Respond to email@example.com . From time to time, we will initiate a question of current interest to regulate the flow of subject matter.From time to time, we will initiate a question of current interest to regulate the flow of subject matter. Today, for those who prefer a designated subject, What is your ethical reaction to "pregnancy reduction," the elimination of one or more of the members of a multiple pregnancy?
Editor's Note: During the thirty-nine years of legalized abortion we, the people of the United States, have heard many reasonsNEW DISCUSSION QUESTION--UPDATED 11 FEB, 2012:
why we should not have undertaken that step, everything from economic losses to baby-care markets to cultural losses of unique
talents ordained to serve the common good. At a higher degree of sensitivity, other reasons for opposing abortion focus on the
prime victim, the human being who is deprived of life by "the procedure." Various suggestions for "softening" the ordeal suffered
by that victim, such as the use of anesthesia, confuse the ethical issue. Opposition to abortion should not be sidetracked by such
suggestions. They obscure the fact that the issue is not the manner in which the victim is deprived of life, but that the victim is
deprived of life. The fact of the matter is that every human being has a right to his or her life, and that is the central issue of
our discussion. Abortion is a direct infringement of that right. We invite our readers to evaluate the foregoing, simplified statement,
using the nine Sections of text materials on this site, along with additional insights from their own deposit of verifialble truth. E.R.
Respond to firstname.lastname@example.org
NEW DISCUSSION QUESTION UPDATED 23 JAN, 2012:It might occur to some of us that the 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, could be seen as an act of tyranny, the unjust turning of a government
against its citizens. By examining the decision and its implementation, it may seem that the U.S.Government is forcing its citizens to be
complicit in the destruction of its unborn members. The government could be accomplishing this by defending those who dispose of
their unborn babies, and penalize those who try to protect them against the killing which is not only a right but also an obligation;
to do so. We invite our readers to comment on the above statements. E.R.Respond to email@example.com .After twelve years of constructive communication with viewers of our web site, we have been making some revisions in its format.
Our original purpose is unchanged: to uphold the personhood (human-beingness) of the offspring of human parentage, from the moment
of conception (fertilization). We continue to hold for the logical and moral consequence of being human, namely, having a right to life,
from that same moment of conception.
We chose this time for revision to honor our original site designer and its twelve-year webmaster, Mr. William Traxler, who hadEven during our early days of examining the basic problems raised by the 1973 Supreme Court decision, "Roe V. Wade," we became
suggested the revision, but had died before it could be started. Our new webmaster and designer is Mr Bill Garre.
engaged in discussing other examples of disrespect of the human offspring, as in the misguided attempts to clone a human being. In
another instance many of our readers have appreciated having followed our biological, as well as our moral, demonstration against
the use of embryonic stem cells, simply because embryonic cells are not designed to function in mature tissues.
In Phase Two of our web site, we will encourage studies of consequences (moral, biological, social and economic) that have found
their way into our culture.
For readers who wish to submit questions or comments for discussion, please feel free to do so.
DISCUSSION QUESTION UPDATE 25 OCT, 2011:
IT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS PAGE to demonstrate, with the science of Philosophy, assisted by the biological sciences, that the human being begins to exist as a person at the moment of conception and, therefore, has the right to life. In contrast, Roe v. Wade will be shown to be defective in its treatment of what it is that is being killed by abortion. YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS ISSUE WILL BE APPRECIATED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
Abortion is a serious, desperate choice. Since involvement frequently obscures the full view of abortion, the aspects suggested on this Page may be of value to those who wish to examine the problem from the vantage points, not only of compassion, but of reason.
We are not unmindful of the anxieties and anguish of real, live persons who become involved in the experience of abortion, especially the mothers, who are always women, frequently young women. We know of the confusion and, often, the frightening sense of loneliness and despair which accompanies the experience. We know, too, of the see-saw tensions pressing upon parents after discovering an unplanned pregnancy. We know the inner conflicts of conscience, accompanied by the outer stresses of "getting it over with" and "facing the consequences."
And we are conscious of the influences of social response to the woman's plight. We know that the father is sometimes supportive of the mother and their child, and sometimes not. We know also of the concern of people who offer the distressed parents what they feel to be the best solution for their problem. Among these we know of the Pro-Choice and the Pro-Life people and their intense, personal involvement in rendering their diverse services to assist in solving the problem.
We also feel a kinship with the object of so much dismay, the "little one" who had been ushered into the scene without any choosing of its own. We feel kinship because we were once in the same situation, just making our start in life and completely dependent on others for our survival.
WE CONSIDER IT HELPFUL to have made the above statement, because much of our document will be couched in language and content which may seem impersonal and speculative, as though it were nothing but an academic exercise. But it is real people to whom we address ourselves, and it is about real people that we are concerned. It just happens that the unhappiness of abortion cannot be eliminated without seeing it for what it is, not only emotionally, but through a process of careful reasoning.
ABORTION, ITS DEFINITION: In medical literature, the natural death of a baby before birth (miscarriage) is called an abortion. The deliberate killing of a baby before birth is also called abortion. Obviously, abortion must be understood from the context in which it finds itself. In the first instance the death is outside of human causality; in the second, it is the result of human choice. In this instance there are ethical and legal consequences to consider.
In our discussion, the word "abortion" will be used only to indicate the deliberate killing, before birth, of an offspring of human parentage. It is our intention to include in this definition all prenatal stages of the offspring's development, including its beginning, at conception.
For the sake of clarity, the death of a baby, consequent to a legitimate procedure to save the mother's life, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, is not to be called an abortion. In this instance there is no direct attack upon the baby's life. The ethical principle governing "the double effect" will justify this position.
Roe v. Wade and Doe v.
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.