Atheism & Abortion

coffee_cake

JimiTime wrote: »

I have to say, thats how anyone I've talked to says it. Its like, 'but its not right to use it as a form of contraception'. I am assuming that thats what Tar was talking about, as thats what his point seemed to suggest. maybe he could clarify that one.

Just to clarify your position then. You think its stupid to use it as a contraception, but not wrong?

I'm not sure. My attitude in general is that I would prefer it didn't happen at all, but it should be an option. And in the very earliest stages it is just a clump of cells.
I would like to think that people would realise there are far better forms of contraception and just not do that...

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

When I think of myself, I think of see myself as a single unit containing multiple parts. If you cut of my toe and chop off my arm, they aren’t me (although they once where) I am the sum total of my parts 

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you can safely remove parts of you without destroying "you" then you aren't the sum total of your parts, since without certain parts you are still "you"

So the question is what parts can you remove and still be you.

I would imagine most people would say everything except my brain. You can have a new heart, a new face, new kidneys, new hands, new skin, new eyes etc etc.

Can you have a new brain and still be "you"?

I asked this earlier in the thread, but its a good time to ask again. If you removed your brain from your body and put it into another persons body, where does "you" go? Is "you" in the original body, or is it in the new body? (anyone who has seen any sci-fi should know what I'm talking about)

Hivemind187

robindch wrote: »

While it's debatable whether or not your passionate approach does put you in the same debate-category as your opponents, I do believe that you are as unable to see, or appreciate, the other side of the argument, very bit as much as they are. And for the reasons which I mentioned in this post from yesterday. As Scofflaw followed up, it comes down to a matter of opinion and at that level, it's your opinion against theirs -- do you see this?I wasn't talking about stealing itself. I was referring to making laws which proscribe stealing -- you're in favour of these? Or do you believe that society has no right to make laws which override your own wish to steal the property of others without the threat of legal action? The group overriding the will of the individual is what you dislike, as far as I can understand.

BTW, you say that clumps of cells have no human rights. At what point do you believe that clumps of cells do acquire rights, including the right to existence?

You are missing my point completely. I can perfectly understand why people want to try and protect what they view as a life, however I do not condone their behaviour nor their point of view because, in my consideration of the evidence it is not one which makes sense. It is as if they are happy to call a particular segment of the life cycle more important than another.

As for the politics of the group over riding the will of the individual - stop talking goo! Get this through your head - no one has the right to interfere in the affairs of another person, especially in matters concerning the use of their own body where those actions do not interfere with someone else respectively. That some people view the foetus as a person is irrelevant since the foetus is a product of that persons body and entirely dependent on the mother for EVERY FACULTY THAT SUPPORTS ITS LIFE and relies solely on her altruism - a conditional granting of resources to the foetus which can be stopped at any point.

As for the rights of clumps of cells. I have already explained this.

Rev Hellfire

I agree that use of the word sum is misleading, perhaps a collection of parts is more exact. No individual part is identified as 'you' rather its the group which defines you.

For identity the brain would seem to be the logical container of our identity.
As for if it is the sole item which defines us I'm not so sure, I'd concede I don't have the answer to that one.

Perhaps the functioning brain is the most important part, but it doesn't in my view detract from view that the zygot can still be tied to an other entity in a way that is unique from sperm and ovum.

Dave!

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you can safely remove parts of you without destroying "you" then you aren't the sum total of your parts, since without certain parts you are still "you"

So the question is what parts can you remove and still be you.

I would imagine most people would say everything except my brain. You can have a new heart, a new face, new kidneys, new hands, new skin, new eyes etc etc.

Can you have a new brain and still be "you"?

I asked this earlier in the thread, but its a good time to ask again. If you removed your brain from your body and put it into another persons body, where does "you" go? Is "you" in the original body, or is it in the new body? (anyone who has seen any sci-fi should know what I'm talking about)

That's an interesting point... could be an argument for why abortion would be acceptable up until the brain is developed (although again you'd have to decide on an arbitrary point after which it's not acceptable, since the brain continues to develop after birth even -- and I think self-awareness is only a post-natal feature of psychology... although I could be wrong, haven't done psychology in a while >.> )

Zombrex

DaveMcG wrote: »

That's an interesting point... could be an argument for why abortion would be acceptable up until the brain is developed

That is the stance I take, or at least under the brain begins higher activity. I tend to air on the side of caution in this regard, though my understand is that the brain begins to grow before it is active. As for aborting a child before the brain has developed at all, I see no ethical problem with that.

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote: »

I don't need to refute it. I accept fully that a foetus is constructed within, using the parent body. What I have said is that there is no universal acknowledgement of when that "clump of cells" becomes considerable / considered as a human life.

bonkey wrote: »

I have also pointed out that while you argue forcefully for your position, you also argue that no-one should be allowed impose their position on others. This is more at the crux of the reason why I posted here. Your stance would be unremarkable if you weren't trying to defend it by effectively saying "we should do things my way, because no-one should be allowed tell anyone else what way they should do things".

Show me where I said that. Show me where I demand everyone agree to do things my way.

My argument is very simple. No one has the right, morally or ethically, to interfere with another human being where that human beings actions etc are not impinging on their right to conduct themselves in the same way. Its slightly anarchic I know but in all honesty, if you enjoy the idea of telling people what they can and cant do with their bodies then you are happy for certain laws to exist such as sexual laws, prostitution laws, drug laws or even bans on tattoos and piercings.

You cannot justify one without justifying the other.

bonkey wrote: »

I've never given up my right to complain abou tit, nor my right to do anything about it. I've said only that I have to accept that society involves the existence of rules, which - by their very nature - will involve some group of people being told that they cannot do what they would like to.

While I accept fully that a rule can be wrong, and that wrong imposition is made, I do not accept the argument you make which is that its wrong to impose any restriction in the first place.

You are still missing my point. Go back and read what I have actually said.

Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. These are wrong because they are one individual arbitrarily imposing their will, without consent, on another person for the purposes of either murder or power. That is wrong because a persons right to continue living under their own faculty is one of the few quantifiable things in this argument. they are making the effort, no one else has the right to interfere with that.

And if you are happy to allow anyone to start making up rules then you are happy for impositions on the body like sex, drug, prostitution laws.

bonkey wrote: »

So then you must agree that the question becomes purely and solely whether the foetus which they are imposing their will on constitutes "other people". Indeed, that question extends beyond abortion, and through into any number of issues.

We need to define what constitutes "other people" clearly before this stance has any real meaning. Your position seems to be that it is wrong for society to make that decision - that it should be to each individual to make it. However, I'm willing to bet that without too much effort I could come up with situations where you'd find that reasoning abhorrent. You'd perhaps argue that I'm deliberately skewing your intent, but the point is that either we agree that society can set the common boundaries, or we agree that there are no common boundaries

Boundaries are a mostly human concept. I agree that a society in which we all have to live needs certain rules - however, those rules should not be designed to curb the choices of an individual where there is no impingement on another individual (ie. murder, rape, theft, assault etc).

If you define a foetus as a person then you can make the murder argument. However I do not believe that definition is correct as I have explained. ad nauseum.




Or, put another way, you would see it as no more your or my concern what teh mother does with her foetus-property as it is what she does with her toenail-property. And thats a perfectly fine stance, as long as you're willing to say that society can impose on me that this is simply "the mother's property".


Yes, they do. They do not, in my opinion, form a significant minority. I would, however, be very interested in hearing their point of view, and discussing it with them. I do not think society should just dismiss their point of view out of hand.


I'm neither aware of a significant minority for the hanging of doctors who assist in abortions, nor for the hanging of non-vegan chefs....so its hardly surprising that we're not hanging either.[/QUOTE]

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I agree that use of the word sum is misleading, perhaps a collection of parts is more exact. No individual part is identified as 'you' rather its the group which defines you.

Again that doesn't make sense, since it is possible to interchange parts, as anyone who has had a transplant will tell you.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

For identity the brain would seem to be the logical container of our identity.
As for if it is the sole item which defines us I'm not so sure, I'd concede I don't have the answer to that one.

Well that point comes down to why humans have rights that other animals don't. Other animals have hands, have eyes, have feet, have hearts, have stomaches etc etc.

Yet we don't view killing a cow the same as killing a human.

So the question then is why? What property do humans have that make us different from other animals?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps the functioning brain is the most important part, but it doesn't in my view detract from view that the zygot can still be tied to an other entity in a way that is unique from sperm and ovum.

This is true of every animal though. Why is a human zygote of more value than a fox zygote or a chicken zygote?

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote: »

As I've clarified in my previous post, my main interest in this conversation was to understand how Hivemind could argue on one hand that society has no right to impose one view over another, whilst at the same time effectively arguing that society should impose one view over another...that being the view (supported by Hivemind) that its the mother's choice and that it is not murder in any objective sense.

Unless Hivemind is arguing that anyone should be allowed to commit any act that they can justify to themselves, then the argument that society is wrong to impose restrictions is inherently flawed.

It becomes a question of how should society best achieve this.

You are missing my point. I am not arguing that anyone be allowed to do anything they can justify to themselves personally. That is a deliberately skewed version of my point.

I am saying that society has the power to impose on people certain rules for everyones collective benefit. Murder, rape, theft etc are all laws where there is a victim and a perpetrator, a crime is committed whereby one individual imposes their will to take the rights of another individual, who is actively supporting those rights (life is the simplest example) through exercising the responsibility associated with them.

What I am arguing is that, at an individual level, the choice belongs to the woman since her decision affect no one other than herself and the product of her own body. In these circumstances no one has the right to dictate nor to interfere with her choice.

Arguing that people do have the right to arbitrarily interfere with others in this way allows for people to draft laws against gays, blacks, jews, prostitutes, drug users or game show hosts.

Admittedly, my argument is based on the position I have put forward regarding the status of a foetus etc in my earlier posts.

Zombrex

Hive to be honest you seem to be just arguing for the sake of it now

Everyone, myself, Scofflaw, bonkey etc were objecting the statements in your original post such as -

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Trying to claim that pro-lifers argument is only that they believe that a zygote/fotus is a person and is therefore entitled to rights is deliberately avoiding reality.

I said it before and I will say it again. Pro-life is about taking other peoples choices from them. no matter what way you try to dress it up it is nothing more than imposing your will on another person. That pro-lifers believe that they are doing the right thing is irrelevant.

As pretty much everyone at this stage has told you, that is nonsense.

The Pro-Life groups are doing this because they believe the foetus is a human being and as such has the exact same rights as any other human being.

You can disagree if you like (I disagree up to a point). But to say that this isn't their argument is nonsense.

To say that the pro-life campaign is "nothing more" than an attempt to impose their will on others is equally ridiculous. The entire legal system is set up around the concept of imposing standards of ethics on people who don't agree (ie murders, rapists, robbers etc).

I understand perfectly that you don't agree that the foetus is a life, and therefore the foetus doesn't require the rights of a person, but again that is irrelevant. They do That is their motivation, not the desire to impose control on people.

You really need to take a second and have a think about what people are saying to you.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Get this through your head - no one has the right to interfere in the affairs of another person, especially in matters concerning the use of their own body where those actions do not interfere with someone else respectively. That some people view the foetus as a person is irrelevant

If a foetus is a person - someone else - then actions of the pregnant woman interfere with someone else.

If the foetus is not a person, then there is no interference.

How is that irrelevant? It is the very core of the issue.

since the foetus is a product of that persons body and entirely dependent on the mother for EVERY FACULTY THAT SUPPORTS ITS LIFE and relies solely on her altruism - a conditional granting of resources to the foetus which can be stopped at any point.

If the foetus is "someone else" then none of that matters.
If the foetus is not "someone else" then none of that matters.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

Hive to be honest you seem to be just arguing for the sake of it now

Everyone, myself, Scofflaw, bonkey etc were objecting the statements in your original post such as -

As pretty much everyone at this stage has told you, that is nonsense.

The Pro-Life groups are doing this because they believe the foetus is a human being and as such has the exact same rights as any other human being.

You can disagree if you like (I disagree up to a point). But to say that this isn't their argument is nonsense.

To say that the pro-life campaign is "nothing more" than an attempt to impose their will on others is equally ridiculous. The entire legal system is set up around the concept of imposing standards of ethics on people who don't agree (ie murders, rapists, robbers etc).

I understand perfectly that you don't agree that the foetus is a life, and therefore the foetus doesn't require the rights of a person, but again that is irrelevant. They do That is their motivation, not the desire to impose control on people.

You really need to take a second and have a think about what people are saying to you.

I have thought about it Wicknight and the only thing that keeps cropping up when I read the arguements are "evidence" and "justification".

The problem is that the pro-life argument claims to need no justification for their assertion that the foetus is a human being. That they believe it seems to be enough. That is not good enough. They have got to provide evidence and to give a rational reason for why they are taking rights away from one part of the life cycle in order to anoint another part.

I stand by my point that it is an issue of imposing will on another group because that is exactly what is happening. What is important is that the pro-life movement wishes to imposes its belief on another group (largely that no one can have an abortion and in many cases outlawing contraception - a direct interference and demand for majority control over something that is not their property - a hijack if you will) whereas the pro-choice movement does not - it seeks the right for individuals to choose.

It is the desire to control other people reproductive system, what other purpose is there? Defending life is only the goal, it is not the method that they use - the method requires that they have controlling rights over other human beings reproductive system.

How is this wrong? How am I missing the point here? This is an argument not about what is happening right now but over the morality, ethics and reality of abortion. That is the reality, the pro-life campaign wants to control peoples reproductive system by limiting their rights towards a goal of protecting what they see as a human life- without qualification, evidence or justification.

I'm sorry if you think I mean that all pro-lifers are slavering, rabid madmen (some are), rather I think that they are deluded or confused about the issue or have another agenda (at an individual level).

Dades

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It is the desire to control other people reproductive system, what other purpose is there? Defending life is only the goal, it is not the method that they use - the method requires that they have controlling rights over other human beings reproductive system.

"Defending life is only the goal"? What do you mean only the goal?

Obviously if your goal is to save a life, then imposing restrictions on another persons reproductive system is necessary. I'm sure given the opportunity to remove the zygote/embryo/baby and grow it in a box they would - but that technology does not exist.

That you don't agree it's a life is irrelevant to that fact.

coffee_cake

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the stance I take, or at least under the brain begins higher activity. I tend to air on the side of caution in this regard, though my understand is that the brain begins to grow before it is active. As for aborting a child before the brain has developed at all, I see no ethical problem with that.

Err on the side of caution! Err!
I'm really sorry but everyone keeps writing "air"...

Anyway, I'm also with that stance.

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

Err on the side of caution! Err!
I'm really sorry but everyone keeps writing "air"...

Cheers for that, I was one of the guilty party. Had a feeling there was something wrong with it.

Sangre

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I like to think if I were an evil overlord I'd keep my end of things up, certainly. Organ donors, lunch, whatever.

A profound misreading, based on your view that the embryo is human - and rather than work out how to correct my argument, you have simply attributed to me a view that only exists as a corollary of your view :

Argument: an embryo is a clump of cells, and has no more rights than a finger or a toe.

Misreading: an embryo is a human being, and therefore anyone who claims the above thinks that human beings are just clumps of cells and therefore devoid of rights.

Your misreading doesn't even follow. The correct reinterpretation of the argument would be:

an embryo is a clump of cells and a human being by virtue of (?). A finger or a toe is also a clump of cells. If the embryo has rights, so should your organs, unless we can show some meaningful difference between them.

All you need to do is show a meaningful difference between the clump of cells that constitutes an embryo, and the clump of cells that constitute a finger or other organ.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Eh...I was being delibrately obtuse as a joke...never mind, carry on.

karen3212

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Abortion can be moral, but only if you accept that it is acceptable to kill a human in certain circumstances, that's if you consider it to be human. For me it is, 'Forget the “foetus isn’t a human being” line, because it just fails to hold water and is simply an attempt to make something acceptable within our Judeo-Christian moral framework that frankly can’t be made acceptable unless we choose to fudge the definitions a bit.' .

Why do you include the Judeo there, I thought abortion was perferctly acceptable within the Jewish faith?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

If the brain activity of an embryo or early foetus, has negligible difference to that of someone in a vegitative state on full life support.
Do people here believe they both deserve the same regards, or not?
Why?.

Again, if the person will remain in a vegitative state, it's not a decision I would force on the family of the person. Sometimes, we have to look at which decision is crueler on all involved, just my opinion though.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

A lot of people I have talked to hold the view that believe the child to just be a lump of cells, then they should have no qualms about abortion...no matter how many times somebody does it.
Yet they are also against abortion as a form of contraception, why is this?.

For me the simple reason is why would any society put a woman/man through the whole process of abortion if there is a faster cheaper method available. Surely you don't think everyperson that has an abortion feels the same way about having one. Some people go through great trauma making the decision, you would have to be very cruel to put people through such a decision continuously when you know that contraception can help avoid that decision. Would you rather society witheld contraception?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Class Assignment:
Discuss:
To quote a medicine lecturer from last year, 'any race that is killing thousands of it's own species every year is in a very sad state of affairs indeed.'.

Let's face it, most of my investments are syphoning money westward, am I stealing from poorer countries and causing death in that case too. I would say yes, I would like us to stop killing growing children and adults first. As I said the foetus is tha last on my list of lives to save, as I don't see it as a human being.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that doesn't make sense, since it is possible to interchange parts, as anyone who has had a transplant will tell you.

I don't see how that invalidates my view, the transplanted organ becomes part of you as a whole. I suspect we'll never come to agreement on this issue since our concept of what constitutes a person (intellect excluded) differs so fundamentally. No harm in that since it seems to be a rather objective thing as shown by the other posters as well.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why is a human zygote of more value than a fox zygote or a chicken zygote?

I don't believe it is, that was never my point.

Boston

Hivemind187 wrote: »

rather I think that they are deluded or confused about the issue or have another agenda (at an individual level).

I'm neither deluded nor confused. As for agenda, everyone has one.

Tar.Aldarion

JimiTime wrote: »

I have to say, thats how anyone I've talked to says it. Its like, 'but its not right to use it as a form of contraception'. I am assuming that thats what Tar was talking about, as thats what his point seemed to suggest. maybe he could clarify that one.

Just to clarify your position then. You think its stupid to use it as a contraception, but not wrong?

Yes, you were quite correct about what I meant. So many people I have talked to hold this view and it makes no logical sense.
No Bluewolf, cost and risk are not coming into what I was talking about.

Why do you include the Judeo there, I thought abortion was perferctly acceptable within the Jewish faith?

I think the Jewish stance is that the fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." Before that it is 'part-human' or something.
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." The rules also vary on how orthodox it is etc.
They are not sure.
The Jewish believe abortion is ok before 'ensoulment' happens but they are not sure when that is, at conception, or after. It's meant to be revealed to them etc.

Again, if the person will remain in a vegitative state, it's not a decision I would force on the family of the person. Sometimes, we have to look at which decision is crueler on all involved, just my opinion though.

I'm not sure that answers what I ask, but nevermind.

For me the simple reason is why would any society put a woman/man through the whole process of abortion if there is a faster cheaper method available. Surely you don't think everyperson that has an abortion feels the same way about having one. Some people go through great trauma making the decision, you would have to be very cruel to put people through such a decision continuously when you know that contraception can help avoid that decision. Would you rather society witheld contraception?

This also does not anser my question, and misses the point. I am asking about moral positions. As for withholding contraception, where did that come out of?

Let's face it, most of my investments are syphoning money westward, am I stealing from poorer countries and causing death in that case too. I would say yes, I would like us to stop killing growing children and adults first. As I said the foetus is tha last on my list of lives to save, as I don't see it as a human being.

Ok.

Scofflaw

Sangre wrote: »

Eh...I was being delibrately obtuse as a joke...never mind, carry on.

Dammit man, that's like running down a Baghdad street with a water pistol shouting "jihad!". Sorry, I had no way of knowing your actual stance, and such a comment would be well within the range made by people who feel strongly on the issue!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The problem is that the pro-life argument claims to need no justification for their assertion that the foetus is a human being. That they believe it seems to be enough. That is not good enough.

Well that isn't true, I've had long discussions with anti-abortion supporters who can give me long a detailed arguments as to why they believe the foetus is a human being.

I don't agree with any of them, I think their arguments are very flawed. But I have no idea why you think they don't have arguments in the first place.

Do you honestly believe that pro-life groups just woke up one day with the fuzzy idea that life begins at conception with out ever thinking that through as to why life begins at conception?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I stand by my point that it is an issue of imposing will on another group because that is exactly what is happening.

Your point was that this was the motivation for being pro-life, as if pro-life is simply an excuse to be bossy and controlling. There seems no evidence that is the motivation behind pro-life groups.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

What is important is that the pro-life movement wishes to imposes its belief on another group

Important to whom?

No one else apart from you seems to find that strange, because everyone else recognizes that in a civil society that is exactly what the legal system is, the imposition of the ethical standards of society on to the individual.

And I'm very glad that we have such a system, because it stops people killing me for my money as I walk home.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

whereas the pro-choice movement does not - it seeks the right for individuals to choose.

The pro-choice movement does not believe that abortion is ethically wrong, and as such people should have the choice to do it or not.

Quick question - Do you believe that some one should have the choice whether to carry out an action that you consider ethically wrong, such as killing or rape??

Hivemind187 wrote: »

It is the desire to control other people reproductive system

To, it is a desire to protect the life of the child.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

what other purpose is there?

To protect the life of the child.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Defending life is only the goal, it is not the method that they use - the method requires that they have controlling rights over other human beings reproductive system.

Just as the "method" used to protect me from you murdering me is to have a controlling influence over your life. If you want to pick up a knife and stab me to death society says that is ethically wrong and will either attempt to stop you through the police or attempt to punish you if you do it through the prison system.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

That is the reality, the pro-life campaign wants to control peoples reproductive system by limiting their rights towards a goal of protecting what they see as a human life- without qualification, evidence or justification.

Who says they don't have qualification, evidence or justification?

Have you ever actually talked to a pro-life supporter? Perhaps you should do that before you dismiss them as doing this without any thought.

karen3212

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

This also does not anser my question, and misses the point. I am asking about moral positions. As for withholding contraception, where did that come out of?

tbh I get a bit emotional and off point, and think people can see where I'm coming from, rather than stating my point accurately.

I would have thought it is more moral to help people aviod the difficult process that is abortion, by providing information on contraception and contraception itself.

Abortion is a very difficult decision for many people, and although I don't see anything wrong with abortion, I would rather women didn't have to go through that trauma(as they might see it) several times. That is why I would say I would rather not see it used as a form of contraception. Also, if women are attempting it themselves, then from a moral standpoint, it is definately better that they do not use a coathanger as a form of contraception imo.

ps my investments are ethical as far as possible, it's that I am having trouble getting my employer provide me with an ethical pension fund.

Nevyn

Dades

Just found this on the RTE site:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1022/qanda.html

Might be interesting, but I'm still trying to sort our my RealPlayer issues.

Nevyn

I watched it when it was on and it was said that 'most' people and politcans didn't have the stomach to deal with this issue and it was stated that 10 women a day are facing traveling to the uk for an abortion and it should be an issue.

Hivemind187

Boston wrote: »

I'm neither deluded nor confused. As for agenda, everyone has one.

I didnt mention you specifically Boston. But now that you mentioned it, if you are unwilling to impose your belief that abortion should be prevented on everyone else and would rather that folks made up their own mind then you are pro-choice. You have stated this is your opinion (or a close approximation of it) yet you claim that you are pro-life. Either you do not understand the words or you are confused on the issue.

Boston

Look at it this way, I don't see the government as the best people to be making the decision. I have a very practical outlook on this issue. In principle I'm oppose to abortion and I'm opposed to people being freely able to choose to have them. The practical outlook comes into to play when i accept the fact abortions will happen regardless and that the law at best does noting and at worse only serves to increase the number of abortions along with the associated risk and hardship to mothers. I do see it as a life from the moment of conception, but at the same time I also see circumstances when aborting a life is for the best. I'm am in no way confused about this issue, and can see a huge number of sides to this. I personally find the issue deeply conflicting. The only people deluded are the ones that think its a simple case of right and wrong.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that isn't true, I've had long discussions with anti-abortion supporters who can give me long a detailed arguments as to why they believe the foetus is a human being.

I don't agree with any of them, I think their arguments are very flawed. But I have no idea why you think they don't have arguments in the first place.

Do you honestly believe that pro-life groups just woke up one day with the fuzzy idea that life begins at conception with out ever thinking that through as to why life begins at conception?



Your point was that this was the motivation for being pro-life, as if pro-life is simply an excuse to be bossy and controlling. There seems no evidence that is the motivation behind pro-life groups.

Important to whom?

No one else apart from you seems to find that strange, because everyone else recognizes that in a civil society that is exactly what the legal system is, the imposition of the ethical standards of society on to the individual.

And I'm very glad that we have such a system, because it stops people killing me for my money as I walk home.

The pro-choice movement does not believe that abortion is ethically wrong, and as such people should have the choice to do it or not.

Quick question - Do you believe that some one should have the choice whether to carry out an action that you consider ethically wrong, such as killing or rape??

To, it is a desire to protect the life of the child.

To protect the life of the child.

Just as the "method" used to protect me from you murdering me is to have a controlling influence over your life. If you want to pick up a knife and stab me to death society says that is ethically wrong and will either attempt to stop you through the police or attempt to punish you if you do it through the prison system.

Who says they don't have qualification, evidence or justification?

Have you ever actually talked to a pro-life supporter? Perhaps you should do that before you dismiss them as doing this without any thought.

Riddled with assumptions this one Wicknight.

I have spoken with a number of these pro-life people and not a single one of them, from priests to parents have ever once made a sound rational or logical argument that is supported by any evidence at all. this, strangely, seems to be a blind spot for you on this issue.

I dont believe for one instant that pro-lifers are stupid. I am of the opinuion that their argument, as you have said yourself, is full of holes and flawed. To my mind that means their argument is invalid, that is makes no rational or logical sense.

And yes, they do demand the right to control other peoples reproductive system. Their motivation is irrelevant since it is not their property. Is it relevant that the US wants to keep the price of oil under $100 dollars a barrel? No, because they have invaded someone elses property.

Secondly, you have missed my point about societies right to impose its views and exert its control over individuals. I have stated my position time and again and no one seems to do anything but bang their chest and declare "this is the way it is because it protects me!" ... spare a thought for one moment that the laws may not be just, or adequate or even, perhaps, that you are still misunderstanding my reasoning.

Consider; You have the right to live because you are taking the responsibility to support that life. you are not burdening another person to do your breathing, you are not demanding they digest your food for you nor are you making it their problem to excrete it for you afterwards. Society says that if I were to take a knife and kill you I would have to suffer consequences or that I should at least be prevented from doing so by all reasonable measures because I will be robbing you of the right and responsibility of life - an interference with an entity that we can observe supporting itself.

In this circumstance their is no problem with the law.

In the point of abortion it is a different matter. Firstly, if you take the position that a foetus exists at the altruistic sufferance of the mother and that it is the product of her body (which is the crux of my argument) then no "murder" can take place. Simply the choice to continue supporting the growth of a particular part of the body that is contributing nothing or to cease that support. It is a choice. It is not interfering with any one else. Unlike stabbing someone which requires to independent entities, one exerting its will over the other. You see the difference? One person? Two persons?

As for protecting the "child" - let them show how a foetus or a zygote or an embryo or a fecking stem cell is a child - THEN they can start arguing that their should be controls on other peoples reproductive systems.

In the end the simple facts are as follows;

Pro-life want to prevent abortion from taking place because they want to protect something they perceive of being a child. In order to do this, they wish to have control over another persons reproductive system, they wish to control whether or not someone makes a decision to continue supporting a foetus during gestation or to cease that support. They want to be able to make this decision for everyone, not just themselves, or their families or their townspeople. Everybody.

Have I missed the point here? Have I somehow managed to miss that they are very unhappy to take the choice away from someone? Are they b*llocks. if they did they would be pro-choice and is "supporting the right to make your own decision on whether or not to do something".

The argument that the law is their to protect is cobblers as well by the way. People murder each other all the time and they dont give a toss about the law or society. It is certain evolutionary tendencies in people that stops them murdering wholesale. Prison sentences, hard labor and the death penalty have all failed to reduce crime and murder so give me a break on that line ok?

Hivemind187

Boston wrote: »

Look at it this way, I don't see the government as the best people to be making the decision. I have a very practical outlook on this issue. In principle I'm oppose to abortion and I'm opposed to people being freely able to choose to have them. The practical outlook comes into to play when i accept the fact abortions will happen regardless and that the law at best does noting and at worse only serves to increase the number of abortions along with the associated risk and hardship to mothers. I do see it as a life from the moment of conception, but at the same time I also see circumstances when aborting a life is for the best. I'm am in no way confused about this issue, and can see a huge number of sides to this. I personally find the issue deeply conflicting. The only people deluded are the ones that think its a simple case of right and wrong.

So how about those of us who dont really give a monkeys about the morality angle of this and want to see peoples right to make decisions which control their own lives protected?

Boston, the problem is that you are extending your feelings on the matter, which you are perfectly entitled to, onto others and how they should conduct their lives. Yes, abortion might be utterly abhorrent to yourself but that doesnt make it right for you to impose your decision not to have an abortion on someone else does it? (not saying your specifically nor that you would, it is a hypothetical).

If you wish to take peoples right to choose away (or rather prevent them from having the right to choose as is the case in Ireland) then you are pro-choice.

If you understand the need for people to make up their own mind about this issue and what is best for their own lives etc then you are pro-choice.

that is the political and verbal deifinition.

Your personal feelings are another matter entirely, many people I know who are pro-choice have opted not to have abortions. Some have later regretted it, other have been happy with the decision. Others I know have had abortions (in one case multiple times) and they have not changed their stance. It is not a case of whether you would have one or not but what you feel peoples rights should be on the matter.