When Does Life Begin?

[AlphaToOmega]

In any case, I'll stress again, I don't see why I should rejoice that people find good in killing off a life.

Some women grieve. Some women never get over it. How much of that hurt makes her a better person than the woman who feels joy and relief? And how is an abortionist who does his/her work feeling sorry and penitent and blue a better person than one who feels it is "sacred" to restore a woman's life path to her?

 

Not sure I really want to get into this.

There are problems with thinking killing is sacred. The words sacred and the notion of killing is a bad recipe.

I even have problems with someone enjoying killing anything.

To equate killing with some higher level purpose is asking too much for the human psyche IMHO.

 

 

I'm also not sure if you are aware but a man ejaculating through oral sex and the woman impregnating herself with that semen is now legally required to support that child because he is the biological father.

 

I don't know how this circumstance could be proven in family court, but if this is true, it's abhorrent to me.

 

 

I wish it wasn't true but sadly it is.

My link

They even knew it to be true but considered that the semen was a gift to the woman and she could do with it as she saw fit...

 

There even worse cases. Women who convinced a man that the child was his then courts ruling that he must pay support.

So the man is deceived from the start and because he believed the deception he is required to continue paying support for a child that is not his.

IOW, his partner fucks around on him, gets pregnant, says its his then he accepts it as his because he trusts his partner till he discovers the truth that she cheated and lied and deliberately deceived him.

He leaves but she takes him to court and he has to pay for support of the child.

 

There are a lot of nasty things happening to men that don't make the news but are all too common. its been estimated that about 33% of children do not have the father they think they have.

That's a lot of nasty.

 

Not that it has anything to do with this issue other than address the fact there is a lot of shit happening to everyone regardless of sex or even lack of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SilentLoner]

Does anyone, I mean anyone, who is even pro-life, find that at least bit a tiny tiny bit disturbing? That website seems to take pride in the practice of abortion, that website seems to hell, I would say advocating it to a certain extent.

 

If you bothered to read the posts on the site rather than just the title, you would find ALL options (parenting, adoption and abortion) are advocated for on that site. You will find a particular focus on abortion because this is a blog for people working directly in abortion care (counselors, clinic staff, etc) and the situations they encounter on a daily basis. Suprise!

 

The only thing that site advocates is erasing the stigma surrounding abortion that people like you fight to keep alive, this ridiculous idea that women who have abortions should be guilted and shamed.

 

You don't take pride in something like this,I don't see how you could, you are killing an innocent life, the last thing I would expect is that there would be (I know there would be), it just seems curious. It just seems like something is very wrong here, abortion is a terrible terrible practice, it is hard for me to see why you would create a website like this though for this practice,

 

Once again, you refuse to take any other view than your own emotional investment in the issue. Wow Ramen, I'm used to this kind of dense behavior from people like creationists and such, usually at this point in a debate with them I acknowledge their heads are up their asses and call it a day.

 

it is an extreme website, doesn't anyone at least see that? It is shameless, plain and simple.

 

Try and actually read the posts on the website. Looks to me you only read the title and decided to throw a fit, plain and simple. Your opinions have been bordering on fanatic lately, Ramen.

 

There is a difference here between being pro-choice and being against the act still and seeing how it is bad but still supporting it (I can't do neither because it is wrong to me), and then there is being pro-choice and shameless promotion of and advocating abortions, which is what this website is.

 

Thank you for proving you did not bother to look past the first page. You make this easy.

[Ramen666]

Question?

 

Would my opinion be borderline fanatic if I agreed with you and accepted your view blindly? I wonder that because I have been called all sorts of things on here, for simply disagreeing with a person and I wonder would the same insults fly, if I agreed on blind faith. See what I have learned a lot here people can still be sheep and be spoon fed what to think, I am thinking for myself it took a while for to evolve to this stance on my own, I learned just because the "majority" thinks something, or that it is the "norm"? We are supposed to be free thinkers, and I am exercising that, I used to be pro-choice at one time, recently until I looked at the issue on my own more deeply.

 

I will not defend it, sorry, doesn't matter how much the word "rights" is brought up, I am not going to sit back and ignore what is really going on.

 

As for the site, you don't think I haven't read it? Curious I read a lot of the pages on their blog, look at their links at the bottom, and who they support before I posted that. I went there way before I even posted that post and it is nothing but pro-abortion/promotion of it. (I will call it what it and that is my opinion) If you can't see that there, well that is not my problem. I know these websites exist, BUT I have never seen a website, so pushing for abortions, so pushing for that one choice.

 

Then again, I don't suspect you to see this because you think it is a "sacred" practice in taking a life out of convenience.

[pitchu]

Not sure I really want to get into this.

There are problems with thinking killing is sacred. The words sacred and the notion of killing is a bad recipe.

I even have problems with someone enjoying killing anything.

To equate killing with some higher level purpose is asking too much for the human psyche IMHO.

 

What you insist on calling "killing," AtoO, I call "abortion." Missions are aborted. Plans are aborted. Things that are in process but not yet realized are aborted. That's why embryonic and fetal abortions are permitted in civilized societies. It's why women who have them and doctors who perform them aren't charged with murder. Yet. But crazed religious fanatics who do murder and encourage others to murder abortion providers are perfectly content with your use of the word, "killing."

[Ramen666]

They are technically both forms of the same act strictly speaking (killing), under law, strictly speaking. The same act is being done but the law views both acts differently, however that is starting to change slowly where you can be charged for murder of the unborn child. Example of this being done, was the Scott Peterson case, where he got charged with both counts of murder.

[Ramen666]

Found this, for a little change of perspective other than my own:

 

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html

 

An Open Letter from a Pro-Life Atheist

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Below is a letter I sent to several sites, which is a version of what I send to pro-abortionists. Please feel free to make copies or duplicate this letter to send to anyone you wish. Please be sure to give me credit for my work.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Most anti-abortion sites offer to send you "free information and a church bulletin" or a Bible. As an atheist, I'm not impressed, and I don't want that stuff. More importantly, how are you going to convince an atheist of anything if you use a source that he does not accept or worse considers it a hoax? I am an atheist and opposed to abortions for the following reasons:

 

1. Even if someone believes that abortions are acceptable, then at least consider this:

 

A. Most of the abortion methods are cruel, extremely inhumane, and very painful for the fetus/baby.

 

B. If you intend to kill the fetus, then do so in a humane way. If the equivalent methods of abortion were used to kill animals at the dog pound, the ASPCA and other animal groups...well, you get the idea.

 

C. The dangers associated with abortions are not explained clearly. Though most people believe that abortions are completely safe, there are many dangers physically and psychologically (infection, infertility, bleeding, depression, and suicide, just to name a few).

 

2. Abortions go against my belief in liberty and justice.

 

A. Liberty to choose for one's self requires that, as free individuals, we are responsible for our actions and the consequences thereof.

 

B. Justice is when you get what you deserve.

 

3. A woman should have the right to do with her own body what she wishes, but when she does what she wants to do, and as a result becomes pregnant, she has done what she wanted to do with her own body. However when she goes for an abortion, she is doing something to someone else's body.

 

4. What has the unborn done to deserve death? NOTHING! It is not at fault for anything including its own existence, and yet it is expected to pay with its life with no trial, no jury, and no say in what happens to it.

 

5. Every one knows that sex will result in a pregnancy, so sexually active people (and everyone else) should be responsible for their own actions unless they are not free. Freedom carries with it a requirement that you must accept responsibility for your own actions.

 

6. Pro-abortionists say: "If you don't like abortions, then don't have one." My response to them is: "That is a great logical process; you just changed my mind; I think I'll apply that to the rest of my philosophy and change my opinions about everything else too..."

 

"If you don't like slavery, then don't enslave anyone."

"If you don't like rape, then don't rape anyone."

"If you don't like murder, then don't murder anyone."

"If you don't like theft, then don't steal from anyone."

"If you don't like lies, then don't lie to anyone."

"If you don't like sexually transmitted diseases, then don't transmit one."

"If you don't like terrorism, then don't bomb anyone."

"If you don't like animal cruelty, then don't be cruel to one."

"If you don't like oppression, then don't oppress anyone."

"If you don't like arson, then don't burn the property of anyone."

 

As you can see this type of thinking is anarchy, at it's worst. Basically it says: "Shut up and let me do what I want; I don't care how it affects anyone else; I just want to do what I want to do." It is very self-centered and childish.

 

7. Most atheists do not see anything wrong with abortions and will not give you the time of day once you mention god or one of the many "holy" books that religious people believe in.

 

8. Another claim by abortionists is that the fetus is part of the woman's body and has no more concequences than removing some unwanted flesh. My response to that is: "If you smash your hand in a car door who feels the pain? You do! No one else, not your friends, your father, nor your mother. That PROVES that YOU ARE A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING, because you feel your own pain. If the fetus feels it's own pain, then that would make it a separate human being too."

 

Please feel free to use my logical arguments to help stop abortions. Please be sure to give me credit for my work.

 

Thank you for your time,

Randall M. Jones

[LivingLife]

There is so much fail in that letter. An atheist would at least cite evidence to support a claim like it is painful for a fetus to be aborted.

 

That is a fundie pretending to be an atheist. Surprised you cannot see the same lame arguments made that theists make.

 

Liberty and Justice indeed, (except if a woman fucks and gets pregnant)

 

AKA the FUCK lottery.

[Ramen666]

Why do you automatically assume because someone who is an atheist that disagrees with you, is a fundy? Isn't that what they call in these parts "close minded" to other views. Would it be better to post a website that says exactly what you want to hear? If you want that go that Abortioneer website above, plenty of similar thinking minds there for you. A website and view that embraces the practice.

 

Here is a bigger question why must an atheist have to take on the position of pro-choice and if not they are looked down upon and somehow seen as "bad" (seems like bandwagon thinking if you can't think what side to choose on your own and just do it because everyone else does it, and I know it is a rare view here but my view is what it is), just because many atheists do. As for the "lame" arguments, I don't see you with anything better to add other than "it is old and accepted so that is the way it is", "the law has been around a long time so we must keep that way" and posting statistics no one really cares about. Yeah my arguments and the pro-life arguments are really lame.

 

You can easily find pro-life atheists all over the web, but then again, since they disagree with you, they must be fundies in disguise, just like all the bad press for the tea party is a liberal conspiracy.

[Ramen666]

From Newsweek...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/28/no-god-and-no-abortions.html

 

No God—And No Abortions

Pro-life atheists insist that a human life has intrinsic value, even though they don't believe in God.

Nov 28, 2008 7:00 PM EST

 

Before the election I wrote a piece for NEWSWEEK.com about white evangelicals and abortion. In that piece, I predicted that conservative Christians would not move in large numbers away from the Republican Party because of their fundamental theological and cultural objections to abortion. In response, I received many comments—mostly the usual entrenched rhetoric on both sides. But embedded in the comment boards was a surprising point of view: a tiny fraction of readers objected to the relentless framing of the pro-life arguments in religious terms. The case against abortion could be made without God, they said. Atheists could be pro-life.

 

Few of them are. Abortion has been a wedge for more than 30 years because its moral volatility has forced Americans to choose sides: religious vs. secular, right vs. left, traditional vs. progressive. Atheists have generally aligned with the left. In a three-year-old Gallup poll, nearly 40 percent of Christians who attended church weekly said they believed that abortion should always be illegal. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of people with no religion (not atheists necessarily) said that abortion should be legal in all circumstances. Just as pro-life Christians argue that life is sacred because it's given by God, pro-life atheists insist that human life is intrinsically valuable without God's help. "I think there is nothing beyond this life—but life in and of itself is unique and special," explains Matt Wallace, a UPS package handler in North Carolina who started an online group for pro-life atheists in 1999. "In abortion, a human being ends up getting killed for no other reason than he or she wasn't planned or wanted. One should always err on the side of innocent human life." Wallace is likely one of the very few atheists who voted against Barack Obama, largely because of his abortion views.

 

Christopher Hitchens, the bombastic and verbally double-jointed atheist intellectual, says the articulation of such points of view represents progress, a reaching for common ground after 30 years of oppositional acrimony. Hitchens, known for his defiant and politically incorrect positions, takes an uncharacteristic middle path on abortion. When asked whether he is "pro-life," he answers in the affirmative. He has repeatedly defended the use of the term "unborn child" against those on the left who say that an aborted fetus is nothing more than a growth, an appendix, a polyp. " 'Unborn child' seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix," he says. "You can't say the rights question doesn't come up." At the same time, he adds, "I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be." Hitchens does not recommend the overturning of Roe v. Wade. What he wants is for both moral callousness and religion to be excised from the abortion debate and for science to come up with solutions to unwanted pregnancies, like the abortifacient mifepristone (RU-486), "that will make abortion more like a contraceptive procedure than a surgical one. That's the Hitchens plank, and I think it's a defensible one."

 

One of the most sympathetic and intriguing aspects of the Hitchens plank, as he outlines it, is how little the atheist talks about fetal science (terms like "viability" and "neural development" rarely come up) and how much he cedes to his squeamishness on the matter, a squeamishness he comes by honestly, he says, out of two personal experiences with abortion. Though he vehemently rejects religious arguments, one senses something very much like a rabbinical inner struggle in the development of his position. It's inconsistent and imperfect, for how is a pharmaceutical abortion any different from a surgical one? But as he says, "I'm happy to say some problems don't have solutions." In the abortion wars, such honest reflection is progress indeed.

 

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

 

Lisa Miller is a writer at Newsweek and winner of many journalism prizes including the 2010 Wilbur Award for Outstanding Magazine Column. She is the author of Heaven: Our Enduring Fascination with the Afterlife, to be published in paperback this spring. Find Lisa Miller on Facebook.

 

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

[LivingLife]

Pro life atheists do not want to change laws. Many have espoused their pro life stance here and it is only you and Noggy I have had a go at b/c of your inane mumblings and stupid suggestions.

 

The way pro lifers (fundies) frame their arguments is to suggest that PBA is gross thus all abortion is gross. The stats never back up their claims and the real issue comes with late term abortions for which ample examples and reasons have been provided.

 

How can an abortion pill or a MA pill be painful for a fetus? (1st trimester method)

 

This is why I said the letter is a fail.

 

Th US wants to separate PP (excl abortion) from abortions in that they suspect PP performs abortions on their tax dollar.

 

If and when the US make BC FREE to ALL then I might change my stance but I doubt it as there are still too many variables to cover.

 

You have still not offered anything tangible as to how a pro life stance may be legislated and the reason is b/c you cannot cover every base w/o invading privacy rights, doctor/patient confidentiality.

 

All you are left with is appeals to emotions and trying to redefine the word life and other pregnancy terms.

[Ramen666]

Pro life atheists do not want to change laws.

 

In your own words

 

An atheist would at least cite evidence to support a claim...

 

Why don't you prove it, that all atheists that are pro-choice are on the same page.

 

 

 

The way pro lifers (fundies) frame their arguments is to suggest that PBA is gross thus all abortion is gross. The stats never back up their claims and the real issue comes with late term abortions for which ample examples and reasons have been provided.

 

How can an abortion pill or a MA pill be painful for a fetus? (1st trimester method)

 

Also for the record and I said it before, I think all abortions are wrong and I am not ashamed, I will not apologize for stating my opinion, I don't really care if you call it a right wing stance, a fundy stance, or whatever. I can understand the use of 1st term abortions, and I can understand when they are medically needed, anything else in between is just killing out of convenience.

 

All you are left with is appeals to emotions and trying to redefine the word life and other pregnancy terms.

 

How about this? It a second opinion questioning the norms of society and what we have accepted as law. If we didn't question, we wouldn't be here, telling me NOT to question and rethink my stance on this issue (I used to be pro-choice), totally misses the point of why we are here. I get the accepted terms, I get what a fetus is a zygote, I get all that, WHAT is NOT defined is "life" and another term that is up for debate is "unborn child" which signifies the overall birth to the pro-lifers.

 

You worship thelaw, your worship the accepted when we know the accepted has been wrong before, we know law has been wrong before, we know PEOPLE have been wrong before, these laws, these rights pro-choicers speak of, are created and manufactured by man. Man has been wrong, get that and understand that.

 

I have had a go at b/c of your inane mumblings and stupid suggestions.

 

Your opinion is really clever because this is what I am getting:

 

Pro-Life Opinion: You know life may start at conception and this is really not that moral of a practice. Innocent unborn children or (whatever term makes you feel comfortable), are dying and they don't have a chance if you really look at this.

 

Pro-Chouce (your opinion): The practice has been around a long time and the law says they have this right so it is right for them to practice it.

[LivingLife]

How about this? It a second opinion questioning the norms of society and what we have accepted as law. If we didn't question, we wouldn't be here, telling me NOT to question and rethink my stance on this issue (I used to be pro-choice), totally misses the point of why we are here. I get the accepted terms, I get what a fetus is a zygote, I get all that, WHAT is NOT defined is "life" and another term that is up for debate is "unborn child" which signifies the overall birth to the pro-lifers.

Human life begins at human conception. However that is just the same as saying dolphins do not come from humans.

You worship thelaw, your worship the accepted when we know the accepted has been wrong before, we know law has been wrong before, we know PEOPLE have been wrong before, these laws, these rights™ pro-choicers speak of, are created and manufactured by man. Man has been wrong, get that and understand that.

Why do you think was abortion legalized in the first place?

I have had a go at b/c of your inane mumblings and stupid suggestions.

 

Your opinion is really clever because this is what I am getting:

 

Pro-Life Opinion: You know life may start at conception and this is really not that moral of a practice. Innocent unborn children or (whatever term makes you feel comfortable), are dying and they don't have a chance if you really look at this.

We do not dispute that but as has been amply brought up here, why not include semen and ovums as "potential life"?

Pro-Choice (your opinion): The practice has been around a long time and the law says they have this right so it is right for them to practice it.

Pro choice has not been around in the modern concept of abortion. D&C's were always there for the affluent and no one makes qualms about that as it is deemed a proper medical procedure, exactly the same as what abortion doctors do.

 

Unwanted pregnancies occur and we have the technology for women to be completely in control of the reproductive preferences. I will say, those that use abortion as a primary form of BC are sick and again probably very insignificant in numbers.

 

Many BCP's have abortificants as part of the chemical makeup.

 

The IUD does not prevent conception but irritates the uterus wall so that the fertilized ovum cannot find anchor to develop. Conception happens in the fallopian tubes and once the ovum is in the uterus, the chances of fertilization decreases.

 

The true pro life stance has to ban all forms of BC for women and we men left with wearing condoms always.

 

Hail the walking vagina/incubator and there for us manly pleasure only.

 

You tell me which stance is more enlightened and in step with modern society?

 

For males, the only way we can be infertile is to have the snip snip. It is easier to control the women's side hence the BCP and IUD.

 

Pro choice means if you do not want an abortion, do not have one. If someone else wants one, then they can. Most pro choice laws already cater for a 20-24 week cut off anyway. Those reasons are not only for the fetus but also, the further along, the risk to women for abortion increases.

[AlphaToOmega]

Not sure I really want to get into this.

There are problems with thinking killing is sacred. The words sacred and the notion of killing is a bad recipe.

I even have problems with someone enjoying killing anything.

To equate killing with some higher level purpose is asking too much for the human psyche IMHO.

 

What you insist on calling "killing," AtoO, I call "abortion." Missions are aborted. Plans are aborted. Things that are in process but not yet realized are aborted. That's why embryonic and fetal abortions are permitted in civilized societies. It's why women who have them and doctors who perform them aren't charged with murder. Yet. But crazed religious fanatics who do murder and encourage others to murder abortion providers are perfectly content with your use of the word, "killing."

 

 

Why do people insist on not acknowledging that it is killing?

Just because some other total retards also believe its killing does not make my view that it is killing any less valid. It simply makes them hypocrites by taking a life.

 

Let's look at a baby. Is it capable of walking? Talking? Fending for itself?

No. Therefore according to your argument if I kill a baby its not murder, its aborting. The baby has not yet been realised as a contributing member of society.

 

Why do I insist on calling it killing?

Because that's exactly what it is.

I've had to kill enough as a hunter to realise that even tiny life early in its development and as small as my finger nail is still life.

It just hasn't fully developed. Neither has a baby in my example above.

Neither has a child before adolescence.

As part of life I've been involved in culling certain breeds of animals. Pest species or species that would otherwise end up starving to death due to over population.

I've had to cull Kangaroo's.

Did you know that the baby roo is about the size of my fingernail when it enters the pouch?

Its life cycle is broken into one more layer compared to humans. Its born tiny and then enters the pouch where it continues development.

For all intents and purposes its the equivalent of a fetus inside the womb but easily accessible.

When a roo is culled many of the shooters disregard the possibility of a young one in the pouch. They let it suckle on the nipple of its dead mother till the warmth is gone.

I don't.

I check and inspected every roo I had to shoot so I could dispatch the small one as quickly as possible.

Let me assure you that it feels pain. It feels touch. Even very early on. It is easily recognised as a life form.

What difference would there be if it was inside the mother instead of inside its mothers pouch other than me being able to easily observe it?

 

What would you or anyone else think of me if I started cutting off its limbs one by one to kill it instead of killing it quickly?

If I video'ed anyone doing such a thing there would be all manner of outcries and everyone could see the pain and cruelty.

But if I do it while its inside the mother its suddenly acceptable. Its no longer killing, its aborting.

I think not.

 

If you want to argue about developmental stages you'll have to give me more compelling reasons of where and why you arbitrarily change from aborting to killing in your POV.

If its because of location then I find that a strange demarcation line for defining life.

 

For me its all killing.

I just understand that there are different stages of life and I place a different value on that stage of life depending on its development but I am constantly aware that it is a life.

Even when I had to kill in an effort to prevent undue misery or to protect sensitive habitat from feral species i was always aware I was taking life.

I was never proud of it and I would never in my wildest dreams describe my actions as "sacred".

It was killing and it was necessary.

 

If you don't accept my view then I give you this offer.

The next time I go do hunting and I have a cull requested I'll let you know in advance.

You're more than welcome to attend. It would be a guided tour of Australia and see parts of it that very few Australian's let alone tourists will ever see.

I'll take you on a cull and you can see for yourself the various stages of fetal development in a kangaroo and you can tell me then if you consider it aborting or killing a life.

 

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not brow beating you or trying to make you or anyone else feel guilty or change your mind.

You asked why I consider it killing. I mentioned that I'm not sure I even wanted to get into it but I did anyway.

The above is why I consider it killing. Anyone else that has had the displeasure of doing things like it will also tell you that it is killing.

That is for an animal. I refuse to give any less consideration to a human life form in the same level of development.

It is killing. Whether its justifiable or not however is not my decision to make.

[DesertBob]

Let's look at a baby. Is it capable of walking? Talking? Fending for itself?

No. Therefore according to your argument if I kill a baby its not murder, its aborting. The baby has not yet been realised as a contributing member of society.

Acknowledging that not all souls are fully realized (and that some never even come close) is not the same as saying that what you might call a less-developed consciousness is expendable.

 

Anyone who has raised a two year old knows that they are self-absorbed little shits, but we don't off all the little tyrants. Why? Because we recognize their potential as having great value, too.

 

We know that dolphins and chimps and dogs and parrots have quite a lot of what might be termed soulfulness and certainly a lot of intelligence; but it's a different kind of soul / awareness than ours and it's optimized for different things. As such the more enlightened among us treat animals with respect and love and accord them the right to exist in their own ways.

 

All of which is not to say that we don't make certain trade-offs based on levels of sentience / awareness / realization. My dog doesn't get to sleep with me, but my fiancee does. My kids didn't get to stay up late, but I did. Some farm animals get eaten. And so forth.

 

Similarly, while I can't dismiss an unborn child's rights, neither can I dismiss the rights of that child's mother -- or her value. There is something kind of off about the idea that a mother abrogates all her rights, all her potential, all her concerns to her children, born or unborn as they may be. There are situations where both can't live, or where both cannot come out unscathed, and then there is this regrettable need for triage. And I'm sorry, but often, maybe even most of the time, an unborn child comes out on the short end of the stick in the same way that an inexperienced worker comes out on the short end of the stick in deciding who gets hired to fill an open job position.

 

It's both idiotic and cruel to bring a child to term who is unwanted or who cannot be adequately cared for. Existence is enough of a harm as it is. Forcing a child to experience the pain of living when we manifestly are not willing as a society to guarantee it's properly fed, nurtured, educated and cared for is not only every bit as cruel and inhumane as aborting it, it's more so. It's no accident that the people who insist that all unborn be carried to term also tend to take a dim view of social welfare or very much spending on education. They seem to want to fill the world with miserable people in a one foot in front of the other existence. If they really cared about the unborn they would take care of the born properly, but they won't, and in this they show their hypocrisy.

[AlphaToOmega]

Let's look at a baby. Is it capable of walking? Talking? Fending for itself?

No. Therefore according to your argument if I kill a baby its not murder, its aborting. The baby has not yet been realised as a contributing member of society.

Acknowledging that not all souls are fully realized (and that some never even come close) is not the same as saying that what you might call a less-developed consciousness is expendable.

 

Anyone who has raised a two year old knows that they are self-absorbed little shits, but we don't off all the little tyrants. Why? Because we recognize their potential as having great value, too.

 

We know that dolphins and chimps and dogs and parrots have quite a lot of what might be termed soulfulness and certainly a lot of intelligence; but it's a different kind of soul / awareness than ours and it's optimized for different things. As such the more enlightened among us treat animals with respect and love and accord them the right to exist in their own ways.

 

All of which is not to say that we don't make certain trade-offs based on levels of sentience / awareness / realization. My dog doesn't get to sleep with me, but my fiancee does. My kids didn't get to stay up late, but I did. Some farm animals get eaten. And so forth.

 

Similarly, while I can't dismiss an unborn child's rights, neither can I dismiss the rights of that child's mother -- or her value. There is something kind of off about the idea that a mother abrogates all her rights, all her potential, all her concerns to her children, born or unborn as they may be. There are situations where both can't live, or where both cannot come out unscathed, and then there is this regrettable need for triage. And I'm sorry, but often, maybe even most of the time, an unborn child comes out on the short end of the stick in the same way that an inexperienced worker comes out on the short end of the stick in deciding who gets hired to fill an open job position.

 

It's both idiotic and cruel to bring a child to term who is unwanted or who cannot be adequately cared for. Existence is enough of a harm as it is. Forcing a child to experience the pain of living when we manifestly are not willing as a society to guarantee it's properly fed, nurtured, educated and cared for is not only every bit as cruel and inhumane as aborting it, it's more so. It's no accident that the people who insist that all unborn be carried to term also tend to take a dim view of social welfare or very much spending on education. They seem to want to fill the world with miserable people in a one foot in front of the other existence. If they really cared about the unborn they would take care of the born properly, but they won't, and in this they show their hypocrisy.

 

Not quite sure how this addresses the reasons I call abortions killing a life.

Note that I'm pro choice. I just call a spade a spade. Killing a life is what abortion is.

Some people can't accept abortion because of that fact. Ramen for example has problems with this and I can certainly appreciate his view.

Some people can't call it a life because that makes it too hard to reconcile with their belief that abortion is a choice for the woman in question.

I simply believe that it is killing, I don't want to put a spin on to make it more acceptable but neither do I want to stop a woman from having an informed choice.

 

Some think letting women know that a fetus has feelings and is alive and they are killing it will contribute to guilt.

Personally I think the term abortion is a form of denial and pushes ignorance on women so they aren't fully aware of their actions.

IMHO Its a step backwards for woman's rights by obscuring the full information regarding their choices.

 

That's basically it. i'm pro choice but I'm also 100% capable of acknowledging that every abortion is killing a life form.

We can debate the semantics of the life form, when it gets to be classified as human etc but it is a life form, it feels pain and I don't want to deny this simple fact when I think about or discuss the issue.

Others are free to not think of it as a feeling life form if that makes them feel better but it is ignorance as far as I'm concerned.

[Vigile]

Why do people insist on not acknowledging that it is killing?

 

I don't like the politicized semantics either, but killing is pretty subjective in this context. Everywhere you walk, you kill life. Every time you flush the toilette you kill life. I could go on, but you get the picture. Killing isn't a very useful term until you define what it is you are killing and then assess whether it is on par with other types of killings or not.

[VacuumFlux]

Why do people insist on not acknowledging that it is killing?

Just because some other total retards also believe its killing does not make my view that it is killing any less valid. It simply makes them hypocrites by taking a life.

 

Let's look at a baby. Is it capable of walking? Talking? Fending for itself?

No. Therefore according to your argument if I kill a baby its not murder, its aborting. The baby has not yet been realised as a contributing member of society.

 

Why do I insist on calling it killing?

Because that's exactly what it is.

 

I will readily admit that abortion kills a fetus. I consider this to be morally different from killing a born baby for two reasons. The major one is that a born baby is no longer feeding off of the mother's body and is therefore no longer causing direct, immediate, ongoing harm to the mother. Aborting a pregnancy is, to my view, a fully justified form of self-defense. I do not consider a fetus to be innocent; it is ignorant of the harm it is causing and therefore I hold it no ill will. But the fetus's ignorance of harm does not mean that the mother has no right to stop the harm being done to her body, and there is generally no way for the woman to stop the fetus's harm to her body with anything less than lethal force. Even if a fetus can be extracted alive, this procedure will cause more harm to the mother and, for the vast majority of the cases where abortion happens, the fetus could not live on its own anyway.

 

The second reason is the development question and when the fetus should have full human rights. This is not main reason that I think abortion is morally ok and should be legal, but it does mean that I have even less qualms about abortion than about killing an adult human in self-defense.

[DesertBob]

Not quite sure how this addresses the reasons I call abortions killing a life.

Note that I'm pro choice. I just call a spade a spade. Killing a life is what abortion is.

Some people can't accept abortion because of that fact. Ramen for example has problems with this and I can certainly appreciate his view.

Some people can't call it a life because that makes it too hard to reconcile with their belief that abortion is a choice for the woman in question.

Noted and understood. I think we are on the same page, although I think "killing" is probably a loaded word that sheds heat but not light as it equates to "cold-hearted murder" in too many minds. Then again I don't know how else to get your point across. Maybe I would say that at some point (we can disagree on exactly when -- anywhere from the moment of conception to the start of potential viability in the outside world or the start of the third trimester or the point at which indirect scientific evidence suggests a certain level of awareness, or whatever) -- but at some point, terminating a pregnancy is ending a life and one must inevitably treat it as arbitrating the rights and prospects of one sentient being (the unborn child) against those of another (the mother).

 

This need be a source of shaming only if we make it so; regrettably as a society that seems to be our default.

 

What I was trying to do was point out that said decision isn't so simplistic as "to take a life or not" in isolation but it's a weighing of potentials and rights of both beings. A highly personal choice that never has an easy answer. I'm of the opinion that the decision must inherently be made by the mother since the child is incapable of input. Others can act as proxy advocates for the rights, potentials and prospects / interests of the child, I suppose, but not in the sanctimonious, hypocritical, simplistic way it's generally done.

[Ouroboros]

Why do people insist on not acknowledging that it is killing?

 

I don't like the politicized semantics either, but killing is pretty subjective in this context. Everywhere you walk, you kill life. Every time you flush the toilette you kill life. I could go on, but you get the picture. Killing isn't a very useful term until you define what it is you are killing and then assess whether it is on par with other types of killings or not.

 

Agree.

 

As I mentioned before, masturbation is murder. The female ovulation (period) is manslaughter. Cutting yourself and putting neosporin on the wound is killing cells. Eating meat, chicken, steak, etc, is killing life forms.

 

So far I haven't heard any pro-lifer fight for all those lives' right to live.

[Phanta]

Not quite sure how this addresses the reasons I call abortions killing a life.

Note that I'm pro choice. I just call a spade a spade. Killing a life is what abortion is.

Some people can't accept abortion because of that fact. Ramen for example has problems with this and I can certainly appreciate his view.

Some people can't call it a life because that makes it too hard to reconcile with their belief that abortion is a choice for the woman in question.

I simply believe that it is killing, I don't want to put a spin on to make it more acceptable but neither do I want to stop a woman from having an informed choice.

 

Some think letting women know that a fetus has feelings and is alive and they are killing it will contribute to guilt.

Personally I think the term abortion is a form of denial and pushes ignorance on women so they aren't fully aware of their actions.

IMHO Its a step backwards for woman's rights by obscuring the full information regarding their choices.

 

That's basically it. i'm pro choice but I'm also 100% capable of acknowledging that every abortion is killing a life form.

We can debate the semantics of the life form, when it gets to be classified as human etc but it is a life form, it feels pain and I don't want to deny this simple fact when I think about or discuss the issue.

Others are free to not think of it as a feeling life form if that makes them feel better but it is ignorance as far as I'm concerned.

 

We are of the same view and position, through and through.

 

Phanta

[AlphaToOmega]

Why do people insist on not acknowledging that it is killing?

 

I don't like the politicized semantics either, but killing is pretty subjective in this context. Everywhere you walk, you kill life. Every time you flush the toilette you kill life. I could go on, but you get the picture. Killing isn't a very useful term until you define what it is you are killing and then assess whether it is on par with other types of killings or not.

 

Agree.

 

As I mentioned before, masturbation is murder. The female ovulation (period) is manslaughter. Cutting yourself and putting neosporin on the wound is killing cells. Eating meat, chicken, steak, etc, is killing life forms.

 

So far I haven't heard any pro-lifer fight for all those lives' right to live.

 

 

 

But I'm not fighting for the rights of anything to live.

I'm making the point that it is killing.

 

While I agree with both you and Vigile that we kill every day no matter what we do there is a point where it becomes plainly obvious we are doing so.

There is a difference between ejaculating and looking under a microscope and squashing a single sperm.

Both are killing. One is happens as a consequence of another action and the other is reason for the action.

 

Also a single sperm is not the same as say fetus of 8months.

Neither is it the same as a fetus of three months etc.

That is simplifying the issue a hell of a lot.

 

But lets put it into perspective.

You wouldn't push on a pregnant woman's belly to kill the fetus but you'd shake her hand and possibly kill off thousands of bacteria without pausing to think about it.

The fact that you are thinking about one shows that you acknowledge it thus are making a distinction between the two events.

 

That is what I'm saying. When one makes an effort to kill something I will call it killing. I need no other term as I can accept it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Phanta]

It's both idiotic and cruel to bring a child to term who is unwanted or who cannot be adequately cared for. Existence is enough of a harm as it is. Forcing a child to experience the pain of living when we manifestly are not willing as a society to guarantee it's properly fed, nurtured, educated and cared for is not only every bit as cruel and inhumane as aborting it, it's more so. It's no accident that the people who insist that all unborn be carried to term also tend to take a dim view of social welfare or very much spending on education. They seem to want to fill the world with miserable people in a one foot in front of the other existence. If they really cared about the unborn they would take care of the born properly, but they won't, and in this they show their hypocrisy.

 

It has been human practice in certain cultures where safe abortion procedures were not available to kill babies post-pardum, commonly by exposure, if the child was unwanted or otherwise an undo burden on the family. Where safe abortion is unavailable today, is post-pardum abortion something you would support mothers choosing for themselves and their babies?

 

This thread is getting heated, so I want to mention that I am not trying to be smart or do a "gotcha". While I hold an opinion on this issue, I have a lot of curiosity and interest in growing my view on this issue with no particular destination in mind. I see it as a complicated topic to struggle over. And this is what popped into my head reading your post....

 

Phanta

[AlphaToOmega]

There are still places where children are not considered human till they are about two years old.

[Ouroboros]

But I'm not fighting for the rights of anything to live.

I'm making the point that it is killing.

And the other forms of killing other things are also killings. Execution of murderers are also killings.

 

We accept killings in society, and everyone accept killing life in one way or another.

 

And I have no problem calling killing a fetus a killing a fetus. My problem in this whole debate is that rights to life changes depending on situation and context. Not every living thing is given the same right to live, be it a mother, a zygote, a criminal, or a chicken.

 

While I agree with both you and Vigile that we kill every day no matter what we do there is a point where it becomes plainly obvious we are doing so.

There is a difference between ejaculating and looking under a microscope and squashing a single sperm.

Both are killing. One is happens as a consequence of another action and the other is reason for the action.

I don't know if that is necessary in the debate. I have to think about that.

 

Also a single sperm is not the same as say fetus of 8months.

Because right to live grow, and right to live can be taken away. We do execute criminals. We do consider killing life, even human life, is necessary and do so intentionally, in given contexts. If it's true that it's a moral issue that ALL human related life MUST ALWAYS be unharmed and never killed. Then there are many changes necessary to our society, not just abortion.

 

Neither is it the same as a fetus of three months etc.

That is simplifying the issue a hell of a lot.

I know. I think that the line should be drawn somewhere. The thing is, I don't applaud or feel joy about abortions. I do feel, however, that I'm not the one to judge or decide the decision a pregnant woman has to make, and make that judgment based on my view of morality or life. Do I second guess anyone who acted in self-defense? Should I? Should we criminalize self-defense?

 

But lets put it into perspective.

You wouldn't push on a pregnant woman's belly to kill the fetus but you'd shake her hand and possibly kill off thousands of bacteria without pausing to think about it.

The fact that you are thinking about one shows that you acknowledge it thus are making a distinction between the two events.

Because of level of change. The human life in the woman does gain more and more rights and respect. There's no fine line when or where it happens, but I do agree that it grows.

 

Also it's a matter of respect for the woman's decision. She's pregnant. She's carrying it. Obviously she fells the fetus is important to her. I have no right to hurt, harm, or destroy her or anything that belongs to her.

 

That is what I'm saying. When one makes an effort to kill something I will call it killing. I need no other term as I can accept it.

Sure. Let's call it killing, as long as we agree that we're killing both human life and other lifeforms daily without second thoughts because we do consider context. And we accept that different parties at different times have the authority to make the decision.

 

Put it this way. Who decides a criminal should be executed? The sentencing is done by a judge.

 

Who decides to kill the intruder to your house when he attacks you? You or do you have to ask him to stop so you can go to court and ask a judge? Or is there reasonable situations for self-defense?

 

When you're rubbing your hands with soap and kill both bacteria and a whole bunch of your own cells, who makes the decision? You or a judge? And why not admit that this is premeditated murder?

 

Then we get to the pregnant woman, who should decide? Ramen666? You? A panel of experts? A judge? The woman? Who knows the situation best to make the best decision (however sad it is that it has to be made)?

[AlphaToOmega]

Noted and understood. I think we are on the same page, although I think "killing" is probably a loaded word that sheds heat but not light as it equates to "cold-hearted murder" in too many minds. Then again I don't know how else to get your point across. Maybe I would say that at some point (we can disagree on exactly when -- anywhere from the moment of conception to the start of potential viability in the outside world or the start of the third trimester or the point at which indirect scientific evidence suggests a certain level of awareness, or whatever) -- but at some point, terminating a pregnancy is ending a life and one must inevitably treat it as arbitrating the rights and prospects of one sentient being (the unborn child) against those of another (the mother).

 

This need be a source of shaming only if we make it so; regrettably as a society that seems to be our default.

 

What I was trying to do was point out that said decision isn't so simplistic as "to take a life or not" in isolation but it's a weighing of potentials and rights of both beings. A highly personal choice that never has an easy answer. I'm of the opinion that the decision must inherently be made by the mother since the child is incapable of input. Others can act as proxy advocates for the rights, potentials and prospects / interests of the child, I suppose, but not in the sanctimonious, hypocritical, simplistic way it's generally done.

 

I don't think its a loaded word and I explained my reasons why with the kangaroo fetus as the example.

Its clearly alive and feels pain.

 

I'm more interested in letting people know what it is they are doing or proposing to do rather than telling them what they can/cannot do or condemning them for any choice they have made.