Opinions on abortion?

Post Reply New Topic

You've been posting here regularly for eight years. You know full well that attacks on groups of people are not allowed. They poison the discourse and make it all about slinging mud between two tribes.

Attack conservatism, not conservatives. Or you can choose to attack Republican senators, for example, as they are public figures.

It's wrong to kill someone just because their handicapped inside or outside the womb. That is so Nazi Germany.

And they're such easy targets, especially if you compare their actions in office vs their campaign promises. It's not necessary to criticise their ideas when you can so easily point out the dishonesty.

I'm not carrying a rapist's child.

It'll be great when we can start putting fetuses in artificial wombs.

Until then, abortion should remain a viable option.

I believe we should draw a line, though. The "line" would be the point where the developing baby would feel distress. After that point, I don't believe we should abort developing babies.

That's why the "morning after pill" is such a great discovery.

Yes, I do believe women should have the ultimate "say-so" over what happens in their bodies.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 19 Jan 2018, 10:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have a very strong distinction between my opinions of morals and law here.

I mean, I think, while abortion is almost always morally wrong (with the exception of saving the mother's life), not always the law should mirror it.

I think abortion as a backup plan in case of contraception failure is very, very wrong and should not be treated as that.
The more complicated cases, like seriously handicapped baby or rape effect – while my moral opinions remain the same, I think they shouldn't be forced by the law. The law shouldn't require everybody to be a hero.
If pro-lifers want to save these babies, more support for mothers is the better way.

I disagree in principle, but I agree in terms of practicality. After all, that's how societies function.

More to the point, it distorts facts.
While I'm aware that in America, their are some people who oppose abortion, but support wars and executions, and whose positions are often, to put it diplomatically, internally contradictory as are those other people that America has lots of, the kind of who oppose wars and executions, but support Euthanasia, and mass abortions.

They are not "all people everywhere".

And as someone who is pro-life, as in :-

Opposes wars, opposes abortion, opposes genocide, opposes euthanasia, opposes murder, opposes executions, and so on and so forth.

I do get annoyed with people assuming what I believe and then slagging me off as a "hypocrite" for the beliefs they falsely project onto me.

I don't mind being called a hypocrite if I'm being one, I'm pro Truth too, but I don't see my position as being such.

Do you mind if I ask you some questions to pin down your views?

Firstly, would it be fair to say that "opposes wars, opposes abortion, opposes genocide, opposes euthanasia, opposes murder, opposes executions, and so on and so forth" describes you?

Secondly, do you also oppose eating meat?

Finally, how do you define abortion? Are you against methods which prevent the sperm and egg from fusing? Against methods which prevent the resulting mess from implanting? Is it fine when it's an undifferentiated ball of cells but not at some later point?

It's a medical procedure. Otherwise, women will go back to doing themselves resulting in their own death. Or you will have more dumpster and toilet babies. A woman in Toronto threw her newborn in the snow a few days ago (she wanted it dead) (she was from Korea and kept her unwanted pregnancy a secret). Banning abortion is not a very good idea. Take what I typed seriously.

*edit* Also most abortions are no longer done surgically except in certain cases. They are done by pill form in the first 8 weeks.

The modern view from the Xian right holds that anything which prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall constitutes an abortion. So the pill and IUDs represent abortions to their way of thinking. I have to admit, they have philosophical consistency.

Also there are some women who believe it's just misogynistic males who ''oppose abortion'' to control women. That's not true. It's also other ''women'' in positions of power that oppose it like social workers, certain female government officials because they know if low income women are not having children then that's a threat to their jobs. The elites love to control the poor.

It broadly describes my point of view at this point in time, and barring some "revelation" I don't think it will change substantially. (Unless I find I've made a mistake and something else is more true). That said, it is a very brief and simple summary.

For example I don't see all euthanasia as wicked, I think some people have done it out of motives of sincere love, but I think that it's a mistake, it's not wicked, because their was no intent to do evil, they thought they were doing the right thing. It's like those frantic parents who did the old style Heinrich manoeuvre and ended up jamming the obstruction more firmly in the windpipe. Their was no wicked intent, but it was a mistake and the wrong thing to do.




I'm hesitant to make any strong pronunciations, as I'm still sorting out my thoughts.

But I'm no vegetarian, I don't have a problem with eating dead animals, it's more about wether it's OK to kill the animal.
So if I felt it was ok to kill the animal, I wouldn't have a problem with eating the animal.

But if the purpose of your question is "Do I make distinctions between animal and human life?", then yes, broadly speaking, I do.
I consider human life to be more important than animal life.
Does that answer your question?



Preventing a sperm and and egg from fusing I have no problems with. I see conception as a transformative event.

Preventing implantation, I think is a quagmire(in an ethical and moral sense). It's not something I can give a simple answer to.(They're may be a nice simple answer, but it eludes me for now).

An embryo that has formed and successfully implanted, that I would class as abortion.

The 'morning after pill' I assume you are reffering to is an emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) rather than an abortifacient.
ECP's don't abort the pregancy. Rather they prevent the ovulation and thus the sperm cells die before the egg is fertilized, so it prevents the pregnancy altogether rather than aborting a child.

To some people, it's the same thing.

Another dimension to this debate is qualifying what exactly counts as "abortion."

To some religions, every time a fertile woman doesn't get pregnant, it's a loss of a potential life.