Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Atheist And Abortion?


Pecker

Recommended Posts

Gradstu I like you man, but give me a fuckin break over here. What would you have me say to Susanetal? Hmm? She was raped and was impregnated. I think an abortion was the just and right thing to do. And I said so. What’s wrong with that?

 

Dude, I like you too, but on this thread you're making me :banghead:

 

What's wrong with what you said to Susanetal was that you're setting yourself up as the arbiter of abortion deservance. She deserves an abortion(reward), so no shaming for her, but that other woman deserves to be pregnant(punishment), so shame shame if she doesn't stay pregnant.

 

What you're doing is called slut shaming and it's problematic for exactly the reasons gwenmead articulated--you can't possibly make that sort of judgement with any kind of accuracy, so you end up shaming everyone, including people like Susanetal and then having to backtrack and make an exception (it's okay, I didn't mean you, you're obviously not a slut). But why should anyone have to admit to being raped, which has got to be fucking horrific (some large percentage of rapes go unreported b/c the victims are too traumatized to even go to the police) to a total stranger, in order to earn a "get an abortion shame-free" card? It's simply not any of my or your business how someone came to be pregnant, and IIRC, the reason Susanetal left this thread is b/c she felt judged. Shaming women who get abortions hurts real people, real people who owe you no explanation of the innermost details of their lives, even if it would correct your assumptions and get a token pass from you. That's what I see wrong with it. You're making a judgement that you can't possibly make without making a blanket assumption, and it hurts people.

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

As for the idea of conception being special? It isn't. The specialness is an invention of egotistical society.

 

I have to agree with Legion one thing--human life is pretty special. But it's pretty special as a whole, you know, as a self-aware and tough and smart species. Reproduction, on the other hand, is nothing special. Every living thing replicates itself. Just b/c being human is special doesn't make our reproductive process any specialer.* You want to see a special kind of reproduction, look at viruses. For decades they weren't considered to be truly alive b/c how they replicate themselves is so fucking wierd.

 

*I think people realize this and are uncomfortable with it. B/c sex is one of the things that reminds us our of animal nature, we try to make sex and the products of it something special, as though by making it special enough, we can forget that the dog does it doggy-style too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole debate is being distracted by red herrings, aka political issues, bombastic language (parisites), etc...

 

 

And that is just what I don't understand really. Why is pointing out that reproduction is a parasitical interaction "bombastic" language?

 

That's what it is. A fetus lives off it's mother's blood supply. That is a parasite.

 

People liking babies and disliking leeches doesn't change the similarity of the relationships they have with their hosts.

 

As for the idea of conception being special? It isn't. The specialness is an invention of egotistical society.

 

WR, I agree with you. I am merely pointing out that the word parasite carries with it imagry that is causing those on the other side of the debate to go off on tangents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to go take care of some business guys. I have a yard to mow. But I have enjoyed this heated exchange. I think you guys are a ferocious bunch. Maybe eventually I’ll even be convinced.

 

Abortion: legal and celebrated

 

Yeah, right.

 

And Vigile, please don't try and tell me that you exercise no judgment on the decisions of others. As an elitist I would think you are steeped in the judgment of others.

 

Again, resorting to emotional positions rather than just addressing the facts. And would that be an ad hom? Yeah, and not even thinly veiled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't possibly make that sort of judgement with any kind of accuracy, so you end up shaming everyone

 

Even if he could be accurate, what's wrong with being a slut? It's a personal choice that no one deserves to be shamed over. The entire position wreaks of religious fervor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can't possibly make that sort of judgement with any kind of accuracy, so you end up shaming everyone

 

Even if he could be accurate, what's wrong with being a slut? It's a personal choice that no one deserves to be shamed over. The entire position wreaks of religious fervor.

 

I agree with you but was going to save "Why there is nothing wrong with being a slut if you want to be" for another thread, since the assumption in this one has consistently been that an unintended pregnancy happens when a woman does something wrong, despite at least 2(3?) personal narratives on this thread that refute this assumption (and that have been either ignored or tokenized as acceptable exceptions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion: legal and celebrated

 

I'm sure you're more thoughtful and intelligent than to imagine that the only two options are "legal and stigmatized" vs. "legal and celebrated."

 

I do agree, Vigile, with the whole problem about the word "parasite." I actually don't think it's that good a term, for the very reasons you mentioned, but at the moment I can't think of a better one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say the real debate is about potential for sentience. And, I've yet to see anyone answer what is the difference between stiffling potential sentience via birth control and stiffling potential sentience post conception?

I think that's because no one is arguing for that point here. One person did say that but I got the impression she didn't mean it in the fundy sense. I got the feeling that she was saying about the same thing that I think. Once you have conception, you will eventually get a human being assuming everything goes well.

 

Conception --> 9 months of good luck --> birth. Birth = person for sure.

 

The problem with this whole silly debate is where we start calling it a person. I don't see any difference between a baby 1 hour after birth or 1 hour before. Others don't. The use of 'parasite' is quite a de-railer. But apparently a lot of people really think that way and I suppose that's why they're so willing to kill an unborn child (IMO). (I'll try to ignore it in the future :))

 

***A point I'd like to make here*** I don't think anyone here (at least not me,and I'm fairly agiant abortion) is against abortion early in term for any reason. I've no problem with that. I'm purely against later term abortions. (My goalpost on that is not fixed. I really don't know when a fetus becomes a human who I think should have the right to life. But I'm enjoying hearing other's viewpoints.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any why the fuck would anyone want to legally force "irresponsible" women to raise babies? Why do you want irresponsible people having children?

[Chuckling to myself] At first I was going to rip into this statement, but then I thought about it. You might have a point.

 

Much of my dislike of abortion is based on those horny dumbfucks (of both sexes) who are getting hot and heavy, don't care that they don't have any BC, and screw anyway in the hopes that they can beat the odds. A couple of months later, the girl finds she's knocked up and gets an abortion. I don't know how many people do this but I'd bet it's a lot. Getting these kinds of idiots out of the gene pool might just be a good idea.

 

There are many ligit reasons for abortion, several personal stories have been told here. I have NO problem with their abortions. But it just might be a good idea to let the dumbfucks with no self control not breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's because no one is arguing for that point here.

 

They may not be, but that's ultimately what it comes down to is it not?

 

Once you have conception, you will eventually get a human being assuming everything goes well.

 

Yes, but the potential is still there when you have a fertile egg and a few healthy sperm. Stopping them from greeting one another is stopping the potential for life. Conception is at most a random event where one or two or three sperm get lucky enough to make their way through the wall of the egg forming a zygote and then a mass of cells that will one day potentially become sentient.

 

Putting up a road block on the way toward sentience before conception or 3 months after conception doesn't seem that different to me. The only difference I can see here is that the probabilities that a sentient being could finally emerge are much higher following conception. I don't see why it's more moral to limit probabilities when they are low than it is to limit probabilities when they are high.

 

I don't see any difference between a baby 1 hour after birth or 1 hour before.

 

No one is talking about babies that are 1 day from being born. What we are talking about are groupings of cells that could, if unimpeded, become a baby. I think it's fairly obvious to everyone here that a baby in its third trimester, and probably much eariler is indeed a human being. 1st trimester, not so much; certainly at this stage they are not self aware, which is the kicker for me even if others don't find way to agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of my dislike of abortion is based on those horny dumbfucks (of both sexes) who are getting hot and heavy, don't care that they don't have any BC, and screw anyway in the hopes that they can beat the odds. A couple of months later, the girl finds she's knocked up and gets an abortion. I don't know how many people do this but I'd bet it's a lot. Getting these kinds of idiots out of the gene pool might just be a good idea.

 

Well, if justice for stupid behavior is important to you, nature and medical processes met out there own justice. I doubt abortion is a lot of fun and it has risks of its own. My wife had an abortion due to complications with a pregnancy and as a result can no longer have children. The risk is always there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of my dislike of abortion is based on those horny dumbfucks (of both sexes) who are getting hot and heavy, don't care that they don't have any BC, and screw anyway in the hopes that they can beat the odds. A couple of months later, the girl finds she's knocked up and gets an abortion. I don't know how many people do this but I'd bet it's a lot. Getting these kinds of idiots out of the gene pool might just be a good idea.

 

Assuming irresponsible sexual behavior is genetic.

 

Let's say we had the perfect abortion method: Safe, 100% effective, convenient, cheap, and readily available. RU486 is pretty damn close, but its failures can be pretty damn scary (ru486 is terterogenic).

But let's just assume that such a product is within the foreseaable future. Then why couldn't having an abortion after sex be like wiping your ass after taking a shit?

 

I mean, if we take away ther risk, inconvenience, and expense and boil it down to what makes abortion so repugnant to some, what do we have left?

 

I think it's just a sex hang-up. Some people are just bothered by the idea of others having sex for FUN. So it's legislated into oppression by some balding, hemorroidal impotent old men who don't want their grandaughters sleeping with the darkies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to deal in, and bow right back out.

 

Zygote:

zygote.jpg

Here's the quote that accompanies this pic. Wasn't planning to put it in, just happened to read it and thought it apt. From here

Note that "zygotic personhood" (the idea that a fertilized egg is a person) is a recent concept. For example, before 1869, the Catholic church believed that the embryo was not a person until it was 40 days old. (Aristotle agreed with this 40-day threshold.) Thus, the church did not believe a human had a soul until day 40. Pope Innocent III in 1211 determined that the time of ensoulment was anywhere from 12 to 16 weeks. This means that the Catholic church, for centuries, did not equate abortion with murder. (Pictured at left is a two day old human embryo at four cell stage of development, magnified 260 times.)

 

Blastocyst:

jj_blastocyst-703867.jpg

 

Early embryo:

sixcell_embryo.jpg

 

Late second trimester fetus:

05mos.jpg

 

Just a touch of perspective. Just a touch.

 

My opinion is that a lot more umbrage is taken than can be justified. Are you really that offended by someone who terminates a pregnancy for ANY reason in the first 3 weeks? Maybe someone is, but not everyone who says so-- not as much as they'd have themselves or anyone else believe.

 

I might check in later, but I'm not necessarily planning on adding anything to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may not be, but that's ultimately what it comes down to is it not?

I don't think so, unless you're surrounded by catholics. To the best of my knowledge, you're trying to argue a point that only they, and perhaps some serious fundies, use. Biology class was a long time ago for me, but IIRC a sperm or an egg are (kind of) half a cell :lonely: . Neither is worth a damn thing until they come into contact with each other. Once they get together, I'm willing to give them some hope that they'll become a baby. See post #36 for my personal opinions on that. But to argue against

here is barking up a nonexistent tree.

 

Yes, but the potential is still there when you have a fertile egg and a few healthy sperm. Stopping them from greeting one another is stopping the potential for life. Conception is at most a random event where one or two or three sperm get lucky enough to make their way through the wall of the egg forming a zygote and then a mass of cells that will one day potentially become sentient.

Not at all. Even catholics don't morn the ejection of an egg during menstruation (assuming its not fertilized. Mwhahaha! Wouldn't that fuck with their worldview?! I wonder if that actually happens?). Biologically it's half a cell (I think) :lonely: . See above. On the other hand, conception is when something DEFINITELY happens. I don't consider a blastocyst a baby. But I do think that you get a baby with it's own right to life somewhere between blastocyst and 9 months pregnant. I just don't know where, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.

 

No one is talking about babies that are 1 day from being born. What we are talking about are groupings of cells that could, if unimpeded, become a baby. I think it's fairly obvious to everyone here that a baby in its third trimester, and probably much eariler is indeed a human being. 1st trimester, not so much; certainly at this stage they are not self aware, which is the kicker for me even if others don't find way to agree with me.

I disagree. But I think that you've hit on a huge point of contention that's been happing here. Asimov's (and maybe a few others') definition of abortion applies up to a baby/fetus that has not has it's umbilical cord cut. Personally, that's where a lot of my opposition comes from and I don't think that is being recognized by anyone here. Apparently Legion and I are the main anti-abortion people here, but both of us have still stated our opinion that abortion is perfectly acceptable in MANY circumstances. But there still remains the fact that late term abortions happen. Partial birth abortions is a hugely political issue, so its hard to get solid facts, but from what I've heard its horrible any way you look at it.

 

P.S. GradStu. Your previous avatar was SO awesome. Consider changing it back? Pretty please! :17:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, you are right, we don't live in an ivory tower. And never once have I said I am judging others, I am simply giving my views on this. Views which I strongly believe in, the same as others have their beliefs, and believe strongly in them. I cannot quote sources on every item I have read, that would take too much space. I am no expert either, but I do know some of which I speak, the same as you and others here do. I read the posts, and read up on info about the developing fetus, which took some time. That is why I pulled facts out late. I figured it would be better to give facts instead of emotions. I will say this, however: I do agree that choices are difficult, and you and others are correct that one should not judge anyone, unless you have been in their shoes. At this point, I can't say I have been in this situation, so if I come across as being judgemental, then I apologize. That is not my intention. My position is that I am pro-life (obviously) to an extent. The only reason I feel abortion should be available would be in the cases where both mother and child would die if the child is carried to term. That is my belief, and I stand by it. I know others don't feel the same, which is fine by me. I am simply giving my view, that is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow, this all has turned into quite the shitstorm, since last I looked in...

 

Some thoughts:

 

How exactly can automatic bodily functions be considered to act in accordance with one's will? Last I checked, all the various things my body does naturally (make my heart beat, make my lungs work, digest my food, regulate my hormones, etc.) happen without any consultation of my will whatsoever. Since the womb is the realm under consideration in the abortion discussion: I cannot will my body to ovulate or cease ovulating, I cannot will my body to menstruate or cease menstruation, I cannot will my body to accept or reject a pregnancy. These things will happen independent of whether I want them to or not; my control over them is limited. They happen without my conscious, willful consent, because consent just doesn't enter into the equation when you're talking about the automatic functions of a human body.

 

This is part of the reason why I don't buy the idea that sexual activity equates to consent to pregnancy. It equates to consent for sex, and with sex, pregnancy might or might not happen, depending on a lot of circumstances (health of the partners, use of BC, etc.). The advent of safe, reliable BC - including abortion - adds will or choice into the equation. Women can now prevent pregnancy not only by abstaining, but also by using BC. We can consent to pregnancy by accepting it if it happens, or we can end a pregnancy to which we do not consent.

 

I agree with Asimov and others who have noted that the relationship between a fetus and the woman who carries it is a parasitical one, at least in the sense of having one organism feeding directly off of another. If the woman in question wants to be pregnant, this is great - amazing, even. If it isn't what the woman wants, it can be a nightmare, posing a threat to life, mental health, economic future, what have you. I am curious, incidentally, as to why the labels "inconvenience" and "abortion of convenience" have come up in this discussion. Something about such language seems minimizing to me, honestly. Stubbing one's toe is an "inconvenience." Pregnancy wreaks havoc on a woman's body, and might even kill her. How is that an "inconvenience", exactly?

 

At any rate, I must ask: we do not do things like hijack a person's body against their will and force them to donate blood to another, or hook them up and use them as involuntary organ support for someone else (say with forced organ donation, perhaps). In other words, we do not compel people to donate their bodily resources to another without their explicit consent. Why would pregnancy be any exception to this, in a circumstance in which the woman did not want to be pregnant?

 

Another question, which I asked earlier and have not seen answered: if abortion is indeed murder, should there be a penalty for it? Who should get the penalty and what should it be? If not, then why would you let murder go unpunished? How would you go about discovering and enforcing any penalties? Jenna, these questions are directed at you as the most clear anti-abortion individual in the thread, but I'm open to hearing from anyone who has thoughts on the issue. Seriously.

 

It would make the whole issue so easy if we really could boil it all down to the irresponsibility of women. It really would. But I will, as a reminder, post the link I posted earlier yet again, to the WebMD article on the actual reasons why women have abortions. I suppose I am foolishly optimistic that a dose of reality might be a useful injection into the more theoretical parts of this discussion.

 

I really don't understand how come I keep seeing this idea that abortion is something that irresponsible women do to avoid the "inconvenience" of pregnancy. Somebody tell me why that keeps coming up, because I honestly don't get it. Heck, even if there are irresponsible women out there, why does their lackadaisical behavior end up being taken as typical? Do people really think so poorly of women overall? Somebody educate me, please.

 

Thanks for your post about trying to get snipped, white_raven. I understand that liability can come into play with a lot of docs - they don't want to snip a gal who might later change her mind and then come back and sue them. But ultimately I think it has a lot more to do with social pressure, and the idea that women are supposed to become mothers. Nobody seems to know what to do with a woman who doesn't want to procreate. I hope you're able to get your tubes tied successfully without too much hassle.

 

Thanks for reading.

Hi Gwenmead. The reason I haven't gotten to your questions yet, ummm, I have no clear-cut answers. As you have said, I appear to be the only anti-abortion person here, and I am on a sinking ship. Do I think all abortion is wrong? Again, there are no clear-cut answers, everyone's situation is different. All scenarios are different, from the woman who has an abortion because she feels the child is "inconvienient", to the woman who has an abortion because she will die if she doesn't. From the woman who was raped, to the woman who's child will have birth defects. All these reasons are different, yet they all have the same outcome, but for different reasons. I am not here to change people's minds, nor the law. I am simply posting my thoughts, controversial though they might be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt abortion is a lot of fun and it has risks of its own. My wife had an abortion due to complications with a pregnancy and as a result can no longer have children. The risk is always there.

**Serious response** I'm sorry to hear about your loss. Not only about the loss of your child but about the loss of your potential to have any future children. This is truly tragic and I'm truly sorry.

 

*smart-ass response* I've been led to believe that abortion was perfectly safe. Something with no, or little, down side. (If the tragic consequences of your wife's abortion was not related to the abortion itself, I strongly apologize for making light of it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait wait.

 

I see now. I get it. Was starting to wonder why the parasite reference was pissing people off so damn much. You think I (and others) think this definition applies all the way up to a full term baby...so long as the umbilical is attached.

 

Not really. The umbilical is the critical component, yes. But obviously babies can be born prematurely and be self sufficient at 7 1/2 to 9 months. The self-sufficiency is the biggest issue for me, obviously younger preemies can survive outside the womb, but ONLY with extensive medical intervention (substitute wombs).

 

And of course any baby's self sufficiency is seriously limited....but I'm talking a mother can lay their kid on a regular (non-sterile) blanket in a living room of average cleanliness and average temperature for an hour nap and the child is not likely to expire during that time. Something you cannot do with a super young preemie that has to exist in an incubator and STILL might not make it.

 

I do believe there likely are circumstances where a late term abortion might be necessary, but I can't say I'd be too impressed to learn a woman had a late-term abortion solely because she could make up her mind for 9 months.

 

But then...there comes a problem when you start drawing lines saying: "This abortion is okay, but that abortion was wrong." As we know, the world is not made of clear Black and White, but often has varying shades of grey. Unfortunately, where the color grey is concerned, extremists and busybodies (particularly of a religious stripe) just go nut-balls. They cannot stand grey. They will force it to be White or Black one way or the other no matter who might get hurt in the process.

 

I might not "like" it, but I cannot deny someone has the right to a late-term abortion, as it opens the door for someone later trying to push the idea that a mid-term abortion is just as "bad".

 

It's like the smoking issue. They took smoking out of most workplaces. Great. Much later, they took smoking out of most restaurants. Great. Then they took smoking out of the bars. Well...good for me, not great overall maybe......now they are targeting people smoking in their own cars and homes because innocent children "might" be present. WHOA!!! STOP!! That's invasion of privacy!! Hello??? Can you hear me disagreeing? Nope. Ball is rolling. Harder to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see now. I get it. Was starting to wonder why the parasite reference was pissing people off so damn much. You think I (and others) think this definition applies all the way up to a full term baby...so long as the umbilical is attached.

 

Not really. The umbilical is the critical component, yes. But obviously babies can be born prematurely and be self sufficient at 7 1/2 to 9 months. The self-sufficiency is the biggest issue for me, obviously younger preemies can survive outside the womb, but ONLY with extensive medical intervention (substitute wombs).

Bolding mine. And that's not quite my interpretation. But its close in many respects.

 

Perhaps I'm out of line here, but I'm actively trying to play peacekeeper between the rabid abortionists and the (mostly) rabid anti-abortionists here. And you've hit upon a main topic of 'disconnect' here. ("Disconnect" being generally defined as when 2 parties can't agree or figure out a basic definition of what the hell they're talking about. [see some Spider Robinson books for a further definition]). IMO the pro-abortionist folks here see abortion as getting rid of a clump of a few hundred cells. The anti-abortionists see abortion as killing an unborn baby that has a head, brain, nervous system, and brain activity. We're having a whole shitstorm here because the 2 groups haven't defined their limits. The traditional limits are at

1)Conception and

2)Birth

 

I could be wrong, but I suspect that most of us at this website are somewhere in between. The problem, as always, is where do we draw the line?

 

IMO, most of the discussion here has been based on this misunderstanding. Asimov's definition includes any fetus until it's umbilical cord is cut (and I suspect he agrees. Please correct me if I'm wrong). Many other user's of the word seem to agree. Obviously there are several others who would not agree that this definition applies up until birth. And here is where we are falling into discord.

 

Oh boy. I've got more to say on this issue but I think I should go to bed now. I'm a bit knurd. G'night. ZZZZZZ!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait wait.

 

I see now. I get it.

Thank Gawd!!!!! Thank Jeesus!!!!! I'm finally getting thru to somenone! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, conception is when something DEFINITELY happens.

 

I thought I had already covered this when I noted that probabilities vastly increase upon conception. That something that definately happens is just a natural, and quite common biological reaction that is a form of life to be sure. Form of life is pretty vague and bland though wouldn't you say?

 

I just don't know where, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.

 

You aren't really stepping outside the bounds of where most supporters of choice also stand on this matter, Asimov aside.

 

For the record, I would hardly call myself a rabid supporter of abortion. It's not really a political or moral issue that I think about that much and certainly one that has never caused me any lost sleep. I entered this discussion mainly because it seemed to me that some who were arguing against abortion were arguing from emotion without really addressing the facts. I was simply just trying to dig at the facts; probably that's a nuerosis of mine. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well something that can survive on it's own (no incubators or other medical intervention) is no longer a parasite at that point. Even if it's technically still "attached". If the cord is cut...will it live without mechanical means? Then it's a bit late in the game to be aborting for non life-threatening reasons.

 

On a lighter note:

 

One of my pregnancy pet peeves: I never ask pregnant women how far along they are. Because I usually get this in response: "Oh I'm at 23 weeks."

 

Weeks? Weeks. Okay....it's 7 in the damn morning and I'm trying to divide by 4 pre-coffee to figure out....yes... about 5 months plus change. Ow...ow...ow...gimmie my coffee!!!

 

I understand the docs track pre-natal development by weeks...fine. But when talking to us mere unbreeding mortals, convert to months!!! I had ONE co-worker actually answer me in months, I was so shocked I hugged her...then explained. And she said: "Yeah that had always driven me nuts too, so I decided I wasn't going to do it to everyone who asked."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are right, we don't live in an ivory tower. And never once have I said I am judging others, I am simply giving my views on this. Views which I strongly believe in, the same as others have their beliefs, and believe strongly in them. I cannot quote sources on every item I have read, that would take too much space. I am no expert either, but I do know some of which I speak, the same as you and others here do. I read the posts, and read up on info about the developing fetus, which took some time. That is why I pulled facts out late. I figured it would be better to give facts instead of emotions. I will say this, however: I do agree that choices are difficult, and you and others are correct that one should not judge anyone, unless you have been in their shoes. At this point, I can't say I have been in this situation, so if I come across as being judgemental, then I apologize. That is not my intention. My position is that I am pro-life (obviously) to an extent. The only reason I feel abortion should be available would be in the cases where both mother and child would die if the child is carried to term. That is my belief, and I stand by it. I know others don't feel the same, which is fine by me. I am simply giving my view, that is all.

 

I understand you don't mean to be judgmental, but when you say things like this is sounds judgmental. Are you saying this is your opinion, or are you saying that this position should be carried by force of law? What I mean, is that being pro-choice is not actually a position on the morality of abortion, but the legality of abortion. A person can not like abortion, yet still be in favor of the right of each person to choose for themselves. Do you see the difference?

 

I would argue that trying to push such a position with the force of law would be very bad. It would require that judges and lawyers make decisions for doctors, doctors would be afraid of preforming abortions if they were unsure if they could justify the danger on legal grounds.

As a result, women would suffer, doctors would be unnecessary fined or jailed, and our country would spend piles of our tax money on witting complex laws to manage the procedure and paying lawyers and judges to litigate all the cases that would result. Our country has enough lawyers, we don't need an excuse for more.

 

I really don't take any issue with your opinion, (except that I think its wrong). I'm sure you can see the difference between holding an opinion and forcing that opinion on everyone else through legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

Are you seriously prepared to claim that just because some humans value those things, including yourself, that everyone must? Are you seriously prepared to hear that I don't care one iota what other people value that fulfills their own lives beyond wishing them well in their ventures?

 

 

 

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

 

Vague statement is a vague statement.

 

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.

 

They don't matter. They're completely functionally dependent upon the mother to the point of even sharing her respiratory and metabolic function. As far as I'm concerned it's an appendix that can stay in there or be removed at the whim of the owner.

 

You can go ahead and argue that beyond a certain point, the functional dependency ceases to be a problem for the fetus and that carrying to term would be more beneficial than aborting the pregnancy, and that's fine. Shades of gray are shades of gray.

 

Prior to viability, a child in utero is no different than any other part of the womans body except that it isn't necessary for her survival.

 

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. :]

 

Why would I take your opinion to the arena? It's a semantic debate in which you're saying "is too" and I'm saying "is not". Gainsay isn't exactly my favourite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any atheists opposed to abortion? If so, how do you validate your argument other than using a religious cop out?

 

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.

 

But if contraception fails - or the woman is raped or whatever - then of course the woman should be able to choose. And she will choose anyway if it is illegal - and illegal abortions are just far too dangerous.

 

Also, try as hard as you like to promote contraception - but some women (and the men they sleep with) are still going to be stupid. And perhaps it is better to kill an unborn fetus than to bring a baby into the world who is going to be unloved, neglected and mistreated because he or she wasn't even wanted.

 

But I do find the idea of scraping or sucking an unborn baby out of the womb to be a little distasteful - and it is better to avoid getting pregnant in the first place!

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.