Mariah Walton was born with a birth defect that could have been fixed rather easily, if her parents had only allowed it (if there’s an ad in the video, it’s worth waiting through it):
I take parents’ rights very seriously, but how many examples of children being harmed by their parents’ belief in faith healing do we need before we step in? And is there any point at which faith healers will acknowledge that they were wrong? Or is it like prayer, where no response simply means the request wasn’t according to God’s will, or the person’s faith wasn’t strong enough? Do they never stop to wonder why life expectancy was so low back when virtually everyone had to rely on faith and superstition to heal the sick?
Finding Truth 
— except for the whole jumping-out-of-a-plane thing.
LikeLike
Ruth, I guess I still just dont understand. Human brains arent fully formed until adulthood – that itself isnt the determining factor, and then we could also talk about the mentally impaired who’s brains will never reach “full development.”
The distinction is in the womb or out of the womb, unless we also talk about later term versus early pregnancy.
and yes, we kill all the time for reasons we justify – self defense, war, punishment – and you’re saying that “killing” only relates to “human personhood” and that zygotes and embryos arent “persons” despite being living humans?
I’ll think on it
LikeLike
“and yes, we kill all the time for reasons we justify – self defense, war, punishment”
Most of the killing we do – and I’m certainly not OK with most of it – involved the resolution of a threat, real or perceived.
LikeLike
we dont have to agree and we clearly do not, I just dont understand why we dont, and dont understand how my position is hard to understand.
No, we don’t agree and that’s perfectly fine. I understand your position even though I don’t agree with it. I’m not sure why my position is so difficult to understand.
And, to an even larger degree I don’t understand why a “lesser of two evils” is so difficult to understand. There may be a multitude of reasons why I might disagree with the choice to abort, yet is it up to me to decide? No, it is not. There are a multitude of reasons why I would not make that same decision, yet I am not in the position to have to make that decision. It is easy to sit in judgment. It is more difficult to have to live it out.
You see, I’m not advocating for a “save a life at any cost” position. I believe people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, for example, have every right to pursue death on their own terms. I am advocating for a position of eliminating suffering by whatever means we have at our disposal. I have, in recent months, been working with the local DFCS and I see an immense amount of suffering of children at the hands of unfit parents. These are lives that were given a chance to survive. But at what quality? I’m not suggesting we euthanize them, I’m suggesting that perhaps women who make the decision to have an abortion have a better idea of what they can and cannot bear than I do or than you do. I’m suggesting that women have babies all the time they don’t want that end up in the foster system.
I ask you which is worse, since were talking ethics here, having an abortion or bringing a child this world knowing it has a snowball’s chance in hell of having a good life?
In 2012 1.1 million babies were aborted. Now, I realize that there are families out there who would adopt some number of those. But all of them? Hardly. Then what? Your suggestion was to find some other way to deal with it. You don’t want to raise these children. You can’t say as a moral position that women should “find some other way to deal with it” if you aren’t on the bandwagon of being that other way.
Women are in the unenviable position of being damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Cut welfare. Women shouldn’t have babies they can’t afford. Yet, if they abort they’re also wrong for that decision. What’s even worse is that even if they carry a child to term and place it for adoption they’re judged as horrific for having a baby they didn’t want. “Why’d you get pregnant if you didn’t want a baby,” they say. Children who are adopted, even though they’ve been given a good chance at life often feel unwanted anyway when they learn that they were adopted. So even adoption often isn’t a perfect solution. And to my point about these children in the foster system, where are all these supposed adoptive families? Why are there any children in foster care if it’s so easy to just find some other way to deal with it? And why is it that so many who are willing to adopt only want a newborn?
I’ll tell you why. We’re caught up in the idea of potential. Once that potential is, in our opinion, spoiled it’s no longer of value.
One thing we can agree on is that, like you, I’d like for there to be less abortion. Education is the key to that. Education and access. I’d rather my tax dollars be spent on free birth control and reproductive education.. I’d rather young women weren’t shamed for becoming pregnant out of wedlock. I’d rather young women weren’t shamed for needing assistance if they do become pregnant. I’d rather men didn’t say things like, “no, I don’t want to take care of someone else’s kid, but abortion isn’t right.” I’d rather women weren’t made to feel like it was a moral failing on their part that they dare to like sex. I’d rather more men took responsibility for their part in pregnancy.
I’m suggesting that perhaps, even if you believe as you say, perhaps you might understand the ethical dilemma involved.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ruth, I’ve been reading along and I have to say this — you express yourself on this topic quite eloquently.
It isn’t just a simple matter of whether abortion is right or wrong. It goes so much deeper than that, but too many are so ensconced in their perspectives/beliefs on the subject, they are unable to look beyond their immediate viewpoint.
IMO, your statement, It is easy to sit in judgment. It is more difficult to have to live it out. sums up the entire discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I’m saying that murder only relates to human personhood.
Have you studied any of the biology behind when the brain stem forms and the various stages of development? Or are your arguments based solely on the belief that if it’s human and it’s a living cell it’s morally a person for purposes of ethical consideration?
LikeLike
Perhaps we have a different understanding of the words formed and developed. You are using them interchangeably. I am not.
A person who is mentally impaired has a fully formed brain. A human can have a fully formed brain, even while it isn’t fully developed. A fully formed brain has all the components necessary for human life even if it never reaches full maturity.
A zygote or an embryo doesn’t even form a brain stem until about 7 weeks after gestation. That means cells are growing and dividing and they are human cells, but they don’t have their own brain. The vast majority of abortions occur before this happens.
LikeLike
Ruth,
I may not be able to address everything you said, although I’ll try.
I feel the need to again state that I am not demanding a law be set or that we picket and clinics or bash anyone who’s had an abortion – not at all. I’m sharing my current views and thoughts on abortion and seeing if conflict or connection is my views and thoughts on parenting styles of people who have born children.
Have I studied Brain formation of zygotes and embryos? I have not in any really depth, and probably too lazy to do so. Since I’m not a doctor or advocating any legislation, I just don’t feel the need. But I see a developing human. I don’t throw stones or curse those who see something else, but I just don’t see how it’s not a human life.
I do not see how we can try to set or discuss the need to set laws that protect the lives of religious families’ children, when can make any excuse to minimize the life of an unborn human. I just personally don’t get it.
No, I would not adopt a baby, or at least I haven’t yet, even though I think abortion isn’t well defended in most cases, and something I would probably define as “wrong.” On that same token, I’m not willing or able to foot the medical bills of religious families who refuse medical treatment to their kids. I don’t think that makes me a jerk. I don’t think that my willingness or unwillingness to do something has any real bearing on what’s right or wrong either, so I am sure how me being a man with an opinion has anything to do with it.
Have you offered or tried to pay the medical bills of kids who’s folks won’t have them treated? If not does that invalidate your position that the kids should still receive medical care?
Nan said,
“It isn’t just a simple matter of whether abortion is right or wrong. It goes so much deeper than that, but too many are so ensconced in their perspectives/beliefs on the subject, they are unable to look beyond their immediate viewpoint.”
Right, my point is why can we say that when it comes to abortion, but not when ot comes to other situations like the one where religious parents refuse medical care to their children? The rules change. We don’t care about the parent’s perspective or their beliefs, we care about the human life and what’s best for it in terms of living vs dying or being physically harmed – we do the opposite with abortion. I don’t know why.
“it’s not fully formed…” yeah, I guess I have difficulty with the terminology. Formed vs developed… and I wonder if it really matters. So human life that isn’t fully formed isn’t a person and can be killed for any reason, but a human life that isn’t fully developed can’t be killed for any reason and is or can be argued to have personhood?
From the position I understand you to be arguing for, these religious families should do whatever they can to ensure the health and welfare of their children, but, had that same family only aborted that same child – no harm no foul?
I am sure I missed some things – sorry, it wasn’t intentional.
LikeLike
“I ask you which is worse, since were talking ethics here, having an abortion or bringing a child this world knowing it has a snowball’s chance in hell of having a good life?: – Ruth
which do you think is worse, a chance at doing something or no chance at doing something; a chance at living, or no chance at living?
I think that life is typically better than death. I do agree are there circumstances like you mentioned such as someone suffering with a terminal illness, or moral wound, etc.
I think killing an unborn child or a very young child or anyone with the justification that, “we’re saving them from a horrible life,” sounds a lot like some cult leading killing his followers because “it was the only way to save them.”
and maybe the mother is the only one who knows best, however define “best,”and while I’m not throwing stones at those who make that hard choice, i still think it’s wrong. I have that view about other things too, do you not?
should there be more supportive programs for mothers, especially if we were to say no abortion? sure. But mothers and fathers should take more care with birth control too. A lot of things should take place, and I’m not sure it’s good justification to excuse one bad act with, “but there’s other bad acts too.”
And I’m not talking about making laws or punishing anyone (which is where I think the previous paragraph would apply), I’m talking about whether there’s a right or wrong, and asking why we can take a position that supports life in one area, while talking a position that supports death in another?
LikeLike
“A zygote or an embryo doesn’t even form a brain stem until about 7 weeks after gestation. That means cells are growing and dividing and they are human cells, but they don’t have their own brain. The vast majority of abortions occur before this happens.”
I wouldn’t say “vast” but Ruth is correct. The majority are performed before 7 weeks (52.6 %) which means 47.4 are performed after 7 weeks. I’m concerned with the ones which are performed afterwards. I think most would agree.
Percentage of 2012 Reported Abortions by Weeks of Gestation* (CDC):
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sorry this has turned into an abortion discussion, but I think we all agree that the kid who’s parents refuse medical treatment for religious reasons should still receive medical treatment, despite her parent’s reasons, or emotional and mental states, etc.
A woman has a miscarriage. Did she lose a baby or just a part of her body; some special cells?
does she have less right to grieve than a mother who lost a baby to SIDS? Should she only be expected to grieve as much as she would for a stranger who died?
A pregnant woman is murdered. Should the murderer face one count of murder or two?
A pregnant woman is assaulted. Her baby dies, but the mother lives with small injuries. Should the assailant be charged with assault only, or also with murder or manslaughter?
Is there a or should there be a difference between later term abortions or some earlier stage, and if so, why?
LikeLike
@kccheif1,
I got my statistics from the CDC, too.
In 2012, the majority (65.8%) of abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.4%) were performed by ≤13 weeks’ gestation. Few abortions (7.2%) were performed between 14–20 weeks’ gestation or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.3%).
So I’m wondering why these don’t exactly jibe with yours? Weird.
LikeLike
William,
We don’t agree. That’s fine. I thought you were asking me to explain better my position. I don’t think that will help any since your opinion is already formed and it doesn’t appear any other position is valid in your mind.
Again, she lost the same thing that is being aborted. It is, in fact, called spontaneous abortion. The value she, personally, places on it doesn’t change the biology. That is not to make insignificant what is most assuredly significant to the woman involved.
I’m not sure what her grief or lack thereof has to do with whether what she lost was a baby or not. She should be expected to grieve in whatever way she needs to and as much or as little as she needs to. Again, if she is grieving, what is she grieving? She pictured holding a newborn at the end of nine months. That is what she is grieving. The baby she thought she would give birth to. That is the loss. If what she miscarried didn’t have the potential to become a person there wouldn’t be much to grieve.
When you picture what a person who experiences a miscarriage is grieving, what do you picture? Is it a zygote or a newborn? Is an embryo or is it the ghost of the five year old that embryo represents?
You are making an emotional argument, not a biological one. Hell, I grieve the child/children I’ve never been able to produce. Do I not have the right to do so? I grieve the fact that I’ll never hold a newborn, that a child will never call me mama, that I won’t get to name my baby, that I won’t get to watch them grow, go to school, graduate, become productive citizens and even that I’ll never be a grandparent. Yes, I can get quite emotional about it.
These are very complicated questions with very complicated answers for which I do not pretend to have all the answers. In short, though, I do think that when the assailant is charged with murder or manslaughter, depending on the stage of pregnancy, that they are being charged based on emotion and based on what the woman or the woman’s family feel they have lost and not necessarily based on biological facts in an attempt to achieve the harshest punishment possible in to secure justice for the family and their loss and/or perceived loss.
I do think there is a difference between early and late term abortions, as do most people. I have heard arguments to the contrary but don’t agree with them myself except in cases where the health of the mother is concerned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I haven’t read the last several comments yet, but I wanted to go ahead and address this particular statement of William’s, because I think it’s the real crux of the discussion:
To me, the only real difference is that an embryo/fetus is still inside the mother. It can’t survive without the use of her body. Once a child has been born, everything changes — the child is viable and can be cared for by someone else. So medical treatment can be given to a child without affecting his/her parents. But you can’t keep an embryo alive without forcing the mother to remain pregnant. If she does not want to be pregnant, then you’re violating her own personal liberty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A pregnant woman is murdered. Should the murderer face one count of murder or two?”
In the Scott Peterson case, he was charged with two, but in many courts, the murderer is charged – wrongly, in my opinion – with one for fear of setting a precedent that might be used down the line to overturn Roe v Wade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We don’t agree. That’s fine. I thought you were asking me to explain better my position. I don’t think that will help any since your opinion is already formed and it doesn’t appear any other position is valid in your mind.” – Ruth
I’m venturing off topic, but wanted to say what you said is fine. I don’t think me explaining my position any better will help since your opinion is already formed and it doesn’t appear any other position is valid in your mind.
actually, i just wanted to see how easy it would be to turn that around.
I dont think I made any more emotional arguments than you have.
Your biological arguments are essentially, “lack development in the brain stem = non-person.” You can show how the brain stem developments, but that’s not the same as showing the life is less valuable than a person with a fully developed brain.
So I guess i don’t agree with position on abortion completely. I mean, I think you and I agree that abortion is better avoided, and that a person seeking abortion is making a hard decision and shouldn’t be demonized or punished for it. But I guess we part ways in identifying where the human value of life begins, and by what means we can use to determine that.
It’s okay. I’m not making any laws.
LikeLike
nate, yeah, that was the meat and potatoes of what I was asking and the point I was trying to make.
I see your point and the distinction, I just don’t know that I buy it right now.
I almost feel like that makes it all the more tragic. That’s not completely an emotional argument either. Biologically we want and need our offspring to survive. Something seems off about wanting to terminate that offspring and the reasons for that termination most often seem emotional – not biological or even logical. the unborn depends completely on this woman for survival and care.
again, life of the mother and few other exceptions I get completely. there usually are exceptions for almost everything.
I don’t know. maybe the brain is a good place to draw a line. maybe in or out of the womb is. I really don’t know. For me, i cant help but see a dependent and defenseless human life, and have a hard time saying it doesn’t deserve the same level of care as child that has been born.
I can agree to disagree.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine myself ever being in favor of an abortion either. But to me, the reasons for the abortion are almost beside the point.
If I don’t want to give up my kidney for some other person, I don’t have to give reasons for that. I don’t have to explain what else I might like to do with that kidney. It’s simply a given that I have the right to make decisions about my own body, even if that decision costs the life of someone I could otherwise help. If a woman decides that she does not want to be pregnant, then I don’t see how we can force her to be.
It’s such a complicated issue… that’s why I think the decision is best left to the woman who’ll have to live with the consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually it isn’t really all that easy to turn around as that isn’t my position.
I have said in various comments here:
and
and
So I can understand your position, see how you came to it, and empathize with your feelings about it all while disagreeing with it. I don’t have to agree with a an opinion for that opinion to be valid. It just seemed that you completely dismissed any opinions that you didn’t agree with as if they weren’t valid as “weak” and “just excuses”.
In summary I can completely understand, see how you came to, and empathize with your position that unique human cells= person = wrong to kill even if I don’t agree with that.
It also seemed to me that your entire argument was based on your personal feelings that unique human cells = person = wrong to kill and not necessarily any biological reasoning. My apologies if that is inaccurate.
LikeLike
and I have said numerous times that I can understand reasons by they’d make a difficult decision to abort and which is also why i wouldnt throw any stones, so I dont really follow the critique.
and sorry, I think you’re a very intelligent person and always like what you have to say, but a few of the reasons for an abortion I did think were weak. the one about brain development may have merit, but I just a cant align with it right now.
you said,
“It also seemed to me that your entire argument was based on your personal feelings that unique human cells = person = wrong to kill and not necessarily any biological reasoning. My apologies if that is inaccurate.”
but where does the biological development of the brain determine the value of human life, or is that a personal feeling on it?
I could argue that the biology of zygote and embryo is human and is living, which is, I guess, what i was saying. It’s not so much a feeling, as a fact.
it’s human and life, BUT this or that. In the womb, or only 8 weeks old, or whatever. We’re dealing with a human life, so I question whether those BUTS are arbitrary or valid. Could we make a BUT anywhere else?
I dont know. But I am not sure selecting a point (if that’s all we’re doing) and then ascribing, “it’s a tough choice for the mother” makes it okay or valid.
I do agree it’s a complicated matter. I still dont get how nate’s kidney is similar (sorry nate ;)) and you and I see this somewhat differently, and I’m sorry for that too.
But it is really is okay. We dont have to get each other here.
hope you all have a good weekend.
LikeLike
Not sure why the difference in stats Ruth since we both used the same site. It is a mystery. Regardless I did say you were right that a majority of abortions are performed before 7 weeks.
And I think most here agree there should be fewer . I applaud everyone here for displaying a civil tone in their comments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think so, too, kc. Which brings me back to the original question posed by the OP. The question is, why is there so much abortion? Here in the US, at least in my state, birth control is easily accessed. And who doesn’t know that sex makes babies unless you do something to prevent it?
I think a main culprit is religion. It shames people, not just women, for thinking about sex, especially if you aren’t married and most especially young people. Most abortions are performed on women in their twenties. I know women who have had abortions and I know women who have, at least, considered abortion. All of the ones I know didn’t do it or consider doing it because a baby would be a hassle. They are all religious.
This may seem weak but religious young people are told over and over how sinful they are for even thinking about sex. They intend to save themselves for marriage. When they get into a serious relationship they are ill prepared to deal with the hormones and urges that come naturally. They are too embarrassed to seek out birth control because that means they’ll have to actually tell someone that they’re thinking about having sex, even if it is their doctor(who they likely go to church with).
This needs to stop. Families and educators need to stop fantasizing about all these little girls being “pure” and start treating their daughters, sons, and pupils with respect. Arm them with the information and, more importantly, the autonomy and dignity to make their own informed, mature decisions when it comes to sex. Because what ends up happening as a result of trying to keep sex as some dirty little secret is that young men and young women don’t have adult conversations about preventing pregnancy with each other.
So the more I think about this the more I’m wondering how much parents’ religious beliefs should impact the health of their children. It’s not just about praying away cancer, or holes in hearts, or even the flu. Praying away pregnancies becomes a reality, too.
And I really think that’s the conversation that needs to be debated, not necessarily abortion, itself.
LikeLiked by 6 people
That depends on your own definition of a “god”. Do you mean a Demiurge? The thing that matters to you most of all is probably what you believe yourself.
Do you mean the god “money” being worshipped like a god by too many?
Do you mean the all mighty “Russells teapot” god in orbit in space?
The answer will be different depending on definition.
LikeLike
I was responding to this statement of yours:
(Emphasis mine.)
So no, the question of “which god” you were referring to and why you believe the claims you made depends not on my definition, but on yours.
I would argue however that the idea of a “god” as “the thing you worship” is not a god in any meaningful sense. At the very least, it is a separate concept from the idea of a “god” as a powerful, conscious, potentially non-corporeal being.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the difference in statistics might be the difference between “less than” and “less than or equal to”. Looks like your numbers match when you add 6, 7, & 8.
LikeLike