Atheist And Abortion?

[Asimov]

Asimov I can tell from your writings that you are a champion of life, full of campassion and hope for our posterity.

 

I'm not the one claiming that women should be ashamed for getting an abortion and then backpedaling on it.

[Vigile]

I can't bring myself to believe that abortion is an act which can be lauded

Abortion needn't be lauded anymore than an appendectomy. Why should it even be an issue to anyone who it doesn't affect personally?

If it became apparent that some stranger needed an appendectomy and got one, then I might be able to bring myself to celebrate it. Good for her! Her health was restored. I can't imagine that I could bring myself to do the same with an abortion.

 

All I'm saying is that you don't have to make anything of it if you don't want to. I can't see, however, why society should be encouraged to stigmatize something that is really just a personal decision. Stigmitizing it is what leads to all the dissention over the issue and it has in many cases caused a lot of untold pain to those faced with making a very tough personal decision.

[Legion]

Asimov I can tell from your writings that you are a champion of life, full of campassion and hope for our posterity.

I'm not the one claiming that women should be ashamed for getting an abortion and then backpedaling on it.

Where have I backpedaled?

 

I'm in a peaceful mood today, and don't feel like stirring up a bunch-o-shit. Toning it down does not imply a retraction.

[SilentLoner]

QUOTE (gwenmead @ Aug 14 2008, 04:00 PM)

 

In good news the number of abortions seems to have declined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8011603624.html

 

Abortion: legal but stigmatized.

 

Well the page you linked to is no longer there, but have you considered why abortion numbers are lower? Have unwanted pregancies overall decreased, maybe an increase BC use?

[SilentLoner]

BarbieBrains,

 

The "visiting cousins in Texas" story. Quite familiar with it alright - I grew up in a wealthier area of El Salvador. Another thing about El Salvador, even though abortion was illegal, yet you could find those fake abortion clinics. The kind that have ads in the newspapers then once women get there they show them films and other anti-abortion propaganda. A friend of my mom's ran a place like that and would brag about it when she came over to visit (a further step for me towards being pro choice).

 

 

I meant to bring this article up sooner, very interesting and a model example of hypocrisy of anti-choicers:

 

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

When the Anti-Choice Choose

 

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

[white_raven23]

If the pregnant woman doesn't value childbearing or parenting... Vigile, I can't actually imagine someone with that state of mind who isn't actually a sociopath. Maybe we aren't using the same terms?

 

Nice.

 

So I guess since I'm religious about the Pill, and am seeking to get Snipped, and WOULD have an abortion if I somehow (though unlikely) found myself pregnant......

 

Gee, I guess that makes me a right damn Psychopath then. Never mind I value my parents, my cousins AND THEIR children despite not wanting any of my own.

 

Yep. I'm crazy then.

 

I'd rather be considered nuts than be an unwilling Breeder.

 

Hey! Maybe if I can find a doctor who thinks like YOU I can get my tubal and have insurance cover it due to my obviously "degenerative mental state"!

[Emme]

My interuterine device will irritate the lining of my uterus so that the tiny person cannot implant itself. I will have absolutely NO idea how many fertilized eggs I flushed out from the moment I use the contraceptive until I decide to remove it. This is what it means to booby-trap your uterus....My uterus will have a land-mine awaiting the fertilized egg. Will my uterus be considered a concentration camp? Dachau for the fertilized egg? Let's outlaw IUDs, Morning After pills, and sentence women to forced gynecological exams in order to ensure the safety of the "person". Fucking fundie ridiculous. See, modern women under 40, they simply don't accept it. They have no conception of a world in which they don't have complete control over their flesh, their reproductive rights, their sexuality. For most women of this generation, reproductive choice is simply a fundamental, incontrovertible human right, obvious and ironclad and indisputable. Banning reproductive rights induces an immediate cringing recoil, like watching Tom Cruise stick his tongue in Katie Holmes' face, like watching flies feed, like seeing Dick Cheney naked. It simply does not compute.

 

I love you and your Janeane Garofalo icon.

[jenna]

Actually, here are some facts about a fetus. In the first trimester, the physical characteristics begin developing, such as the backbone, spinal column, nervous system, kidneys, liver and intestines. By week 3, the heart begins beating. At 5 weeks, the brain begins developing. In the 7th week, facial features, including the eyes, mouth and tongue, begin to be visible. Blood cells develop. The muscle system also begins developing, allowing movement. Also in week seven, brain waves can be measured. (Brain waves are one of the legal criteria in determining whether a person is alive. So if the absence of brain waves means someone can legally be pronounced dead, how can one not be considered alive when the brain waves are detected?) Arms, legs, and toes are growing. In week 10, teeth begin to bud in the mouth. Week 12, vocal cords are produced, and crying becomes possible. Because of the now fully developed brain and nervous system, the child can feel pain. Eyelids begin to form. Also during this point, the unborn baby can be often seen through ultasound sucking it's thumb. This all happens within the first trimester. So, if as you claim, 99% of all abortions happen within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, it should be obvious that a child at this stage can and does feel what is happening to it.

 

What a fucking pack of lies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development#Fetal_period

The onfucking pack of lies is what you are trying to pass off as truth. If you read your article (from wiki, no less) you will see it agrees with my statements.

[Emme]

This strikes me as odd: How come an abortion is right sometimes and wrong sometimes? Some seem to think that a pregnancy that came from violence makes an abortion more ok than a pregnancy resulting from a regular intercourse.

 

How can this be?! The circumstances don't change the act of aborting the fetus, it is still going to be removed/die is it not? Does it become more ok to abort when the conception was painful? Is it a "bad" abortion if you were careless and had unprotected sex?

 

In my opinion it's eighter wrong or right, and I think it's right. I'm pro-choice. A woman who was raped should most certainly have the right to an abortion.

But why should a woman feel worse/be shamed because she doesn't want to have an inconvenient child?

 

If I got pregnant now (I have a IUV), I would have an abortion because it is inconvenient. I does not fit. I have two years left of my studies, I want to be financially stable and a little bit more mature when I have a kid, so I can be a better mom and provide better for my offspring. And it would be more convenient. I'm not going to be ashamed of that.

[Ouroboros]

I'm sorry Emme, but it doesn't hold.

 

Things are right and wrong, not because of the acts themselves, but in what context they are done in.

 

If you kill someone in self-defense, it's something we wouldn't judge as wrong, while killing someone for personal gain would be considered wrong. The same for theft. If someone steal because they just want your stuff, we think of them as thieves, while a person in dire need of food who steal from a store could be treated with leniency because of the situation. Context and intent is more appropriate to judge right and wrong, than the sole act.

 

Consider the extent of your proposal: if abortion is always right, then is non-abortion always wrong? As you can see, to keep a kid can be right or wrong, depending on situation, while abortion can also be right or wrong, depending on situation.

[Emme]

I'm sorry Emme, but it doesn't hold.

 

Things are right and wrong, not because of the acts themselves, but in what context they are done in.

 

If you kill someone in self-defense, it's something we wouldn't judge as wrong, while killing someone for personal gain would be considered wrong. The same for theft. If someone steal because they just want your stuff, we think of them as thieves, while a person in dire need of food who steal from a store could be treated with leniency because of the situation. Context and intent is more appropriate to judge right and wrong, than the sole act.

 

Consider the extent of your proposal: if abortion is always right, then is non-abortion always wrong? As you can see, to keep a kid can be right or wrong, depending on situation, while abortion can also be right or wrong, depending on situation.

 

I reluctantly see your point.

But should it not be up to the pregnant woman to decide whether that abortion is right or wrong then? She is able to make the most informed decision.

 

Edit:spelling

[Emme]

Let me put it like this: I do not think that I have a right to judge a woman who has had an abortion.

[Ouroboros]

I reluctantly see your point.

But should it not be up to the pregnant woman to decide whether that abortion is right or wrong then? She is able to make the most informed decision.

 

 

Let me put it like this: I do not think that I have a right to judge a woman who has had an abortion.

 

Correct, and correct. It's not about "right or wrong", but about who has the right to decide.

 

The only one who can know (for good or bad) if the abortion is the best choice, is the pregnant woman. (If her mental condition isn't impaired) No one can from the outside, looking into the womans life, know what is best for her emotionally state and future. She can be informed about the medical challenges etc, but only she can make the decision.

 

My opinion is that there are NO factual (or scientific) arguments to establish if or when it is right to abort or not. The pro-choice camp use arguments that the fetus is so dissimilar to a grown human being (a parasite), so it can't be accepted as a human being or have the same rights, while the pro-life camp say the fetus is so similar to a human being so it must have the same rights. And I think both are wrong. A fetus is neither a fully grown human being (giving the pro-choice a point), but it's not a cat fetus either (giving the pro-life a point). It's a soon-to-be or almost-a human. It's between, and has to be treated with different arguments than born-humans. And I think it is the woman who's in charge for the decision, not medicine, not politics, not neighbors, or not the mailman's long-lost aunt either. It is the womans choice, and as such, no one have the right to judge her for her decision. But with that being said, an abortion shouldn't be done lightly, but be carefully considered, because after all: it is a half-human (and not very different from apes).

[Asimov]

Actually, here are some facts about a fetus. In the first trimester, the physical characteristics begin developing, such as the backbone, spinal column, nervous system, kidneys, liver and intestines. By week 3, the heart begins beating. At 5 weeks, the brain begins developing. In the 7th week, facial features, including the eyes, mouth and tongue, begin to be visible. Blood cells develop. The muscle system also begins developing, allowing movement. Also in week seven, brain waves can be measured. (Brain waves are one of the legal criteria in determining whether a person is alive. So if the absence of brain waves means someone can legally be pronounced dead, how can one not be considered alive when the brain waves are detected?) Arms, legs, and toes are growing. In week 10, teeth begin to bud in the mouth. Week 12, vocal cords are produced, and crying becomes possible. Because of the now fully developed brain and nervous system, the child can feel pain. Eyelids begin to form. Also during this point, the unborn baby can be often seen through ultasound sucking it's thumb. This all happens within the first trimester. So, if as you claim, 99% of all abortions happen within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy, it should be obvious that a child at this stage can and does feel what is happening to it.

 

What a fucking pack of lies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development#Fetal_period

The onfucking pack of lies is what you are trying to pass off as truth. If you read your article (from wiki, no less) you will see it agrees with my statements.

 

Please tell me how, in week 20, when nerve cells for our senses are starting to develop a child can feel pain in week 12.

[Asimov]

The pro-choice camp use arguments that the fetus is so dissimilar to a grown human being (a parasite), so it can't be accepted as a human being or have the same rights.

 

Not sure what rights any human has to use another persons body as an incubator against that persons will.

[gradstu09]

Philosophers don't enjoy being challenged on what they think they know absolutely about human nature.

 

Actually I think philosophers are the one demographic who in fact do enjoy questioning basic assumptions. But it's moot, because I'm not being challenged. Not by you, anyway.

 

Damn, I'm so hurt.

[Ouroboros]

Please tell me how, in week 20, when nerve cells for our senses are starting to develop a child can feel pain in week 12.

Where did you find that the nerve cells for the senses aren't developed until week 20? The neural groove starts to develop already in week 4, and around week 20 the fetus have reflexes (sensory responses). Or am I totally off here? (Not that I really care though, I just wonder. And I tried so hard to stay out of this debate! Damn my curiosity! )

[Ouroboros]

The pro-choice camp use arguments that the fetus is so dissimilar to a grown human being (a parasite), so it can't be accepted as a human being or have the same rights.

 

Not sure what rights any human has to use another persons body as an incubator against that persons will.

Just saying those are the two camps use as arguments.

 

Pro-choice: A fetus is not human, but just a non-human parasite, and as such it doesn't have any rights.

 

Pro-life: a fetus is human, it has the same biological features developed or developing, and as such it has certain basic rights to protection.

 

Those are the basic arguments, and I think neither holds, because they're both right and wrong. The embryo/fetus is it's own unique category, and it doesn't help to compare it to dogs, cats, virus, bacteria, amoeba, parasites or Einstein. It has to be treated separately.

 

Lets look at the more common situation of pregnancy: if a woman intentionally become pregnant, she want a baby, she have sex, and she become pregnant. According to your argument above, the fetus is not uninvited anymore, but is a welcome "parasite" in her body. Now, if she changes her mind, does she have the right to do so or not? If it's based on "welcomeness" she would not, since she decided to become pregnant to begin with. But my argument is that she still have the right to an abortion, because only she knows why she changed her mind, so the "uninvited" argument doesn't hold for every situation. (It does only for rape, or unintended pregnancy, but not for planned which later was reconsidered.)

[dance]

Your turn. :] Do you value childbearing, family relationships, the prospect of parenting, and human life?

No, yes, no, some human life.

 

Thank you. I've got a few beers in me and I'm feeling chummy, but may I ask why you're being such a dick? Even if you have a good argument, you only hurt it when you become aggressive.

 

Anyway. There is confusion about what I meant by 'childbearing. family relationships, parenting, and human life.' I meant to refer to these things as such. As in, 'do you think that bearing children, parenting, family, and human life are good things in themselves.' So what I see you saying is this:

1. you don't regard bearing children as a good thing in itself.

2. you do regard family relationships as good things in themselves

3. you don't regard parenting as a good thing in itself

4. you're not sure that human life is a good thing in itself

 

Are we on the same page here?

 

Vigile? Person with the cat icon? I think I was misunderstood by you two too. Not to mention gradstu, but I'm not really concerned about him.

 

I submit that if you do value those things, then it would be incoherent to attempt to reduce an abortion to something that doesnt matter, regardless of how small and undeveloped the zygote is. I accept that there is an inversly proportionate relationship between how much it matters and how 'present' it is -- both pysiologically and socially -- but continue to reject that an abortion at any stage would be anything other than something that matters, if only even a little.

Which is your own value and therefore your own problem. If you want to get all misty eyed over every haploid that's terminated, go right ahead. Prepare to be crying every day at every hour.

I didn't actually express a value of mine, I provided the sketch of an argument I've acquired and am ready to defend.

[gradstu09]

You know, I have to say, the ad hom shit is getting old.

[Evolution_beyond]

I wouldn't say I'm opposed to abortion. But I think it should be avoided when possible. I'm not really comfortable with a society that treats aborton like it's an acceptable form of contraception.

 

Abortion being contraception is an oxymoron. Conception has already occurred, abortion is returning to the status quo ante. Dealing with an unintended and as far as we are concerned a fairly random consequence.

 

Ok. What I meant was that I don't think abortion should ever be treated as casually as contraception.

 

Why are you not comfortable with abortion and comfortable with contraception.

 

It must have something to do with those pictures of blood and gore and severed limbs from the aborted fetus.

 

It should be a last measure. Ideally contraception should be used to avoid conception in the first place - so that people only get pregnant when they want kids. I know that could never happen - because contraception can always fail - but abortion should only ever be a last resort.

 

Why? Because it's not long into pregnancy that the fetus has senses and a brain and should therefore be treated with compassion, like any other living thing.

 

I find appendectomies distasteful, and I wouldn't want to watch one happen, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or shouldn't be performed.

 

appenduses don't have a brain.

[Evolution_beyond]

I think irresponsibility should be discouraged, which means that anyone who engages in sex without taking the necessary precautions to prevent an unintended consequence should be given a firm lecture by their parents, or at least an eye roll.

 

This is all I was saying really - and it was what I meant by abortion not being used as a form of contraception. Ok, so you picked up on contraception meaning prevention of conception - but that is nitpicking over the semantics of words. My point still stands - and you have echoed it here.

 

Abortion should be avoided if possible. But should be available for women as a last resort, because it is their choice whether they should be mothers or not and it is probably better not to bring a child into the world when its mother doesn't want it or can't look after it.

 

Abortion is tough on the woman getting one mentally and physically, from what I've read anyways, so why should she receive MORE stress after such an ordeal?

 

I agree with this.

 

I guess I'm basically pro-choice really.

[gradstu09]

It must have something to do with those pictures of blood and gore and severed limbs from the aborted fetus.

 

I was talking with a guy once...he said his wife had miscarried at 22 weeks. He passes a planned parenthood on the way to work. Every time the protesters are out there with their aborted fetus pictures, he says it reminds him of his dead child. This is not at all related to the thread, but your comment made me remember the conversation. One more way in which fundie por-lifers don't give a shit about real, actual people.

[Ouroboros]

Why? Because it's not long into pregnancy that the fetus has senses and a brain and should therefore be treated with compassion, like any other living thing.

Just to be a bit crass here, why would the capacity of pain be an argument against abortion? I think it really isn't. Consider if we compared the fetus to a non-human animal, and it was an animal we had to put down, it's just a matter of how we do it, not the question of "if" we should do it. Basically, if the fetus can feel pain, that would only be an argument to give it a sedative before the actual abortion. Why would the fact about pain be connected to the identity as a human?

 

But I think the way you say it: "treated with compassion," makes it more acceptable. It's not a matter of pain as an indicator of human-hood and the right to life, but only the right for the fetus of a respectful treatment, in other words: human abortion.

[Asimov]

Where did you find that the nerve cells for the senses aren't developed until week 20? The neural groove starts to develop already in week 4, and around week 20 the fetus have reflexes (sensory responses). Or am I totally off here? (Not that I really care though, I just wonder. And I tried so hard to stay out of this debate! Damn my curiosity! )

 

No, you're not wrong that a fetus will have reflexes and be active, but that doesn't mean jack when it comes to actually sensing things occuring.

 

Wikipedia outlines some of the basics, I'm still looking for some more corroborating information, but at least I'm citing my sources rather than simply claiming.

 

Interesting, after some further research it seems like the sense of touch develops first, starting aroudn the 8th week in the most sensitive areas of the body.

 

http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregna...aby/senses.html

 

This citation has some pretty interesting info.