Is A Fertilized Human Egg A Person?

More
9 years 4 months ago #167720 by Br. John
You actually read the Mother Jones article http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/late-term-abortion-29-weeks-dana-weinstein and would have forced Dana to carry to term?

Founder of The Order

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #167721 by
Yes sir.

Jedi don't kill innocent life. My opinion remains.

If the child died later because nature took its course and the child's body wasn't up to snuff, that's the way of the Force.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #167724 by Br. John
The doctrine and dogma of The Roman Catholic Church, for example, agrees with you.

It's a very sad story and a truly horrible situation to be in.

Founder of The Order

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #167725 by

Learn_To_Know wrote: ANY Jedi that's ok with late term abortion shouldn't have the right to call themselves a Jedi.


Well then that solves it, no need for further discussion.... Turn off the lights when you leave then... :woohoo:

Ok, maybe not...
;)

Please do share the profound wisdom underlying your pronouncement. I think I missed that class and would very much like to correct my thinking so I can be a gooder Jedi...

If you're not too busy, could you briefly state, what in your vast experience gives you the right to make such a sweeping, life-altering pronouncement about such an important matter, for someone else?

4. Jedi are wary of attachments, both material and personal. The obsession over possessions and people creates the fear of losing those possessions and relationships which can cause ourselves to be trapped in a state of depression and loss.

15. Jedi believe in eternal life through the Force. We do not become obsessed in mourning those who pass. We may grieve at their passing but we are content, knowing that they will forever be a part of the Force and so always a part of us.

May I suggest, the physical and/or psychic scars of bearing the child or terminating the pregnancy will be borne by the mother alone. The final decision is hers.

There are real physiological, long-term costs to the mother for bearing a child to full term. Not the least of which is the powerful evolutionary impetus to then care for said child. The accompanying constellation of mental health issues associated with walking away from that bond are daunting as well.

As I see it, our place as Jedi is to support the person who comes out the other side of her decision, unconditionally, without imposing our will on the situation.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago #167728 by
I told ya, haha. Force field up for a reason.

At this Temple

Jedi Believe
In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.

12. Jedi believe that love and compassion are central to their lives. We must love and care for each other as we must love and care for ourselves; by doing this we envelop all life in the positivity of our actions and thoughts. We are providers and beacons of hope.

If you can justify murder of an innocent life if you subscribe to the above, please explain. Your mental gymnastics will be a lesson to me.

Perhaps we should change our Doctrine page to say, we believe all that shit above UNLESS you have a mental deformity. Maybe that will clear things up?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #167729 by Alexandre Orion
We've gotten pretty far from a fertilised egg now ... :dry:

We're also now into that really hairy business of trying to legislate morality. My advice is to not do that.

Certainly there is a huge ethical consideration. In the Weinstein case, it appears to be merciful abortion, not only for the baby girl whose Life would have been less than a quality experience of living, but also for the family for whom the constant care would have been psychologically, physically and financially burdensome.

There are many factors to consider ; anyone who is simply standing by a conviction (right to Life, right to Choice) with all the right learned words -- stop. It is an abuse to morality, not a support. The child would still have been severely handicapped no matter whether she was raised (if she even could have been raised) in her family or in an adoptive one. Who would have adopted her ? The vast majority of couples looking to adopt children are seeking healthy ones, not children in Baby W's condition. Now, given that had she been carried to term and survived birth the options are thus :

- she would have had to have been cared for her entire Life by her parents or surviving relatives, possibly ruining them
- she could have been put up for adoption and probably not have been, leaving her then
- as a ward of the State, in a State facility, cared for with State affection

There is really much more to consider than just this, but this is quite enough to make the case here. The Weinstein's 'choice' to abort was really the most humane. Humane often trumps classically 'moral'. As I said earlier, letting a Life end in swift, painless and merciful Death is not contrary to Respect and Love for Life.

In the Weinstein case (according to the article), this was a planned and well-followed pregnancy. It was during a 'routine' sonogramme that the anomaly was discovered. This implies that it was a wanted pregnancy, and that it was being responsibly managed. Something went wrong. The child died. The child would have anyway ... just not as soon perhaps, and with a lot of additional suffering for others.

On the other hand, and it is a big hand, as a general rule (a law ?), these late-term abortions would best be strictly regulated by a body of savants : we would not want 29th week abortions to be performed issuing from a separation of the parents, professional reasons (opportunity for career advancement, if only ...) or any other reason other than very serious health problems - of either the mother or the child or both. If late-term abortions were just very simply legal or not, then they could be performed on whims, reactions or coin-tosses ... This would not only be immoral, it would be down-right vile. :angry:

I would suggest that we only discuss one thing at a time here, the most important point being in what cases should late-term abortions be allowed. It is not even really an pro/con abortion issue. The 'rape' scenario does not fit this model very well, for in that case, the abortion (or not) would not be considered after 29 weeks, but as soon as it was known. Except in the case of extreme idiocy ... :blink:

For about 30 years, I've refused to take a definitive stance on this issue and advise everyone to do the same. There are extenuating circumstances in any hypothetical or even real case that we can come up with. The Right to Lifers are pretty damned absolutist in their position ; then again, I've never been in agreement with that a woman's body is to do with as she pleases. Self-ownership is a depreciating concept - reducing one's Self (however we take that to mean) as 'private property'. It is not ... There are systematically others to consider. In the case of pregnancies, the mother is not the only human being to have an investment in it - there is the child, at whatever stage of development (though not yet a 'person' - that requires "Identity") and there is also the father, who is not as 'incidental' as the feminist block would have us believe. :huh:

It is not really a case of "forcing" a woman to carry a child she doesn't want. It could be considered a case for responsibility for one's actions. Since the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and the advent of reliable birth control, we've gotten pretty careless with our sex for pleasure/sex for affective expression/sex for procreation divisions. It is the same thing - the same manoeuvre, with the same organs - whichever it is. And the most reliable birth control is not 100% effective. It is even less effective when it is forgotten or improperly used. :pinch:

So, I'm neither out-right for nor out-right against abortion. I feel that in the Weinstein's case, it was appropriate - even humane - at 29 weeks. Merciful euthanasia is not "murder". Late term abortions however would best not be authorised, no matter who wants to claim the right to choice, just because of a change of mind.

:)

Be a philosopher ; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.
~ David Hume

Chaque homme a des devoirs envers l'homme en tant qu'homme.
~ Henri Bergson
[img
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Alexandre Orion.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Br. John, J_Roz, , rugadd, Amaya

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #167730 by

Learn_To_Know wrote: I told ya, haha. Force field up for a reason.

At this Temple

Jedi Believe
In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.
In the sanctity of the human person. We oppose the use of torture and cruel or unusual punishment, including the death penalty.

12. Jedi believe that love and compassion are central to their lives. We must love and care for each other as we must love and care for ourselves; by doing this we envelop all life in the positivity of our actions and thoughts. We are providers and beacons of hope.


One could use these same passages to claim military Jedi can't take lives in the field and remain Jedi. Yes, I know you used the word innocent, but there's nothing in the passages quoted which speaks to that. The fact Jedi are said to oppose the death penalty seems to directly prohibit the killing of even guilty people. It's not my understanding of the Jedi way to view things in such absolute, black and white terms. Many Jedi have taken lives, and remain Jedi. Nor do I believe it is our way to deny compassion to those forced to make difficult choices (or, possibly, mistakes) which they will live with for the rest of their lives.

Also I'm extremely uncomfortable that jokey comments about Force shields are being used to frame comments about how certain people shouldn't be allowed to call themselves Jedi. If nothing else that seems incredibly disrespectful whatever your stance, either to those referred to by your assertions, some of whom may well be reading this, or to the "innocent lives" you feel are being lost - this is not just a theoretical debate, after all.

A doctrinal quote I feel is relevant to this discussion:

I shall never seek so much to be understood as to understand;

For it is in pardoning that we are pardoned.

Arkayik wrote: As I see it, our place as Jedi is to support the person who comes out the other side of her decision, unconditionally, without imposing our will on the situation.


Totally agree, but one thing:

Arkayik wrote: May I suggest, the physical and/or psychic scars of bearing the child or terminating the pregnancy will be borne by the mother alone.


I disagree, although I agree the mother receives the vast majority of these scars. The psychological impact of a terminated pregnancy is unquestionably felt by many fathers, and also by other relatives and friends, even if indirectly though ramifications of the psychic scars you mention on the mother. Having recently watched some friends go through a(n early) termination the knock-on effects on their whole close social circle have been pretty enormous.
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #167732 by Amaya
Justify the murder of an innocent life huh?
Well can you justify allowing someone to live for years in constant pain, unable to communicate, interact with the world or his parents? Unable to move or eat and have to be fed through a tube and given painkillers day and night, have constant 24 hour care, moving them, forcing them to move even when they scream? Forcing them to eat, forcing them to live with no hope that things will improve? No hope but that there bodies will eventually give out?
That's the reality of some cases of brain damage.
No future, no life, no growing up, going to school, no firsts, nothing but endless days and guilt because you brought this child into the world knowing that it would be this way.

Everything is belief

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #167736 by Proteus
If one can say "I wouldn't wish that kind of life on my worst enemy", it may be a... slightly hinting indication of things...

“For it is easy to criticize and break down the spirit of others, but to know yourself takes a lifetime.”
― Bruce Lee

House of Orion
Offices: Education Administration
TM: Alexandre Orion | Apprentice: Loudzoo (Knight)

The Book of Proteus
IP Journal | Apprentice Volume | Knighthood Journal | Personal Log
The following user(s) said Thank You: Amaya

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #167738 by Adder

Br. John wrote: I only asked the first part of the question I had in mind. Here's the rest.

At what point (or under what conditions), if any, should a woman be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will?


Then to continue, strictly from the view of my first answer , I'd say 'killing' should not be considered unless its 'seriously' unhealthy to the mothers physical or mental health. I guess serious is defined by some degree of permanent impairment being caused to the mothers normal healthy functioning.
:huh:

Knight ~ introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist. Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Adder.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi