Abortion

[Aiyana]

I read your edit, SilentLoner, about existence. To me, someone's existence only matters once it has begun... not existences that "may" someday begin. That is why, even though I consider myself to be pro-life, I am not anti-birth control. During my years in Christianity, I spent quite a lot of time reading people from the "Quiverfull" mentality. They do not believe in, for example, a woman tying her tubes, because that woman is shutting down the possibility of future children being born. To me, that doesn't matter. So while I know what you mean (my youngest daughter, in fact, would not exist had my two previous babies not miscarried), I stand by my belief that it is only existences which have already begun that matter... not potential or hypothetical existences.

[BoldIrishLad]

Aiyana im not really zealously pro choice because I have seen the way it can hurt women but hate to see so many children live lives of suffering as a result of being unwanted pregnancies. I don't like to see how the Mother's life can be ruined and broken families result from unwanted pregnancies.

 

In Somalia they breed like crazy. It is not uncommon for them to have 15 children in a family that are always hungry, dying of starvation, disease, and 0 healthcare. Many also get permanently disabled, disfigured, or killed by tribal violence. It would be nice if they could be spared such a life of suffering.

 

Sure I was a human being in my Mother's womb, but would be grateful to her if she spared me such suffering.

 

But I admire how educated you are and your points are good and rationale and it is admirable to see you defending your beliefs

[Aiyana]

Thank you.

[SilentLoner]

Yes, it's true that "Life" began with the universe, but I am speaking of course, of individual lives. And, no, I would support no law to mandate funerals or death certificates for early miscarriages. I would not even support a law mandating a funeral or death certificate for late miscarriages. 

 

Why not? If they are lives, why shouldn't they be recognized?

 

To choose to rescue a five-month-old rather than several embryos does not prove that the embryos have no intrinsic value, or less intrinsic value than the baby. 

 

Actually it does. You would find very few people if any at all that would save any number of embryos over a single living baby, and the reason for that is very clear, even if it won't be admitted to.

 

I read your edit, SilentLoner, about existence. To me, someone's existence only matters once it has begun... not existences that "may" someday begin. That is why, even though I consider myself to be pro-life, I am not anti-birth control. During my years in Christianity, I spent quite a lot of time reading people from the "Quiverfull" mentality. They do not believe in, for example, a woman tying her tubes, because that woman is shutting down the possibility of future children being born. To me, that doesn't matter. So while I know what you mean (my youngest daughter, in fact, would not exist had my two previous babies not miscarried), I stand by my belief that it is only existences which have already begun that matter... not potential or hypothetical existences.

 

When things begin is basically subjective, we can agree to disagree.

[SilentLoner]

But I admire how educated you are and your points are good and rationale and it is admirable to see you defending your beliefs

 

Do I get an internet cookie too? We're all defending our beliefs here on a number of subjects any day.

[Leo]

Well, all I have to say is, women on both sides of the issue need compassion from the rest of us.

I can't buy the popular narrative of either extreme, though the grubbernment should stay out of it, in my opinion.

[mymistake]

 

But I admire how educated you are and your points are good and rationale and it is admirable to see you defending your beliefs

 

Do I get an internet cookie too? We're all defending our beliefs here on a number of subjects any day.

 

 

*Gives SL a cookie*

 

Give them time.  Some of us were indoctrinated in the church for a lifetime.  It takes time to work through the issues with fresh eyes.

 

I think I had deconverted from Christianity for about six months before I realized that I had not looked at the abortion issue from my new point of view.

[Leo]

The Center for Inquiry has a good podcast on this, and the woman goes into how they co-opted women's concerns, and even how they created the narrative that men cause abortions, as a new and improved anti-abortion campaign.

Most instructive? She put forth the thought experiment to any anti-abortion individual: You are in a hospital that's burning down. You have a five month old baby in the room with you, and in the same room are a tank of human embryos. You can only carry out one: Which is it? To a person, we would pick the live baby, no matter your position on the issue. As she pointed out, that clearly indicates how we differentiate between embryos and live baby humans. I found that podcast very instructive. I've been told by women on both sides of the issue I have no right to stake a claim on it, it's a woman's issue. Fair enough. But I always tend to lean towards the side of human autonomy. And embryos are not yet human, from what I understand. Also those opposed to abortions are opposed now to IUD, birth control pills and other means used by religious and nonreligious alike. I tend to scurry rapidly away from dogma, including feminist and MRA dogma, but in this case I think she was right: the tendency seems to be clearly on the side of controlling women's choices.

As an aside, any gentleman wishing to get it snipped and unable to plunk down the change, Planned Parenthood will pay for this. I can attest to that, did it about 18 years ago. Never fear empregnating again afterwards. She's right ghough: security is in redundancy. So birth control fails, and we have backups. You can't get the Morning After pill, there is still the possibility of abortion. I do disagree with her on one point, maybe some will say it's me being a man, who knows: But she claimed it's not such a gray issue as many of us have claimed. But many human decisions are complicated. Few things really are as black and white as the dogmatic would have it.

Also, George Carlin said it best: The pro-lifers care about you until you're born. Then you're out of luck until, if you're a man, you turn 18 and then sign up for the Selective Service in the U.S. Well, that's kind of how it goes. If they cared so much about prenatal life, you would see Christians flocking to support state-sponsored prenatal care for these unborn. Especially since prenatal care prevents spontaneous abortions. Well, this woman was more polite about things, but I'll say it, man or no man, it looks to me often this anti-abortion deal is a fuckin' rigged game.

So I guess I went from youthful anti-abortion supporter in the 1980s, to chagrined and ribbed abortion sympathizer in the last 15 years of my Christianity, to now being an ex-Christian, atheist, open supporter of individual human autonomy. And since clearly an embryo doesn't yet have a brain, let alone a higher functioning brain, it's a human in the making but not a human yet. But the mother sure is, her existing children if there are any sure are. And the father, too, as unpopular as it is to mention the man in the situation without vilifying. He may in fact not have the ways and means to compensate her financially. And even if she doesn't try to collect child support, the State will. The moment she falls on hard times and goes to the State for help, they will collect and that means arrearages. Even if they had broken up amicably, she wanted the baby and he did not, and so she decided to keep it without charging him and without him having any parental rights / responsibilities.

So yeah, I would say this whole reproductive issue is far more complicated than any of the known popular dogmas would willingly admit.

[Lilith666]

Aiyana: Again, I can't quote. I'm not trying to be aggressive.

 

First of all, I deeply appreciate your kind response. Many people on Internet forums take it personally when they are disagreed with. So, thank you.

 

The eggs in every woman's ovaries have potential. Every single sperm a man has, also has potential. If I had a child with my next-door neighbor (not going to happen), that child might grow up to win the Nobel Prize. Or just become a responsible adult like the rest of us. We could all donate our eggs to couples who can't have children. Think of all the babies we could be making.  I'm not going to (and most others probably won't either). Think of all the doctors, teachers, nuclear physicists, firefighters, police officers and Greenpeace volunteers who will never be born because of that decision....all the precious little kids who will never get a chance to live. A zygote that you say has potential can't feel any more than all the possible egg-sperm combinations can. Are we wrong?

 

Edit: I saw your post about potential. But....these eggs and sperm I was discussing have just as much as that zygote does, that you believe has the right to exist, and both zygote and potential egg/sperm have about the same amount of physical sensations and feelings about whether they should live. Why are egg/sperm less important?

[Deva]

I have developed views regarding children that are far outside the mainstream of society. I have had a lot of time to observe life and I have such controversial views that I know most people would not accept  them.   Lets just say that I support a woman's right to have control over what happens to her body. And no, my view of life is not rosy.  This is aside from monetary considerations that, in present day U.S. society, make children a luxury some, but not many can properly afford - that is a far secondary consideration.

[Aiyana]

Haha, I didn't even see that I used the same word, "potential" both to argue for, and against, my case. I'm glad you saw what I meant through that.

 

The reason why eggs and sperm are less important is simple: they are ingredients. Until they combine, they are not life itself. Until they combine, they are simply the DNA of their owners. It is only when combined that they form a brand-new, unique DNA. A new person.

 

If and when AI ever reaches the point that it has self-awareness, I would argue in the same way. It would not be this wire, or that piece of metal, that was alive. It would be all the components together. I would argue that no one has the right to "kill" a self-aware robot; that right belongs to the robot alone. Not lawmakers, not the robot's creator, no one.

 

mymistake, above, implied that I remain pro-life because I am a fairly fresh deconvert. I don't think so. I was pro-life before I became an evangelical Christian. Granted, I was raised Catholic for 14 years, and we all know that Catholics are overwhelmingly pro-life, but I can't recall discussing or hearing abortion discussed with any notable passion; not at church or at home. I did have one staunchly pro-life aunt, but I didn't like her and doubt I would have been inspired by her beliefs. One can argue, I'm sure, that I was subconsciously impressed upon in childhood. Perhaps they are correct, I can't prove that one way or the other. All I'm saying is that I don't THINK my pro-life stance was inspired by religion. Take homosexuality. Before becoming evangelical at age 21, I had no problem whatsoever with homosexual people. In fact, I had a good friend and co-worker whom I encouraged through his coming out process. It wasn't until after I became an evangelical Christian that my mind began to change and call homosexuality wrong; now that I am deconverted, my mind is swinging back the other way again.

 

If anything, I feel like my concepts of humanism and evolution inspire my pro-life stance. Similar to my comments on the vegetarian/meat-eating thread a few weeks ago, where I said something along the lines of believing that humans, as the highest evolved creatures, will someday unilaterally see that it's wrong to eat their fellow creatures (and no, I'm not a vegetarian!), I also believe that as humans continue to evolve, they will develop a protective mindset over those humans who are helpless. Not a mindset based in instinct, left over from an earlier reptilian brain; but rather a mindset based on a desire and belief that each and every human being has deep, intrinsic value.

 

Of course, there are myriad other problems to eradicate before all of this can even begin to happen.

[SilentLoner]

 

 

But I admire how educated you are and your points are good and rationale and it is admirable to see you defending your beliefs

 

Do I get an internet cookie too? We're all defending our beliefs here on a number of subjects any day.

 

 

*Gives SL a cookie*

 

Give them time.  Some of us were indoctrinated in the church for a lifetime.  It takes time to work through the issues with fresh eyes.

 

I think I had deconverted from Christianity for about six months before I realized that I had not looked at the abortion issue from my new point of view.

 

 

Was being facetious. 

[Leo]

I disagree on one technicality with Lilith666: not all sperm have potential. Most don't, in fact, and I'm not being misandric to say so, it's biology. At least in modern times, many are defective, and of those that make it to the egg, the egg rejects most of them. It's not a case of the first one wins. At least, that's what I remember having read back at school. But, what is potential anyway? Should we block out every windy hillside with turbines for the wind power potential? Or every sunny spot with solar panels, or every stream with hydroelectric dams? Or maybe 'potential' is not always the trump card we think it is.

I'm not trying to be offensive: I get that this issue runs deep and is complex. I have never heard my Wife, a Christian, spit out the venomous vitriol you often see from anti-abortion types. I have, however, held Her after She heard about a loved one'a abortion or miscarriage; both make Her sad, and I've seen both make Her cry. It's just a human, spontaneous response of Hers, not tied up in dogmas, not Her sitting in judgment of the other. She didn't grow up evangelical, and so was not indoctrinated against it.

 

Deva, inquiring minds want to know: what is your controversial view on children? In case you're child-free, many of us parents are totally down with that, and don't carry the majority stereotypical judgments against it.

[Leo]

Oh, I just saw the AI comments. Right on the money, from a design perspective.

[Deva]

I disagree on one technicality with Lilith666: not all sperm have potential. Most don't, in fact, and I'm not being misandric to say so, it's biology. At least in modern times, many are defective, and of those that make it to the egg, the egg rejects most of them. It's not a case of the first one wins.

Deva, inquiring minds want to know: what is your controversial view on children? In case you're child-free, many of us parents are totally down with that, and don't carry the majority stereotypical judgments against it.

 

See this link: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296422.001.0001/acprof-9780199296422

 

Also: http://www.academia.edu/7053133/Thomas-Ligotti---THE-CONSPIRACY-AGAINST-THE-HUMAN-RACE

[Leo]

Ah. Something like the Human Extinction Project. I know a few of these.

I've done the nihilist thing, even considered myself myself a Christian nihilist for a time. Since deconversion, though, i don't think of humans as the virus anymore. See the book "Confessions Of A Green Peace Dropout." He talks at length about this.

Anyway, not offended in the least, personally. I just don't happen to share the common view that humans are an invasive species. Thanks for sharing, though. For a more humorous response from the nihilists, check out the Church Of Euthanasia.

[Lilith666]

Leo: I meant, all sperm should have potential. Assuming they do, for the sake of argument.