What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

I do think it is not for every situation or for every person, but in general every subject can be meaningfully discussed. Nothing good long-term comes from having taboo subjects.



That's why it is pro-choice. A woman who has a positive experience can choose to carry the pregnancy to term, nothing wrong with that. But one who has a very negative one can choose to abort too, instead of being forced to keep the baby inside her and be miserable.



That's where we have irreconcilable differences, as you keep treating fully grown humans with fetuses without a functioning nervous system as if they were the same. I don't believe fetuses are without value, but I keep firmly on my position that the well-being of a grown woman takes precedence. Besides, the experience a racist can have when being near someone of his non-preferred race can't be compared with the despair that pregnancy can bring to some women.



Things haven't always been that way, but a proper anthropological discussion would be a topic of its own which would derail this one, and the issue is too secondary to discuss right now, I'd say



I've seen this one before, but in all honesty the counter-arguments I can muster right now are weaker than your main argument there. The stronger one is that an unexpected baby can wreak havoc on someone's life plans, severely limiting their future choices, but from your point of view a fetus' life is more important than a human's freedom so this one would be ineffective on you. Another one: from what I've seen, you have a great relationship with your wife plus a strong conviction on what is right for you; I'm sure that gives you the fortitude to go on against the odds. And that's admirable, really. But not all couples work like that, there are cases where the father just disappears, or where the mother becomes bitter and a bad mother to her child, and while an unexpected baby can help some people grow, it can also ruin their lives forever.
This one is also hard because it is my personal belief that sex should be taken more seriously. But it is also my personal belief that I can't impose my personal beliefs on others, as long as they don't harm someone else (and yet again, does a fetus count as "someone else"?)

We could benefit from a very in-depth discussion of why you believe embryos since implantation and beyond have exactly the same rights as grown humans.

That's why it is pro-choice. A woman who has a positive experience can choose to raise her toddler to adulthood, nothing wrong with that. But one who has a very negative one can choose to kill the toddler too, instead of being forced to raise it and be miserable.


Because human beings=human beings. Stage of development is irrelevant.


Then they deserve to be protected and brought to term.


Because they're human. It's not that deep or complicated.

Some embryos get rejected naturally before implantation, which is why I can accept destruction of human life prior to. I don't like that option, either, but that's mainly for legal purposes of definition. Harvesting embryonic stem cells knowingly and deliberately destroys human life. It's a waste all the same, but unfortunately a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think conception as the legal definition of personhood is the best reasonable option for both sides.

No. It's the best option for the prolife side. That would be horrible for the prochoice side as it would cause all abortions to be banned.

I don't believe in forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

Do you have similar objections to meat-eating? After all, that requires that someone takes someone else's life.

Do you clean your toilet with bleach? That requires you to take someone else's life just so you can have a toilet that doesn't stink.

That's absurd. I don't have to kill another human being in order to eat cow.

Except for maybe once a week when I eat fish and on a few special occasions, I'm pretty much a vegetarian. I don't really care that much what others eat as long as they don't eat other human beings.


Absurd. Since when does cleaning a toilet with bleach kill another human being?

Not necessarily. We've established that sexual intercourse essentially grants the baby permission to grow in the womb. We've established as a corollary that rape is one-sided and thus a woman did not give permission at the commission of the rape and thus could grant that permission solely at her discretion. She would do this by default if she chose not to report the rape and take immediate steps to prevent implantation or have an abortion as soon as humanly possible. ONLY THEN could I accept termination before an apparent nervous system forms as humane. And finally, we've established that the termination of human life--ANY human life--is tolerable if and only if that life poses a direct threat to another and no other recourse is available.

The problem with attempted legislation at defining personhood has consistently been vague language. Such laws, would be more easily passed if, among other reasons, they were more clear. You can't put someone on trial for murder, for instance, without a clear definition of what murder is: Willful, deliberate, unjustified killing of a human being. Executing a murderer is not itself murder because while it is willful and deliberate, it is not unjustified. Unknowingly giving a skydiver a faulty parachute is unjustified killing, but it is not willful or deliberate. It is an accident that may or may not have been preventable, but it isn't murder. Skidding on black ice and killing another motorist even after taking all available precautions is unjustified, but also not willful or deliberate. Getting drunk and operating a motor vehicle may lead to vehicular homicide but not murder. It is unjustified and willful in the sense that the driver assumed the risks of driving while impaired. In a similar way it is deliberate, but not in the sense that the drunk driver chose his victim. He didn't choose the victim, so there is the lack of premeditation on his part that would make him guilty of a capital offense. That's the way the laws are generally structured, so a situation such as that being murder or not is debatable.

Abortion has all those elements: Deliberate, willful, and unjustified. Justifiable homicide, on the other hand can be anything like executing a criminal in order to FAIRLY dispense justice, i.e. due process has been properly carried out, killing an enemy combatant in war, defending self/friends/family/property, and other situations in which killing a human being is unavoidable. If the mother's life is in peril, i.e. death is imminent if the pregnancy is carried to term, and NO POSSIBLE WAY exists to preserve the life of the baby, I can accept termination as a self-defense measure despite the fact that the baby can not be said to have acted offensively.

It wouldn't be impossible to get an abortion--just extremely difficult except for an extreme handful of cases.


Neither do I, which is why rape is such a problem. Aside from rape, a woman can choose her circumstances. A rape victim cannot. And thus it is wrong to punish a baby for what the mother does willingly. If a baby must lose its life because of something a rapist did, then the rapist should be required to face justice for killing the baby.

Wanted or not, it is also wrong to deprive people of the consequences of their behavior. We know pregnancy results from sexual intercourse. If we aren't willing to face the consequences of one, we should avoid the other. That kind of attitude, as I've also said before, would profoundly shape morality in western society. Not eliminate problems entirely, of course, but fewer people would be so eager to commit sex crimes and there'd be fewer "unwanted" pregnancies. I'm married with three children and talks of a fourth in the near future at some point. Oddly enough, I have a lot less sex now--maybe three times in a good month--than I did before I got married (more like three times a day on average). I don't have to worry about marital infidelity because I don't cheat on my wife and thus avoid "unwanted" pregnancies with other women. The few times we do have sex, I use condoms, and we're working on budgeting for birth control. $30/month vs. $20,000+ to give birth in a hospital--it's a pretty good tradeoff. But, as I've said before, we know the risks and accept them. Since marriage is not a situation of "sex on demand" like maybe I'd hoped it would be, I can't say that sex in the final analysis really is all that important or something people can't live without. It might be unpleasant, but lots of things are unpleasant that we have to live with. If having babies really is a problem, then don't engage in behavior that makes them.

That's absurd. I don't have to kill another human being in order to eat cow.

Except for maybe once a week when I eat fish and on a few special occasions, I'm pretty much a vegetarian. I don't really care that much what others eat as long as they don't eat other human beings.


Absurd. Since when does cleaning a toilet with bleach kill another human being?[/quote]
So you objection to murder is actually an objection to destroying something that has certain DNA? You don't care about whether something can suffer, or whether it wants to stay alive, or anything like that, it's just because it is human.

I would argue that is an irrational, meaningless distinction. You are speciesist, you irrationally discriminate on the basis of species. You are no better than the racist who hires a white person ahead of a black person, even though the black person is far more suited to doing the job.

It is right to protect PERSONS, not HUMANS. Embryos are not PERSONS. Embryos have a moral standing equivalent to a bacterium. Anyone who grants them higher status is a bigot.

"We" have not established any of this. That is your opinion and I do not agree with it.

Having sex does not mean you are willing to get pregnant. If that was true every woman that doesn't want kids would have to be virgins for life (or at least until well into menopause). Most people aren't going to do that.

I guess you really don't understand why a large number of rapes go unreported. There were links posted. There are so many reasons like fear, shame, and thinking that they won't be believed.

Last edited by hanyo on 29 Jul 2013, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't know if I wrote this is my other post, but I will say it again.

I think that abortion is ok, and that you have the right to choose, before giving birth to a baby that would be unwanted, could die of hunger, or could be neglected.

Still, I think that a woman, in an intercourse (unless she's being raped) should use protections if she didn't want a baby.
This would make it all much easier, also the woman wouldn't go thtough all the pain caused by abortion.
I don't understand women who don't want children, have an intercourse that they accepted to have (aka they have not been raped), don't use protections, get pregnant and then whine about it.
If you're the cause of your problems, then don't whine.

The anti-choice people are classifying a woman as less than human, because they believe she can be forced to gestate a baby against her will. It's basically anti-feminist. Contraceptives aren't 100% reliable, so women should always have that choice. Having sex isn't consent to raise a human being, it's just sex. But we know the anti-choicers are generally opposed to sexual freedom.

I can't decide whether your absurd response here is hilarious or just...sad...

After this I hope I never have to think about it ever again.

In the end, are any of the options really better than the other ones? Adoption, bad parenting, abortion... any way you look at it, life is life.

1) Toddler fetus difference. It all comes to this. But second, assuming that was true, it is not necessary to kill the toddler, he can be given up in adoption. Until a certain time fetuses can't be separated from their mother, and if they make her miserable/suicidal and cause her great suffering then abortion should be considered. I thought of an special case that might make sense under your own logic: a pregnancy that makes the woman want and try to kill herself. When talking about the placenta previa you admitted abortion would have been an option, if a very sadistic one, if your wife's life was directly on the line. Wouldn't the life of a suicidal mother be also on the line? It could be argued that the first case it is a physical danger while in the second it is a psychological one, but many people tend to underestimate the effects psychological damage can have on a person.



It all comes to this, part two




I got started with most of this message at three with my full attention, I had to finish the rest of it with a suboptimal amount of brainpower available and I don't think I can give a full answer to that one right now.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5532710.html#5532710
I bumped that one back from oblivion, it seems like a better place

Yoo hoo! Toddler are born children and fetuses are not children of any kind.

The aborting of a fetus is NOT the killing of a child.

ruveyn

If my neighbor's house being situated just outside my front window poses a psychological danger to me such that I'm suicidal, can I blow it up without fear of repercussions?


Because in all other human-human relationships, one person's right to autonomy, self-determination, and happiness is never subordinated to any other person's like right. If all human beings are, in a manner of speaking, "created equal," then the rights of all, whether young or old, must be spoken for, including those who are unable to speak for themselves.


Indeed? You should try it for 2 1/2 months.


I can't help it. I find the Old Testament Bible to elegantly deal with the issue. In summary, both parents involved should step up and be responsible. Deflowering a virgin isn't a mortal sin--only one already betrothed to someone else. Of course, there are ways around this that are Biblically consistent if you're seeking adherence to the old law. If the man you're promised to agrees to let the would-be bride out of the contract, an arrangement could hypothetically be made in which she could marry the man she loves. Further, if it were merely a case of momentary infidelity, two things have to happen: the cuckolded man would have to actually bring charges against her, and he would have to have evidence in the form of witnesses. The bottom line is if you're having sex, just get married.

The only thing that is problematic is that application of the principle is difficult in today's society for the reason that women no longer need to be protected within society as they would have been in ancient times. Surrounding cultures viewed women as property and thus objectified them. Biblical laws sought to give women an improved status closer to being on par with men. I see that as a baseline and not a hard/fast rule, as in "at the bare minimum this is how women should be treated." Our treatment of women in the present day goes far and above the Biblical mandate, so if that's what you're going for, you'd never have to worry about breaking those particular Biblical laws.

Abstaining from sex is also like that in principle. According to the Bible, the laws in place that regulated wickedness were there for the reason that God knew and understood that the nature of mankind was a wicked nature. You're allowed, for instance, to have sex slaves; HOWEVER, if you MUST have sex slaves, you MUST treat them a certain way. You do better to just marry the poor girl, BUT if you marry her, you can't divorce her. Or if you must divorce her, she is to have the same status as native women. It's just easier for you if you avoid multiple wives and concubines, or if you have problems with keeping just one wife or risking the moral headache of divorce, you do better just to avoid sex and marriage altogether.

It is ancient wisdom, yet it is still powerful wisdom. I think it's a shame that not many people really understand or even want to understand it.


Easy. It's called community college. You can raise a baby, work a part-time, and pay a minimal amount of college tuition in CASH.


Then they can move.


2 things here:

1. SOME companies can legally discriminate. My wife lost two jobs that way. In the legal profession.
2. Even if a company doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, why on earth would you want to work for someone who treats you that way?

In either case, I say go ahead and fire your employer. We're all ultimately self-employed, anyway, if you think about it. You don't need that crap, especially while carrying a baby or when trying to raise one. There are plenty good reasons why I gave up licensed teaching after 5 years. I don't like working for a corrupt system.


Lawsuits are swift in the USA? Heheh...that's news to me!


Still not a good reason to kill another human being.


Kids are awesome. Being a parent is awesome.

Sacrificing and doing the right thing is awesome.

My hopes and dreams include writing symphonies. You know what's disrupting my hopes and dreams? Part-time private teaching, band gigs, church gigs, and the occasional solo gig. Things that pay the bills. I have enough time during the day that if I really wanted to bad enough, I could start writing large-scale musical forms. I haven't given up my "hopes and dreams." I still hang on to them, because those things give me something to look forward to every day. But I'll never realize my hopes and dreams without a firm foundation, and that requires me to work my tail off to build some residual income in order to fund "hopes and dreams" kinds of projects. And there are MUCH better opportunities to build my reputation and networking skills along the way to make my "hopes and dreams" easier and less painful to realize.

Babies are rarely if ever genuinely a disruption. They are quite often used as an excuse, and a poor one at that.


Unborn human beings are not "worthless," in other words; there are merely "worth less."

German Jews are not "worthless," merely "worth less."

Christians in Islamic countries are not "worthless," merely "worth less."

Tutsis and Hutus are not "worthless," merely "worth less."

It is so striking to see such a resemblance between genocide and infanticide, that is, they are all encouraged by efforts at dehumanization.


Indeed? Then abortion should be illegal. It is a legislated belief that does directly harm other human beings.