Should An Atheist Be Pro Life?

[Epicon]

 

I am not arrogant or egotistical enough to believe this should apply to everyone.

 

But are you arrogant and egotistical enough to believe that it is right to believe that there is no right answer?

 

That question might sound a bit cheeky.  But I do believe it is a good point.  When people say "there is no right answer", that is just as bold a claim as saying "there is a right answer, and I know what it is".

 

That's why for me, I say, "I don't know if there's a right answer".

 

(Though of course, you could apply my own logic back on that statement, and say, "How do you know that it is right to think you do not know if there's a right answer?")

 

It's my fault for not saying it clearly.

What I'm trying to say is, for some people, kids are a great thing. Many have children.

I do love kids, but I don't have any.

I have no interest in having kids, because my life isn't the right fit for it.

That is completely right for me but it is also completely right for them.

They aren't wrong for wanting kids, and I'm not wrong for not wanting them.

So you see there really isn't a wrong here, it's just personal perspective.

[mymistake]

I really am not trolling.

 

Would you kindly point out where you answered the question without reference to a mother.

 

It's been 375 posts already.  Logical arguments get dismissed as "not compelling" or "not logical". 

[SquareOne]

 

You're asking why 'the law' protects newborns. A plain reading of a typical murder statute makes this pretty clear: persons are human beings who have been born and are alive. Birth, life, and humanity are the only characteristics the law appears to monitor.

 

Thanks Yrth for trying to answer.  What you have given there is an explanation of what the law is, it's not an explanation of why the law is as it is.

 

 

 

Squareone.... we protect newborns because millions of years of evolution have imbued in us very strong instincts to protect our young.. not because of philosophy or ethics or law. No intellectual thinking is going to change that... it has nothing to do with sentience, and everything to do with biology. At the end - we are just animals.

 

 

I agree.

 

 

I don't know what it is like for men... but I'm a mother and I would gladly, without thinking, give my life to protect my child or even kill to protect her. I would break the law to do so and probably not think twice about that. The instinct is overwhelmingly powerful... and frequently highly irrational.

 

I don't have a child, so it's fairly presumptuous of me to answer.  But I would predict that I would behave in the same way.  That's not to say that all men would, of course.  (Or indeed all mothers!)

 

I have just been reading about this very subject in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.  (Chapter 6, if anyone is interested).

 

Dawkins says that genetically a parent is likely to protect their child because they share 1/2 of their genes.  He predicts that this type of behaviour is more likely in females of a species though, because of the "certainty" factor.  A female is much more likely to have certainty that a given creature is her own child.  A male is not as likely to be certain.

 

Dawkins hypothesises that the brother of the mother of a child is just as likely to be protective towards his nephew/niece as the child's father, because statistically he shares the same amount of genes as his nephew/niece as the father.  In fact he may more certainty that the child is his niece, than the father does that the child is his daughter.

 

Anyway, he explains it better than I ever could!

 

 

 

 

It's been 375 posts already.  Logical arguments get dismissed as "not compelling" or "not logical". 

 

 

 

I see you're defending Vigile, but you're also either not able, or not willing, to tell me what he actually was trying to say.  (Assuming that what he is attempting to say actually fundamentally makes sense.)  So pardon me for not understanding.  I've asked for help, what more can I do?

 

I don't know why you're criticising me for saying that arguments are not logical or compelling.  I give my reasons when I say these things.  I cannot do any more than that.

 

And, hold up a mirror to yourself - do you find any of my arguments logical or compelling?  It would seem not.  And yet I'm not refusing to discuss things with you.  Persuasion is a long game.

[mymistake]

 

 

I see you're defending Vigile, but you're also either not able, or not willing, to tell me what he actually was trying to say.  (Assuming that what he is attempting to say actually fundamentally makes sense.)  So pardon me for not understanding.  I've asked for help, what more can I do?

 

I don't know why you're criticising me for saying that arguments are not logical or compelling.  I give my reasons when I say these things.  I cannot do any more than that.

 

And, hold up a mirror to yourself - do you find any of my arguments logical or compelling?  It would seem not.  And yet I'm not refusing to discuss things with you.  Persuasion is a long game.

 

I'm not defending Vigile.  I'm attempting to persuade him to stop trying.  You don't just ask for help.  You ask for help and then turn on the people who try to help.  Then you butter yourself up as a master of logic.  The times I watched you dismiss arguments I didn't see you give a reason.  You merely used the poo poo fallacy.  On the whole your position is built on fallacies.  You started with a lot of arbitrary assumptions and then criticized the law for being arbitrary.  Your position starts off as self-defeating but you just keep going.  I did put an effort into reaching you only to be told you "see it" when apparently you didn't.  If you really did see it then the conversation wouldn't be here.  The bottom line is that it won't be worth the effort for others to try to persuade you if you are not going to be open and intellectually honest.  Anybody can sit with arms crossed and decide "No, I don't want to believe that!"  I'm not saying "Well, you don't agree so forget you".  I'm not saying anything like that.  I've just reached the point where I don't think any effort or any skill will budge you.  If you have decided to be stuck then why should anybody waste effort on this?

 

As for the "mirror to" myself . . . there have been many occasions where I have changed my position because a valid argument demonstrated that I was wrong.  IIRC either in this thread or one of the other abortions threads somebody convinced me that I should become a Democrat.  That just happened a few days ago.  I use to be a life long Republican.  Then I became a swing voter.  Now I'm a Democrat.  Easy as pie.  All it takes is a valid argument that I cannot refute. 

[SquareOne]

Well, I'm still not hearing an explanation of what Vigile said.

 

I have actually been giving consideration to your argument right at the beginning of this thread, though.  But I'm still in the process of thinking things through.  And this is one aspect of it.

 

Fortunately, Ravenstar has given an adequate answer to the question I posed to Vigile, and it's quite convincing to me, so I'm not so worried any more.

[Kurari]

What Vigile and I are discussing is the reason why the law confers legal personhood on newborns.

 

I do not believe that it is either because humans empathise with newborns (because empathy alone is not enough - we empathise with animals) and I do not believe it is because newborns are self aware (they clearly are not).

 

I assert that it is because the framers of our laws have found human life to have value for its own sake, and is therefore universally applicable from birth to death.  (To be clear, that's a statement of why I think the law is the way it is, not necessarily how I think it should be).

 

The both of you are right. There really isn't an argument here. 

 

I'm baffled as to why you would dismiss empathy as a valid argument for making a law. It's a really common reason we make laws at all. 

[Yrth]

 

 

You're asking why 'the law' protects newborns. A plain reading of a typical murder statute makes this pretty clear: persons are human beings who have been born and are alive. Birth, life, and humanity are the only characteristics the law appears to monitor.

 

Thanks Yrth for trying to answer.  What you have given there is an explanation of what the law is, it's not an explanation of why the law is as it is.

 

I was late to work, but I thought the huge scope of the statute implied the answer: a desire to protect living human beings. At the very least, I thought it would have disqualified the 'personism' approach.

 

Were you looking for more than that? As in, 'why does the legislature desire to protect all living human beings'? Wouldn't the answer boil down to the golden rule?

[SquareOne]

 

 

I'm baffled as to why you would dismiss empathy as a valid argument for making a law. It's a really common reason we make laws at all. 

 

 

 

Vigile said that we protect the lives of newborns because we empathise with them.

 

I said that there must be more too it than mere empathy, because we empathise with animals too, and do not afford them the same protection.

 

Ravenstar has articulated a similar point in a much better way, referring to our evolutionary history as the reason why we care about our newborns over and above any other species.

 

Nonetheless, this could arguably be applied to a foetus as well.

 

And therefore you enter into a balancing act.  Perhaps that is what Vigile was driving at.

 

 

Were you looking for more than that? As in, 'why does the legislature desire to protect all living human beings'? Wouldn't the answer boil down to the golden rule?

 

Yes, that was the question I was asking.

 

And you give a slightly different explanation to Ravenstar.  It is an argument less from genes and more from memes.

 

There is probably truth in your suggestion.  The application of the Golden Rule could be: 'I will save this baby, because if our roles were reversed I would hope that he would do the same for me.'

 

Of course... that argument could also be applied to foetuses too as well.

 

A person could say: "I will try to save this foetus, because I hope that if our roles were reversed, it would do the same for me."  << Has anyone ever thought about the pro life position from the angle of the Golden Rule before?  I haven't.  Gives me pause for thought.

 

Obviously it has a fundamental problem in that a foetus cannot comprehend the argument itself, at the time.  Is comprehension on the part of the other party necessary for the application of the Golden Rule?  Genuinely asking what people think on that, I really have no idea.

[Kurari]

 

 

I'm baffled as to why you would dismiss empathy as a valid argument for making a law. It's a really common reason we make laws at all. 

 

 

 

Vigile said that we protect the lives of newborns because we empathise with them.

 

I said that there must be more too it than mere empathy, because we empathise with animals too, and do not afford them the same protection.

 

Ravenstar has articulated a similar point in a much better way, referring to our evolutionary history as the reason why we care about our newborns over and above any other species.

 

Nonetheless, this could arguably be applied to a foetus as well.

 

And therefore you enter into a balancing act.  Perhaps that is what Vigile was driving at.

 

Vigile pointed out that we empathize with others if they can suffer and feel pain. A newborn might not understand pain, but it is self-aware enough to feel pain happening to it. People do fight pretty hard for animal rights to make it so they don't suffer either.

 

I also think we SYMPATHIZE rather than EMPATHIZE with human infants. We might not remember being a baby exactly, but most of us do remember being small children and know exactly what it's like to be a small, vulnerable. and helpless human being...and we know that we were human infants too once. 

 

 

 

 

Were you looking for more than that? As in, 'why does the legislature desire to protect all living human beings'? Wouldn't the answer boil down to the golden rule?

 

Yes, that was the question I was asking.

 

And you give a slightly different explanation to Ravenstar.  It is an argument less from genes and more from memes.

 

There is probably truth in your suggestion.  The application of the Golden Rule could be: 'I will save this baby, because if our roles were reversed I would hope that he would do the same for me.'

 

Of course... that argument could also be applied to foetuses too as well.

 

A person could say: "I will try to save this foetus, because I hope that if our roles were reversed, it would do the same for me."  << Has anyone ever thought about the pro life position from the angle of the Golden Rule before?  I haven't.  Gives me pause for thought.

 

Obviously it has a fundamental problem in that a foetus cannot comprehend the argument itself, at the time.  Is comprehension on the part of the other party necessary for the application of the Golden Rule?  Genuinely asking what people think on that, I really have no idea.

 

 

I have. It's a really common (and very stupid) question Anti-Choicers like to spout off at you without thinking. "What if your mother had aborted YOU?"  

 

In a purely philosophical sense, I know my mom would have given her life for me, and I certainly would do the same for her. So if it meant never existing, that idea doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

 

In reality though, I think comprehension really is a key part of the Golden Rule. It's a social concept. If you're unconscious, social concepts don't exist or apply to you.

[Yrth]

 

 

 

> 

 

 

 

Were you looking for more than that? As in, 'why does the legislature desire to protect all living human beings'? Wouldn't the answer boil down to the golden rule?

 

Yes, that was the question I was asking.

 

And you give a slightly different explanation to Ravenstar.  It is an argument less from genes and more from memes.

 

There is probably truth in your suggestion.  The application of the Golden Rule could be: 'I will save this baby, because if our roles were reversed I would hope that he would do the same for me.'

 

Of course... that argument could also be applied to foetuses too as well.

 

A person could say: "I will try to save this foetus, because I hope that if our roles were reversed, it would do the same for me."  << Has anyone ever thought about the pro life position from the angle of the Golden Rule before?  I haven't.  Gives me pause for thought.

 

Obviously it has a fundamental problem in that a foetus cannot comprehend the argument itself, at the time.  Is comprehension on the part of the other party necessary for the application of the Golden Rule?  Genuinely asking what people think on that, I really have no idea.

 

 

I have. It's a really common (and very stupid) question Anti-Choicers like to spout off at you without thinking. "What if your mother had aborted YOU?"  

 

In a purely philosophical sense, I know my mom would have given her life for me, and I certainly would do the same for her. So if it meant never existing, that idea doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

 

In reality though, I think comprehension really is a key part of the Golden Rule. It's a social concept. If you're unconscious, social concepts don't exist or apply to you.

 

 

 

I've thought about it and I don't think it's a very stupid question. I was a fetus once and I'm very glad I was not aborted because I like being alive. If some people wouldn't have minded being aborted, that's their business I suppose, but it's hardly something you would assume to be true because most people want to live. I wouldn't kill anyone, no one should kill me. It's less of a meme and more of a timeless moral foundation -- reciprocity. Preemptive note: I may not have been a 'person' to some people, but there's no denying that whatever I was was indeed me and I it and it me and so on, it's just a fact.

 

Why would capacity to comprehend be necessary? Social concepts do apply to unconscious people: sleeping people, people knocked unconscious by blunt force, people put under by chemicals, etc. I am often unconscious -- every night when I fall asleep. In fact, this particular social concept applies to entire cultures that don't even exist yet -- 'I wouldn't want my ancestors to leave behind a wretched environment on earth, so I won't do the same for my descendants.' It even applies to non-persons/lower-level persons such as animals and even plant life, believe it or not. Confession: I often try to see the world from my cats' perspective in order to get a sense of what's fair from their eyes.

[SilentLoner]

 

I'll just leave this here in case no one has posted it yet. 

[Adrianime]

I would call myself pro-life.

 

This is because I do not accept the moral legitimacy of the State sanctioning abortion.

 

This is because I believe that all laws should be founded on a rational, non-arbitrary justifications.

 

And, I do not believe that current state-sanctioned abortion law is entirely founded upon rational, non-arbitrary justifications.

 

For me the starting point is that human life should be protected.  We are cosmic miracles: unlikely blessings from what appears to be a cold and unconscious universe.

 

For me, this is the justification for making murder and manslaughter crimes.  Though I would accept there are other legitimate supplementary justifications for murder and manslaughter being crimes, it is the preciousness of life itself that we should seek to preserve.

 

Therefore, I derive the general principle that all human life is, for want of a better word - sacred.  That is to say, worthy of protection in its own right.

 

.

 

Oh Goody, more abortion talk.  Without actually getting into my thoughts on abortion (Which are in JadedAtheists thread), I'll just address my thoughts on points of your argument. 

 

The purpose of laws, or morals even, doesn't have anything to do with inherent good or bad.  We didn't come to protect human life because it's inherently "sacred" and therefore good.  We came to protect human life because we are emotional creatures.  And to survive in a society together as we must, we develop rules (laws) and guidelines (morals) that reflect our emotions.  It's about what makes us as a society of animals work together and live together.  So just focusing on not killing humans.  I would say we have two major reasons not do it. 

1.  Because of anger.  In killing somebody you can spark somebody elses anger and cause them to retaliate.  Which can lead to more anger, retaliations, and deaths.  As a society, allowing ourselves to kill each other just doesn't make much sense if we want to survive.  2 (the real reason in my eyes).  Because of pain/sadness/sympathy/empathy.  We feel sadness, and we recognize sadness.  We empathize with those who are in pain or who are sad.  And we sympathize by imagining ourselves in painful or saddening situations.  We don't want to do something to others that we would hate so much to be done to us. 

 

Of course these are just my own rationalizations. 

 

When talking about abortion.  I personally can't sympathize or empathize with something that isn't born yet.  I can't even imagine what it is thinking or feeling.  According to many others it cannot think or feel until they 3rd trimester.  And the whole anger aspect is not much of an issue with abortion, because the one who should be angry, would be the one deciding to do it (ideally).  All of this is all assuming that you count the unborn child as a living human.  Personally, I don't.  Obviously you do (OP).  But if you do consider the unborn child a living human, then a "pro-life" stance makes sense, since you are sympathizing with the unborn child.  Religion hardly even matters in this as it is more of an issue of personal emotions.  I suppose if religion is dictating that the sperm and egg are a human life the moment they touch, then yeah it has to do with it.  But it kind of just has to do with where you draw the line between "this is a human life being extinguished"  and "This is a potential human life being extinguised".  Both sides can be valid, depending on how you are emotionally defining a living human being. 

 

I feel (as an animal) you have to be born to live.  You feel (as an animal) you have to be conceived to live. 

 

Are animals still animals before they are born?  Is an egg an animal?  Are pre-birth staged organisms animals?  As far as I'm concerned...nope. 

 

just my take on things.

 

And regarding killing other animals.  Most humans are desensitized.  For me, I couldn't ever eat an animal that I saw alive.  I sympathize too much with them.  I try to see animals as beings that share this planet with us.  I don't want to see them hurt, just as I don't want to see humans hurt.  Sure I'll care for humans a bit more.  But they are living creatures that were born into this world as well.  I'm just glad my parents introduced me to meat before I fully developed my emotions because I do love me some chicken, turkey, pig, and cow (the only animals I will eat).  I'm desensitized to eating those particular animals because I've been doing it all my life.  Other animals, it hurts to think about eating them.  But really, it's all natural.  Animals are designed (not intentionally designed by a god) to live and grow by devouring other life.  That's a different issue I know, but it's all related to when killing is acceptable.  I'll just stop now before I start talking about more random things!  Haha. 

[Akheia]

SquareOne, in answer to your question, I don't need to see your answers typed out, but I think it would be very useful to you to ponder them, because three pages later it doesn't look like anything I've ever said made any difference to you or that you're engaging with me on any kind of level. MM is right, absolutely correct, spot-on. You act like you want a discussion, but 20 pages later, you're still clinging to the same bullshit legalese. You dismiss others' points out of hand without giving evidence for why, or you ignore them entirely (AHEM). You start with a premise you haven't even proven, and the only consistent thing about your position is in fact its inconsistency. For proof, you're still harping on "BUT NEWBORN BAYBEEEEZ YOU GUIZE" when the adults in the room already dealt with that situation like 18 pages ago.

 

If you still don't understand why fetuses aren't magic, if you still think that they should get rights over and above the women forced into carrying them, if you still think that everything would be peachy-keen if we just declared fetuses people because oh then, oh then, oh then FINALLY the law would be perfectly rational and "consistent" in your opinion, if you are educated enough to admit and understand that biology itself does not support your opinion but suffering enough male privilege to think that your opinion should trump that of others, if you don't understand the very real links between excessive restrictions on abortion and women's rights in general, if you don't get how detrimental anti-choice laws would be to both freedom of religion and to people's liberty in general, and for fuck's sake if you still don't grasp why we make a very clear and rational distinction between a fetus and a newborn baby, then the simple truth is that you are the problem here, not us.

 

Isn't it funny that the guys who think they're the most rational, and who demand rationality the loudest, are the most irrational themselves?

 

Why don't you stop trying to be a lawyer, because damn you are shitty at it and this is totally not the place to use that approach anyway, and start being a compassionate human being? It's so easy for you to pretend compassion for a blob you wouldn't even notice on a woman's tampon, but it seems so much harder for you to actually empathize with women--real women, real flesh-and-blood women, real women whose lives might be on the line if they can't get an abortion, real women whose very bodily sovereignty you are so blithely dismissing out of hand, real women standing right here telling you about their realities and their experiences, and for some reason you're ignoring us and choosing instead to side with fundies, liars, controllers, and abusers to rob us of even the most intimate and basic rights a human can have: the right not to be enslaved.

 

I admit, that's the most irrational thing I can possibly imagine!

[Vigile]

 

 

Vigile said that we protect the lives of newborns because we empathise with them..

 

Dude, don't paraphrase me.  It's clear you don't understand what it is I said.  If you must refer to what I said in this thread, use my quotes and leave them in context so I'm not being misrepresented.

 

Thanks

[SquareOne]

Vigile.

 

Vigile I asked you to clarify what you said, but you refused.  So I have done my best to interpret what you mean.

 

Adrianime

 

 

 All of this is all assuming that you count the unborn child as a living human.  Personally, I don't.  Obviously you do (OP).

 

Thanks for joining the thread, Adrianme, I think you have articulated the issue very well.  (Not just in the quote above, but everything you said.)

 

Let's just first define our terms.  I presume when you say "living human"  you must mean "homo sapiens fully worthy of the full protection of the law, and recognised as having equal humanity with an adult".  I have called this a legal person in the posts above, so I'll use my definition from before.  Obviously I don't mind which you use provided we're talking about the same thing.

 

I think it's important to understand that I do not have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that a foetus is a legal person.  For me, it seems like it should be the default position that if an adult is a legal person, then so must all human life, unless we identify a point at which to draw the line.  And for me, since we're dealing with the bestowing of humanity on a creature, we should be able to justify the reason for drawing the line at a given place.

 

Akheia

 

 

if you still don't grasp why we make a very clear and rational distinction between a fetus and a newborn baby

 

Well, so far Ravenstar has referred to biological dependency / non-dependency.

 

And Adrianme has identified what I would call the visceral (empahty/sympathy) difference between foetus, and a newborn.

 

Both of these are logical, consistent, clear, and rational, explanations in my eyes.

 

However, the law is not based on this - rather it is based on the 24 week rule, backed up with the viability outside the womb argument.  Which suggests the law makers as a collective have not applied the same logic as Ravenstar and Adrianme, because the law is more restrictive than what their logic would seem to be be appropriate.

 

Yet what they have argued effectively means that the 24 week rule doesn't matter, provided it is before birth.

 

In fact, one could argue that the 24 week rule is discriminatory because it restricts abortion rights illogically.

 

All good points.

 

Adrianme (again)

 

What is your view on late term abortion?  Third trimester, for example.

 

It's not a trick question, I promise.

[Vigile]

Vigile I asked you to clarify what you said, but you refused.  So I have done my best to interpret what you mean..

 

Don't pull this shit on me.  I've more than answered.  The only thing I've refused to do is to continue regurgitating answers you've already been provided with.  You are just too thick to understand, so again, if you are going to refer to me, don't paraphrase as you have no idea how to interpret what I've written. 

 

You are intellectually dishonest when you play these debate games. 

 

[SquareOne]

I'm sorry I've given that impression.  If I don't understand something all I can do is ask you to explain it again.  If that comes across as deflection or intellectual dishonesty, I suppose that's the pitfall of online communication.  It's hard to indicate sincerity when the other person does not know your underlying character.

[SquareOne]

TO EVERYONE

 

I'm going to write a sort of closing summation on this thread.  I'm going to do it properly, so it might take a few days.  I'm going to do my best to summarise the main arguments of the main contributors to the thread, and then give a statement of my current views.  Those views have changed, in case you're wondering.

 

If there is anything that any of you are keen to make sure I include in consideration please let me know, I don't want to be accused of leaving stones unturned or ideas unconsidered.

 

Thanks!

[Sunny49]

Well, I think I´m pro life. On wikipedia they say pro life movement is against abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, embryonic stem-cell research. I´m against abortion because I think it´s kind of irresponsible. I think woman should have thought about their fertility long before they decided to have sex. Every action has its consequences and if you don´t know that having unprotected sex can make you pregnant than you are a complete ignorant. I think abortion allows women to act irresponsible. Using contraception and acting a little bit smarter is really not hard. I´m against euthanasia just because I think I shouldn´t do to other people what I wouldn´t like other people to do to me. I wouldn´t want anyone to murder me. Plus, there is always a chance for a spontaneous recovery. Death penalty, I´m against it, well, because I have a heart I think every person deserves a second chance and instead of killing her we can resocialize people. People who commit crime usually had really messed up childhoods, they were abused and neglected and then we as society treat them no differently. Instead of helping them we murder them. I think it´s cruel. We can educate them and offer them psychological help instead of putting them in prisons. We all realize that putting a person in the prison does not help them, it just keeps them away from the society. Not to mention how they treat them like shit. Now, maybe I am totally idealistic and naive, and I know there are some personality disorders which cannot be cured, like sociopathy, but then again, maybe we didn´t try hard enough. 

 

When it comes to emryonic stem-cell research, I support it, I don´t see a reason why not. I support scientific progress. 

[Ravenstar]

"I think woman should have thought about their fertility long before
they decided to have sex. Every action has its consequences and if you
don´t know that having unprotected sex can make you pregnant than you
are a complete ignorant."

 

Oh.. that just pisses me off.

 

You really don't want to go there... birth control fails... more than most people know, and when is it only the woman's responsibility for birth control? Fuck that...why do men get off scott-free? (pun intended)

 

All three of my pregnancies were because of birth control failures beyond my control, not irresponsibility. (ya, I'm scary fertile) I took complete responsibility for each one, one decision was an elective abortion.. and I sure as hell do not have to answer to anyone else for that decision. What would have been irresponsible of me, at that time, was to bring that child into the world.

 

I guess I should have just welded my knees together, huh? I'm such a slut.

 

That's a pretty uneducated, morally judgmental and ignorant blanket statement.

[Adrianime]

Adrianme (again)

 

What is your view on late term abortion?  Third trimester, for example.

 

It's not a trick question, I promise.

 

HI,  I think Late abortions fall into the category of "stuff happens".  I stil maintain my view that it is not a living human being until it is born.  I don't go so deep as to start talking about viability.  Everybody has their own take on the issue, and that's mine. 

 

So yeah, something might happen in the 3rd trimester.

-You lose your job

-You learn that you have cancer

-You start a divorce

-Your fetus(or whatever you wanna call it) is growing in a way that endangers your life

 

I mean anything could happen.  Stuff just happens in life.  I think it is a bit easier to get sad when the unborn child is so developed that it is shaped like us.  So it is likely going to be more traumatizing for the mother and family.  But, I still don't view it as murder.  If this were a perfect world, where stupid stuff wasn't happening all the time.  Maybe I would who knows.  But in my mind, it's not even a point to dwell on.  Too much other crap is happening in the world.

 

I realize giving your child up for adoption is an option.  Emotionally I could hardly handle that.  Giving brith to a child and then losing it is something I can imagine, and it would be so terrible.

[Epicon]

Well, I think I´m pro life. On wikipedia they say pro life movement is against abortion, euthanasia, death penalty, embryonic stem-cell research. I´m against abortion because I think it´s kind of irresponsible. I think woman should have thought about their fertility long before they decided to have sex. Every action has its consequences and if you don´t know that having unprotected sex can make you pregnant than you are a complete ignorant. I think abortion allows women to act irresponsible. Using contraception and acting a little bit smarter is really not hard. I´m against euthanasia just because I think I shouldn´t do to other people what I wouldn´t like other people to do to me. I wouldn´t want anyone to murder me. Plus, there is always a chance for a spontaneous recovery. Death penalty, I´m against it, well, because I have a heart I think every person deserves a second chance and instead of killing her we can resocialize people. People who commit crime usually had really messed up childhoods, they were abused and neglected and then we as society treat them no differently. Instead of helping them we murder them. I think it´s cruel. We can educate them and offer them psychological help instead of putting them in prisons. We all realize that putting a person in the prison does not help them, it just keeps them away from the society. Not to mention how they treat them like shit. Now, maybe I am totally idealistic and naive, and I know there are some personality disorders which cannot be cured, like sociopathy, but then again, maybe we didn´t try hard enough. 

 

When it comes to emryonic stem-cell research, I support it, I don´t see a reason why not. I support scientific progress. 

 

I mean no disrespect, but I can't help but shake my head at your death penalty mindset.

You say, you are against it because "you have a heart" and honestly that is something a Christian would say.

"Killing someone solves nothing, they will just go to hell in time anyway. Besides it's all about forgiveness and giving someone else a chance. Jesus is all about forgiveness."

 

I have met, many people. Probably more than most because I spend ten years in a rock band.

People with the problems I have met, even minor ones, such as fear of commitment, being lazy, minor emotional problems; do not change often.

People with major issues, such as drug addiction, being untrustworthy as a person, cheating in a relationship, not getting help for mental problems, drug abuse. Change even less.

Are there success stories? sure. Funny how the unsuccessful stories get thrown under a rug.

So considering most people do not even change from minor to major life problems, what do you think the odds of a killer doing it?

Beyond the typical self defense crimes, why do they deserve sympathy?

I get why people, who believe in a fantasy afterlife believe in forgiveness and "we leave it to god" to judge.

However, seeing as how I do not believe in any after life or deity, I don't believe that.

It doesn't matter how sorry a person is, if they change or not, if someone takes a person's life just for the heck of it, or if they enjoy it.

They need to have their life shorted as well, change or not.

Also not even to mention, taking the out, promises they can never hurt anyone again and you are saving people's lives that the person would hurt.

I wonder if you had a loved one raped and murdered in your home, if you feel that person should be given a second chance?

I think your heart honestly blinds you, to the reality that a cold blooded killer deserves to be killed.

 

Again, sorry if I come off as offensive that isn't my intention. Just wondering about what you said.

[Epicon]

"I think woman should have thought about their fertility long before

they decided to have sex. Every action has its consequences and if you

don´t know that having unprotected sex can make you pregnant than you

are a complete ignorant."

 

Oh.. that just pisses me off.

 

You really don't want to go there... birth control fails... more than most people know, and when is it only the woman's responsibility for birth control? Fuck that...why do men get off scott-free? (pun intended)

 

All three of my pregnancies were because of birth control failures beyond my control, not irresponsibility. (ya, I'm scary fertile) I took complete responsibility for each one, one decision was an elective abortion.. and I sure as hell do not have to answer to anyone else for that decision. What would have been irresponsible of me, at that time, was to bring that child into the world.

 

I guess I should have just welded my knees together, huh? I'm such a slut.

 

That's a pretty uneducated, morally judgmental and ignorant blanket statement.

 

Regardless if I am okay with what you did or not. In fact, regardless who the hell is okay with it or not. It means this, exactly shit or less than shit because shit has a purpose.

 

The only person who you have to answer to is yourself. I agree with your point completely.

I have a moral line, I have drawn in my life, a personal code if you will.

If someone close to me crosses the line, they are cut off because there are things I can't and won't personally stand for.

My friend of ten years, told me (didn't know he was like this honestly), that he liked killing kittens in his garage.

Not only did I beat the hell out of him, I stopped talking to him.

Now there are some that would agree with me, others would say I am extreme and they "were just animals", especially since I used violence.

I am sure they would probably even say, it's dumb to cut a friend off for such a reason.

Maybe think, I should have went to the law.

However none that matters, it only matters how I feel and think about it.

I'm not going to invest too high or too low into what someone says, unless the are extremely trusted by me emotionally.

Even then sometimes not.

 

Don't know how pissed off you were about that comment but if you can't battle the dimwit logically, don't let it upset you and ignore them/him/her.

 

I respect the posts of yours I have seen very highly.

I'm against abortion, unless in cases of rape, molest, child development issues and health threat to the mother.

Again, it doesn't matter though and I can still respect your point.

[SquareOne]

 

 

I'm against abortion, unless in cases of rape, molest, child development issues and health threat to the mother.

 

 

 

Epicon, why would you allow abortion in the instance of rape, but not from consensual sex?

[Adrianime]

 

 

I'm against abortion, unless in cases of rape, molest, child development issues and health threat to the mother.

 

 

 

Epicon, why would you allow abortion in the instance of rape, but not from consensual sex?

 

I also think that's a weak argument.  If you believe the thing in a woman's stomach is to be protected and has rights, its origin shouldn't matter.