How late is too late -in your opinion - to have an abortion? Once you answer that question - you'll have to tell us why you think that particular point in the pregnancy is too late..
Senior Member
To "Pro Death" supporters...
How late is too late -in your opinion - to have an abortion? Once you answer that question - you'll have to tell us why you think that particular point in the pregnancy is too late..
Last edited by -Cp; 09-22-2007 at 01:07 PM.
Hahaha! LULzzzzz
I think legally a woman should be able to abort her pregnancy at any time up until natural birth initiates itself. If she doesn't want it, she shouldn't have to have it. That isn't society's call to make.
Originally Posted by Gaffer
Senior Member
So it's okay for a woman to take the life of the baby - but not the husbands?
"....jurors who convicted Scott Peterson of killing his pregnant wife and their unborn son..."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/12/pe...ict/index.html
Last edited by -Cp; 09-22-2007 at 01:07 PM.
Hahaha! LULzzzzz
Feticide by a second or third party is a different story. If the parent(s) want to have the baby, they have a right to seek retribution if a third party kills it/him/her. In my opinion though, there's a legitimately upheld double standard when the mother and/or father want to abort the pregnancy. They have a right to dictate the course of their lives that I believe supercedes the fetus' so-called "right to life." Personally/philosophically, I believe that a fetus gains the "right to life" after the first trimester. I believe this because after the first trimester, it is possible for a baby to survive the rest of its developmental stage outside of its mother in an incubator, not to mention it has taken-on all of the human characteristics that separate it from say a fish or chimp fetus. Before that, it's basically a part of the woman's body--or a parasite that can't survive without its host/mother. That being said, that is only my personal philosophical view. In a broader sense that I think can and should apply to all society (not just me), I believe what I originally said, which is that a mother has the right of choice in her pregnancy all the way up until natural birth initiates itself. If a father wants the baby but the mother chooses to abort, it's his right to take her to court in order to retain damages or force her to follow through with pregnancy. This is already how it is anyway if I'm not mistaken. Although being male, I think it would be a pretty cold-hearted and vindictive thing to do seeing as how we men can make millions of potential babies every single day. Why not just try again with another brood mare? It'd be a lot more fun than taking some b*tch who wants to abort your kid to court for the purposes of proving that you're a controlling assh*le and bringing a kid into the world with only one parent who actually wants it.
Last edited by Hagbard Celine; 09-21-2007 at 02:47 PM.
Senior Member
It is never too late! Abort Bush!
A chance for a new beginning, like a dawn of reconciliation.
left coast isolationist
i consider the death penalty late term abortion.....
"I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is."
~Albert Camus
Senior Member
Why only late term Manu?
Last edited by -Cp; 09-22-2007 at 01:07 PM.
Senior Member
The Cider House Rules is a good book for people who consider themselves "pro-life".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cider_House_Rules
Senior Member
Awww how cute!!!Why only late term Manu?
Senior Member
You know what else is cute?
Does that stop us from slaughtering that cute little piggy after it came out of its mothers womb and then eating it?
Senior Member
cp, for u!
What are your thoughts on Judahism and Abortion....?
WHEN DOES HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGIN?
BELIEF 4: JEWISH BELIEFS
Background:
Within Christianity, Judaism, Humanism and other religions and ethical systems, the morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus. There is a general consensus in North America that when the fetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. Most would confine abortions at that stage to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.
Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." 1
Abortion-related passages in the Hebrew Scriptures & Talmud:
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.
"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1 This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:
One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.
Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.
Abortions needed to save the life of the mother:
A passage from the Mishna quotes a Jewish legal text from the second century CE. It describes the situation in which a woman's life is endangered during childbirth. A D&X procedure (often called Partial Birth Abortion in recent years) might be used under these conditions today. However, this technique was unknown in ancient times. The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if "the greater part" of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal. Before personhood has been reached, it may be necessary to "sacrifice a potential life in order to save a fully existent human life, i.e. the pregnant woman in labor." 1 After the forehead emerges from the birth canal, the fetus is regarded as a person. Neither the baby nor the mother can be killed to save the life of the other.
A second consideration is the principle of self-defense. Some Jewish authorities have asserted that if the fetus placed its mother's life at risk, then the mother should be permitted to kill the fetus to save herself, even if the "greater portion [of its body] had already emerged" from the birth canal.
Other abortions:
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases:
One case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except for its mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case. An abortion of the fetus, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
An abortion would be permissible if the woman was suicidal because of her pregnancy.
Jewish authorities differed in a case where a continued pregnancy would leave the mother permanently deaf. She obtained permission for an abortion from the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.
Most authorities do not permit abortion in the event that the fetus is genetically defective or will probably pick up a disease from its mother. The rationale is that even though the child will be malformed, disabled, or diseased, it would still be formed in the image of the creator. Rabbi Eliezar Waldenberg is one authority who believes otherwise. He "allows first trimester abortion of a fetus which would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the end of the second trimester of gestation." 3
An abortion is sometimes permitted if the woman suffers great emotional pain about the birth of a child who will experience health problems.
Abortions are not permitted for economic reasons, to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried.
In a very unusual case, a woman in New Jersey was pregnant with a hydroencephalic fetus. Its large head prevented a conventional delivery. The physician recommended a Caesarian section. But the woman asked for a D&X procedure on the grounds that the fetus' life was doomed anyway and a C section would weaken her uterus for her next pregnancy. Her rabbinic authorities agreed. 4
Political aspects of abortion access:
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance.
All recognize that the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without considerable thought.
Senior Member
................................You know what else is cute?
Does that stop us from slaughtering that cute little piggy after it came out of its mothers womb and then eating it?
Someone needs to lay off the "peace pipe"...
Last edited by -Cp; 09-22-2007 at 01:08 PM.
Senior Member
I don't smoke. I play sports and I have mild asthma.
Besides, chai tea is much better. Gets you fucked up 10 times more and lasts a lot longer.
Obama08's canabis chai tea recipe:
-1 cup of whole milk/cream
-a gram of bud
-chai tea powder
Directions:
Chop bud up.
Bring whole/milk cream mixture to a boil. Pour in chopped up bud and simmer for 10-20 minutes. Let cool and strain. Add chai tea powder.
Senior Member
In that context I agree.
A chance for a new beginning, like a dawn of reconciliation.
Senior Member
cp? any thoughts on the stance of Judahism and Personhood?
Or anyone else on this board that would like to delve in to it?
i am a Christian and not a Jew, but this does make me wonder if we as Christians have the right to force our beliefs on to other religions that don't have the same ones due to their Bible?
jd
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote