The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A person's a person, no matter how small > Comments

A person's a person, no matter how small : Comments

By Bernard Toutounji, published 10/3/2016

Alternatively, what if Jane and I decided to go away for the weekend and we left Louise crawling around on the lounge room floor.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
oh great another religious nut job moralizing over the rest of us.

Bernard lets do a thought experiment.....

Your at a hospital it is on fire and you have only a few moments to make a decision... you can either turn right and save two 1 month old babies from the fire... or you could turn left and save 100 frozen embryo's from the IVF fridge.

which way do you go?

I bet not many people would turn left.
Using your emotive language is utterly pathetic, to compare a fetus with a child is utterly pathetic.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 10 March 2016 9:19:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emotional diatribe:

You simply can't imagine what it must be like for someone falling pregnant before she is fully developed as a woman, and then as a consequence dying in childbirth, the all too common occurrence in less developed cultures!

Or having her not yet fully developed womb so damaged as to end any NATURAL prospects of having her own family!

And contrary to many beliefs, the wart (dividing cells) on the end of your nose is not a person. Nor is a similarly dividing fetus.

You would probably reject a group of nutters outside a G.P's practise waving banners that claim, wart have rights?

All human life is accompanied and identified by a human heartbeat!

My sister very nearly died trying to go full term with a baby that was, because of incompatible tissue(tissue rejection) poisoning her system(toxemia)!

And although she swelled with life threatening elephantitis, managed to give birth to a little baby that died within hours due to a damaged heart, with the upshot, my sister who wanted another baby, was never able to fall pregnant ever again, given consequent endometriosis!

I can't imagine the emotional turmoil for a rape victim, with her whole life and prospects being completely compromised due to falling pregnant while being raped.

And when she finally decides not to sacrifice the rest of her life and future prospects for a forced pregnancy, she is accosted by some mantra uttering God botherer, as she enters a clinic to reclaim HER LIFE!

What's the deal here?

Add to the already overwhelming emotional turmoil literally threatening her sanity!?

Those self appointed judges and juries, manning the barricades outside family planning clinics are totally ignorant of the reasons many might have no choice but to avail themselves of this service?

And instead need to focus on the possible plethora of justifiable reasons to reject becoming an incubator for an unwanted, or life compromising child.

Better you should stand in judgement of the person (religious fanatic) glaring back from the mirror?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 10 March 2016 9:59:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"oh great, another religious nut job "....I mean to say, the standard of debate on this issue is just so impressive isn't it ? All these smart "What ifs?" ...actually I would probably opt to try to save the human embryos...in the interests of the greater number of human lives....not than ANYBODY would EVER be in that situation...No "ifs" about it Cobber, 100,000 Australian children ..unborn babies..(last time I read a report involving a pregnant mother..e.g in a motor car accident ... the expression "unborn child" or "unborn baby" was used) are abandoned every year, prematurely ejected from their natural environment.Chucked out by their mothers in collusion with the dregs of the medical profession. Where's your heart Cobber? Where it should be? Beating with the excitement and wonder of human life? Where's the "joie de vivre" in you, so positively oozing out of Bernard Toutounji? If he's "got religion", then I want a bit of it too...such a change from dour anti lifers !!
Posted by Denny, Thursday, 10 March 2016 10:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 2000 I became pregnant. At the standard 18 week ultrasound I got to see my baby. At the follow-up appointment I wasn't expecting to hear anything except I was carrying a healthy baby. I wasn't told that. Oh, my baby appeared to be healthy, except for a tiny thing in its brain. The ultrasound showed a choroid plexus cyst. In itself it was nothing to worry about. However a choroid plexus cyst can indicate trisomy 18. If my baby had this they would be lucky to survive until birth. If they did survive the birth the baby would be catastrophically and profoundly disabled; they would be lucky to survive for three months, with seeing their first birthday extremely unlikely. The doctor was reluctant to do an amniocentesis as odds were low that the baby would have the condition. He ordered a follow up ultrasound for several weeks time. I was to go home and try not to worry.

I knew that if my baby had this condition I couldn't continue the pregnancy. I couldn't carry a baby not knowing if it would be born alive, or knowing that it wasn't going to survive. I'm a pretty strong person but I couldn't do that. And I couldn't bring a baby into the world knowing that it would have a life of suffering. So the decision was made that if the choroid plexus cyst showed at the follow up ultrasound, and subsequent testing showed the baby had the trisomy, that I would have a late term termination. This wasn't the decision of someone who didn't want the baby. This was the heartbreak of parents preparing for the worst.

I was lucky; this story has a happy ending. The follow up ultrasound showed that the cyst had resolved, and I got to see my baby again. One of the amazing midwife team made sure I was able to get the scan results the same day as the scan so that at least I would know.
In Australia abortion is a safe and legal choice. I'm grateful for that.
Posted by Carz, Thursday, 10 March 2016 10:19:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your personal story Carz, it exemplifies the situation that Women can face. Abortion must be safe and available and free.

Denny your post just demonstrates the point. If you call people who believe abortion is a medical procedure that should be available to mothers anti-lifers or murders say they are abandoned their fetus but then expect polite language back you're going to be disappointed.

Thought experiments often are based on situations that are unlikely to ever happen, they are created to find deviding lines. The author has basically said that under all circumstance abortion is murder and wrong. That all human life has equal value and human life starts at conception.
The thought experiments creates a situation that test this idea. You have given your answer and my moral compass would direct me differently.

I would choose the two babies every time.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 10 March 2016 10:46:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My goodness...all that and we learn your baby was baby was born alive and healthy ! How happy I was for you...But how happy I was for all those parents in countless stories I have known personally or read about, who knowingly gave birth to their Trisomy or severely handicapped babies and spoken of the gratitude and joy they experienced as parents and family cuddling and welcoming their babies into the world..for the short time they were in it. Their babies were so real to them, with images they would retain all their lives...a true member of the family. This urgency to shuffle off "this mortal coil" anyone who may be imperfect or cause some inconvenience for however short a time..?? As for suffering ..there is analgesia for pain these days...
Posted by Denny, Thursday, 10 March 2016 10:55:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This author can have his own views on the subject of abortion and IVF, and is welcome to not choose either of these medical procedures for himself......oh wait a minute, he appears to be male isn't he?

So, maybe he can have a say on matters that affect his own babies, or his relatives babies (if his female relatives allow it), but exactly where does he get off lecturing other women on what they can and can't do with their own bodies?

He should remember that 'natural' abortions occur all the time (miscarriages), so maybe he should take this murderous matter up with his God?

Mind your own business and deal with the fact that abortion and IVF will now always remain safe, legal and available in Australia.
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 10 March 2016 11:03:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Susieonline thinks the author is not entitled to speak out against abortion because he is a man. Well I thought that just over half of the victims of abortion are male, and if left alone will eventually become men. I am a man and was once a foetus. If my mother had chosen to have a "safe and legal" abortion, I would not be here arguing with you. I would not have had the opportunity to live out my life with all that that involves. My own daughter would never have been born. That is why men have the right to speak out against abortion.
If you think the fact that its legal makes it right, then you have a pretty warped sense of right and wrong.
Having the right to decide what you do with your own body is all good and well, until that right involves killing other people.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 10 March 2016 11:19:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Denny, before you judge perhaps do a little bit of research into Trisomy 18. Most of the babies with this condition don't survive until birth. Those that are born alive are unlikely to survive infancy. You might be strong enough to carry a baby with this condition... Oh wait.
Posted by Carz, Thursday, 10 March 2016 11:56:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, the religious trying to use semantics again to push emotional buttons, nothing changes.

Fact is that a foetus is not a person, at 12 weeks it does not have a functioning human brain. You will have to wait until around week 23 until you can claim that.

Darwin was right, in every species, far more will be created than can ever survive. There are simply not the resources for all of them on our finite planet. If people only had children they wanted and loved, there would be far less suffering and misery in this world. If my mother would have had a headache rather then create me, I would not know about it, so it would not matter.

In nature, offspring need parents who are willing and able to provide the resources to raise them. No wonder there is so much misery and suffering, if you try to force people to do this against their will. Only a mother can judge what is right for her, not a heap of busybodies with theological beliefs which they cannot prove.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 10 March 2016 12:56:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby says that without abortion more people will be born than can possibly be supported on this planet. That might be true in a state of nature, but is hardly the case today. Australians do not have enough children to even replace their numbers, let alone overpopulate the country. We have contraception that prevents unwanted pregnancies. These arguments may have made sense in China 30 years ago, but not in Australia today.
As far as the foetus not being a person is concerned, that is just semantics. The foetus has more to lose than anyone, having its entire life ahead of it. My life is already at least half lived. As long as it is not killed ( or spontaneously aborted) it's brain will develop and it will become a fully functioning human.
The author may be motivated by religious beliefs, but that in no way makes him wrong about the value of human life, even in its earliest days. I certainly don't believe in any gods, but believe it is wrong to kill the unborn. I also think its wrong to kill the newly born and those half way through their lives.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 10 March 2016 3:08:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhys, the population issue is a global one, not an Australian one. Even if every Australian died tomorrow, it would take the rest of the world only around 4 months to replace the lot of us, by its growing population.

Foetuses already die naturally in the womb every day, in huge numbers. Life is full of risks for all, that is reality. You are trying to give rights which we give to people, to human organisms which by any definition are not yet people, just like an acorn is not yet an oak tree.

Now it is possible that last month, you and your partner could have created another cute baby, but likely you did not. Did you deny life to another cute Rhys? Was it wrong if you did not?

I prefer to focus on happy, healthy and wanted children, with parents willing to raise them. I do not see how it is right morally to insist on creating more poverty, sadness and misery. Each to their own I guess. This really is a decision for women to make, contraception does not always work and abortion in the first trimester as we have it, is a reasonable compromise IMO.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 10 March 2016 3:58:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My article has nothing to do with religion, says nothing about religion and the issue of abortion has nothing to do with religion. If anything it's more an issue to do with science and embryology. I find it hard to believe that the pro-abortion crowd still use the out of date slogan of a woman's right to choose, as if we are speaking about getting a cancer removed. Those who seek to discount the opinion of others who think that killing babies is bad as simply religious nonsense are ironically more backward than the ones they would accuse. Ad hominem responses are meaningless.
Posted by BernardT, Thursday, 10 March 2016 4:53:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A person's a person, no matter how small... so long as it has no tail, but if it has a tail then no matter how big, it's not a person. Is that the case, Bernard?

Why should a tiny creature who has never even been conscious, who has not yet acquired any knowledge, who has not yet acquired an attachment to life and a fear of death, be more worthy of keeping alive (if indeed being kept alive is an advantage) than a grown up creature, who is conscious, who has learnt things (chimpanzees for example are known to learn at the same rate as human children up to the age of 3, the only difference being that then they stop), who are attached to many things in life and who do fear death?

I am not a saint, but at least I am vegetarian and I didn't kill any babies so far, born or unborn, yet I am a sinner as I do kill the occasional little flying and crawling intruders that come into the house. Let the one who doesn't kill them throw the first stone at those who kill foetuses.

I try not to kill (even when it is legal) because that would take me further away from God. Why should someone who doesn't care about coming closer to God mind not to kill - I have no clue, unless of course they actually do care about coming closer to God, but simply do not admit it nor label themselves "religious", though they subconsciously are.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 10 March 2016 5:55:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BernardT reckons his views on abortion aren't involved with religion.
Well Bernard, I always read about the author before I read the article.

Your description states "Bernard Toutounji is a freelance speaker and writer. He has a theological formation from both Australia and the USA, and has particular interest in questions of anthropology, morality and truth. Bernard writes a regular column, www.foolishwisdom.com, in which he takes a contemporary issue and examines it through an alternative lens. Bernard tutors in theology at a university level and speaks at conferences when requested."

I am fairly certain your views on abortion are colored by your Theology studies? Correct me if am wrong.

Tell me Bernard, in the unlikely event of a reversal in legal abortion being allowed in Australia, exactly how would you stop women from trying to obtain abortions for themselves again, like they did before it was legalized years ago?
It is all very well ranting and raving about the evil women who 'kill' all the 'babies' and demanding they carry their unwanted pregnancies to term, and force them into having an unwanted child.
But HOW will you enforce your will on these women?
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 10 March 2016 10:04:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ten-week-old babies are not in the womb; they have, by definition, been born ten weeks ago. A ten-week old foetus in the womb is not by any stretch of the imagination a 'baby'. It is roughly the size of a mouse and quite incapable of independent existence.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 11 March 2016 7:12:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bollocks.
What a disgusting, sickening article. To try to use your own children as fodder in your dogmatic war on womens rights. Pure evil.
Comparing your living, breathing children with fetuses. Im sure they are going to appreciate that when they find out.

A person is someone who understand their own individuality and their own ongoing future.
They understand and fear death.
They have desires and ambitions for their future.

Without these things they are not a person.
Fetuses are not "persons".
Posted by mikk, Friday, 11 March 2016 10:18:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk says "A person is someone who understand their own individuality and their own ongoing future.
They understand and fear death.
They have desires and ambitions for their future".

In that case we should be able to kill children up to the age of at least four or five years old.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Friday, 11 March 2016 11:12:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What a disgusting, sickening article. To try to use your own children as fodder in your dogmatic war on womens rights. Pure evil."
Extraordinary Mikk. Disgusting and evil to be advocating not to kill unborn babies?
if that is so then what does it make those who advocate the right to kill unborn babies?
Abortion isn't just about woman’s rights. There are least two other individuals involved here. The father for starters, and most importantly the human who is about to have their life ended almost before it has even begun.
But those advocating for the rights of this helpless, voiceless individual are the evil ones? Truly remarkable.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Friday, 11 March 2016 11:16:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhys Jones, it may be disgusting and evil to you, and I doubt if I could ever have had an abortion myself, but it has been made legal in many countries around the world.

Why is that do you think? Are all those governments and the people who voted for them for all these years evil and disgusting? Do you not think that the mother's wellbeing and decisions about what happens to her body are perhaps more important at her stage of life than her pregnancy?

Can you answer my questions above that I put to the author about HOW you would force all these women with unwanted pregnancies (which many fathers often request abortions for them as well) to stay pregnant and go through labour against their will?
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 11 March 2016 11:47:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the truly strange things to me about Catholic Church doctrine as I hear it from the church leaders is that life is sacrosanct - that is until it is born. After that, the child becomes a target for the pedophile priests while the church hierarchy looks the other way or moves the offending priests from location to location so they can go on offending.

And Bernard Toutounji claims that his article has nothing to do with religion.

Yet Bernard himself has been part of the hierarchy that has consistently lied about the activities of pedophile priests. http://www.sydneycatholic.org/news/latest_news/2014/201425_652.shtml So without further evidence, I am not inclined to believe Bernard when he claims this has nothing to do with religion.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 11 March 2016 12:39:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One has to wonder what the true agenda of the Vatican is in all this. They campaign in all sorts of ways against abortion, but where they can get away with it, they also campaign against modern family planning, which in fact reduces abortion rates.

I remember watching a documentary from the Philippines, where a married woman with 8 children, living on the Manilla rubbish tip, pleaded with the hospital authorities to have her tubes tied, as she simply could not feed any more children. As the hospital was Catholic controlled, her request was of course denied. Even in Perth, at the newly Catholic managed hospital, tubal litigation or the snip for men, cannot be performed by doctors, even if these things assist in lowering the abortion rate. Luckily Western women have a choice, unlike many third world women.

I can only conclude that perhaps the agenda in Rome is far more sinister, that it is perhaps more about demographics in their fight for more members with the Muslims, or they would not campaign so strongly against family planning, which does lower abortion rates.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 11 March 2016 12:56:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suseonline,
You misread my comment. the words "Disgusting and evil" were not mine. They were used by Yabby to describe people who disagree with abortion.
You assert that the mothers right to "decide what to do with her own body" trumps the right of the unborn child not to be killed. I disagree.
What to do with unwanted pregnancies? I don't necessarily believe the criminal law is the answer to abortion. Maybe as a society we have to start valuing human life more rather than killing it when its inconvenient.
I understand there was a time when an unwanted pregnancy could be devastating for woman. She would be ostracised by her community and shamed and left to a life of destitution. That is no longer the case. The vast majority of abortions in Australia are carried out because the pregnancy is inconvenient. Not dangerous to the mothers physical or mental health. Likewise, it is no longer considered shameful to have a child outside of marriage. We have social welfare to support mothers who lack other sources of income.
Most of all we have access to effective means of contraception. I believe that we as a society need to change our attitudes towards the unborn. we should value all human life, and support those who are carrying these children and raring them. Of course there is adoption for those who really don't want to raise their own child. There are plenty of people out there who would love to raise another persons child, but there are no children available for adoption. Mainly because they were killed prior to birth.
I believe that a change in the attitude towards abortion would stimulate a change in the attitude toward contraception. If people did not feel abortion was an option, they would be more careful with contraception. Maybe we have a problem with the availability of contraception in Australia? If so, lets increase access and education.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Friday, 11 March 2016 2:39:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhys,

First, I agree with your last post.

Earlier you wrote:

<<In that case we should be able to kill children up to the age of at least four or five years old.>>

Well, we already are able to kill children. We might be thrown in jail if we are caught, but we can.

Some children develop their individuality earlier than others, as well as their fear of death. For myself, I can tell that by the age of one I already developed a strong sense of individuality and morality; half a year later I remember knowing exactly who I am and as around that time my grandmother died, I already had serious concerns about her death and death in general.

While killing is wrong, the degree of harm varies along a gradient.
The more conscious and educated an individual human or animal is, the more harm they would experience if killed.

Whether and in what circumstances to kill, should be left to the individual, according to their own moral capacity, as the incurred sin, small or big, will weigh on them alone.

How possibly can politicians who themselves prey on grown-up and well-developed animals for dinner dare to legislate that others may not kill their own babies who are likely yet less developed? Either newly-born or not-yet-born, it makes only a slight difference along a longer slope.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 11 March 2016 3:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*the words "Disgusting and evil" were not mine. They were used by Yabby to describe people who disagree with abortion.*

Rhys Jones, I said no such thing, you are confusing posters here.

The thing is, you are trying to confer the rights which we give to people, which have human brains, to a human organism which as yet has no such thing. Now our laboratories are full of embryos in the freezer, are they all to be given the rights of a person? Is it murder to dispose of them?

I don't think that you have thought this through very well, for the law of unintended consequences is never far away.

Once again, an organism without a human brain, is not a person. Only a mother, who is responsible for that organism, can decide what happens to it and the consequences on her life. Forcing her on a pension to raise it, even if she does not want it, is hardly a great option. The world is full of babies looking to be adopted, for those parents who choose to do so.

At least you support better education and provision of family planning, on that we can agree.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 11 March 2016 4:09:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In that case we should be able to kill children up to the age of at least four or five years old."

Yeah!
I can think of many cases where it would be more humane to "kill" a baby than let them live a short life of pain and misery.
Sad I know and no one should be "forced" to do such a thing but the choice should be there and it should carry no stigma.
The same as abortion, and euthanasia for that matter, should carry no stigma.

It is none of our business and we should keep the hell out of other peoples lives.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 11 March 2016 6:32:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh and I did not use "Disgusting and evil" to describe people who disagree with abortion.

I used it in reference to the original poster of this article and his misguided attempt to (ab)use his own children to further his anti-abortion propaganda. His "musings" on what would befall his daughters, their tears and eventual deaths. Spelled out in graphic detail were utterly sickening. I wanted to vomit. How could you imagine your own children suffering such things?

And to equate that with abortion!
Like I said Disgusting and evil.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 11 March 2016 6:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhys Jones, I would absolutely love to see a world where there were no abortions attended at all. As long as the reason for this was due to very effective contraception and family planning, and not due to forcing women to go through with unwanted pregnancies.
Maybe the answer is to find an effective long-lasting contraceptive method for males who don't want to impregnate anyone? Why is it always the woman's 'fault'?
I would suggest that maybe the single men should keep it in their pants, or wear condoms at all times, unless they are out to make babies. Why not?

You say there should be no reason why women should abort their babies these days, but yet it still happens on a grand scale? Obviously neither the illegal or legal abortion availability has changed parent's minds about wanting an abortion.
So more effective contraception, maybe free contraception, may be the answer.
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 11 March 2016 8:57:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby, My apologies for attributing that post to you.
As far as embryos in a freezer go, those embryos will never develop into a person unless someone takes the extraordinary action of implanting them into someone’s uterus.
I make no claim that we are obliged to have as many children as humanly possible. I merely state that it is wrong to intentionally kill a child, which if left to its own devices would in all probability enjoy a life much like the one you and I enjoy.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Monday, 14 March 2016 10:28:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Suseonline,
The reason it happens on a "grand scale" is because as a society we don't value the life of the unborn. Instead we say "its every woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body". Once we start valuing that life, the abortion rate will drop away, at least in Australia.
As long as we frame the issue entirely as a woman’s rights issue then we will continue to kill tens of thousands of unborn babies each year.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Monday, 14 March 2016 10:32:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We seem to be going around in circles here, Rhys. Once again, no child is being killed when a woman aborts a foetus at 12 weeks or earlier.

Yes indeed, that foetus might miss out on a life, but the mother has about 400 chances in her life to create a baby, so she might well be in a position later on in life, where she is able to raise it, so why not raise that one? Why does it have to be the first one, according to you? She has multiple opportunities, so clearly there is no good reason to insist on the first one, IMO. It really is not up to you or I do tell her what to do, but her decision. So far you have not named a single convincing reason why your opinion is the one which should be enforced on women.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 14 March 2016 12:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhys, it's not a dichotomy of 'women's right to chose' v 'valuing life'. Many decisions to have an abortion are by people who value life including reproductive aspects to life.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 6:56:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby,
if you think its wrong to kill a human after birth, or before birth but after 12 weeks gestation, then it is up to you to justify why its ok to kill them before 12 weeks gestation.
All the arguments about sentience and "hope and dreams for the future" or the ability to feel pain, are just a smoke screen as far as I can see.
By killing any human, you are simply depriving them of the opportunity to live out the rest of their life. This is no different for an eleven week foetus, or a 20 week foetus, or a newborn or a middle aged man or woman.
As far as "the 400 chances" to have a baby are concerned, these are not babies at all. They are simply one half of the genetic material that could possibly make up a baby. they do not exist as an individual and hence cannot be classified as human any more than a sperm cell can.
By your reasoning it would be ok to kill a five year old, as long as you had an intention of having another child to replace them.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 11:19:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*then it is up to you to justify why its ok to kill them before 12 weeks gestation.*

I think I have already done that Rhys, perhaps you did not understand what I wrote. A human what? Some claim that a human embryo should already be given protection and the rights of a person, as it already a newly formed genetic being. You clearly do not agree with that, as your point about embryos in laboratories made clear. Now you want to give every human foetus the rights of a person, even though it is not a person, only a potential person. No functioning human brain makes it a human organism, not yet a person. My point is that embryos are overabundant, often without parents which could raise it or even want to raise it, often aborted by nature. As Darwin pointed out, potential beings of any species are created in far greater numbers than can ever survive. Yet another foetus can be produced, to replace it at any time.

So it is a question where do we draw a line in the sand, as to whom should be protected. As a society we have largely decided that people should be protected, that the foetus is the responsibility of the mother, if she does not want to or cannot raise it, there is really no good reason why she should be forced to do so. Why produce children which the parents cannot raise, or educate? Why produce children that are often not even loved, but resented? Personally I campaign for less suffering in the world and the world would be a better place if all children were loved and wanted.

So 12 weeks or the first trimester, is a compromise which we have reached as a society, which does not satisfy the highly religious claiming the sanctity of the embryo, nor does it satisfy you, but it has the approval of around 85-90% of the population, as to where to draw that line. I agree with the majority.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 12:41:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meanwhile the adoption waiting list grows. What a repulsive society feminist create.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 12:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Treating women as incubators is pretty repulsive too, runner.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 6:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"you are simply depriving them of the opportunity to live out the rest of their life."

The same could be said of killing any living thing.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 12:48:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy