fromtheright

Michael,
Obviously, it is I who misunderstood your point.

I would respond that a spontaneous abortion is a natural process and quite obviously so. later in life is also most often a natural process also. Does this also make God the world's greatest er? I think I now better understand your point but I don't think it is a valid point. I think that a moral equivalence between an abortionist and a spontaneous abortion is as equally invalid as between a er and a heart attack.
Respectfully,
Gene

The Lone Ranger

Gene:

I think that perhaps it's a matter of interpretation. Of course, I don't think that spontaneous abortions are anything other than natural occurances; the same thing holds for heart attacks.

My point above is that if one believes in a God who micromanages the universe, as many religious people seem to, then clearly that God is directly responsible for all that happens in the universe. So, if someone was to argue that everything that happens "naturally" is due to the "Will of God", then clearly spontaneous abortions are God's doing. Thus, by that reasoning, God is an abortionist.

Cheers,

Michael

PopeInTheWoods

I'll make this question more specific and hopefully more interesting, as well as more applicable to abortion. Is it permissible to kill something if it is not, and has never been, even aware of its own existence? In <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/index.shtml" target="_blank">this debate</a>, Richard Carrier provides good evidence that up until 22 weeks or so of development, a fetus simply lacks the biological hardware to have awareness of anything.

I think this is a valid distinction between a fetus and an unconscious adult.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, even infants don't appear to have any conscious awareness of their existence until several months after birth. I would argue that from 20-odd weeks of development until birth, it's still permissible to allow abortions because of this, and because the fetus is a direct burden on and threat to the health of its mother. After birth, society has mechanisms to care for the still-unaware infant even if its mother can't or won't. Thus the infant's life is entitled to more protection than a fetus', even though neither is yet aware of its existence.

Andy

karthik

How about abortions in the last trimester at which time the fetus can potentially survive outside the mother's womb? Shouldn't the infant be given an opportunity so that the societal mechanisms can take ensure its existence?

tronvillain

Exactly how would you propose it be given such an opportunity?

PopeInTheWoods

I think you'd have to ask the mother.

Seriously, though, how would the fetus get to a state where it could survive independently of its mother, without impacting the mother's health?

Andy

karthik

I am sure the fetus can be surgically removed from the mother which is not as risky as performing an abortion at the last trimester. What objections could be raised if the government facilitates having abortions earlier in the pregnancy which would reduce later term abortions at the same time making later-term abortions illegal? I support abortion rights but am ambivalent towards late-term abortion.

PopeInTheWoods

karthik, if you can provide evidence for your position, then that definitely affects what the mother has to consider before she makes her choice. But AFAIK, there's nothing short of a c-section that does what you're talking about.

Heck, if at any stage of pregnancy, technology made it possible to remove the living fetus (at the same or less risk to the mother) and nurture it through "birth", ultimately matching it with parents who wanted it, I would consider advocating replacing abortion with that procedure. Unfortunately, in the present day we're talking about currently fictional "uterine replicators", a la SF writer Lois McMaster Bujold.

Andy

Boro Nut

I know my mother better than anyone. I'm sure she would have told me I had been by now.

Boro Nut