On abortion

[smokymountainrain]

Not a bad point.

Let's link this with the old notion that LDS have a strong obligation to have lots of children in order to provide bodies for these unborn spirit-people, as well as LDS claims to exclusive access to saving ordinances, and we can pretty much justify supporting, nay encouraging abortion among non-LDS people so that more of the spirits in Earth's on-deck circle can become LDS humans.

On the other hand, Mormons like kids/babies, so they tend toward not wanting to see them killed. Quite the conundrum for the typical Mormon, right?

[imanihonjin]

I'm sure you know the answer to this, but I'll play along: neglect.
Have you been reading any of the discussion?

I think the point being, why is withholding support by a mother after birth different than before?

[All-American]

On abortion

I'm sure you know the answer to this, but I'll play along: neglect.
Have you been reading any of the discussion?

Only the parts that interested me. In other words, not really.

So let me try to catch up. We agree that if you don't feed a starving man, it's not a big deal as far as the law is concerned, but if you let your child starve, it's a form of homicide. The only difference, of course, being that a parent owes some measure of responsibility to their child.

And the split, it appears, is that you think a parent owes no more responsibility to a child in the womb than to a vagabond on the street.

That about right?

[Solon]

I actually don't understand the theologic objection. Accepting the Mormon belief of a pre-existent spirit, why would abortion prevent "a chance for a life at all"? Does the spirit lose its opportunity to come down to Earth? The two reasons I can think of for this life (per Mormon theology) is choice and gaining a body, neither of which an unborn fetus accomplishes.

Not a bad point.

Let's link this with the old notion that LDS have a strong obligation to have lots of children in order to provide bodies for these unborn spirit-people, as well as LDS claims to exclusive access to saving ordinances, and we can pretty much justify supporting, nay encouraging abortion among non-LDS people so that more of the spirits in Earth's on-deck circle can become LDS humans.

[ERCougar]

But more to your point, how does the law treat a parent who "withdraws nutrition support" from their otherwise healthy child?

I'm sure you know the answer to this, but I'll play along: neglect.
Have you been reading any of the discussion?

[imanihonjin]

I don't think the starving man would regard you dilating his cervix as humane, but maybe that's just me.

But more to your point, how does the law treat a parent who "withdraws nutrition support" from their otherwise healthy child?

He already answered that....murder or neglect.

[imanihonjin]

Dilating the cervix and withdrawing nutrition support.
In the analogy, maybe pulling his hand out of your fridge and closing the door.

Isn't a D&E only for like 2nd trimester abortions but not third? Also, isn't it true that in many cases the baby is given something to stop the heart beat before extraction?

[All-American]

Dilating the cervix and withdrawing nutrition support.
In the analogy, maybe pulling his hand out of your fridge and closing the door.

I don't think the starving man would regard you dilating his cervix as humane, but maybe that's just me.

But more to your point, how does the law treat a parent who "withdraws nutrition support" from their otherwise healthy child?

[ERCougar]

So what are the more humane methods of a late term abortion?

And which of them can I do to the starving man with your approval?

Dilating the cervix and withdrawing nutrition support.
In the analogy, maybe pulling his hand out of your fridge and closing the door.

[Northwestcoug]

I had an interesting experience in tumor board this morning, which illustrates just how complex this issue can be. A 30ish year old woman has a rapidly growing mass in her breast. The biopsy shows an aggressive cancer, with really not a lot of chemotherapeutic options to treat. During all this, she discovers she's pregnant. She already has 2 children, and this pregnancy is 8 weeks along.

If you play the odds, chances are that this cancer will be her life-defining illness. It may already be metastatic. She understands this, yet is agonizing over treatment. If she delays chemotherapy for a few more weeks, the risks to the fetus become minimal. Yet if she delays too long, the cancer might spread, and also interfere with breast feeding. The oncologist told us that she really is devastated thinking about losing the baby, and is leaning towards delaying treatment until the fetus is 'out of the woods'.

At this point in time, the fetus looks virtually identical to most other vertebrates, both in land and sea. It is less than an inch in size. And it doesn't come close to any viability definition that imanihonjin keeps clinging to. Yet here this woman is, already with 2 children, her life literally hanging in the balance, regarding the rights of a cellular mass as much as her own.

It made me realize just how much emotion is in this debate. When you know how relatively many first trimester pregnancies are lost, most of them unbeknownst to the mother, an 8 week old fetus can seem like such an inconsequential thing. But whatever you want to call it, a baby, life, potential life, clump of cells, a lot of women sacrifice their needs and desires for their pregnancies. This is a good thing.

The arguments over when life starts, the morality of abortion versus the morality of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and the rights of the fetus versus the rights of the mother are messy and complicated. Anyone who offers blanket answers or solutions lacks empathy for the other side of the debate.

[All-American]

So what are the more humane methods of a late term abortion?

And which of them can I do to the starving man with your approval?

[imanihonjin]

None of those are an obligatory part of an abortion, of course, as I'm sure you know.

So what are the more humane methods of a late term abortion?

[ERCougar]

Are you legally required to refrain from snapping the starving man's neck? Or twisting off his limbs? Or cracking open the starving man's skull and vacuuming out his brains?

None of those are an obligatory part of an abortion, of course, as I'm sure you know.

[imanihonjin]

Ugh. We can't keep having this discussion about "life". A fertilized egg is "alive", if we define life as spontaneously growing with some sort of coordination. It's just not an interesting definition legally. So either throw out a different one or stop talking about it.
And your hypothetical mother would be guilty of murder or neglect. Next?

I have claimed that when "human life" begins is a murky thing and that is why I think it more than appropriate that society be given the ability to determine it. The only reason I keep talking about it, is because you keep asking me about it.

So how can you say that the mother in my hypothetical is guilty of murder or neglect when all that she did is less invasive and damaging to the child than what happens to a late term aborted child.


I can't think of anything, which is why this really never happens and is sort of a silly hypothetical. Despite that, I see a legal need to address it and have done so.
The termination at 40 weeks is analagous to the starving man across the street. Minimal effort to preserve his life, certainly the morally decent thing to do, but no one would claim you are legally required to do it.

Your analogy doesn't hold to a late term abortion because at that point in time the mother is doing something to physically destroy a child's life by having the child torn limb by limb out of the womb. It isn't a matter of having only to supply food to them but an affirmative action to destroy life. What are the chances for complications on a late term abortion verses childbirth?

[All-American]

Ugh. We can't keep having this discussion about "life". A fertilized egg is "alive", if we define life as spontaneously growing with some sort of coordination. It's just not an interesting definition legally. So either throw out a different one or stop talking about it.
And your hypothetical mother would be guilty of murder or neglect. Next?



I can't think of anything, which is why this really never happens and is sort of a silly hypothetical. Despite that, I see a legal need to address it and have done so.
The termination at 40 weeks is analagous to the starving man across the street. Minimal effort to preserve his life, certainly the morally decent thing to do, but no one would claim you are legally required to do it.

Are you legally required to refrain from snapping the starving man's neck? Or twisting off his limbs? Or cracking open the starving man's skull and vacuuming out his brains?