Comments on: Does abortion cancel a soul? Abortion specialist William Harrison on South Dakota's informed consent abortion law

By: Jamie Sartre

Jamie Sartre — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:24:20 +0000

First off, I was surprised by William Harrison’s almost cold and impersonal treatment of the matter. It got really weird when he went on about cancelling souls and some of the more philosophical issues. And how did that poem fit in with everything?? That really confused me and wondered what his concepts about God are. :/
Having said that I’m somewhat pro-choice *ducks for cover*, please don’t all stone me at once 😉
I’m worried with either extreme;
1. full on legal abortion without any checks or proper guidance and counselling for the mother.
OR
2. no abortion at all allowed because it is against God’s will and it’s still illegal no matter what your beliefs.
What about cases where a girl has been raped? Remember that in some poorer countries where the Catholic Church is the dominant religion, even in such cases abortion is not permissible. Not only that but contraception as a whole is seen as rather sinful.
Are we not delving into theological arguments and debates? And some trying to force the government to uphold their own particular views? Shouldn’t people be free to choose? Hmm this discussion could equally be applied to the gay marriage debate……but I think I might leave that for another post. 🙂

By: ken

ken — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:28:42 +0000

Lisa Harlett said in post 112250: I’m not quite sure as to how a sperm or egg constitutes the same thing as a zygote or fetus. It doesn't constitute "the same thing." Just as a zygote isn't the same thing as an embryo and an embryo isn't the same thing as a fetus. What I believe Dr. Harrison was pointing out was the characteristics many Pro-Life use to claim that a fertilized egg is a distinct person, exist in other cases where the cell clearly is not a distinct person. Case in point, your own example about a sperm cell is incorrect. A sperm cell could eventually grow into a distinct person under the right circumstances. Just as a zygote could grow into a distinct person under the right circumstances. Granted the probability for a sperm is much lower than that of a fertilized egg. However, the probability of a fertilized egg is much lower than that of an embryo that has implanted in the womb, etc.

By: Lisa Harlett

Lisa Harlett — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:05:49 +0000

I’m not quite sure as to how a sperm or egg constitutes the same thing as a zygote or fetus. It’s like saying a single cell (also a living organism) is the same as a fetus. Of course it is not. When a sperm and egg join, the become a new creation – a growing being that goes through many stages of change – including after birth. A sperm is a sperm is a sperm and no amount of time will cause it be anything else by itself.
The logic that is used in such an argument is incredibly obtuse for a supposedly educated person, and I grieve that such thinking is prevalent in the world when it does not even make sense.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:40:10 +0000

I use the term, viability , to refer to the point when the fetus has developed enough that it could survive (with mechanical help) outside the womb.

How does the living fetus get to that point if it’s life is terminated?

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:38:10 +0000

And I know I’m far more than a simple beating heart and a small clump of cells. Much more than that.

Ken,
Yes, that is because you were allowed to live – others were not and died.
A simple beating heart? Are you kidding? What is so simple about that?

By: ken

ken — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:55:53 +0000

I use the term, viability , to refer to the point when the fetus has developed enough that it could survive (with mechanical help) outside the womb. This point, generally, happens sometime between the 5th to 6th months of pregnancy.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:37:27 +0000

I think viability is a good point to start considering fetal rights.

Ken,
Would you consider a beating heart a viable place to start?

By: ken

ken — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:21:17 +0000

Warren asked in post 111907 : When did you start? I don't know, and I certainly don't remember. However, as I've previously said, I think viability is a good point to start considering fetal rights.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:40:40 +0000

We all have to start someplace Ken.
When did you start?

By: ken

ken — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:38:36 +0000

Ann said in post 111854 :
a heart begins beating at 3 weeks gestation – when that heart is stopped by an abortion, the living child dies.
So if I got a cadaver from a hospital morgue and hooked it up to a machine to make it’s heart beat would you consider it to be a living human being? It would even be possible to give that cadaver several other bodily functions (ex. breathing) that the embryo doesn’t have.
We have all been unwanted at sometime in our life – does that mean we are at the mercy of being killed by the person who does not want us?
No it doesn’t, but that is a poor analogy. Unless you are physically attached to the person who doesn’t want you and adversely effecting her.
If this matter is referred to as a parasite, then what were you at three weeks gestation?
An embryo. With only a few minimally operational parts. No brain functions: no thoughts, feelings or desires. Just a small clump of cells no bigger than my thumb is right now. Eventually, that embryo grew into a large clump of cells that became me. And I know I’m far more than a simple beating heart and a small clump of cells. Much more than that.