Abortion (again)

[DialecticMaterialist]

A mere inconveniance. So a woman being told she is going to be forced to carry a fetus for nine months, give birth to it (something very painful I believe), perhaps go through the pain of sending off to adoption and/or maybe even ruin her own future by having to drop out of college to raise the baby is a mere "inconveniance".

Sorry but I'd rather the pro-lifers suffer through the mere inconveniance of not getting to force their religious viewpoint on everyone else then a woman lose her privacy and "inconveniance" her entire future.

It's like the Hindu's with their cows. Hindu's think cows have souls or something so killing a cow is actually worse then killing a human. They can think that, yes, but they cannot force their viewpoint on other people.

I haven't had a chance to address this on these boards, please forgive me. In a case were a woman can prove she has taken proper precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancy then she should be allowed the option.

Not to sound overly critical, but if you think it's murder then it's murder. You cannot allow it "some of the time."


One more thing, I wish to ask you pro-lifers three questions.


1) Is abortion murder?


2) Should murderers get the death penalty or life imprison?


3) Should abortion doctors and women who have abortion as well as people who aid the process (nurses, husbands, parents) all get either executed (if they were directly involved) or thrown in prison(if they gave support)?





If you really think it's murder, and you answer "yes" on two, then you must answer "yes" on three. That is justice. You cannot punish murderers "some of the time" and let them go other times for sake of "conveniance."


many compare the abortion to the holocaust, but are you really ready to deal with it like you would the holocaust? Are you really ready to follow up with your own hyperbole and demand a modern day version of the Nuremberg trials?

Or do you deep down not really consider a fetus a person and not really consider abortion murder?

 

[Vylo]

Like I said my skin cells contain human DNA. So by scraping off some skin cells do I become a murderer?

Skin cells do not grow into a full human being, a fetus does. Anything with human DNA is human, not a human being or a human entity.

Again your only basis for argument is that the fetus has a soul and God doesn't want that fetus aborted (for whatever reason).

I don't think you have payed attention to the arguements as I have never stated this. I am an atheist, I don't believe in a soul, I don't believe in god.

A mere inconveniance. So a woman being told she is going to be forced to carry a fetus for nine months, give birth to it (something very painful I believe), perhaps go through the pain of sending off to adoption and/or maybe even ruin her own future by having to drop out of college to raise the baby is a mere "inconveniance".

When she could have avoided the entire situation by using birth control? In comparison to the destruction of a human entity, I consider the pain experienced by a reckless person to be an inconvenience.

Not to sound overly critical, but if you think it's murder then it's murder.

I never said abortion was murder.

1) Is abortion murder?

No, but that doesn't make it right.

Or do you deep down not really consider a fetus a person and not really consider abortion murder?

You are drawing assumptions from things I never said. A fetus is a human entity, but NOT a human being until it is conscious. Since it is not a human being, it cannot be murdered. But I still see the destruction of a potential human, a human entity, for the sake of escaping one's responsiblites that were previously ignored, to be wrong.

Here is my adive for the day:

Be responsible, or keep it in your pants.

 

[admtaylor]

Yes to all three.

And Lillithspeak your lack of compassion for human life scares me. My statement involved those who choose, when illegal, to get an unsafe (not that any of them are anyway) abortion. There's a biblical saying that says "you reap what you sow", I would say the side effects of abortion at whatever cost would be reaping what was sown. The liberal mindset on this and many other issues causes me to fear for my childrens future. If this keeps up it won't be much different around here than living in N. Korea or China.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

You are drawing assumptions from things I never said. A fetus is a human entity, but NOT a human being until it is conscious. Since it is not a human being, it cannot be murdered. But I still see the destruction of a potential human, a human entity, for the sake of escaping one's responsiblites that were previously ignored, to be wrong.

Well first off I must apologize for my original presumptions concerning God and soul, I presumed and presumed wrongly.


Secondly, your argument seems to be "it will naturally develope into a human being, so destroying it due to lack of responsibility is wrong."


Ok but I don't see the significance first off of natural development vs mere potential and I also don't see why it is a person's responsibility to hold off on having sex or avoiding pregnancy.


Responsibility means something one can be rewarded or punished for. I don't see pregancy or having sex as anything one has to be responsible for. To me that's just a knee-jerk emotional reaction.

Maybe I consider getting pregant and having the abortion, so as to save your future, to be the responsible thing. I'd rather that then a woman with a poor future or an unwanted child.

 

[Vylo]

I can understand your sympathy for the woman, and again i do not feel should bear all the blame, the father is responsible too.

But we often feel bad for those who unintentionaly injure people and have their lives ruined by lawsuits. The fact still remains that we should accept responibility for our actions.

If a woman can avoid the entire situation of abortion merely by having her (or her partner if suitable contraceptives are found for males) use a contraceptive, then is it not recklessness for her not to do this?

Again I know contraceptives are not 100 % but I have already stated those who use contraceptives properly should be exempt from being forced into having the child.

Beyond all this I think educating our children and removing sexual stigma from american society would be something both sides could agree upon, and may end up doing the most good.

 

[Vylo]

.

Well first off I must apologize for my original presumptions concerning God and soul, I presumed and presumed wrongly

NP, I don't know if there are any other atheists on this board who think along my lines when it comes to abortion

 

[tcampen]

Why do I see so much "You made your bed, now you gotta sleep in it" attitude regarding women you have unwanted pregnancies? The tone of the assertion really makes it sound like the pregnancy is something of a punishment for being irresponsible and having sex. I hear this sentiment over and over agian.

The problem with this attitude is two fold. First, it creates a negative connotation with being pregnant, which isn't going to be much of an incentive to keep the baby. Second, it fails to adequately involve the responsibility of the father. Saying the father should be responsible results in no change of conduct of these fathers who abandon their responsibility - that's just the unfortunate reality. Young, single, poor pregnant women are left to fend for themselves with with woefully inadequate resources to even give them or their unborn child a chance at life.

This is why I keep challenging the pro-lifers to do something concrete to ensure that every child that was going to be aborted, but was not, and the mother will not be left wanting for necessities or opportunities. They will have good health care, food, shelter, job training and a job - and the child will have food, clothing, shelter, and a good education.

This would show good-faith towards the anti-abortion stance, and get away from the "You made your bed, now you gotta sleep in it" attitude.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

If a woman can avoid the entire situation of abortion merely by having her (or her partner if suitable contraceptives are found for males) use a contraceptive, then is it not recklessness for her not to do this?

Again I know contraceptives are not 100 % but I have already stated those who use contraceptives properly should be exempt from being forced into having the child.

Beyond all this I think educating our children and removing sexual stigma from american society would be something both sides could agree upon, and may end up doing the most good.

Well I see what you are saying. However I'm challenging your judgement at a more fundamental level, mainly by not seeing why the whole thing is irresponsible at all.


For you it would be like maybe a strong anti-sex advocate from the anti-sex league 1984 (and I am not suggesting you are like them, merely making an extreme hypothetical opponent for you for clarity) says "Well why use birth control? They should be responsible. If they didn't have sex; they wouldn't need that."


You may then say "Well they are trying to avoid getting pregant but want to have sex, so they use birth control to avoid pregancy, and that is responsible."


But the anti-sex lady just glares and says "Well they should only be having sex in the first place if the Party wants it, so it is irresponsible whether they use birth control or not, and they should be punished for it in some way. By either having to carry child or some other way. It kills sperm cells unecessarily and the party dislikes that because those are potential humans: they can be used for artificial insemination.. "



Now the crux of the issue isn't whether they could have merely prevented child birth. But whether the act in itself was irresponsible.


This is similiar to our discussion in that you believe sex without birth control is itself irresponsible while I think it isn't as long as abortion is available.


In this sense your standard seems to, at least partly consist of whether a fetus must be destroyed (unecessary destruction being irresponsible) whereas my standard is merely whether or not they can prevent a birth.


In this sense I see abortion as a perfectly acceptable form of birth control, and I see the fetus as really no higher then a sperm cell, egg, or cow in matters of citizenship.

In this sense I only think its reckless to have sex if the necessary form of birth control isn't around: abortion or other.

To me it just a matter of risk, whether or not there is a risk in having sex because of conception or disease.



In the past there was much more risk then today, because of technology. Hence sex is less and less tied with responsibility.


I believe that many anti-abortion (and even anti other forms of birth control) advocates merely are advancing this tradition. A tradition that developed in an age where there was no birth control, no effective/safe way to have an abortion, and where kingdoms/societies/families wanted as many new members as possible. In fact in some societies back in the Middle Ages fertility was more highly valued then morality.

Just tie such past norms to religion and you now have an ethical system that lasts far beyond its useful and can even breed similiar sentiment in the nonreligious (via standard transfer of cultural values.)

So even when effective birth control is developed and the religious norms are unecessary, perhaps even harmful, they will still survive.

Because now they are matters of faith, deeply ingrained in our culture.


The hindu aversion to killing cows (developed likely because cow milk was needed more then the cow in the past), and the Muslim and Jews aversion to pig meat (likely developed because eating pork was more dangerous in the past) are examples of this.

Such rules were made for good reasons at their time, and were tied to religion to help preserve them. The problem is that religion may have done its job too good, they may be preserving the rules now even when they are no longer justifiable, when they hinder more then help.

 

[Blindfaith]

I think that this thread has run its course. It's gone on for page after page, and everyone has made his/her viewpoint.

Nothing else is being learned here.

Thread closed.