Jump to content

Is Abortion Immoral?


StPaul
 Share


Recommended Posts

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. If you want to save the mother's life is it. If you want her die, (I'm talking about complications of pregnancy, of course) then just let her die and a baby, if s/he lives, will be motherless, maybe even more children, if she has living children already. To me, if a person is anti-choice, they are not pro-life and if one is Pro-choice, then they are indeed pro-life, because sometimes abortion is what will save a woman's life. To do otherwise is to not give a damn about life, IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully someone will take this seriously. I'm sick of the rape and incest bullshit. That occurs in like 1/2 of 1% of all pregnancies. Nice try though. I'm guessing your answers are no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully someone will take this seriously. I'm sick of the rape and incest bullshit. That occurs in like 1/2 of 1% of all pregnancies. Nice try though. I'm guessing your answers are no.

 

I was being serious, St. Paul. I meant what I said and I was serious about it. Dead serious. I did not say one word about rape or incest, but I could, because a young girl who is not fully physically grown internally could die too OR the baby could have genetic defects that cause it to die at birth OR the young girl could simply stop eating due to the trauma incest causes. A number of things that make denying her an abortion a death sentence. I AM SERIOUS. And don't tell me that incest and rape stuff is bullshit either. I wrote the book concerning incest and religious bullshit, so don't give me crap and there won't be any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like after a certain point it becomes a moral gray area. I think if you have an abortion early enough it isn't a big deal, but if the baby has its own heart etc, the argument could be made that the life has value.

 

I would consider a child in the womb to be a "potential" life. I would consider the mother to be a "full" life. I don't think you should snuff out a potential or "partial" life just because it interferes with your vacation plans, but I also don't believe that a partial life holds more moral weight than a full life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the circumstances. However, to give my general opinion I am in favor of a woman's abortion rights. I wonder if Paul here thinks all us atheists/agnostics/ex-christians/ not true Christians™ are all fervently waiting underneath some poor, defenseless Christian™ woman's uterus for a fetus to pop out for our evil Satanic rituals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

 

Generally more profound than judgmental types who base morality on binary reasoning and learned values.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

 

Look at the prison statistics of Christians vs atheists and you'll see what kind of morals both atheists and Christians have and you won't like it.

But, Christians have always had a knack for ignoring facts and believing what they want to in spite of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a tough question for me even as an agnostic. When I was a Christian I was certain it was immoral because I believed that a soul was infused into the fetus at conception. Now that I'm an agnostic I still have some problems with it but not the soul situation. I think a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. However I ask myself when does the fetus basically become a human being? Some say it's when the fetus is viable and can live outside the womb even if it requires special assistance. Some say it's not human until it comes out of the womb. This is an argument that could probably go on and on.

 

I have a simplistic way of looking at this. If you draw a straight line representing the life of an individual one end of the line stops at death. To me the other end of the line begins at conception. Now I know people can argue about this, but it seems to me at conception the fetus has everything it needs to become a human being. It's just a matter of time until it develops its full capabilities and is born. So the question to me is where on this straight line does the beginning start.

 

The question then becomes what are the reasons you would want to interrupt the life of a person. If an outside source ended this person's life somewhere between the start and end points, you have to ask what the circumstances were. That is what you have to do when you consider an abortion of a fetus who has not reached full maturity. Is the reason a valid reason? That raises a whole bunch of other questions. This is just my take on this difficult question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No "thing" in and of itself is immoral. And behind the "abortion is immoral" belief is a religious assumption of an objective morality that exists independently of the interactions of people and societies. Nobody has ever demonstrated that such an "objective" morality exists other than as imagined concepts within the brains of people.

 

To assume that any individual instance of abortion is immoral merely because it is an abortion removes the mother from the picture entirely. It assumes that the mother has no right to consent to carry a fetus to term. Why is this? Why should a mother be forced to carry a fetus to term against her will? The mother has always taken a great risk to her life to carry a fetus to term. Many women get sick and lose their own lives during childbirth. In America, there is no guarantee that a mother will have access to to the best of health care to mitigate a fraction of the risk she undertakes.

 

It is a misogynistic and sexist point of view as well. These paternalistic fundies that so curiously want to know what " moral values atheists/agnostics have," have assumed that these woman are poor, dumb, and depraved and will lightly and flippantly make decisions about whether to end their pregnancies. Somebody has to decide for them because they are too inferior to handle such a decision.

 

Why not assume that the vast majority of women are decent human beings who want the best possible outcome in the situation of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy? Why not make available to them the best information and options and let them decide for the two parties who are undeniably involved: mother and child? What could possibly be the harm?

 

And, how is it immoral if, after struggling to come to the best decision possible in an imperfect world, the mother decides to terminate the pregnancy?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

 

What moral values atheists/agnostics have? You're fucking hilarious. The fact that you've categorized abortion into only immoral and moral actions shows how clouded your thinking is about this issue. Hardly anything this serious can be easily placed into a black or white category. These issues fall into what's "whiter" and what's "greyer". The fact is your black and white thinking in of itself is morally abhorrent to me. It's people like you who tell an already suffering women that abortion is immoral/murder without offering to help, just to condemn. It's people like you who tell women in an abusive marriage that there is no allowance of divorce in the Bible and that to stay in God's will they have to continue on in the abuse they receive. It's people like you who tell children that they must honor their mother and father despite the abuse they receive as well.

 

I could go on, but I think the real question is not what kind of moral values do atheists and agnostics have but how can a Christian think of himself as moral at all in the first place?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could go on, but I think the real question is not what kind of moral values do atheists and agnostics have but how can a Christian think of himself as moral at all in the first place?

 

Dark is bad. Light is good. Jesus is the light.

So Jesus is good.

He told me so it must be true.

Ok he didn't really tell me. He told me through his writings.

Yes, fine. I know he didn't actually write those things himself.

He told his followers to write them.

Kind of. I think. Sort of.

Anyway, that's irrelevant.

What is important is that the Bible says he's good so it must be true.

After all. The Bible is the word of God.

I know he didn't actually write it. He inspired people to write it.

It says so. Right there in the Bible.

 

The Bible said the Messiah would come and rule the world.

Surely you see the state of the world under his love. :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion is not a whit less moral than ignoring social realities, economic systems, societal organizations and family relations that result in the necessity for abortion. "Abortion" as such doesn't exist as an issue apart from the environment that produces it. To ignore this fact is profoundly irresponsible and viciously immoral.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of terminating a pregnancy that's fairly advanced, after the nervous system and internal organs have developed, but at the same time I would not attempt to impede a woman from obtaining an abortion because she should retain the right to control her own body.

 

I would actually prefer much easier access to abortion early in the pregnancy (up to 6-8 weeks or so); hopefully that would translate into fewer later-term abortions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late term abortions make up a very small percentage, most happen in the first trimester. Do women really know they are pregnant at 6-8 weeks if there are no other signs apart from a missed period?

 

Our legislation in SA allows it till 20 weeks elective and thereafter pretty much a done deal apart from triage or perhaps non viability of the fetus after birth.

 

The pomp and ceremony in the US is really odd seeing that they are the top of the pops wrt teen pregnancy and abortion, the latter being quite high in the teens.

 

The whole debate from the woos in the US is on PBA and these make up less than 1% of abortions.

 

Facts may not be 100% as it is off the top of my head.

 

Making abortion illegal will simply increase the number of D&C's, the old excuse for abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

Depends on how you define morality.

 

Is it immoral for Christians? If it is, how and why? If not, then why do you ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

Depends on how you define morality.

 

Is it immoral for Christians? If it is, how and why? If not, then why do you ask?

Ah, yes ... the definition of morality. Immorality is failure to conform to or obey a standard of morality or goodness, so in order to determine one's (im)morality, one must know what standard one is comparing one's beliefs and conduct to. Even Christian morality is an oxymoron, though, because Christians disagree on a wide range of issues. For Amish Christians, it's immoral to own a telephone or drive a car; for certain fundamentalists, it's immoral to ever drink an alcoholic beverage regardless of whether it produces intoxication, a position that, say, most Episcopalians or Catholics would find illogical. And so on. Labeling or classifying people as to morality is a fool's errand except, I suppose, when judging people according to your personal standard of morality, whatever it may be. Assuming your goal is to judge, then such labeling is necessary. I can't think of any positive reasons to do it, though.

 

If "St Paul" wants to gauge the "moral values" of unbelievers he need look no further than their unbelief, which is itself wicked to any believer. Beyond that, I think "St Paul" is probably just baiting us.

 

I will say this much, I know someone who is kind, considerate, ethical and principled, an extraordinarily fine parent, a brilliant writer, and a bunch of other highly attractive and interesting things but who had an abortion in her twenties. I wonder how "St Paul" would explain that? Or what purpose would be served by second-guessing this person's morality thirty years after the fact? Or whether what this person has made of her life would give "St Paul" any pause to assume that labeling or judging someone having an abortion today, even for poorly thought out reasons, should be judged or shamed rather than treated with humility, compassion and understanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just curious as to what kind of moral values atheists/agnostics have.

Depends on how you define morality.

 

Is it immoral for Christians? If it is, how and why? If not, then why do you ask?

 

Over the years, with countless similar discussions around here, this is the first original thought on the subject I've encountered. You have a real knack for doing that. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of any positive reasons to do it, though.

 

I can think of a couple, without digging too deeply. Doing so maintains societal order. And, judging those who harm others can limit the number of people who are actually harmed by creating taboo against it and encouraging punishment for those who do it.

 

But, in general I get your gist and agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice of terminating a pregnancy is a woman's health issue.If you do not think it is moral DO NOT terminate YOUR pregnancy!! THAT is the ONLY abortion you have a right to judge as immoral.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where does the Bible say abortion is immoral?

 

I can only think of where it says if two men are fighting and one of them pushes a pregnant woman so that she or the baby dies, that man must die. But it's not abortion. It's someone causing harm to a family who wanted to keep their baby. Then the same God goes on and orders his people to massacre people - including kids and babies - of other nations. So I suspect even in this part about the pregnant woman it's less about protection of human life than about the protection of the possession of an Israelite man (ie. his wife and unborn baby is his possession).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.