Classical Values :: What Is A Fetus Worth?

November 20, 2008

What Is A Fetus Worth?

I came across an interesting discussion of abortion at Admiral Quixote's Round Table. This is from the comments.

I spoke with my dh who did receive smicha (Orthodox) though he is not a practicing Rabbi; he learned the law as I have earlier stated; that if any harm came it was referring to the woman and her life, not to the fetus.

I also think the concept that a woman who had been judged guilty of a capital crime was executed even if she were pregnant, The life of the fetus was secondary to the pain and suffering of the woman forced to wait for her execution. That a woman condemned to death would be given more consideration for her emotional state than a fetus where there is no issue of guilt states a lot, imho, about the rights they would enjoy in terms of abortion.

Commenter Rachel Ann goes on to say that she would be willing to pay to save the life of a child who might be aborted if that is what it took. I think that is a much better answer than passing laws.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 11.20.08 at 01:30 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/7683

Comments

I've been thinking lately that when a female experiences a miscarriage the body naturally prepares for the event, misscarriage it is long process taking several hours to develop the body's rejection of the fetus.

However, when a female has an abortion the process is abrupt preventing time for the body to properly adjust to having the fetus removed so violently.

I've been wondering if science will ever research what happens to the female when she abruptly removes the intertwined fetus she carries.

Since with an abortion the body has no time to adapt therefore does this procedure trigger the body's wires to go schizo-like in response?

As I see it, the problem with treating the fetus as a non-human entity is that the fetus is a human entity which is deeply intertwined inside another human entity.

To ignore this fact is anti-science.

syn · November 20, 2008 08:38 AM

syn,

It is not science. It is a religious view. Proof? Jews have a different view. Which is the point of my last few posts on the subject. And you know seculars have an even more unlimited view of abortion than Jews. The answer? The government should stay out of it. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one.

You know now a days "science" is the equivalent of "my witchdoctor says". Science has no bearing on moral questions. Science only tells us - rather imperfectly - how the universe operates. It tells us nothing about what we should do about it.

Take atomic bombs. Science tells us how to build them. It says nothing about their use.

Likewise abortion. Science tells us how to perform them safely. It says nothing about when performing them is appropriate. That is a religious question. And in America the government is supposed to stay out of religious questions. It is how we can have a very diverse population and still get along.

Of course if we are not mature enough in general to make decisions on abortion individually, there is no way we are mature enough for self government.

Liberty or nanny state?

I prefer liberty. You get smaller, less expensive, and less intrusive government that way.

M. Simon · November 20, 2008 12:43 PM

Jewish law also imparts the sins of the parents to the children. Therefore, there is no inconsistency.

darelf · November 20, 2008 12:49 PM

darelf,

I'm Jewish and have never found that to be the case. However, if you have a link I'd be glad to learn something new.

If you mean "The sins of the fathers..." that is an existential statement and not a matter of law.

M. Simon · November 21, 2008 03:47 AM