's insurance and other financial support.  Suffice it to say, she was very unhappy in this marriage, and chose to have an affair with another man; the woman ended up becoming pregnant.  She chose to terminate the pregnancy, rather than face the possibly lethal wrath of her husband.

He asked for my commentary, but he probably wasn't satisfied with what he got.  I told him that it seemed to me that the woman had several moral deficiencies that had contributed to her delimma.  I noted, for instance, that she placed her own satisfaction ahead of the well-being of her children;

Now, my point isn't to condemn this woman.  That would be unfair; my point is to illustrate that our own moral failings cause our predicaments.  We live in a world of cause and effect, and moral shortcomings can have a cumulative effect, until they reach a point of crisis.

There are some people who do not believe in objective morality.  Without putting words in Lex's mouth, he seems to convey that impression:  That he doesn't believe in moral absolutes.  If you believe that way, then it seems absurd to try to get someone to choose MY personal preference.  Why spend time trying to convince someone that ketchup is better than mayonnaise?

But ... if you believe in moral absolutes, then without judging people, it is permissable, even necessary, for an individual to try to mold the world as much as possible to conform to morality.

Understand, I am not talking about coercive violence.  I don't think that's what is called for. In relying on coercive violence, a person must corrupt his own morality.  But I am speaking about a PERSUASIVE influence.

So to answer your question, Dreepa, in the individual case of an individual woman drinking alcohol while pregnant, I would try to help her the best I could. I would try to persuade her that it was wrong, and then I would try to offer whatever help possible to allow her to overcome her addiction, if that was necessary.  It doesn't do just to condemn what someone is doing, we must try to understand the reasons why they do it and address those as well.

But there is an even larger point here:  Much of our work is done, not on an individual level, but on a societal level.  If Christians are to be true to their calling, they are to be the "salt of the earth", the "light of the world".  We are to stand for justice, love, mercy, and peace in such a way that we serve as a beacon to the rest of the world.  We are to help show the world a better way. 

I would remind you that elective abortion is a relatively new phenonenon (as least, the prevalence of it), and started as part of a feminist agenda to destroy the family.  That is the true origin of the "pro-choice" movement.  It is not so much about "freedom" as it is about attacking what the radical feminists see as "institutions of male domination".

For instance, we see talk of "reproductive freedom", and a clear statement that "people should be able to decide whether they want to have a family or not." 

But the very people that make these statements betray themselves, because they only assert this right for the FEMALE, not the male.  Under this twisted philosophy, a woman is entitled to decide whether she wants to become pregnant or not, but the man is not.  If the woman becomes pregnant, he cannot say, "Well, I choose not to be a father".  If the woman chooses to keep the baby, he will be responsible for providing for it until the age of 18.  Where are his "reproductive rights"?

You see, it isn't about freedom!  Its about the feminist agenda to destroy the family.

Caleb

[KBCraig]

I would remind you that elective abortion is a relatively new phenonenon (as least, the prevalence of it), and started as part of a feminist agenda to destroy the family.

Its roots are uglier than that. Although Planned Parenthood did not argue for abortion during Margaret Sanger's time, her "charitable" clinics providing birth control in black neighborhoods served her eugenicist beliefs

In 1932, for example, Sanger argued for

    A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

"...certain dysgenic groups in our population," she continued, should be given their choice of "segregation or sterilization."

As uncomfortable as her views on race were, I can't say that her views on government were any better:

And yet in "The Birth Control Review of February" 1919, she clarified her position:

"Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state."

(Sorry, I said I was bowing out. I'll shut up now.)

Kevin

[Eli]

Caleb,

   No matter what the roots of the movement are (that's polite speak for 'I'll ignore your ad hominem argument') the core message remains true. A woman has a right to not subject herself to nine months of slavery, risk of life and damage to her property.  As for a man's reproductive rights, your argument seems empty.  There is no requirement that a mean be a 'father' in any real sense of the word.  You might fell morally obligated to your get, but I can tell you, a lot of folks don't.  And even with laws to the contrary, noone is forced to be a father.  Not ever. 

But ... if you believe in moral absolutes, then without judging people, it is permissable, even necessary, for an individual to try to mold the world as much as possible to conform to morality.

Understand, I am not talking about coercive violence.  I don't think that's what is called for. In relying on coercive violence, a person must corrupt his own morality.  But I am speaking about a PERSUASIVE influence

So, in answer to my question, you feel you have no moral obligation to stop the evil act of another person.  Your only obligation is to pontificate and moralize.  If that is the extent of your obligation, then that sounds fine to me.  Sadly, most christians think force is fine, as evidenced by the efforts of christian groups to limit access to abortion.  Limiting access is force, because it can only be done through force, not persuasion.