tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post5132405310129897626..comments2023-03-11T02:50:37.537-08:00Comments on Solid Footing: Abortion: The SLED ArgumentSolidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09365397053788116379noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-24946268957997919432010-11-10T11:13:26.162-08:002010-11-10T11:13:26.162-08:00Sorry for the slow reply. I was sick Monday, and ...Sorry for the slow reply. I was sick Monday, and then spent yesterday catching up. <br /><br />First of all, the obvious. I don't have any STD's, nor have I ever, I know I don't have any fatherless children wandering around, and I've never had to to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Given my belief that abortion is murder, coupled with the fact that legally, it remains exclusively the woman's choice, an unwanted pregnancy would be completely unacceptable from my standpoint. Any of that stuff could complicate my marriage too, and I'm glad I don't have to worry about it.<br /><br />Beyond that, we get into arguable points. So I'll tell you what I think, but I realize you could counterpoint a lot of this. It's still my opinion. First, and this is something people in my position bring up a lot, waiting until marriage does away with fears of comparison. I've only had one partner. Also, I believe I carry less emotional baggage into my marriage because I've never shared that kind of intimacy with another woman. My wife can perhaps feel more secure in my sexual fidelity, because I have a rather extreme record of faithfulness. <br /><br />Finally, and I realize this is a little sentimental, this is a gift I can offer to my wife that I've never shared with anyone else. It's a sign of respect to her, and a symbol of my fidelity to her even before I knew her.<br /><br />As pertains to other methods of contraception, I say that it is far better to use them than not to use them. But I will not concede for a moment that abstinence is either impossible or unrealistic.Solidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365397053788116379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-74275679976877192932010-11-07T18:37:39.373-08:002010-11-07T18:37:39.373-08:00"It was a choice I made, and I believe my mar..."It was a choice I made, and I believe my marriage is better because of it."<br /><br />In what ways?Solid_Idhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323330723537252992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-14543883170100659632010-11-07T18:26:23.390-08:002010-11-07T18:26:23.390-08:0033. And yes, I had plenty of girlfriends prior to...33. And yes, I had plenty of girlfriends prior to that. It was a choice I made, and I believe my marriage is better because of it. That's not to say you can't have a good marriage any other way - just that it saved me from a lot of baggage.Solidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365397053788116379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-73284533128380417132010-11-07T18:19:23.097-08:002010-11-07T18:19:23.097-08:00You waited till when? You got married? How old wer...You waited till when? You got married? How old were you when you got married? Were you a 30+ year old virgin??Solid_Idhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323330723537252992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-33622121274648435342010-11-07T18:17:15.271-08:002010-11-07T18:17:15.271-08:00This is another conversation for another day. It&...This is another conversation for another day. It's true that not everyone holds to the course they lay out for themselves, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good plan. I waited. And I think that at least a partial answer to your question about the right time would be at the point the couple is ready to deal with the natural outcomes and consequences of sex, to include childbirth.Solidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365397053788116379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-9553830721663138272010-11-07T18:10:45.328-08:002010-11-07T18:10:45.328-08:00In theory, maybe. In practice, no.
I've also ...In theory, maybe. In practice, no.<br /><br />I've also talked to a lot of people who have made "abstinence/ virginity pledges" who have not been able to follow through. Sex can be a beautiful expression of love between two people (or three, five, etc). Why should people abstain from this expression? And, when should be the time when it is "allowable" to have sex?Solid_Idhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323330723537252992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-58036930822490723892010-11-07T18:03:08.404-08:002010-11-07T18:03:08.404-08:00Abstinence works pretty well. ;)
Sorry, had to s...Abstinence works pretty well. ;)<br /><br />Sorry, had to say it.Solidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365397053788116379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-62012929217228717652010-11-07T18:01:37.604-08:002010-11-07T18:01:37.604-08:00God, technology, learn-ed folk, etc...
I agree th...God, technology, learn-ed folk, etc...<br /><br />I agree though, that would be pretty awesome. <br /><br />The other thing to focus on would be more reliable forms of contraceptives, or perfecting the ones that already exist.Solid_Idhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323330723537252992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-7206467858901312552010-11-07T17:43:06.443-08:002010-11-07T17:43:06.443-08:00Then may God hasten that day.Then may God hasten that day.Solidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365397053788116379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-33835227595002018492010-11-07T17:37:48.946-08:002010-11-07T17:37:48.946-08:00"I have a challenge for you. It is simple sci..."I have a challenge for you. It is simple scientific fact that the technology for keeping premature babies alive at younger and younger ages is improving. Let's assume for just a moment that someone at some point in the future invented an artificial womb that was able to nourish and develop a baby from a test tube straight through to infancy. Would you then say that abortion is wrong?"<br /><br />If an artificial uterus is developed in the future that can house a fertilized egg and provide nutrients to essentially "grow" it until 40 weeks, then I think a lot of things will change. Women might want to forego pregnancy completely. <br /><br />As for the abortion, when a woman finds out she is pregnant, she could have the embryo removed from her body and transferred directly into an artificial uterus immediately. Essentially, it would eliminate abortion altogether and move the adoption process to an earlier time.Solid_Idhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323330723537252992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-43128338582730965832010-11-07T13:20:10.835-08:002010-11-07T13:20:10.835-08:00I've got about twenty-five minutes before I ha...I've got about twenty-five minutes before I have to leave for my nephew's first birthday party, so let me see how much ground I can cover in that time. I appreciate the comments from both of you.<br /><br />First of all, people don't have seeds. The analogy isn't even really right, because a plant embryo exists within a seed, but is not the seed itself.<br /><br />I can understand why clarification may be required on the development argument. I could have been clearer. The basic point is that we continue to develop throughout childhood as well. The child's lack of development does not make it less human. And the differences are huge! Consider what puberty alone does to a person. Then think about the difference in body shapes, mental development, and physical capabilities between an adult and an infant, and I hope you'll understand my point a little better.<br /><br />Concerning your location argument, I think it's really more about dependency, right? It's not that the baby is within the womb, but that it's dependent on the umbilical cord.<br /><br />You refer to the fetus as a parasite. I think you're technically correct, but consider that a parasite does not have to be permanently attached to its host. It benefits and gathers nourishment from the host without typically providing anything in return. My point is that a baby is also, per your argument, a parasite. The umbilical cord may be replaced by the breast, and with that comes a bit more independence, but it's not as if something that was completely dependent all of a sudden becomes independent. It's a matter of degree. In terms of dependence, I would argue there's a much greater difference between an adult and an infant than there is between a newborn infant and an unborn infant.<br /><br />Finally, you seem to want to make distinction between late-term abortions and early ones. I just have to quote this paragraph of yours:<br /><br />"You are correct that 'as science advances, younger and younger babies are capable of surviving outside the womb.' This is why abortions are only done after the second trimester for serious health reasons."<br /><br />Please note your use of the phrase "this is why." In response, I have a challenge for you. It is simple scientific fact that the technology for keeping premature babies alive at younger and younger ages is improving. Let's assume for just a moment that someone at some point in the future invented an artificial womb that was able to nourish and develop a baby from a test tube straight through to infancy. Would you then say that abortion is wrong?<br /><br />***********<br /><br />SuperEgo: This is the first I've heard of that, and I've only read the NYT article. First of all, I seriously doubt it would actually happen. Second, they're not talking about refusing to take care of people. They're talking about replacing the federal system with a state-run system. That's an interesting news article though. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Solidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09365397053788116379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-30260387873007171662010-11-07T08:01:51.099-08:002010-11-07T08:01:51.099-08:00Solid,
Texas doesn't even want to take care o...Solid,<br /><br />Texas doesn't even want to take care of their living ones. Thanks to Republicans. Do you side with them too?<br /><br />Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html?_r=1SuperEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00535169941050185059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-580759847223310893.post-29384676700026336412010-11-06T16:20:34.488-07:002010-11-06T16:20:34.488-07:00You state, "An embryo in the very earliest st...You state, "An embryo in the very earliest stages doesn't have a lot of the things an adult has, including a functioning brain, the ability to experience pain, a beating heart, fingers, toes...the list goes on." Then, you relate this to ability. It's not about ability; it's about development. At best, you can say that a fetus is a baby-in-the-making; however, not a baby. In a sense, it's like a flower; you start with a seed, you add water and nutrients, and it grows. First a stem, then perhaps the beginnings of a leaf or two, and then a small bud begins to develop that will one day bloom as a flower. However, you would not call the seed a flower. That is essentially what you are doing by calling an embryo a human being.<br /><br />"'Location, location, location' certainly matters when we're talking about real estate values, but it has nothing to do with human value. Moving a few inches down the birth canal does not immediately make one human. Where you are and where you live doesn't give you value. That's basic human rights."<br /><br />I'm sorry, but are you f---ing (I appreciate your censorship; maybe you can get a job with the FCC) kidding me? As I stated before, living off of a human being and growing inside of their body is parasitic in nature. Without the host, the parasite will die. So yes, environment has absolutely everything to do with it.<br /><br />As for your next point, "as science advances, younger and younger babies are capable of surviving outside the womb. A child that would not have been able to survive outside the womb twenty years ago might do quite well today."<br /><br />90% of abortions are done in the first trimester of pregnancy. That is three months. There is no fetus that can survive as a baby (or human being in general) outside of the uterus if it is born at a gestational age of three months.<br /><br />Here's another statistic: Less than 1/10 of 1% of abortions occur after week 24, which is the end of the 2nd trimester. These abortions are extremely rare, and only done for serious health reasons. That means that 99.9% of all abortions are done before the end of the 2nd trimester.<br /><br />You are correct that "as science advances, younger and younger babies are capable of surviving outside the womb." This is why abortions are only done after the second trimester for serious health reasons.Solid_Idhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04323330723537252992noreply@blogger.com