(Continued)

The stages of development from fertilization to birth are a remarkable study, but in my opinion they don't justify an abortion at any time along the process. On the contrary, the study of the development to birth just shows how very much like babies the fetus is even at some of it's earliest stages. Hence why I refer to unborn babies as unborn babies. Their loss and deaths are a tragedy not a moral choice. Just as a miscarriage is a tragedy, so is an abortion.

Even the laws on abortion seem to give dates for when an abortion is allowed by an arbitrary number. At first it was later due to the age of viability (when a baby has a chance to survive outside of the womb) then it seems as more knowledge became known of the stages of pregnancy, the dates encroach earlier and earlier. The truth is that abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is choosing to kill the baby.

Dear NNS,

I would rather not have abortions because it is a surgical procedure, and any surgical procedure carries risk. I would prefer supplying pregnant woman who wished to terminate their pregnancy with an abortifacient which would cause an expulsion of the fetus or a miscarriage. This would terminate a pregnancy as would an abortion. However, I think most abortifacients have side effects which make it riskier than a surgical abortion. The morning after pill is a safe abortifacient but apparently is only effective for a short while after conception. I hope a safe abortifacient will be developed. However, I think abortion can be limited by sex education and contraceptives. I think it is great that people have the option of having sex without the risk of pregnancy.

I have answered your question as to why I would try to limit the number of abortions. Now, please answer my question as whether you think abortion or casual sex is the greater evil.

I don't think society is addicted to sex. It is a normal human drive, and I see nothing wrong with it between consenting adults or teenagers who have no obligations to other parties. When I was younger I did not take advantage of all the opportunities I had for sex. At 92 I regret my loss.

If teenagers want to have sex, fine. They're probably have a greater capacity for it than they will have later in life. Let them use that capacity and enjoy themselves. They will enter the sober adult world soon enough.

Dear Banjo,

«In the US, research labs pay upward of $850 for an organism such as a fœtus»

So you prove me wrong, thus a fœtus is more valuable than an umbrella even when there is no soul to identify with it. Yet should there be someone who identifies themselves with this fœtus, then its value would obviously be much higher.

Yes, I'm talking of loss and trying to quantify it.

Scripture forbids murder, not as some arbitrary/blind whim of a god, but because it actually causes pain, suffering and loss to another.

Had I stolen a fœtus from a lab, then I would be causing them a $850 loss: that's bad enough and clearly immoral, but it's still nothing compared with the case when some soul was identified with a fœtus that I killed.

The difficult question is whether and to what extent, is some soul identified with a fœtus, then how much pain, suffering and loss would be caused to that soul had that fœtus been killed.

Not an easy question, and unlike your quote from the article, the Christian and Jewish views differ here, not to speak of other religions.

Another way to look at this is from the point-of-view of the soul who identifies itself with an unwanted fœtus: "Is my attachment to this yet-undeveloped body and desire to have it grow so I can express myself through it, worth the pain and suffering that I am causing to my mother?"

If, as Christians believe, each soul gets only one shot at life, only one chance to reach God, then obviously one should hold on to that precious fœtus/body no matter what its mother feels, no matter even if it damages her health.

If however, as we Hindus believe, each soul gets many chances to reach God, then as an unwanted fœtus, if I could speak then I would say: "no big deal, so I lost a few weeks or months, but at least I haven't lost any education yet - next time I could have a [natural] mother who loves and wants me".

Interesting the way baby killers use the same deceit as the Nazis used with the Jews. Pretend they are not human and rename the obvious. Of course a simple 3d camera shows exactly what or whom is being butchered. Simple biology ignored.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You commented :

« You mentioned that many if not most jurists and medical practitioners agree that abortion within the first trimester are morally and medically acceptable. My question would be why? Why is it acceptable at all, and why only for the first trimester? If a fetus is not a person yet till the moment it is born, then why isn't it acceptable to have an abortion moments before birth? Medically the answer might be due to health and complications of the woman. But morally? Why is it allowed at all. And why only for the first trimester? »
.

Most reputable jurists and medical practitioners examine the problem from a holistic point of view, i.e., in the individual and joint interests of woman and foetus, independently of any ideological considerations or a priori judgments regarding the woman’s decision to interrupt the pregnancy.

We should not lose sight of the fact that, since time immemorial, women, all over the world, have sought to interrupt certain pregnancies, for one reason or another, rightly or wrongly – who are we to judge. Perhaps many of them are pregnancies induced by family members (incest), friends or close relations, irresponsible male partners, or complete strangers – all of which could have occurred with or without their consent.

Pregnancies occur in the woman’s body, not in the man’s. Where is the justification for considering that the woman is committing an immoral act in interrupting a pregnancy for which she is only half responsible, or not responsible at all ?

In fact, as it has been established that the sex drive in men is stronger than in women, it seems more likely that men are more often responsible for pregnancies than women – even if the pregnancy is “accidental”.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare#1
.

As abortion always has been and continues to be a scourge of society, world-wide, every country does whatever it can to contain and control it in the best possible conditions of health and morality, each in accordance with its particular lore and culture.

Nobody can achieve the impossible.

.

//but so far pro-abortion perspectives ignore the human element of a fetus, and the issue of killing another human.//

Is a creature's species all that counts in determining whether or not it is moral to kill it?

Is it OK to kill ET?