Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Atheist And Abortion?


Pecker

Recommended Posts

But that's just my two cents on the subject.

Hey Erick :wave:

 

You and your two cents are welcome here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • gradstu09

    43

  • Legion

    37

  • Asimov

    32

  • Ouroboros

    23

Ah, my friend, but this is where we get onto a slippery slope. Basically what you're saying is that some people are not quite "people" enough to deserve rights. You could carry this logic a long way. You could use it to justify slavery, genocide, and euthanasia of the elderly. I think that when it comes to judging who is a person and who is not, we should let our understanding gained through science be our guide. If they have a distinct genetic code, then they are a separate entity from anyone else, and certainly not part of their mother's body (although they may depend on it). And if they have cellular growth, then they are alive. And I'm sure any mother could tell you that all new born babies come complete with their own unique personalities.

 

At one time in our lives we were all just a fetus, yet to have any hopes, dreams, successes, failures, or any experiences at all. But, if someone were to destroy us at that tender and vulnerable point in our lives, we would never get the chance. Personally, I'm glad I was given my chance, and I intend to give that chance to my future children. However if my wife's life were in clear and present danger from continuing a pregnancy, and there was no other way... I wouldn't hesitate to chose her life over that of our preborn child. It would break my heart and hers, and we would mourn the loss, but I would still protect the one who is most likely to survive. Using abortion as a form of birth control is disgustingly barbaric to me.

 

But that's just my two cents on the subject.

 

Erick

 

I can see your point about the slippery slope, but that is the nature of thinking in shades of gray. When everything is black and white, right and wrong, it is much easier to set boundaries and keep from straying in our reasoning. But I don't think that's the way life really is. There are so many gray areas in life, and so we have to be open to possibilities that may lead us down a "slippery slope" into an area that may not be comfortable to think about. That is why I am no longer a Christian.

 

I have to respectfully disagree. In many situations where abortion may be an option, essentially one life will be saved and one life will be destroyed, possibly both; in one instance it will be a clean, quick, physical death and in the other instance it will be a slow, torturous, emotional death. I am not saying that one person is inferior to another, I am just saying how do we choose whose life to save? My personal preference would be the former, and so I lean toward killing the fetus (or baby, whichever term you use), since in my opinion it will experience less pain. If the baby were fully able to understand the situation, I think it would also agree.

 

Long and short, we can't know the whole story, and therefore we should be very slow to pass judgment on people who do what we may deem as "wrong." I have to stick by my original statement that I don't think it is a choice that can or should be made by me, because I will never be placed in that position. The mother-to-be is the one with the final - and really, only - say, so that difficult choice should be her choice alone. If she chooses to have the abortion, then she should be able to do it in as clean and safe an environment as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hans has mentioned this on several occassions, but somehow everyone else isn't commenting on it (or if they are, aren't giving it the time it deserves).

 

When we consider a fetus to be a "human" or not, "alive" or not, ultimately varies from person to person. As such I belive there is no way to find a consensus on this part of the issue and it should be discarded.

 

HOWEVER, the only way to ensure that each person is able to hold their personal beliefs and have the right to act on them (without impinging on the rights of others) is to leave the ultimate choice up to the pregnant mother. Laws require a black/white definition and in that context, I believe abortions should be legal and at the discresion of the women and her physician.

 

If you don't believe abortions are the proper way to go, don't have one. It's your choice, but don't try to make that choice for others.

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the only way to ensure that each person is able to hold their personal beliefs and have the right to act on them (without impinging on the rights of others) is to leave the ultimate choice up to the pregnant mother. Laws require a black/white definition and in that context, I believe abortions should be legal and at the discresion of the women and her physician.

 

If you don't believe abortions are the proper way to go, don't have one. It's your choice, but don't try to make that choice for others.

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

 

I fully agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The debate on abortion is going to be endless until people realize the truth....If you don't have a uterus,you shouldn't get a vote! The reproductive freedom of a woman is belongs to her.The idea that anyone has a right to be involved is only valid if that woman agrees.

 

How a person feels on the subject is always secondary to individual rights. So as a man I say let her do as she sees fit,without judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who were stating that a Fetus can feel pain as soon as its nervous system has developed (I think someone mentioned about 12th-16th week:

 

 

Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are part of a larger debate about abortion. Though many researchers in the area of fetal development agree a fetus is unlikely to feel pain until after the seventh month of pregnancy,[1][2][3] legislation has been proposed by pro-life advocates requiring abortion providers to tell a woman that the fetus may feel pain during an abortion procedure.[4]

 

A review by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco in JAMA concluded that data from dozens of medical reports and studies indicate that fetuses are unlikely to feel pain until the third trimester of pregnancy.[5][6] There is an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[7] Because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it may be "impossible to know" when painful experiences are perceived, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[8]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate on abortion is going to be endless until people realize the truth....If you don't have a uterus,you shouldn't get a vote! The reproductive freedom of a woman is belongs to her.The idea that anyone has a right to be involved is only valid if that woman agrees.

 

How a person feels on the subject is always secondary to individual rights. So as a man I say let her do as she sees fit,without judgement.

 

:whs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate on abortion is going to be endless until people realize the truth....If you don't have a uterus,you shouldn't get a vote! The reproductive freedom of a woman is belongs to her.The idea that anyone has a right to be involved is only valid if that woman agrees.

 

How a person feels on the subject is always secondary to individual rights. So as a man I say let her do as she sees fit,without judgement.

 

:whs:

 

Just curious, and either of you can answer the question, if you're in agreement with each other on that aspect.

 

First off, I am 100% in favor of individual rights, and I don't think there is anything to "vote" on in regards to reproductive rights. However, considering that it takes two people to make a baby (most of the time), excluding victims of abuse and assault, we are stating that the mother and only the mother has the right to choose whether or not to keep a child.

 

So, then do you think that the Father should have any responsibility in regards to paying for support of the child? If the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, she can abort it and he can go fuck himself, right? If the father doesn't want the child and the mother does, suddenly he's Daddy and the government demands that he pay for the sin of impregnation.

 

Does anyone here see a double standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hans has mentioned this on several occassions, but somehow everyone else isn't commenting on it (or if they are, aren't giving it the time it deserves).

 

When we consider a fetus to be a "human" or not, "alive" or not, ultimately varies from person to person. As such I belive there is no way to find a consensus on this part of the issue and it should be discarded.

 

HOWEVER, the only way to ensure that each person is able to hold their personal beliefs and have the right to act on them (without impinging on the rights of others) is to leave the ultimate choice up to the pregnant mother. Laws require a black/white definition and in that context, I believe abortions should be legal and at the discresion of the women and her physician.

 

If you don't believe abortions are the proper way to go, don't have one. It's your choice, but don't try to make that choice for others.

 

IMOHO,

:thanks:

 

Yep. That's about the long and short of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone here see a double standard?

 

Yes.

 

But that's the only man who should get a say. It's nobody else's business except the two people involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone here see a double standard?

 

Yes.

 

But that's the only man who should get a say. It's nobody else's business except the two people involved.

 

what? the government is involved already. if you admit that there's a double standard, then men deserve some legislative protection, no? well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone here see a double standard?

 

Yes.

 

But that's the only man who should get a say. It's nobody else's business except the two people involved.

 

Why should any man get a say in what the woman does with her own body, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate on abortion is going to be endless until people realize the truth....If you don't have a uterus,you shouldn't get a vote! The reproductive freedom of a woman is belongs to her.The idea that anyone has a right to be involved is only valid if that woman agrees.

 

How a person feels on the subject is always secondary to individual rights. So as a man I say let her do as she sees fit,without judgement.

 

:whs:

 

Just curious, and either of you can answer the question, if you're in agreement with each other on that aspect.

 

First off, I am 100% in favor of individual rights, and I don't think there is anything to "vote" on in regards to reproductive rights. However, considering that it takes two people to make a baby (most of the time), excluding victims of abuse and assault, we are stating that the mother and only the mother has the right to choose whether or not to keep a child.

 

So, then do you think that the Father should have any responsibility in regards to paying for support of the child? If the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, she can abort it and he can go fuck himself, right? If the father doesn't want the child and the mother does, suddenly he's Daddy and the government demands that he pay for the sin of impregnation.

 

Does anyone here see a double standard?

 

That's a toughie! :shrug: You've hit on a gray area here, and I have to say the short answer is "I don't know."

 

I don't see it as a double-standard. The way I see it, yes he's the Daddy, but he doesn't have to carry the baby. Unless one day it is possible for men to get pregnant, only the mother will have the baby in her body. Therefore, her body = her decision. I think the father should be consulted (if possible), but the final decision has to lie with the mother. If the mother is unable to make the decision (i.e. unconscious), then the decision would pass to whoever makes medical decisions for her when she cannot (as it would in any medical situation), whether that is the father or not.

 

I see your point, though. If we are going to say that the father has no say in the fate of the fetus, then how can we demand he pay for siring the child? If he was in favor of abortion but she decided to go through with having the baby, then he can say, "Hey, I just wanted to abort it, so don't hit me up for child support." Do we say that giving the mother the sole right to end the baby's life means she has sole responsibility for raising it? I don't think that's really fair to her, especially because then the father has nothing to worry about. He bears no responsibility for his part in the conception, and can therefore go around impregnating all the women he wants without pause.

 

IMO, both father and mother share equal responsibility in the conception, so both have equal responsibility in raising the baby. If there was a way to bring the baby to term without having it in someone's body, then it would be easy to give both parents a say before birth. However, until we no longer need a biological womb, then the person whose body is "incubating" the baby has to be allowed the final say regarding abortion. Then Daddy's responsibility takes over after birth, if it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's really fair to her
Except she can abort at any time, and she also has the right to give up her child for adoption, which is the only point at which the man can take full control (possibly). What's unfair is the assumption that a man who would cede his parental rights would do so under the belief that he could impregnate all willy-nilly. The reason "I don't think that's really fair to her" is because of the converse. A woman gets to say "I'm keeping it, and you're going to pay", but she can also say, "I'm aborting, and there's nothing you can do about it." And say the pregnancy is more than a few seconds along, say early embryo stage, before she decides, and she decides to abort despite the wishes of the would-be father.

 

One would assume, provided the father is aware of the pregnancy at all-- and that's another detail; a woman can raise a child to adulthood without the father even knowing about the pregnancy-- that embryo stage is a long enough time to develop an attachment to the idea of impending fatherhood. And as unimportant as the time detail may be to me personally, if it were my unborn child, it might be different. So for all excited would-be fathers with women who end up aborting, really at any stage, who can do nothing about it, it should be that a man should be exempt from parental obligation should he so choose. THAT's fair. How that would be worked out, so as to minimize the likelihood of run-outs is another issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How that would be worked out, so as to minimize the likelihood of run-outs is another issue.

 

But that's the crux of the matter right there.

 

As a guy, it would be a relief to know that, if I don't feel I'm ready, I can opt out of fatherhood. I have no intention of hopping from bed to bed; hell, I'm still a virgin! But if something happens, I wouldn't be forced into a situation I don't feel I can handle. However, somebody is going to have to bear the responsibility of rearing the child, and I think the parents are the proper choice. If you don't want to play an active role, that is fine, but there should still be some contribution on some level.

 

I don't assume that the guy is just going to go gallivanting around; I try not to assume the worst, and I think most guys would try to at least accept some responsibility. But there are many out there who wouldn't care and would just cut and run. I tend to agree with a lot of what you said, but if we give him the right to "opt out" of his parental rights/responsibilities then there is nothing keeping him from - at any time during the child's life - just leaving without notice and sticking Mommy with the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's the crux of the matter right there.
I thought it mattered, but in reality, it's actually irrelevant. To illustrate this, imagine telling some guy who's (former) woman just aborted the fetus at the end of the first trimester, despite knowing his wishes to the contrary, that "hey, at least you don't have any financial obligations now!" Does your eye hurt now, by any chance?

 

The real crux of the matter is that those choices are made long before money comes into the situation, and by one person. So much ground is ceded to the female, including, albeit not necessarily legally, the ability to not inform the father-- for whatever reason-- disappear into obscurity, and raise the child with the father completely blind to the fact that the college kid sitting next to him on the bus is about as old as the last time he got his willy waxed.

 

What happens after the kid starts being raised is irrelevant for a number of reasons. First, it has no bearing on the issue of choice beforehand, or the fact that the child support system is wholly corrupt. Second, even a dedicated father can be a deadbeat otherwise, and a detriment to the child's financial security. Third, is the aforementioned ability of the mother to hide the pregnancy, as well as the fact that if a mother is really unable to support her child, she can place them for adoption, AND, there are many resources to help single parents one way or an other, to prevent that.

 

Besides which, and I'm not saying this happens with appreciable frequency, though it might, some women DO use pregnancy to entrap men. You know, break a condom, get him drunk, take the condom out of the trash, etc.

 

The point, and the only relevant issue, is that presently, fatherhood is granted by the whim of the mother. To talk about fairness, it doesn't do to neglect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we say that giving the mother the sole right to end the baby's life means she has sole responsibility for raising it? I don't think that's really fair to her, especially because then the father has nothing to worry about.

 

I don't think it's fair to him if he wants a child and she kills it off. Why should it be fair? If she can't handle raising a child by herself, she can give it up for adoption. Plenty of people who want babies. If she doesn't want to carry to term and then give away the child, then she can abort it.

 

If she's capable of raising the child on her own, why should the Father be morally obligated to provide when clearly he didn't want anything to do with it? It should be his choice.

 

What if she pokes holes in his condoms and suddenly finds herself pregnant? Is he culpable for paying for a kid that he never intended to have and that she manipulated him into siring?

 

He bears no responsibility for his part in the conception, and can therefore go around impregnating all the women he wants without pause.

 

Slippery-slope, just because someone has the freedom to do something doesn't mean they WILL do it, or want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To properly keep things in context,we must understand the core of the issue.We have the same drive for self preservation and perpetuation of the species as any other animal. A persons "rights" are a totally different scope of ethics.

 

A womans position in the scheme of abortion ethics is primary because her survival is at risk.The man's position is always secondary because his life and health do not depend on the outcome. The outdated laws that prevent a woman from making her own healthcare choices stem from the "man's right to an heir" attitudes of the past.This is the true source of the child support laws,"If you want it you have to pay for it."

 

Stretching a mans right to interfere in whether or not a woman aborts a pregnancy based on child support laws and financial responsibility is just as antiquated. Who pays for pregnancy more? The man may have emotional and financial obligation,but that is all. The woman must pay with her whole being,physical,emotional,psychological health are all an aspect....So yes she is the ONLY one who gets the choice!!!

 

The woman's survival and well-being come before a pregnancy. It is barbaric to place more value on "what could be" than "what is". The concerns of the living always come before those of the "almost alive".

 

Until those who would argue are placed in that position,to have to choose life or death,they will not have the respect for that decision.As a Paramedic I was placed in that very position,to triage,and it totally sucks.Being forced to choose between who lives and dies on more than one occasion,who would say I had no right?Would anyone accuse me of murder,or say I was unfit to make that choice? On the sole reasoning that they didn't agree with that choice!!!....HELL NO...That is what Paramedics are trained to do!!! Medical ethics and actions are in the realm of care provider and PATIENT,NO ONE ELSE.

 

I had to look a mother in the face after an automobile accident and tell her that I was forced to choose between saving her life and the life of her child.I chose the life I could "hopefully" save at the time.there was no way of knowing.NOW the woman is alive and HATES me to this day.But she is ALIVE to hate me so I can live with that.

 

WHO here has the right to speculate on this event,what I could have or should have done or what you would have done??That woman is someones baby also.Should I have chosen the child's live because that is what the mother wanted? Maybe..... and they would both be dead.

 

In the realm of choice between life and death only a select few really have the right to that choice.Everyone else is a spectator and nothing more.

 

Only a woman can have a child so only a woman can choose,how it is made,who has a responsibility,is ALWAYS secondary.

 

Peace,Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A womans position in the scheme of abortion ethics is primary because her survival is at risk.The man's position is always secondary because his life and health do not depend on the outcome. The outdated laws that prevent a woman from making her own healthcare choices stem from the "man's right to an heir" attitudes of the past.This is the true source of the child support laws,"If you want it you have to pay for it."

 

Stretching a mans right to interfere in whether or not a woman aborts a pregnancy based on child support laws and financial responsibility is just as antiquated. Who pays for pregnancy more? The man may have emotional and financial obligation,but that is all. The woman must pay with her whole being,physical,emotional,psychological health are all an aspect....So yes she is the ONLY one who gets the choice!!!

Hmm... If I wanted to take the devil's advocate side here, I would say the man's health is also affected. If he has to work two jobs, and get a deteriorating health from the stress and have a heart-attack and 40, I could say is at danger too. Nothing comes from free when it comes to our health. We pay with time, stress, effort, and bad eating habits (forced upon us because of work-place-politics). And I mean "we" as in both men and women.

 

The woman is threatened by an immediate health risk, while the man (and woman) are threatened by a long term, inderect, health risk.

 

And there is something to the issue of: if the man can't give adequate support for another child, and his life and health is at risk (inderectly and long term), shouldn't he have a right to demand an abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi han,your point is exactly correct,this is the way the present child support laws are written.The "you want it you pay for it" law.

 

Unfortunatly,that argument can't override the ultimate patient right to treatment laws.To rearange the law to fit this,would require a restructure of the present code.We can't get the legislators to agree on much simpler things.

 

The principle of triage is the most life threatening problem delt with first,then the next and so on.Your context involves the sacrifice of the man to support the woman.This can be a variable in the scenario if they are a couple.

 

The proper way to deal with this is for the man to be able to argue to the courts to "abort" his paternal responsibilities just as the womam has the right to an abortion. This would off set many things,like the entrapment issue or his personal freedom. Many of the above arguments are valid and current to todays society.

 

However we can't act on what the law "should" be only what it presently states. This is the problem with medical ethics,we can't break new ground until the correct "plow" comes along.

 

The debate over removing someone from the ventilator didn't arise until the ventilator was invented.

 

The Rule to DO NO HARM means healthcare providers take patient welfare into consideration first and foremost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I seem to be sticking my foot in my mouth with everything I say.

 

Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I seem to be sticking my foot in my mouth with everything I say.

 

Sorry.

Are you kidding? That's when things start getting good!

 

*points to user title* ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I seem to be sticking my foot in my mouth with everything I say.

Hey, we all do that... it only add some extra flavor to the discussion! :grin: (If you get my double entendre)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I seem to be sticking my foot in my mouth with everything I say.

 

Sorry.

 

I didn't see that you were putting your foot into your mouth.

 

 

As for the "aborting" his paternal responsibilities, I think that's a good concept.

 

We always talk about the mothers rights to renege on bearing and raising a child, but nobody seems to care about the men in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.