Is Abortion A Religious Moral Issue Or A Universal Moral Issue?

[sgtmac_46]

Many economists question that particular example in Freakonomics. The WSJ ran an article on that point not long ago.

Yes, though you might find, if you read in to it enough, that many economists really question it on grounds that have more to do with personal beliefs than economics. It's a volatile claim, one guaranteed to invite wide-ranging dispute.

I find his argument, however, compelling, more so than the weak arguments levelled against his claim, most of which attempt to level causation for the drop in the violent crime rate on far weaker grounds.

 

[arnisador]

I recall the recent outrage when Rush Limbaugh made a similar but more exaggerated claim.

I think most people agree that the effect is real, but differ regarding the magnitude of it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I recall the recent outrage when Rush Limbaugh made a similar but more exaggerated claim.

I think most people agree that the effect is real, but differ regarding the magnitude of it.

I thought it was Bill Bennett that made the abortion comparison (A fact that he was much misquoted about).

 

[arnisador]

You may be right...I may be misremembering!

 

[Kane]

Thanks for the wonderful replies people .

It seems to me by how some of you replied this may not be a moral issue based on soley on religion. Which does make sense in the fact that you can easily send chills down someone's spine if you show them the aborted fetuses (or unborn babies ). Still, there is a chance are that this wouldn't have been issue of morality if it was not wrong in religious books, but this notion can easily be wrong because of the amount of non-religious people that maybe against abortion.

Ray, what I mean by universal moral issue is: an issue that most people would agree on regardless on political beliefs. These include immoral acts such as Murder, Rape, Theft, ect. (at least I hope most people agree these are wrong ). I am not saying that religions don't teach moral codes, but religions (especially abrahmic religions) tend to put an attitude of "eliminating all temptation of doing an immoral act" when in fact there are many different ways at looking at things. Some superstitious moral beliefs aren't really moral beliefs either (ie if some book said to sacrifice people on the day of kowabanga , that is obviously a superstitious belief that doesn't have to be enforced ).



I guess the rule of 4.5 months is the best then .

 

[Xequat]

Yes, I too am not religious, but fell that it is an issue of morality to a degree, but also my belief is based on legality. I feel that since the law states that death occurs when brain waves stop, then the law should state that life begins when brain waves start. We have the technology to see if the brain is waving, so let's look for an EEG on the fetus and if it's negative, then leave it up to the woman, since she's the only legal human concerned. If brain waves are present, then the law should determine that the fetus is legally a human and regular laws should apply. I agree with the idea that it's solely the mother's decision to a degree, but if the law says that there's a living human present as well, then it really isn't her choice any more, because we are talking about another legal person.

I also feel that abortion devalues human life. If we are able to eliminate a life because it was brought about unexpectedly and we can't afford it or just don't want it, then I think that that sends a message that we only value life if it's planned. That's my concern. I have no religion at all, although I used to, but that is in no way why I have my beliefs. The same argument holds for those who would argue that it should be legal in cases of incest and rape. If we says it's OK to abort a fetus in those situations, but not others, then we are in a sense saying that people born from those situations are worth a bit less. I say keep it consistent. And I also say that in all situations, if the life of the mother comes into questions and it's her or the kid, then do what you have to do to save the mother.

 

[michaeledward]

I feel that since the law states that death occurs when brain waves stop,

I am wondering what law makes this claim?
In what jurisdiction does this law exist?
If a different jurisdiction has a law that speaks contrary to this claim, does that change your position change?

It seems this past spring we had a rather extensive argument over brain activity and death .... which, I believe, some feel has gone unresolved.

You argument is not a bad one, however, this is an unsupported foundation upon which you are building thesis.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am wondering what law makes this claim?
In what jurisdiction does this law exist?
If a different jurisdiction has a law that speaks contrary to this claim, does that change your position change?

It seems this past spring we had a rather extensive argument over brain activity and death .... which, I believe, some feel has gone unresolved.

You argument is not a bad one, however, this is an unsupported foundation upon which you are building thesis.

It certainly wouldn't seem to be supported by most state case law and statutes. Coroners, for example, in Missouri make a declaration of death, and i've yet to see one hook someone up to measure brainwaves when declaring time of death. The general legal concensus seems to be when the heart stops pumping and respiration ends, with no way of restoring them.

I'd assume at the point someone assumes room temperature, we can pretty much end any further debate.

 

[Loki]

It certainly wouldn't seem to be supported by most state case law and statutes. Coroners, for example, in Missouri make a declaration of death, and i've yet to see one hook someone up to measure brainwaves when declaring time of death. The general legal concensus seems to be when the heart stops pumping and respiration ends, with no way of restoring them.

I'd assume at the point someone assumes room temperature, we can pretty much end any further debate.

How can we be sure there's no way of restoring pulse and respiration? First-aid states that you have to continue performing CPR until a doctor proclaims death (unless it's absolutely obvious like in the case of a severed head or a body gone stiff after suicide by hanging). What methods does the doctor use to confirm resuscitation isn't possible?

 

[Phoenix44]

A certain absurdity worth noting is that abortions in America can take place up to the ninth month

Would you mind telling me where? I know of no place in the U.S. where a third trimester abortion is legal.

And as for the convention in Tel Aviv, I'd like to know where I can find out more about that, and about the philosopher who presented the views you outlined. The idea of a fetus having a moral capacity is certainly not a Jewish perspective. In the Jewish faith, the fetus is respected for it's potential to be a human being, but it is not regarded as a human being until it is born. The mother's life always takes precedence over that of a fetus.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Ray, what I mean by universal moral issue is: an issue that most people would agree on regardless on political beliefs. These include immoral acts such as Murder, Rape, Theft, ect. (at least I hope most people agree these are wrong ).

Question?

If someone kills someone for invading their territory, such as the Native American Indians when the Europeans were taking their land, then is that Murder or is that self defense?

Is all Killing immoral?


In some cultures it is ok to have sex or marry a young woman, in her early teens, and in others, it is considered Rape. Since it acceptable by this other culture, are their marriages Rape by our standards?

Do we have the right or moral understanding to judge them?


Just curious?

Thank you

 

[sgtmac_46]

How can we be sure there's no way of restoring pulse and respiration? First-aid states that you have to continue performing CPR until a doctor proclaims death (unless it's absolutely obvious like in the case of a severed head or a body gone stiff after suicide by hanging). What methods does the doctor use to confirm resuscitation isn't possible?

You are correct....in the sense that is the directions given to first aid, which is training for the layman. EMS personell, however, often make the determination that there is nothing else they can do.

Specifically, they make that determination when the following are present

• There are no spontaneous movements.
• There is no respiratory effort.
• There are no heart sounds or palpable pulses.
• There is an absence of reflexes including corneal, gag and vestibulo- ocular reflexes (spinal reflexes may persist for a time).
• The pupils are fixed and dilated.

(State of Missouri Homicide Investigation Handbook)


In Missouri, for example, 2 people are qualified to certify death. A doctor and a coroner.

Usually, if the person dies on scene, the coroner is called and they come and certify death. If they are transported to the hospital, the doctor does. The law does allow a sheriff to certify death in the absence of a coroner.


It should be noted that EMS personnell usually cease efforts to resuscitate when they determine there exists no shockable rhythm. That would be information only available from running an ECG. It would not be something knowable by someone trained in basic first aid. So, the information given to you in basic first aid applies to you and other first aid users.

In other words, one should continue administering CPR until a more qualified person takes over, unless one of those obvious signs of death (i.e. decapitation) is present. One last note, EMS personnell have a saying "No one is dead until they are warm and dead", meaning, under certain cold conditions, people can be resuscitated long after they would normally be irretrievable.