Atheist And Abortion?

[gradstu09]

I dunno; we could argue semantics for a while b/c Merriam-Webster has no clause about the parasite being a different species or having different DNA...that was a lapse on my part to be overly specific.

(Mwhahaha! I'm kinda drunk too, so you can't that as an excuse!)

 

I followed you link. The second option links to parasitism. It says "an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds".

 

But you're right about he semantics. I just find that describing an unborn baby a 'parasite' just so you can kill it for no good reason* rather repuslive.

 

*See my specific personal opinions here.

 

ETA: WTF is this 'kinds' shit. I thought that kind of ambiguity went out with the buy-bull!

 

*yawwwwwwn* But I COULD use my state of inebriation as an excuse for falling asleep in the middle of a sentence!

 

It does go back to when people determine life begins. Not just life as in living cells, but life as in when it's a human seperate from the mother. Different traditions have different ideas on this. Someone said early in this thread that Jews believe it's when the baby takes an unasissted breath; early (pre-reformation, and possibly after) xtians used the "quickening", the time from when the mother felt the first kick. These days we use viabilty outside the womb in most cases, which keeps decreasing as technology allows us to keep younger and younger preemies (sp.?) alive). The crossing point--where second trimester preemies can live, but third trimester abortions die, is part of what is causing (I think) a moral dilemma amongst pro-choicers. In that case it comes back to the rights of the already-existing woman, which I am firmly in favor of. Your earlier post says that you favor 'good reasons' for lack of a better phrase. Good reasons such as..?

 

I don't get the "kinds' thing either. It seems to be deliberately vague.

 

edit for spelling

[Outback Jack]

It does go back to when people determine life begins.

YEah, that's the bitch of the thing. If only everyone could agree on that one little detail. I'm getting sleepy too. I'll respond more tomorrow (probably).

 

G'night.

[godlessgrrl]

Here's a thought: does life ever really start or end?

 

And what makes abortion murder? Why not manslaughter or aggravated assault?

 

If abortion is murder, should there be a criminal penalty for it?

 

If so, what should the penalty be? Who should get it? Why?

 

If not, why do you count the "murder" of a fetus as something lesser than the murder of an already-born person?

 

I look forward to any thoughtful, well-reasoned answers.

[Asimov]

But to compare a fetus to a parasite is way out of line, IMO.

 

A relationship in which one organism uses the others bodily functions against its will for its own survival is parasitic. An unwanted pregnancy is parasitic, by definition.

 

BTW, I seem to recall that many places (states?) that make killing a fetus during the commission of a crime a murder or manslaughter crime (i.e. shooting a pregnant woman who lives, but killing the fetus).

 

No they don't, they perfectly support my statement, maybe you should read the laws in the states with more than just a passing glance. At no point does any law refer to a fetus as a person. A person has rights and duties, a fetus has no rights. You will always see the phrases, unborn child, in utero, fetus...

 

If a fetus was considered a human being by law, there wouldn't be any need to have such clarifications as to how we should treat someone terminating the life of the fetus without consent from the mother. An unborn child has no rights, by law, and is not a person.

 

Even if the unborn child was considered a person, it would have no right to inhabit the body of another person against their will.

[Asimov]

It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but a person on death row is usually a murderer who has taken the lives of others, while an unborn child is totally defenseless.

 

If you think killing another human being is wrong, then how do you justify killing another human being because they killed a human being. That IS a contradiction, directly and absolutely.

 

Come to think about it, it isn't really the pregnant mother's body when it comes to a choice.

 

Of course it is, why wouldn't it be?

 

I was pregnant at 15, and gave him up for adoption. I noticed no one has mentioned this option.

 

That's because it's irrelevant to whether abortions should be allowed or not. Forcing someone to use their body as an incubator for an organism they don't want is slavery. The rights of the constitution guarantee ones own body as ones own property and not the property of another. Stating that one person should abdicate their rights for another negates the concept of rights and contradicts the very foundation of a constitutional guarantee.

 

Adoption is an option if the woman so chooses to carry a child to term and put it up for adoption.

Abortion is an option if the woman so chooses to terminate her pregnancy at any time that is deemed medically safe by a medical professional.

Keeping a child is an option if the woman so chooses to carry her child to term and raise it for herself.

 

At no point was adoption omitted unnecessarily as an option, but you seem to imply that it should be the only option for someone who doesn't want a child.

[Kuroikaze]

Check again-- where did I say they should? I made a comment, like it or lump it. And whether or not they make the same choice, it's still murder, no matter how you (or anyone) sugar-coat it.

 

It seems logically absurd to claim that aborting a baby at ANY point in the pregnancy is murder. Are you suggesting a lump of a few hundred cells is conscious? Did you know that almost 50% of all fetus spontaneously abort by failing to implant in the wall of the uterus? If you are going to make this argument, then perhaps contraception is murder too? After all, it prevents a new life from forming. Would that mean I commit murder every time I masturbate? This can quickly become absurd.

 

The problem we are experiencing is an old philosophical problem. Socrates used sand as an analogy. If you start with one grain of sand and add one at a time, at what point does it become a pile of sand? If you take one grain away is it no longer a pile?

 

This is why it is so difficult, we know that at SOME point the fetus should be treated as a human being, but the place where the line should be drawn is not well defined.

[HuaiDan]

WHHYYYYYYY is it anymore immoral to have sex, get pregnant, then get an abortion (in a timely fashion), than it is to burn the broccoli on the stove, through it away, and cook more broccoli? Why not use ru-486 as a once-a month birth control, instead of taking standard BC every day? All within the confines of consensual sex, of course. A fetus or zygote is a clump of tissue, no more worthy of consideration than a chunk of phlegm you've just coughed up and then spit into the toilet. IMO the consideration should start when recognizable brain activity starts.

 

If abortion were such a picnic, no one would ever have babies.

 

Oh come on, that's insulting. You make it sound like the only reason people have babies is because the alternative (abortion) is unpalatable. People who have babies, predominantly, want babies. At least in the developed world.

[barbiebrains100]

Yes, shit does happen. My husband had a vasectomy eight years ago and everything was going just fine. Last May, we found out the hard way that the vasectomy failed. I was pregnant...with twins...YIKES!!!! We decided to terminate the pregnancy for MANY reasons. The decision was not taken lightly nor would I want to repeat the procedure as a birth control method but I am damn glad that the option was available to me. The surgical abortion took less than five minutes. Carrying a pregnancy to term is MORE than "an inconvenience", it involves RISK. We were not willing to go through the medical risks or the genetic testing or the amnio or the c-section (they would have been delievered by an invasive C-section). Period. My husband had his vasectomy redone (free of charge, the doctor was shocked...he has only seen another case like this in 18 years of practice) and I am going for the interuterine device (IUD) which is essentially abortive because it does not allow the tiny-potential-person to implant itself in my uterus. I will have, essentially, booby-trapped my uterus. The same Pro-Lifers that screamed obscenities at me while going to the clinic should be congruent in their logic and have my interuterine device forcibly removed by government appointed gynecologists. The arguments get incredibly silly.....I have NO problem with abortion. I have lived in Third World countries where it is illegal and where women who abort are jailed....El Salvador is an example of a Pro-Life nation where you get 30 YEARS in the slammer for an abortion. One of the conditions for European nations to enter the EU is the recognition of reproductive freedom as a right for women. I find the practices of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies (Will you jail them? Will you subject them to interrogations about their sexual history?), removing IUDS, government intrusion in MY medical decisions, abhorrent and barbaric. I'm just giving an opinion and not debating anyone. I went through an abortion. I am neither a murderer nor a serial killer. I DO not deserve the death penalty. I am relating my experience.

 

BB

[Neon Genesis]

Check again-- where did I say they should? I made a comment, like it or lump it. And whether or not they make the same choice, it's still murder, no matter how you (or anyone) sugar-coat it.

Isn't it a double standard to say that abortion is always murder no matter how you sugar-coat it but then turn around and say that the death penalty is not murder, yet aren't you just trying to sugar-coat murderous revenge by window dressing it under the label of "justice"? And when a fetus goes through a natural abortion, should the mother be charged with child abuse because her body naturally failed to carry the pregnancy?

[Susanetal]

BarbieBrains100,

 

Thanks for sharing your experience... I think the real-life experiences that you, ShackledNoMore, Jenna and I have shared all point to the following truth:

 

Deciding to abort or carry to term is, and should be, a PERSONAL decision!

 

I would never tell Jenna that she made a mistake in delivering her child and giving him up for adoption. I applaud her courage in that situation.

 

At the same time, I would never tell you that you made a mistake in choosing to abort your twins. That must have been a very difficult decision, and I empathize with what surely was a trying time for you and your husband.

 

There are those on this board who imply that any abortion is murder... I guess all I would ask is that before any of you cast judgment on those of us who have chosen to abort a pregnancy is to please try to imagine the situation from our perspective.

 

At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own lives. No one truly knows what it is like to walk in another's shoes or live someone else's life for them. We must all live with the consequences of the decisions we make in life. I still mourn the loss of my unborn child, but I would not change my decision to abort if I could go back in time. I did what I had to do to survive. If that makes me a murderer in someone else's eyes, then so be it. I, for one, am extremely grateful that the option to legally abort was available to me.

[Neon Genesis]

Amen, Susan!

[jenna]

It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but a person on death row is usually a murderer who has taken the lives of others, while an unborn child is totally defenseless.

 

If you think killing another human being is wrong, then how do you justify killing another human being because they killed a human being. That IS a contradiction, directly and absolutely.

 

Come to think about it, it isn't really the pregnant mother's body when it comes to a choice.

 

Of course it is, why wouldn't it be?

 

I was pregnant at 15, and gave him up for adoption. I noticed no one has mentioned this option.

 

That's because it's irrelevant to whether abortions should be allowed or not. Forcing someone to use their body as an incubator for an organism they don't want is slavery. The rights of the constitution guarantee ones own body as ones own property and not the property of another. Stating that one person should abdicate their rights for another negates the concept of rights and contradicts the very foundation of a constitutional guarantee.

 

Adoption is an option if the woman so chooses to carry a child to term and put it up for adoption.

Abortion is an option if the woman so chooses to terminate her pregnancy at any time that is deemed medically safe by a medical professional.

Keeping a child is an option if the woman so chooses to carry her child to term and raise it for herself.

 

At no point was adoption omitted unnecessarily as an option, but you seem to imply that it should be the only option for someone who doesn't want a child.

As far as your last point, that is not so. And a human life does begin at conception, whether you believe it or not. Abortion is an option, true. But the same could be applied if I am legally married, and choose to end my marriage. The only two options I would have of ending the marriage would be to divorce my husband, or to kill him. If I chose to kill him, I would be a murderer. The only difference is that he has already been born.

[gradstu09]

And a human life does begin at conception, whether you believe it or not.

 

Convince me.

[Ouroboros]

Nicotine and alcohol are teratogens, which means, if used during pregnancy they can cause malformation of the embryo.

But...But...I was told by a Publican in jolly old England that Guinness is recommended for pregnant women. Because of the iron or something. Surely he couldn't be wrong!

Maybe he meant to say Root Beer, but got mixed up?

[dance]

But to compare a fetus to a parasite is way out of line, IMO.

 

A relationship in which one organism uses the others bodily functions against its will for its own survival is parasitic. An unwanted pregnancy is parasitic, by definition.

 

Hi Asimov. I feel compelled to comment. I agree with Outback Jack when he wrote that comparing a fetus to a parasite is way out of line. To conceptualize it as such is to ignore everything we know and value about childbearing, family, parenting, all of it. You may not surgically dissect the fetus from the context of pregnancy, parents, family, society, & humanity as you may extract him/her from a woman's womb. There is a story here, there are roles and relationships that have relavance, and in no part of childbearing is there room to describe a fetus, wanted or unwanted, as a 'parasite.' You're chasing an ugly, technical wart which demands attention. Describe the fetus as unwanted, as tragic, which it is. But please don't propose that conceptions of our unborn children must flicker between 'parasite' and 'baby.' Try telling a mother of 5 that her unwanted fetus is a parasite and see what she says. :/

 

I replied to this thread earlier and recieved little to no attention, and the attention recieved was not very, ah, attentive. Perhaps I should post it as a new thread...?

[gradstu09]

I asked you some questions...you can answer them or not....

 

I would guess you have never heard a woman refer to her OWN fetus as a parasite, or you would not be so adamant about the inability to divorce a clump of cells from the family context you have constructed.

[dance]

I asked you some questions...you can answer them or not....

 

Fair enough.

 

Those with more experience with pregnancy and childbearing ought to possess the moral wisdom required to make the appropriate discernments.

 

So one's ability to know whether they want a child is developed by having a child they don't want? Where does the child come into this?

 

Ok, one's ability to know whether they should carry a child to term is developed by having children, yes, but it's also developed by one's access to women who have had children themselves. We call this education.

I don't understand the second question -- the child is at the center of this, shaping the story. Do you mean, 'where does the physiology of the child come into this'? It's part of it, yes, but it's not the definitive issue.

 

You also asked where the 'universal virtue' would come from, or something like that? Well the fact is that cosmic assertions like that needn't come into this at all. All we need assert is that we in fact value certain aspects of life and judge them to be more worthwhile than others. I suppose you could make an argument about how genetics + environment + history + will might explain how it came to be the way it is, but that's beyond the ken of anyone at the moment.

 

I would guess you have never heard a woman refer to her OWN fetus as a parasite, or you would not be so adamant about the inability to divorce a clump of cells from the family context you have constructed.

 

I can believe that women have said such things, but (obviously) I would contend that such women are misguided. And, contrary to what you believe, I remain as adamant if not moreso in condemning the description of an unwanted fetus as a parasite. At the end of the day, I think such women are indulging in the "wishful thinking" philosophy I've read about on this site. They can't handle the immensity of the tragedy involved, so it's easier to just cover your eyes, ears, and mouth. (Read: I have sympathy for these women, but I nevertheless think that they're wrong and even dangerous insofar as they endeavor to pass on their views) It doesn't help that people are obsessed with the physiology involved, as if its true metaphysical nature lies hidden in a tiny fist.

[gradstu09]

It seems to me you are making virtue ethics fit your own preconceptions of what constitutes human flourishing rather than using the philosophy as a method of inquiry to determine flourishing. I'd like to say more but I won't have time for more detail until later.

[dance]

It seems to me you are making virtue ethics fit your own preconceptions of what constitutes human flourishing rather than using the philosophy as a method of inquiry to determine flourishing. I'd like to say more but I won't have time for more detail until later.

 

My own conceptions of human flourishing? Well, in my own life, yes, most definitely, but I'm hardly importing anything radical at all into this argument. Humans value children, childbearing, parenting, family. The fetus fits into that and may not be extracted without distorting the picture past recognition.

[hereticzero]

I used to be pro-life and then decided that everyone is pro-life with few exceptions. I think most people would have a child rather than an abortion. People who get abortions have considered other alternatives before considering abortion. Not many people would use that as a first defense against pregnancy. Those who have abortions found themselves in a situation they did not want to be in.

 

When is a fetus considered a living being? If it dies before the first trimester is over then do we have a funeral? If a woman miscarries in the first two months does she have a funeral for the fetus? If the fetus is a living person, why aren't we paid extra for the child before it is born? Christians cry crocodile tears for aborted fetuses but deny the fetus is a child when it comes to allowing claims for dependency, other wise welfare folks could get paid for two kids if one is in diapers and the other is still in the oven. Everything comes down to a price tag. If christians thought about it, it is cheaper to offer abortions legally than to pay to police and enforce laws against it as well as prevent alley abortions that would cost much more in medical bills.

[Legion]

There’s no telling how long this thread will go on or how much bad blood it will engender.

 

A relationship in which one organism uses the others bodily functions against its will for its own survival is parasitic. An unwanted pregnancy is parasitic, by definition.

I almost didn’t bother to respond to this because it strikes me as so being so much ludicrous hyperbole. The very function of a womb informs us that this is not the case in my estimation. A womb encapsulates, protects, and nourishes a new life as it gestates. And pregnancy hardly happens against the will of a body. In fact I think a good argument could be made that a standing imperative of organisms is to reproduce. Indeed it may almost be a defining characteristic of living things. How then can pregnancy be equated with parasitism when so much of the effort of life is geared towards reproduction?

 

I suppose the will of the mind and the will of the body can be opposed to one another. But even in that case I think to characterize ANY pregnancy (wanted or unwanted) as parasitic is a mistake. And I would hazard the guess that no reputable biologist would endorse this characterization.

[Dianka]

Ok, one's ability to know whether they should carry a child to term is developed by having children, yes, but it's also developed by one's access to women who have had children themselves. We call this education.

 

 

Most girls have have an opportunity to observe women who have had children by the time they are of childbearing age. These experiences can help form a BASIC understanding of what it takes to bear and raise children, but no one's experience will be quite like another persons. What are you trying to prove in relation to whether abortion wrong?

 

It takes more than a test run at pregnancy and observing other women going from conception to raising children, they need to take their own situations into consideration before they can know whether they should go through with a pregnancy. Are they psychologically healthy enough for it? Financially stable? Are their partners going to be involved? Can they provide for this child in the long run? There's way more than needs to be considered when deciding whether they should go through with a pregnancy.

[Legion]

I think having babies is a damn inconvenient thing. And I think life is the most extraordinary phenomenon in the universe.

 

So I say keep abortion legal and heap shame upon those who get abortions because the life they brought into this world inconveniences them.

[Dianka]

I think having babies is a damn inconvenient thing. And I think life is the most extraordinary phenomenon in the universe.

 

So I say keep abortion legal and heap shame upon those who get abortions because the life they brought into this world inconveniences them.

 

Even if the only reason someone gets an abortion is because it's an inconvenience, why try to shame them? Do you really want a woman to give birth to a kid if she finds them inconvenient? Perhaps she'll find giving the kid up for adoption inconvenient as well. Lazy mothers who keep children they find to be inconvenient: that doesn't sound great for the kid.

 

Many women who get abortions go through some sort of emotional stress during the time she has an abortion, and in many cases she deals with grief and shame for years afterwards. Do you think that just because you and those who agree with your opinion don't judge them for a decision many women feel they NEED to make, that they'll skip out of the clinic after it's over and never use contraceptives?

 

What's with the impulse to punish women who feel they have no other option? Do they not deserve to move on or should they carry a scarlet letter on their chest until they die? It's always the people who are far removed from any responsibility in these situations that make such ignorant comments.

[Legion]

Even if the only reason someone gets an abortion is because it's an inconvenience, why try to shame them?

Because I think human life is among the most extraordinary phenomena in the universe. That's why. And to end it's potential because it's inconvenient is shameful.

 

What do you want? You want your cake and eat it too? I think that abortion should remain legal. But I will not celebrate or condone an abortion of convenience.