Atheist And Abortion?

[HuaiDan]

Have you ever considered applying your "logic" to born children? They too are utterly dependent. If they're unwanted, will you deem them "parasites" as well? Don't be crass.

Interesting point but I can see an answer. One hour after it's born, it is a 'person' and cannot be killed. But I still fail to see how the same baby is a parasite one hour before it's born. The nature of the 'parasite' hasn't changed, just it's location.

 

Try this question - What is the status of the baby after is has left the womb but is still connected by the umbilical cord? By his definition, it's still feeding off the 'host' but its been born and is therefore a person.

 

Here's another interesting concept...

The nature of a wanted pregnancy is definitely not parasitic, because the benefit being received is that child itself. Even though the child physically changes a mother sometimes even to the point of long-term harm, if the mother wants to have the child, she can.

What to we call the unborn thing if the mother isn't sure if she wants to have it? Is it in some kind of limbo until the mother decides?

 

 

That's a really thought provoking closing statement. What defines a parasite, and what defines a mutually beneficial symbiosis? For the course of human existence, tapeworms have been considered vastly undesirable parasites. Until recently, when evidence has surfaced that tapeworms may provide the carrier with some immunity to malaria. Brilliant evolution, IMO, if evolution can be brilliant. A parasite that kills the host is not a very viable parasite, so the evolutionary tendency is for parasites (of a different species of course) to become less and less malicious and more and more helpful over time. In this case, the tapeworm incurs some benefit by keeping its host alive where malaria is rampant.

 

So, is a tapeworms relationship to humans parasitic, or beneficial?

 

 

I think the mother's feelings about the pregnancy are hence irrelevant about designating a pregnancy as parasitic or not. A pregnancy certainly does have some parasitic aspects about it which the mother may or may not find undesirable. This alone should guarantee the mother's right to terminate the pregnancy if she wishes.

The sticky wicket, IMO, is how late?

I think 1st trimester is a good call. Personally, I think either brain wave activity or being able to survive outside the mother , umbilical severed, with no special medical hi-tech to support its everyday biological function, should be the deadline date. But better to err on the side of caution.

[jenna]

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.

Ok, I seem to remember not wanting to piss you off. However, calling me absurd (or my thoughts) strikes a nerve. Whether or not a baby is a lump of cells, as you say, it still is alive at conception. Your use of the argument of a miscarriage doesn't work for me. That isn't the same as an abortion, nor is birth control. Birth control prevents pregnancy from starting, as you say. That is correct. It doesn't forcibly end life by ripping a living fetus to pieces. And the masturbation example doesn't work either. It takes both egg and sperm to unite before life begins. and how on earth you can use a non-living thing such as sand for an example is beyond me. Also, one other point: you claim aborting a baby at any point in the pregnancy cannot be called murder. I honestly can't see how you can say this. Many ultrasounds show that a baby's heart beats, it sucks it's thumb sometimes, it has recordable brain waves, and to feel a baby move and kick inside you is a wonderful feeling. Babies are alive before they are born, and it is their body, not the mother's, that is ripped apart because of a simple "choice".

[Neon Genesis]

If abortion should be classified as murder and be made illegal, how should we go about punishing the mothers who have abortions? I seriously want to know. If we're going to classify abortion as murder and make it illegal, then this is something important to think about before going through with classifying it as murder and something I've noticed most pro-lifers have yet to address.

[HuaiDan]

Whether or not a baby is a lump of cells, as you say, it still is alive at conception.

 

 

So is a lump of phlegm or a cancer.

 

 

Many ultrasounds show that a baby's heart beats, it sucks it's thumb sometimes, it has recordable brain waves, and to feel a baby move and kick inside you is a wonderful feeling. Babies are alive before they are born, and it is their body, not the mother's, that is ripped apart because of a simple "choice".

At the 8th month, sure. I think most will agree that's too late for an abortion. But in the first trimester? That's a stretch.

 

So what's your solution? Legislation?

[upstarter]

Wow this thread went crazy when I wasn't looking! I have nothing to add to the "heaping shame" conversation. But as a woman who has had two full term pregnancies I can tell you that being pregnant is very much like a parasitic relationship. I was not a glowing, happy pregnant woman. I love my children and being pregnant was fascinating, to say the least. But it did, much of the time, feel like I was growing a parasite. I do love to hug and kiss those parasites now though.

 

Heather

[Ouroboros]

I'm a woman who learnèd that despite using birtg control I was 5 months pregnant. Actually my first clue was a weird kicking sensation in my middle. Lol. As my name suggests I'm now a mom. However, since nearly dying multiple times during pregnancy, having a 98 hour labor and struggling to provide for my family financially I've become prochoice, before leaving xtianity even.

 

Don't like abortion? Don't have one.

Welcome BiMamaFminAtheist (BMFA?)

 

98 HOURS!!! DAAAAAMN!!! You're a tough lady! My wife didn't have any labor longer than 24 hours, and that was a journey to hell and back.

[Kuroikaze]

Ok, I seem to remember not wanting to piss you off.

 

It actually takes quite bit to piss me off, so don't worry.

 

However, calling me absurd (or my thoughts) strikes a nerve.

 

It is a natural part of debate that both sides think the other is wrong. There would not be a debate otherwise.

 

Whether or not a baby is a lump of cells, as you say, it still is alive at conception.

 

This a poorly supported claim. First you need to properly define what you mean by "alive."

 

Your use of the argument of a miscarriage doesn't work for me. That isn't the same as an abortion, nor is birth control. Birth control prevents pregnancy from starting, as you say. That is correct. It doesn't forcibly end life by ripping a living fetus to pieces. And the masturbation example doesn't work either. It takes both egg and sperm to unite before life begins.

 

Ok, you have drawn the line at conception for yourself, this much is clear. However the line you have drawn is arbitrary, if you can't see that I'm sorry. Again, you need to properly define "life."

 

and how on earth you can use a non-living thing such as sand for an example is beyond me.

 

Don't get so uptight, its a philosophical analogy, I wasn't suggesting they were the same thing.

 

Also, one other point: you claim aborting a baby at any point in the pregnancy cannot be called murder. I honestly can't see how you can say this.

 

Ok, looking back what I wrote could have been misunderstood easily. I wasn't suggesting that an aborting at any time during the pregnancy should be allowed, if you look at some of my earlier posts in this thread you will see this is not my position. I was suggesting that there is no rational reason to say that abortion is wrong starting at conception.

 

I am not suggesting people have an abortion, as it a potentially dangerous medical procedure. However, suggesting that anyone who had a abortion, even during the first trimester has committed murder is both irresponsible and judgmental.

 

Many ultrasounds show that a baby's heart beats, it sucks it's thumb sometimes, it has recordable brain waves, and to feel a baby move and kick inside you is a wonderful feeling. Babies are alive before they are born, and it is their body, not the mother's, that is ripped apart because of a simple "choice".

 

None of this stuff you mention happens until late in the 2nd semester of pregnancy. I'm not suggesting they babies do not become a viable life form before birth. I am suggesting, if you paid attention to my sand analogy, that the point which this happens cannot be pinpointed exactly. This is life, it is messy and does not always fit inside neatly defined categories. Unfortunately the legal system must, by its very nature, draw a line in a very specific place. It draws that line a child birth, I realize that drawing the line there is arbitrary, but drawing it earlier would result in legal difficulties, as well as potential medial issues.

 

It is worth noting that about 99% of all abortions happen in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. This is before the fetus had even developed a nervous system, thus it is incapable of feeling pain, or even conscience thought.

[Asimov]

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...

As I said, I had been drinking and didn't feel like it at the time. But it's another day now and I took your suggestion...

 

And, yep. You're wrong. Many laws do state that a fetus is a "person"

 

Some examples:

Alabama: Legislation taking effect July 1, 2006 (HB 19) amended Section 13A-6-1 of the Code of Alabama to include "an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability" as a "person" and "human being" for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.

Alaska Statutes 11.81.900 defines "unborn child" as "a member of species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Kentucky: The law covers an "unborn child," defined as "a member of the species homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health, or condition of dependency."

 

Being a member of species homo sapiens doesn't give it personhood. Being born gives a human personhood, with rights and responsibilities therein.

 

The state legislation is regarding treating a fetus as a person for the purposes of criminal action against a fetus. That does not grant a fetus rights, it only treats the case as if it were a human being.

 

If a fetus was actually considered a person, abortion would be illegal and considered murder. Since it is not murder by US law, the fetus is not a person.

[Asimov]

Oh jeez. Is that where you're getting you're strange ideas? I submit that that definition is not referring to a fetus. It is referring to a lazy bum. I've a personal example of this definition. I have a 46 year old uncle who is still living with is 80 year old mother. He rarely works and he often steals money from her bank account. He is a "parasite" to her. The usage of that term is not literal. It is a figurative usage. Unless you think that a fetus can be a parasite to multiple people (note the use of 'or others' in the definition.

 

I know it's figurative usage.

 

You need to focus on the third definition. As has already been explained earlier, a parasite is something of another species from the host. Also please note the use of "Biol". This definition is focused on the 'Biol'ogical use of the term.

Biol. a plant or animal that lives on or in an organism of another species from which it derives sustenance or protection without benefit to, and usually with harmful effects on, the host

 

I know it's not a biological parasite.

[Asimov]

Here it is: Since we value life, childbearing, family, parenting, we thus value life within the womb, be it unwanted or wanted.

 

Speak for yourself, please. Don't make blanket statements of your own values and project them onto other people.

 

Your 'parasite' comment, however much a 'throwaway' statement, attempts to subvert that value.

 

No it doesn't, value is agent relative.

 

Have you ever considered applying your "logic" to born children? They too are utterly dependent. If they're unwanted, will you deem them "parasites" as well? Don't be crass.

 

Any human can be considered a parasite. But it's not even relevant to the concept of abortion. You and Outback are jumping at red herrings instead of focusing on any actual issues.

[dance]

What to we call the unborn thing if the mother isn't sure if she wants to have it? Is it in some kind of limbo until the mother decides?

 

A $100 bill is worth $100 in spite of my attitude towards it. The same goes for life in the womb.

 

 

Certain people are hanging on to the states birth=person decision as if it should count as something incredible. This is ridiculous. As I've already said, there is a story here that goes above and beyond the point at which one is attributed rights.

[Kuroikaze]

A $100 bill is worth $100 in spite of my attitude towards it. The same goes for life in the womb.

 

Is it worth $100 before any the ink has been laid down? What about before the paper is even made? Is the analogy really helpful?

 

Certain people are hanging on to the states birth=person decision as if it should count as something incredible. This is ridiculous. As I\'ve already said, there is a story here that goes above and beyond the point at which one is attributed rights.

 

Of course there is, but being pro choice is not the same as making the claim that having an abortion is always alright in any circumstance, for any reason, at any point during the pregnancy. The only claim being made is that the government should should leave the choice up to the individual. The reason for this being that the issue is too complex, and has too many sides to it, to pass some blanket legislation that will deal with the issue in a satisfactory manor. Also, passing such legislation requires the government to take a stand (and in effect decide for everyone) on philosophical questions that are fuzzy and have no clear answer. Like, what exactly is "life?" At what point can it be said that life begins (or ends for that matter)? How do we make a moral choice when all of our current options have potently unfavorable consequences?

 

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying "YAY, abortion, its totally rad. Every women should have one" We are just saying that sometimes difficult choices must be made, and while none of the options may be highly desirable, the government shouldn't be shutting out our options unless absolutely necessary. If they do, then they will just make a hard situation even harder. That\'s what I think anyway.

[Jubilant]

Pecker, there are pro-life atheist organizations on the web. Here is a link to an interview done with "The Raving Atheist" http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100503.html

 

I think most abortions are done because people had sex irresponsibly...though I KNOW condoms break, vasectomies don't always work, and nothing protects 100%, I suppose people should think about that when they have sex but they don't. I remain pro-choice even though I could personally never have an abortion. There are literally millions of children, despite people who want to adopt, who remain unadopted. And, there are millions of homeless children all over the world, etc....all which point to just how unintelligent humans can be. IMnotsoHO.

 

As far as babies being "parasites"....whatever. It's a "chosen" parasite then as it didn't get there of it's own volition (aside from rape or incest)...it took the action of sex to create the "unwanted" parasite.

[gradstu09]

Well this has gone downhill fast. The pro-life "arguments" are the same woo-infused crap I always see.

 

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying "YAY, abortion, its totally rad.

 

I was going to state ABORTION = EPIC WIN, but I didn't think the hyperbole would be appreciated.

 

I KNOW condoms break, vasectomies don't always work, and nothing protects 100%, I suppose people should think about that when they have sex but they don't.

 

You have just said that no one should ever have sex unless they are prepared to have children. Congratulations, the Pope would approve.

[Jubilant]

You have just said that no one should ever have sex unless they are prepared to have children. Congratulations, the Pope would approve.

 

Please, don't put words in my mouth, I never said such a thing. All I said is there are a millions of UNWANTED children all over the world, I think it shows irresponsibility on the part of humans...what the hell else would you call beings capable of making decisions, beings that know it costs money (food, shelter, whatever) to raise children, beings who know that sex is how babies are made, yet are having unprotected sex (which is what I think, of course I should find studies but don't feel like searching at this moment, is the cause of most unwanted pregnancies)?

 

 

Edit: My apologies gardstu09, this was my bad for not making it clear that it is for reasons of incest and rape and because protection doesn't always work, that I'm pro-choice...which I doubt the Pope would approve of. Also, after re-reading the post I can see where you came to your conclusions. I'm a bit scatter-brained this morning, worried about the health of my 14yo son, and didn't word the post in a coherent manner.

[jenna]

Ok, I seem to remember not wanting to piss you off.

 

It actually takes quite bit to piss me off, so don't worry.

 

However, calling me absurd (or my thoughts) strikes a nerve.

 

It is a natural part of debate that both sides think the other is wrong. There would not be a debate otherwise.

 

Whether or not a baby is a lump of cells, as you say, it still is alive at conception.

 

This a poorly supported claim. First you need to properly define what you mean by "alive."

 

Your use of the argument of a miscarriage doesn't work for me. That isn't the same as an abortion, nor is birth control. Birth control prevents pregnancy from starting, as you say. That is correct. It doesn't forcibly end life by ripping a living fetus to pieces. And the masturbation example doesn't work either. It takes both egg and sperm to unite before life begins.

 

Ok, you have drawn the line at conception for yourself, this much is clear. However the line you have drawn is arbitrary, if you can't see that I'm sorry. Again, you need to properly define "life."

 

and how on earth you can use a non-living thing such as sand for an example is beyond me.

 

Don't get so uptight, its a philosophical analogy, I wasn't suggesting they were the same thing.

 

Also, one other point: you claim aborting a baby at any point in the pregnancy cannot be called murder. I honestly can't see how you can say this.

 

Ok, looking back what I wrote could have been misunderstood easily. I wasn't suggesting that an aborting at any time during the pregnancy should be allowed, if you look at some of my earlier posts in this thread you will see this is not my position. I was suggesting that there is no rational reason to say that abortion is wrong starting at conception.

 

I am not suggesting people have an abortion, as it a potentially dangerous medical procedure. However, suggesting that anyone who had a abortion, even during the first trimester has committed murder is both irresponsible and judgmental.

 

Many ultrasounds show that a baby's heart beats, it sucks it's thumb sometimes, it has recordable brain waves, and to feel a baby move and kick inside you is a wonderful feeling. Babies are alive before they are born, and it is their body, not the mother's, that is ripped apart because of a simple "choice".

 

None of this stuff you mention happens until late in the 2nd semester of pregnancy. I'm not suggesting they babies do not become a viable life form before birth. I am suggesting, if you paid attention to my sand analogy, that the point which this happens cannot be pinpointed exactly. This is life, it is messy and does not always fit inside neatly defined categories. Unfortunately the legal system must, by its very nature, draw a line in a very specific place. It draws that line a child birth, I realize that drawing the line there is arbitrary, but drawing it earlier would result in legal difficulties, as well as potential medial issues.

 

It is worth noting that about 99% of all abortions happen in the first 16 weeks of pregnancy. This is before the fetus had even developed a nervous system, thus it is incapable of feeling pain, or even conscience thought.

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.

[gradstu09]

Cite?

[Dianka]

How is a developing fetus anymore 'alive' than sperm or ova?

 

 

Life

 

Main Entry:

1life Listen to the pronunciation of 1life

Pronunciation:

\ˈlīf\

Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural lives Listen to the pronunciation of lives \ˈlīvz\

Etymology:

Middle English lif, from Old English līf; akin to Old English libban to live — more at live

Date:

before 12th century

 

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>3: biography 14: spiritual existence transcending physical death5 a: the period from birth to death b: a specific phase of earthly existence <adult life> c: the period from an event until death <a judge appointed for life> d: a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life6: a way or manner of living7: livelihood8: a vital or living being; specifically : person <many lives were lost in the disaster>9: an animating and shaping force or principle10: spirit, animation <saw no life in her dancing>11: the form or pattern of something existing in reality <painted from life>12: the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something <the expected life of the batteries>13: the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) — compare half-life14: a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being15: living beings (as of a particular kind or environment) <forest life>16 a: human activities b: animate activity and movement <stirrings of life> c: the activities of a given sphere, area, or time <the political life of the country>17: one providing interest and vigor <life of the party>18: an opportunity for continued viability <gave the patient a new life>19capitalized Christian Science : god 1b20: something resembling animate life <a grant saved the project's life>

 

 

Alive

 

Main Entry:

alive Listen to the pronunciation of alive

Pronunciation:

\ə-ˈlīv\

Function:

adjective

Etymology:

Middle English, from Old English on life, from on + līf life

Date:

before 12th century

 

1: having life : not dead or inanimate2 a: still in existence, force, or operation : active <kept hope alive> b: still active in competition with a chance of victory <must win to stay alive in the playoffs>3: knowing or realizing the existence of : sensitive <alive to the danger>4: marked by alertness, energy, or briskness <his face came alive at the mention of food>5: marked by much life, animation, or activity : swarming <streets alive with traffic>6—used as an intensive following the noun <the proudest boy alive>

 

 

*edit: we're not getting much of a definition about what's alive here, so we're going to have to go with another source.

[Kuroikaze]

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.

 

I'm no expert, but this does contradict some of what I've read. Do you have any sources to back up these claims, because I'm somewhat doubtful, considering you pull these facts out so late in the game, but if you have a source for this information I could read, then I would be happy to review it and change my thoughts on that if needed.

 

Also, as I said earlier, the legal definition of life is somewhat fuzzy. For instance, many people are kept "alive" by machines in hospitals even when the brain has ceased to function. My whole point in getting you to try to define "life" was to show you that it really isn't possible to give a catch all definition for the word.

 

I'm sorry that you feel the right to judge every person who has an abortion as a murderer no matter what the circumstances. I'm not saying that abortion is good, I am saying that people who have an abortion are usually caught in the middle of lots of options which are all undesirable so they pick the option seems best to them. By saying they are wrong, you fail to realize that issues surrounding child birth are more complicated than simply saying "it's murder" or "it's not"

There are really only a few options to a women besides having an abortion.

 

Carry the child and give it up for adoption. She must give up 9 months of her life, pregnancy takes a toll on physical health long after the baby is born, I see no reason to believe in life after death so that is a year or so of ones life, which will be put on hold for much of that time. Then the child will go into the system for adoption, if a parent wasn't already found which is unlikely. The system is already overloaded, many children get abused by either foster parents or other children. If you know anything about the system it isn't pretty. This system also costs a lot of money. If you think our economy is bad now, what do you think it would be like with another million children in the foster care system?

 

She can have, AND raise the child. Many people get abortions because they do not have the money to raise another child. These children grow up in poverty, if the mother is still in high school her chance of dropping out sky rockets, and almost none go to college or any kind of trade school, which means both mother and child will live in poverty. Also costing tax money to support her and the child. If the father even sticks around these situations are ripe for abuse for both the mother and child. If he doesn't then she is stuck raising a child alone. She will need to work, so the child will often be left alone, or with people that may not be trustworthy. Moreover, statistically, people raised in this environment are more likely to get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant) as teens as well, causing the cycle to repeat. This is even more certain thanks to the religious right continually blockading good sex-ed in schools.

 

I know it is nice to live in some ivory tower where there is some perfect moral choice in every situation that will solve everything and make everyone happy. However, we don't live in that world, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

[dance]

Is it worth $100 before any the ink has been laid down? What about before the paper is even made? Is the analogy really helpful?

Well, I think its helpful as long as it isn't irresponsibly over extended...like you just did... :/ The point is that there is value apart from one's attitude. It helps highlight the arbitrary effect of a mother's attitude toward her child has on the worth -- or description -- of that child. Am I making sense to you?

 

Certain people are hanging on to the states birth=person decision as if it should count as something incredible. This is ridiculous. As I\'ve already said, there is a story here that goes above and beyond the point at which one is attributed rights.

 

Of course there is, but being pro choice is not the same as making the claim that having an abortion is always alright in any circumstance, for any reason, at any point during the pregnancy. The only claim being made is that the government should should leave the choice up to the individual. The reason for this being that the issue is too complex, and has too many sides to it, to pass some blanket legislation that will deal with the issue in a satisfactory manor. Also, passing such legislation requires the government to take a stand (and in effect decide for everyone) on philosophical questions that are fuzzy and have no clear answer. Like, what exactly is "life?" At what point can it be said that life begins (or ends for that matter)? How do we make a moral choice when all of our current options have potently unfavorable consequences?

 

There are inevitably two different conversations going on here: the politics of abortion and the ethics of abortion. I've only been arguing about the ethics of abortion, because legislative issues are currently out of my depth. All I'm saying is that, when attempting to make sense of abortion, its ludicrous to say 'its (morally) ok because the government says a fetus aint a person'. Gun to my head, I would say that I'm a mix of pro-life/pro-choice, and that I would switch to pro-choice when the number of abortions drops way down. (Like it currently is...)

 

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying "YAY, abortion, its totally rad. Every women should have one" We are just saying that sometimes difficult choices must be made, and while none of the options may be highly desirable, the government shouldn't be shutting out our options unless absolutely necessary. If they do, then they will just make a hard situation even harder. That\'s what I think anyway.

 

Well, yeah, I agree with that.

[white_raven23]

My view is not going to be popular. I know that.

 

The argument over whether or not something is alive or not, I find utterly irrelevant. Ticks and leeches are alive...doesn't mean I want to share my life fluids with them.

 

A baby in-utero is a parasite. Period. The host and ONLY the host has the final say as to whether they want to share their bodily resources with their parasite. All rights regarding that decision begin and end at the epidermis of the host's body.

 

Would you really want to MAKE (by law) someone raise a kid who really did not want to? Sure your sense of moral superiority has been justified and well-stroked ...but who really loses out in the end? The kid. The one you MADE someone else raise. You want to impress me with your sense of morality? Put your values where your mouth is and offer to adopt some unwanted kids.

[dance]

Here it is: Since we value life, childbearing, family, parenting, we thus value life within the womb, be it unwanted or wanted.

 

Speak for yourself, please. Don't make blanket statements of your own values and project them onto other people.

 

My own values, eh? These aren't just my own. Are you seriously prepared to claim that most humans don't value childbearing, family, parenting, and life?

 

Your 'parasite' comment, however much a 'throwaway' statement, attempts to subvert that value.

 

No it doesn't, value is agent relative.

 

Everything is agent relative. That doesn't mean your comment doesn't attempt to subvert this nearly universal human value.

 

Have you ever considered applying your "logic" to born children? They too are utterly dependent. If they're unwanted, will you deem them "parasites" as well? Don't be crass.

 

Any human can be considered a parasite. But it's not even relevant to the concept of abortion. You and Outback are jumping at red herrings instead of focusing on any actual issues.

 

On the contrary, I think that its essential to the concept of abortion. The issue at stake here is how the unborn ought to be described, how they ought to be regarded. We do ourselves harm by attempting to reduce what they are to things that don't matter. That's what I'm saying, and if you're too stubborn to concede the point, I'll gladly take this 'red herring' to the arena with you. :]

[gradstu09]

My view is not going to be popular. I know that.

 

The argument over whether or not something is alive or not, I find utterly irrelevant. Ticks and leeches are alive...doesn't mean I want to share my life fluids with them.

 

A baby in-utero is a parasite. Period. The host and ONLY the host has the final say as to whether they want to share their bodily resources with their parasite. All rights regarding that decision begin and end at the epidermis of the host's body.

 

Would you really want to MAKE (by law) someone raise a kid who really did not want to? Sure your sense of moral superiority has been justified and well-stroked ...but who really loses out in the end? The kid. The one you MADE someone else raise. You want to impress me with your sense of morality? Put your values where your mouth is and offer to adopt some unwanted kids.

 

WR,

While not the, ahem, kindest way I have ever heard it put, your position is the standard feminist one: my body, my choice. Which is frankly, when you boil it down, the only position one needs. All the supposed fetus-worship disappears when you turn the talk to already born children. Where are the pro-lifers then? Hmm? Where's the support for job training, and family friendly workplaces and childcare assistance? Where are the foster families and the adoptive parents for the children their policies would produce? They don't give a damn as soon as it's out of the vaginal canal.

 

If it's not about the children, then a priori it must be about the women. Specifically, about controlling them.

[Lanakila]

When I deconverted I too had to revise my position in regards to abortion. I'm not sure why because it really doesn't affect me, but it's just one of those things that you have to choose a side on. I went from being pro-life except for cases where giving birth would kill the mother or child or both, to being pro-choice for other folks. I have 4 kids and although they weren't technically planned they were all wanted from the moment I found out I was pregnant. I'll never tell my youngest this but I was scheduled for a tubal ligation and my ex begged me not to get it done and then a few years later he talked me into her. Now she is the sweetest little girl anyone could ever dream of having and I can't imagine the world without her.

 

I did get a tubal ligation and cannot have anymore children. Whether you call that responsible or irresponsible matters not to me. I've contributed enough to the gene pool thank you very much. I think I have a similar idea to what Hans mentioned earlier in this thread. First trimester abortion is a rational choice for some women, second trimester or once viable should be for medical reasons. By viable I mean the child could possibly live outside the womb. I know medical science keeps teeny tiny preemies alive that once would never have made it, and I'm not really talking about them. I'm talking about a child that can live with care outside of the womb. Btw, a child once born is just as much of a parasite as prior to birth, and maybe even moreso. I remember having a baby on the boob and 2 toddlers running around demanding my care and attention. Raising kids is a lot of work and it's not for everyone.

[gradstu09]

Well, I think its helpful as long as it isn't irresponsibly over extended...like you just did... :/ The point is that there is value apart from one's attitude. It helps highlight the arbitrary effect of a mother's attitude toward her child has on the worth -- or description -- of that child. Am I making sense to you?

 

Irresponsibly overextended--I think not. When does a $100 bill become worth $100? At the moment the printing process is finished and paper and ink become a $100 bill. You can steal thousands and thousands of unfinished $100 bills, but they won't be worth millions of dollars no matter your "attitude". In fact I suspect the Treasury would have a good belly laugh at your expense before they threw the cuffs on you for interfering with the currency-making process. Much like I am having a good belly laugh right now at your moral absolutism wrapped up in the typical "all about the baybees" spiel.